FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience.

Joseph F Barber | Create Your Badge
This blog does not promote, support, condone, encourage, advocate, nor in any way endorse any racist (or "racialist") ideologies, nor any armed and/or violent revolutionary, seditionist and/or terrorist activities. Any racial separatist or militant groups listed here are solely for reference and Opinions of multiple authors including Freedom or Anarchy Campaign of conscience.

To be GOVERNED

Not For Profit - For Global Justice and The Fight to End Violence & Hunger world wide - Since 1999
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people" - John Adams - Second President - 1797 - 1801

This is the callout,This is the call to the Patriots,To stand up for all the ones who’ve been thrown away,This is the call to the all citizens ,Stand up!
Stand up and protect those who can not protect themselves our veterans ,the homeless & the forgotten take back our world today

To protect our independence, We take no government funds
Become A Supporting member of humanity to help end hunger and violence in our country,You have a right to live. You have a right to be. You have these rights regardless of money, health, social status, or class. You have these rights, man, woman, or child. These rights can never be taken away from you, they can only be infringed. When someone violates your rights, remember, it is not your fault.,


DISCOVER THE WORLD

Facebook Badge

FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

The Free Thought Project,The Daily Sheeple & FREEDOM OR ANARCHY Campaign of Conscience are dedicated to holding those who claim authority over our lives accountable. “Each of us has a unique part to play in the healing of the world.”

Saturday, April 29, 2017

WE SHOULD ALL BE LIKE THE HIPPIES IN THIS ONE WAY

WE SHOULD ALL BE LIKE THE HIPPIES IN THIS ONE WAY






The hippies are little understood these days. One particular version of them – the later, pot-smoking, political protestor – is what remains in popular culture. But the actual hippies, especially the early hippies, were a much different group. They were interesting and brave people: people very much worth remembering.

Who Were the Hippies?

The hippies were preceded by the Beat movement, a group of young people who rejected the conformity of the 1950s – a very “corporate” time. To get a feeling for their mentality, here is a quote from William S. Burroughs, one of their inspirations:

In the U.S., you have to be a deviant or die of boredom.

The Beats were, as one writer put it, “a whole bunch of people, of all different nationalities, who came to the conclusion that society sucked.”

The hippies, on the other hand, believed that they could make life better. And that was the great difference between the hippies and most other movements – the hippies acted. They changed their lives, painted their cars, and wore strange clothing. Rather than cowering at the thought of being different, they went out of their way to show their difference, and there’s something deeply transformative about that.

I’ll forgo a history of the movement and get right into the wisdom of the hippies. Let’s begin with the thoughts of two early hippies. First, some thoughts direct from the early days, care of Bob Stubbs:

We have a private revolution going on. A revolution of individuality and diversity that can only be private. Upon becoming a group movement, such a revolution ends up with imitators rather than participants.

Another, from Dr. Debra Jan Bibel:

Yes, it was sex, drugs, and rock & roll, but it was also spirituality and consciousness studies that eventually led to environmental/ecology movements, cognitive neuroscience, and psychoimmunology, as well as the increasing popularity of Buddhism in the United States and the development of world music appreciation…

Dr. Bibel is writing after the fact, of course, and you can see her disappointment with what the movement became. She continues:

The hippie wannabes spoiled the scene, did not understand the ideologies nor the proper use of entheogens. The popular image of hippies was of them, not the more thoughtful, experimental, and realized post-Beats, the pioneers who led the way.

As happens so often, the first people come for internal reasons and do the important work. Then others come along, wanting to lead the group and take credit for it as well.

From the early hippie habit of action came many of the better developments of the 1960s: new thoughts, new perspectives, the belief that they could live and thrive as individuals, not nameless insects in a giant hive.

But, more important than anything else, the early hippies discovered that they could activate their own will… that they could live their way, create the things they loved, and ignore the expectations of the state-tribe.

Once people reclaim their will, new, interesting and beneficial things tend to sprout up on every side.

The Thoughts They Sought Out

The hippies were very young, and even though they were generally intelligent kids, they knew that they lacked data and perspective, and so turned to older, experienced men.

Perhaps the best of these older teachers was Buckminster Fuller, a fascinating and good man. Here are some of his thoughts:

Politicians are always realistically maneuvering for the next election. They are obsolete as fundamental problem-solvers.

* * *

I seem to be a verb.

* * *

The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun.

* * *

You’ll see from this next one that Fuller makes up his own words. Bear in mind that he was a very serious engineer, so these odd word combinations were created carefully and are used with precision. You may have to read the passage slowly, but if you do, you’ll see that these are coherent thoughts.

The youth of humanity all around our planet are intuitively revolting from all sovereignties and political ideologies. The youth of Earth are moving intuitively toward an utterly classless, raceless, omnicooperative, omniworld humanity.

Children freed of the ignorantly founded educational traditions and exposed only to their spontaneously summoned, computer-stored and -distributed outflow of reliable-opinion-purged, experimentally verified data, shall indeed lead society to its happy egress from all misinformedly conceived, fearfully and legally imposed, and physically enforced customs of yesterday.

They can lead all humanity into omnisuccessful survival as well as entrance into an utterly new era of human experience in an as-yet and ever-will-be fundamentally mysterious Universe.

* * *

You can see that Fuller is deeply concerned with change in the world. Here are several more on that subject:

When I was born, humanity was 95 per cent illiterate. Since I’ve been born, the population has doubled and that total population is now 65 per cent literate. That’s a gain of 130-fold of the literacy. When humanity is primarily illiterate, it needs leaders to understand and get the information and deal with it. When we are at the point where the majority of humans themselves are literate, able to get the information, we’re in an entirely new relationship to Universe. We are at the point where the integrity of the individual counts and not what the political leadership or the religious leadership says to do.

* * *

We are powerfully imprisoned in these Dark Ages simply by the terms in which we have been conditioned to think.

* * *

Dear reader, traditional human power structures and their reign of darkness are about to be rendered obsolete.

* * *

Whether it is to be Utopia or Oblivion will be a touch-and-go relay race right up to the final moment… Humanity is in ‘final exam’ as to whether or not it qualifies for continuance in Universe.

* * *

I’ll close with a practical thought from Fuller. This is one that all of us should be taking seriously:

You never change anything by fighting the existing. To change something, build a new model and make the existing obsolete.

* * *

Regardless of how we wear our hair and our clothes, we should all, like the hippies, act to make life better. Now.

Peace.

Paul Rosenberg
FreemansPerspective.com

WE SHOULD ALL BE LIKE THE HIPPIES IN THIS ONE WAY






The hippies are little understood these days. One particular version of them – the later, pot-smoking, political protestor – is what remains in popular culture. But the actual hippies, especially the early hippies, were a much different group. They were interesting and brave people: people very much worth remembering.

Who Were the Hippies?

The hippies were preceded by the Beat movement, a group of young people who rejected the conformity of the 1950s – a very “corporate” time. To get a feeling for their mentality, here is a quote from William S. Burroughs, one of their inspirations:

In the U.S., you have to be a deviant or die of boredom.

The Beats were, as one writer put it, “a whole bunch of people, of all different nationalities, who came to the conclusion that society sucked.”

The hippies, on the other hand, believed that they could make life better. And that was the great difference between the hippies and most other movements – the hippies acted. They changed their lives, painted their cars, and wore strange clothing. Rather than cowering at the thought of being different, they went out of their way to show their difference, and there’s something deeply transformative about that.

I’ll forgo a history of the movement and get right into the wisdom of the hippies. Let’s begin with the thoughts of two early hippies. First, some thoughts direct from the early days, care of Bob Stubbs:

We have a private revolution going on. A revolution of individuality and diversity that can only be private. Upon becoming a group movement, such a revolution ends up with imitators rather than participants.

Another, from Dr. Debra Jan Bibel:

Yes, it was sex, drugs, and rock & roll, but it was also spirituality and consciousness studies that eventually led to environmental/ecology movements, cognitive neuroscience, and psychoimmunology, as well as the increasing popularity of Buddhism in the United States and the development of world music appreciation…

Dr. Bibel is writing after the fact, of course, and you can see her disappointment with what the movement became. She continues:

The hippie wannabes spoiled the scene, did not understand the ideologies nor the proper use of entheogens. The popular image of hippies was of them, not the more thoughtful, experimental, and realized post-Beats, the pioneers who led the way.

As happens so often, the first people come for internal reasons and do the important work. Then others come along, wanting to lead the group and take credit for it as well.

From the early hippie habit of action came many of the better developments of the 1960s: new thoughts, new perspectives, the belief that they could live and thrive as individuals, not nameless insects in a giant hive.

But, more important than anything else, the early hippies discovered that they could activate their own will… that they could live their way, create the things they loved, and ignore the expectations of the state-tribe.

Once people reclaim their will, new, interesting and beneficial things tend to sprout up on every side.

The Thoughts They Sought Out

The hippies were very young, and even though they were generally intelligent kids, they knew that they lacked data and perspective, and so turned to older, experienced men.

Perhaps the best of these older teachers was Buckminster Fuller, a fascinating and good man. Here are some of his thoughts:

Politicians are always realistically maneuvering for the next election. They are obsolete as fundamental problem-solvers.

* * *

I seem to be a verb.

* * *

The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun.

* * *

You’ll see from this next one that Fuller makes up his own words. Bear in mind that he was a very serious engineer, so these odd word combinations were created carefully and are used with precision. You may have to read the passage slowly, but if you do, you’ll see that these are coherent thoughts.

The youth of humanity all around our planet are intuitively revolting from all sovereignties and political ideologies. The youth of Earth are moving intuitively toward an utterly classless, raceless, omnicooperative, omniworld humanity.

Children freed of the ignorantly founded educational traditions and exposed only to their spontaneously summoned, computer-stored and -distributed outflow of reliable-opinion-purged, experimentally verified data, shall indeed lead society to its happy egress from all misinformedly conceived, fearfully and legally imposed, and physically enforced customs of yesterday.

They can lead all humanity into omnisuccessful survival as well as entrance into an utterly new era of human experience in an as-yet and ever-will-be fundamentally mysterious Universe.

* * *

You can see that Fuller is deeply concerned with change in the world. Here are several more on that subject:

When I was born, humanity was 95 per cent illiterate. Since I’ve been born, the population has doubled and that total population is now 65 per cent literate. That’s a gain of 130-fold of the literacy. When humanity is primarily illiterate, it needs leaders to understand and get the information and deal with it. When we are at the point where the majority of humans themselves are literate, able to get the information, we’re in an entirely new relationship to Universe. We are at the point where the integrity of the individual counts and not what the political leadership or the religious leadership says to do.

* * *

We are powerfully imprisoned in these Dark Ages simply by the terms in which we have been conditioned to think.

* * *

Dear reader, traditional human power structures and their reign of darkness are about to be rendered obsolete.

* * *

Whether it is to be Utopia or Oblivion will be a touch-and-go relay race right up to the final moment… Humanity is in ‘final exam’ as to whether or not it qualifies for continuance in Universe.

* * *

I’ll close with a practical thought from Fuller. This is one that all of us should be taking seriously:

You never change anything by fighting the existing. To change something, build a new model and make the existing obsolete.

* * *

Regardless of how we wear our hair and our clothes, we should all, like the hippies, act to make life better. Now.

Peace.

Paul Rosenberg
FreemansPerspective.com


HERBERTS SHOULDN’T WEAR TIE-DYE

HERBERTS SHOULDN’T WEAR TIE-DYE



The term “Herbert” referred to a stiff, rule-keeping bureaucrat.

Tie-dye was the clothing of hippies; it was made with bleach and strings.

Being old enough to remember how things were “back in the day,” I’m always half insulted to see very fine establishment types – people whose livelihoods rest on uncritical obedience – trying to align themselves with nonconformists they would have hurried away from back in that day.

Obedience was not cool back in the ’60s and ’70s. In fact, it was derided. Here’s a Beatles lyric that was sung as a condemnation:

Once upon a time there was a boy named Ted. And if his mother said, “Ted, be good,” he would.

Notwithstanding that I have a strong preference for well-behaved children, I think you get my point.

So when I saw some footage from the very presitigious Kennedy Center Honors, celebrating bluesman Buddy Guy, I recoiled. Here’s a still from it:



Here’s what went through my mind:

How would these suits and gowns have treated Buddy when he was working days as a janitor at Louisiana State University back in the 1950s? Or when he was performing in a lot of very unpretty clubs on the West Side of Chicago in the late ’50s?

Where were these very successful Herberts in the 1960s, when he was playing any juke joint he could to make ends meet? How many would have shown up at his club on Chicago’s East 43rd Street in the 1970s?

And how many of these people, I wondered (and you may too), would have sympathy for poor bluesmen if virtue signaling wasn’t involved?

Now, for just one more example, here’s another group of Herberts, at the same august event, honoring Led Zeppelin:



I’d love to see this group confronted with the boys of Led Zeppelin in, say, 1973. That would be a spectacle.

Worse than the 1950s

The 1950s are remembered as a time of abject conformity, and in some ways that was true. But today is actually worse. And the reason for it is simple:

Today’s conformity, every bit as bad as the 1950s, drapes itself in the garments of past radicals.

The tie-dyed, pot-smoking radicals of the 1960s are no longer any threat to the Herberts of the world. Mainly, they’ve been tamed and brought into the machine. But they did revolutionize the music scene, and by doing so, they taught advertisers how to abuse a youth culture. Because of that, images of past rebels became (and remain) commercially important.https://www.freemansperspective.com/hippies/

That’s why our modern Herberts turn out to honor people they might have jailed back in the day.

The proof of this is to be found in examining how these people have treated today’s radicals, people like Ross Ulbricht and Julian Assange. And the verdict is stark: They have mercilessly abused them.

But my point today is not condemnation, even if it is deserved. Rather, I’d simply like the Herberts to go back to things they’re good at.

Herberts are great at fitting in, presenting proper appearances, and keeping up with the Joneses. They should stick to their strengths and leave radicalism to people who know how to do it.

And so, here’s what I’d like to tell the Herberts:

If your mother never yelled at you for tie-dying clothes in her sink… if you weren’t asked to leave “proper occasions”… if you didn’t habitually look out for cops… you really shouldn’t make a show of celebrating radicals. It’s glaringly obvious you’re not like them. We may be polite about it, but we’re not fooled.

* * * * *


FREEMANSPERSPECTIVE 

HERBERTS SHOULDN’T WEAR TIE-DYE



The term “Herbert” referred to a stiff, rule-keeping bureaucrat.

Tie-dye was the clothing of hippies; it was made with bleach and strings.

Being old enough to remember how things were “back in the day,” I’m always half insulted to see very fine establishment types – people whose livelihoods rest on uncritical obedience – trying to align themselves with nonconformists they would have hurried away from back in that day.

Obedience was not cool back in the ’60s and ’70s. In fact, it was derided. Here’s a Beatles lyric that was sung as a condemnation:

Once upon a time there was a boy named Ted. And if his mother said, “Ted, be good,” he would.

Notwithstanding that I have a strong preference for well-behaved children, I think you get my point.

So when I saw some footage from the very presitigious Kennedy Center Honors, celebrating bluesman Buddy Guy, I recoiled. Here’s a still from it:



Here’s what went through my mind:

How would these suits and gowns have treated Buddy when he was working days as a janitor at Louisiana State University back in the 1950s? Or when he was performing in a lot of very unpretty clubs on the West Side of Chicago in the late ’50s?

Where were these very successful Herberts in the 1960s, when he was playing any juke joint he could to make ends meet? How many would have shown up at his club on Chicago’s East 43rd Street in the 1970s?

And how many of these people, I wondered (and you may too), would have sympathy for poor bluesmen if virtue signaling wasn’t involved?

Now, for just one more example, here’s another group of Herberts, at the same august event, honoring Led Zeppelin:



I’d love to see this group confronted with the boys of Led Zeppelin in, say, 1973. That would be a spectacle.

Worse than the 1950s

The 1950s are remembered as a time of abject conformity, and in some ways that was true. But today is actually worse. And the reason for it is simple:

Today’s conformity, every bit as bad as the 1950s, drapes itself in the garments of past radicals.

The tie-dyed, pot-smoking radicals of the 1960s are no longer any threat to the Herberts of the world. Mainly, they’ve been tamed and brought into the machine. But they did revolutionize the music scene, and by doing so, they taught advertisers how to abuse a youth culture. Because of that, images of past rebels became (and remain) commercially important.https://www.freemansperspective.com/hippies/

That’s why our modern Herberts turn out to honor people they might have jailed back in the day.

The proof of this is to be found in examining how these people have treated today’s radicals, people like Ross Ulbricht and Julian Assange. And the verdict is stark: They have mercilessly abused them.

But my point today is not condemnation, even if it is deserved. Rather, I’d simply like the Herberts to go back to things they’re good at.

Herberts are great at fitting in, presenting proper appearances, and keeping up with the Joneses. They should stick to their strengths and leave radicalism to people who know how to do it.

And so, here’s what I’d like to tell the Herberts:

If your mother never yelled at you for tie-dying clothes in her sink… if you weren’t asked to leave “proper occasions”… if you didn’t habitually look out for cops… you really shouldn’t make a show of celebrating radicals. It’s glaringly obvious you’re not like them. We may be polite about it, but we’re not fooled.

* * * * *


FREEMANSPERSPECTIVE 


Friday, April 28, 2017

Dismantling the 9th Circuit

All of these rulings by the court against Trump's executive orders are an overstepping of their judicial authorities. The judges are acting illegally.

Dismantling the 9th Circuit



In Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution the text states that Congress has the authority to “constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.”

In Article III of the U.S. Constitution, when referring to the inferior federal courts, it states that it is Congress who may from “time to time ordain and establish.”

With the power of creation comes the power to dismantle.

The 9th Circuit of Appeals has been neglecting the rule of law.  What they do when they neglect to apply the law, and instead apply their opinions to the laws, is push the rule of man, rather than the rule of law.

The leftist activist judges have been ruling unconstitutionally based on their ideological beliefs, rather than applying the law to the cases they hear.  In response to their illegal rulings, of which the courts have no authority to enforce, President Trump said he is considering proposals that would split up the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Trump said, “There are many people that want to break up the 9th Circuit. It’s outrageous.  Everybody immediately runs to the 9th Circuit. And we have a big country. We have lots of other locations. But they immediately run to the 9th Circuit. Because they know that’s like, semi-automatic.”

First came the attacks against his travel ban, despite the fact that Article I, Section 9 gives Congress the authority to prohibit persons from migrating into the United States for any reason, and his executive order referenced those immigration laws he was delegating down to the executive branch agencies, the federal court system claimed he couldn’t because, in short, his travel ban was “mean.”


Trump can simply ignore the courts

Now, U.S. District Judge William Orrick has temporarily blocked Trump’s efforts to withhold funds from any municipality that refuses to cooperate with immigration enforcement officers.  According to Orrick, Trump had overstepped his authority when he directed the Justice Department to put immigration-related conditions on grants for so-called sanctuary cities that may not be directly related to law enforcement. The case, if appealed, would go before the 9th Circuit.

Fascinating.  I seem to remember the Democrats using the threat of withholding federal funding as a way of extorting the States a number of times in history. About a year ago congressional Democrats threatened North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory of taking away federal funding for the State’s education, transportation and health programs because of North Carolina’s law refusing to obey Obama’s demand regarding “gender neutral” bathrooms in schools.  The Obama White House announced that it wouldn’t pull federal funding once North Carolina responded that they would take the federal government to court.

As for the discretion of funding, and the idea that starving States of federal funding has to be associated with the issue in question, where in the Constitution does it even authorize the federal government to give the States funding in the first place?  Interior issues are none of the federal government’s business, as is the idea of funding those interior issues.

When it comes to the judicial branch’s lack of enforcement authorities, Trump can simply ignore the courts.  What are they going to do?  How would they enforce their rulings?

Regarding sanctuary cities, Article VI. of the United States Constitution, in the Supremacy Clause, it states that laws contrary to constitutional U.S. laws are unconstitutional, and the judges “shall be bound thereby.”


In short, the sanctuary status laws are illegal

In short, the sanctuary status laws are illegal.  The sanctuary cities have no legal leg to stand on, from the point of view of constitutionality.

That all said, dismantling the 9th Circuit Court is doable, but not by the executive branch.  If the judges need to be removed from their seats, and the court dismantled, the Congress would have to initiate the move with legislation.

In Article III’s Exceptions Clause, the Congress also has the authority to use legislation to make null and void unconstitutional rulings.  One wonders why they haven’t used that tool, instead.

If one reads the Constitution, and understands the history of the courts, we realize two things.  First, the judicial branch was originally supposed to be the weakest branch of the three, not the strongest.  Second, among Congress’s jobs is to be a check against the courts, the courts are not supposed to be a check against the President or the Congress.  The checks against the executive and legislative branches are supposed to be the States, and We the People.  In short, all of these rulings by the court against Trump’s executive orders are an overstepping of their judicial authorities.  The judges are acting illegally.




Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary, has been featured on “Hannity” and “Fox and Friends” on Fox News Channel, and other television shows and networks.  Doug is a Radio Host on KMET 1490-AM on Saturdays with his Constitution Radio program, as well as a longtime podcaster, conservative political activist, writer and commentator.  Doug can be reached at douglasvgibbs [at] yahoo.com or constitutionspeaker [at] yahoo.com.
All of these rulings by the court against Trump's executive orders are an overstepping of their judicial authorities. The judges are acting illegally.

Dismantling the 9th Circuit



In Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution the text states that Congress has the authority to “constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.”

In Article III of the U.S. Constitution, when referring to the inferior federal courts, it states that it is Congress who may from “time to time ordain and establish.”

With the power of creation comes the power to dismantle.

The 9th Circuit of Appeals has been neglecting the rule of law.  What they do when they neglect to apply the law, and instead apply their opinions to the laws, is push the rule of man, rather than the rule of law.

The leftist activist judges have been ruling unconstitutionally based on their ideological beliefs, rather than applying the law to the cases they hear.  In response to their illegal rulings, of which the courts have no authority to enforce, President Trump said he is considering proposals that would split up the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Trump said, “There are many people that want to break up the 9th Circuit. It’s outrageous.  Everybody immediately runs to the 9th Circuit. And we have a big country. We have lots of other locations. But they immediately run to the 9th Circuit. Because they know that’s like, semi-automatic.”

First came the attacks against his travel ban, despite the fact that Article I, Section 9 gives Congress the authority to prohibit persons from migrating into the United States for any reason, and his executive order referenced those immigration laws he was delegating down to the executive branch agencies, the federal court system claimed he couldn’t because, in short, his travel ban was “mean.”


Trump can simply ignore the courts

Now, U.S. District Judge William Orrick has temporarily blocked Trump’s efforts to withhold funds from any municipality that refuses to cooperate with immigration enforcement officers.  According to Orrick, Trump had overstepped his authority when he directed the Justice Department to put immigration-related conditions on grants for so-called sanctuary cities that may not be directly related to law enforcement. The case, if appealed, would go before the 9th Circuit.

Fascinating.  I seem to remember the Democrats using the threat of withholding federal funding as a way of extorting the States a number of times in history. About a year ago congressional Democrats threatened North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory of taking away federal funding for the State’s education, transportation and health programs because of North Carolina’s law refusing to obey Obama’s demand regarding “gender neutral” bathrooms in schools.  The Obama White House announced that it wouldn’t pull federal funding once North Carolina responded that they would take the federal government to court.

As for the discretion of funding, and the idea that starving States of federal funding has to be associated with the issue in question, where in the Constitution does it even authorize the federal government to give the States funding in the first place?  Interior issues are none of the federal government’s business, as is the idea of funding those interior issues.

When it comes to the judicial branch’s lack of enforcement authorities, Trump can simply ignore the courts.  What are they going to do?  How would they enforce their rulings?

Regarding sanctuary cities, Article VI. of the United States Constitution, in the Supremacy Clause, it states that laws contrary to constitutional U.S. laws are unconstitutional, and the judges “shall be bound thereby.”


In short, the sanctuary status laws are illegal

In short, the sanctuary status laws are illegal.  The sanctuary cities have no legal leg to stand on, from the point of view of constitutionality.

That all said, dismantling the 9th Circuit Court is doable, but not by the executive branch.  If the judges need to be removed from their seats, and the court dismantled, the Congress would have to initiate the move with legislation.

In Article III’s Exceptions Clause, the Congress also has the authority to use legislation to make null and void unconstitutional rulings.  One wonders why they haven’t used that tool, instead.

If one reads the Constitution, and understands the history of the courts, we realize two things.  First, the judicial branch was originally supposed to be the weakest branch of the three, not the strongest.  Second, among Congress’s jobs is to be a check against the courts, the courts are not supposed to be a check against the President or the Congress.  The checks against the executive and legislative branches are supposed to be the States, and We the People.  In short, all of these rulings by the court against Trump’s executive orders are an overstepping of their judicial authorities.  The judges are acting illegally.




Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary, has been featured on “Hannity” and “Fox and Friends” on Fox News Channel, and other television shows and networks.  Doug is a Radio Host on KMET 1490-AM on Saturdays with his Constitution Radio program, as well as a longtime podcaster, conservative political activist, writer and commentator.  Doug can be reached at douglasvgibbs [at] yahoo.com or constitutionspeaker [at] yahoo.com.


Democrats introduce bill to ban pastors from ministering to homosexuals



Despite the way it's being reported . . .

Democrats introduce bill to ban pastors from ministering to homosexuals


This story is a good example of how politicians use phrasing to disguise what they’re really doing, and the media play along because they support the obfuscation agenda. In some cases it’s because the media really are that dumb and gullible, but the gullibility usually stems from their natural trust of Democrats - so it all comes back to the fact that they share the same agenda.

You’ve heard about something called “gay conversion therapy,” which sounds like some nonsense procedure in which a “therapist” of questionable credibility tries to work the gay out of someone. This is being offered up by Democrats as an example of medical fraud, and they have mounted an extraordinary effort to actually ban it on a nationwide basis. But quack therapists are not their real target, in spite of the way they and their media mouthpieces portray this:http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/senate-democrats-reintroduce-bill-ban-conversion-therapy-nationwide-n750871


The Therapeutic Fraud Prevention Act, filed by Senators Patty Murray of Washington and Corey Booker of New Jersey, constitutes a renewed effort from Congressional Democrats to ban conversion therapy after a Republican majority let the bill die without a hearing last year.

In a released statement, Sen. Murray cited fresh fears under the Trump administration as a reason for reintroducing the legislation.

“On this and so many other issues impacting the LGBTQ community, the Trump Administration has laid out a hateful, damaging agenda to undo hard-won progress, divide our communities, and hurt our friends, neighbors and family members just because of who they are or who they love,” Murray said.

“So-called ‘conversion therapy’ isn’t therapy at all,” Sen. Booker said in a statement. “It’s a tortuous, fraudulent practice that has been repeatedly condemned by medical professionals and has no place in our country.”

Leaving aside for the moment that there isn’t a single Trump Administration initiative that seeks to take away gay people’s rights - meaning the whole Trump-hates-gays hysteria is completely made up from nothing - there is no particular therapy that fits the description Democrats are offering here.

Over the years, there have been many different kinds of treatments - some clinical, some spiritual - designed to reverse tendencies toward homosexuality. Some were particularly crude and absurd, especially the infamous ice-pick lobotomy. You Masters of Sex fans might be interested to know that Masters and Johnson believed homosexuality was a type of disorder and they conducted research on how it might be treated. (Then again, most of you probably just watch the show for the boobs, so never mind . . .)

Because “conversion therapy” can’t be nailed down as one particular type of procedure you can criticize, the truth is that this isn’t about banning a fraudulent procedure at all. What the Democrats are trying to do is ban any attempt of any kind to address homosexuality as a problem needing a solution - no matter what it is or how it might works.

And if they were to be honest about this, which they never will, they would admit that their target is not “therapists” at all. It’s pastors.

It’s really just the Christian community that regards homosexuality as an issue needing to be addressed. Secular society, which cares nothing for the Word of God, couldn’t care less what 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Romans 1:26-27 and other similar passages have to say. As far as they’re concerned, if it makes you happy and no one’s getting hurt, who cares?

But Christians see it differently, because we understand that sexual sin carries spiritual consequences, and indeed has spiritual underpinnings. I explained this in exhaustive detail back in 2015, but for the purposes of this discussion let’s just say the Bible-believing Christian is concerned about the very real spiritual consequences of any sin against God, and that includes the practice of homosexuality.

The Democratic Party is the enemy of God
Because of this, the job of a pastor is lead his members to deliverance from every form of spiritual evil to the extent possible. Now some of you don’t believe in this stuff, but the reality is that demonic spirits can oppress a person and keep them in a state of sin. These spirits can be bound and cast out of a person when someone who understands deliverance takes authority over the spirit in the name of Jesus. A homosexual Christian who wants to repent and be delivered from this spirit can do so, but as with most deliverance issues, it helps to have the support and involvement of a pastor or some other minister who understands the spiritual issues involved.

What Democrats are trying to do here is make it illegal for a pastor to minister to a person who wants to be delivered from homosexuality. They may think “LGBTQ people are born perfect,” but a lot of people don’t see it that way - and that even includes some of those very LGBTQ people, who know they’re spiritually afflicted and want to be delivered.

GDP growth for Obama’s final year? A measly 1.6 percent

It’s important to understand here that Republicans are not trying to ban homosexuality or mandate that anyone take part in some sort of therapy. By refusing to countenance this stupid ban, what they will do is simply leave it up to freely acting people whether they want to seek help, while leaving it up to those who are able to help whether they would like to do so.

What would you think if you decided you had a problem in your life and you would like someone to help you with it, but politicians had passed a law decreeing that your problem is not a problem and no one is allowed to help you with it? That is what they are trying to do here. It’s pernicious, and there’s no question at all that the real target of this effort is pastors and ministers, not therapists.

The Democratic Party is the enemy of God.



Dan Calabrese --


Despite the way it's being reported . . .

Democrats introduce bill to ban pastors from ministering to homosexuals


This story is a good example of how politicians use phrasing to disguise what they’re really doing, and the media play along because they support the obfuscation agenda. In some cases it’s because the media really are that dumb and gullible, but the gullibility usually stems from their natural trust of Democrats - so it all comes back to the fact that they share the same agenda.

You’ve heard about something called “gay conversion therapy,” which sounds like some nonsense procedure in which a “therapist” of questionable credibility tries to work the gay out of someone. This is being offered up by Democrats as an example of medical fraud, and they have mounted an extraordinary effort to actually ban it on a nationwide basis. But quack therapists are not their real target, in spite of the way they and their media mouthpieces portray this:http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/senate-democrats-reintroduce-bill-ban-conversion-therapy-nationwide-n750871


The Therapeutic Fraud Prevention Act, filed by Senators Patty Murray of Washington and Corey Booker of New Jersey, constitutes a renewed effort from Congressional Democrats to ban conversion therapy after a Republican majority let the bill die without a hearing last year.

In a released statement, Sen. Murray cited fresh fears under the Trump administration as a reason for reintroducing the legislation.

“On this and so many other issues impacting the LGBTQ community, the Trump Administration has laid out a hateful, damaging agenda to undo hard-won progress, divide our communities, and hurt our friends, neighbors and family members just because of who they are or who they love,” Murray said.

“So-called ‘conversion therapy’ isn’t therapy at all,” Sen. Booker said in a statement. “It’s a tortuous, fraudulent practice that has been repeatedly condemned by medical professionals and has no place in our country.”

Leaving aside for the moment that there isn’t a single Trump Administration initiative that seeks to take away gay people’s rights - meaning the whole Trump-hates-gays hysteria is completely made up from nothing - there is no particular therapy that fits the description Democrats are offering here.

Over the years, there have been many different kinds of treatments - some clinical, some spiritual - designed to reverse tendencies toward homosexuality. Some were particularly crude and absurd, especially the infamous ice-pick lobotomy. You Masters of Sex fans might be interested to know that Masters and Johnson believed homosexuality was a type of disorder and they conducted research on how it might be treated. (Then again, most of you probably just watch the show for the boobs, so never mind . . .)

Because “conversion therapy” can’t be nailed down as one particular type of procedure you can criticize, the truth is that this isn’t about banning a fraudulent procedure at all. What the Democrats are trying to do is ban any attempt of any kind to address homosexuality as a problem needing a solution - no matter what it is or how it might works.

And if they were to be honest about this, which they never will, they would admit that their target is not “therapists” at all. It’s pastors.

It’s really just the Christian community that regards homosexuality as an issue needing to be addressed. Secular society, which cares nothing for the Word of God, couldn’t care less what 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Romans 1:26-27 and other similar passages have to say. As far as they’re concerned, if it makes you happy and no one’s getting hurt, who cares?

But Christians see it differently, because we understand that sexual sin carries spiritual consequences, and indeed has spiritual underpinnings. I explained this in exhaustive detail back in 2015, but for the purposes of this discussion let’s just say the Bible-believing Christian is concerned about the very real spiritual consequences of any sin against God, and that includes the practice of homosexuality.

The Democratic Party is the enemy of God
Because of this, the job of a pastor is lead his members to deliverance from every form of spiritual evil to the extent possible. Now some of you don’t believe in this stuff, but the reality is that demonic spirits can oppress a person and keep them in a state of sin. These spirits can be bound and cast out of a person when someone who understands deliverance takes authority over the spirit in the name of Jesus. A homosexual Christian who wants to repent and be delivered from this spirit can do so, but as with most deliverance issues, it helps to have the support and involvement of a pastor or some other minister who understands the spiritual issues involved.

What Democrats are trying to do here is make it illegal for a pastor to minister to a person who wants to be delivered from homosexuality. They may think “LGBTQ people are born perfect,” but a lot of people don’t see it that way - and that even includes some of those very LGBTQ people, who know they’re spiritually afflicted and want to be delivered.

GDP growth for Obama’s final year? A measly 1.6 percent

It’s important to understand here that Republicans are not trying to ban homosexuality or mandate that anyone take part in some sort of therapy. By refusing to countenance this stupid ban, what they will do is simply leave it up to freely acting people whether they want to seek help, while leaving it up to those who are able to help whether they would like to do so.

What would you think if you decided you had a problem in your life and you would like someone to help you with it, but politicians had passed a law decreeing that your problem is not a problem and no one is allowed to help you with it? That is what they are trying to do here. It’s pernicious, and there’s no question at all that the real target of this effort is pastors and ministers, not therapists.

The Democratic Party is the enemy of God.



Dan Calabrese --


The Iron Jaws of the Police State: Trump’s America Is a Constitution-Free Zone

The Iron Jaws of the Police State: Trump’s America Is a Constitution-Free Zone






“Policing is broken... It has evolved as a paramilitary, bureaucratic, organizational arrangement that distances police officers from the communities they’ve been sworn to protect and serve. When we have shooting after shooting after shooting that most people would define as at least questionable, it’s time to look, not just at a few bad apples, but the barrel. And I’m convinced that it is the barrel that is rotted.”— Norm Stamper, former Seattle police chief
Please.
Somebody give Attorney General Jeff Sessions a copy of the Constitution.
And while you’re at it, get a copy to President Trump, too.
In fact, you might want to share a copy with the nation’s police officers, as well.
I have my doubts that any of these individuals—all of whom swore to uphold and defend the Constitution—have ever read any of the nation’s founding documents.
Had they actually read and understood the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights, there would be no militarized police, no mass surveillance, no police shootings of unarmed individuals, no SWAT team raids, no tasering of children, no asset forfeiture schemes or any of the other government-sanctioned abuses that get passed off as law and order these days.
We’ve got serious problems in this country, and they won’t be solved on the golf course, by wining and dining corporate CEOs, giving local police forces more military equipment, locking down the nation, or pretending that the only threats to our freedoms are posed by forces beyond our borders or by “anti-government” extremists hiding among us.
So far, Trump’s first 100 days in office have been no different from Obama’s last 100 days, at least when it comes to the government’s ongoing war on our freedoms.
Government corruption remains at an all-time high.
Police shootings and misconduct have continued unabated.
The nation’s endless wars continue to push us to the brink of financial ruin.
And “we the people” are still being treated as if we have no rights, are entitled to no protections, and exist solely for the purpose of sustaining the American police state with our hard-earned tax dollars.
Just take the policing crisis in this country, for instance.
Sessions—the chief lawyer for the government and the head of the Justice Department, which is entrusted with ensuring that the nation’s laws are faithfully carried out and holding government officials accountable to abiding by their oaths of office to “uphold and defend the Constitution”—doesn’t think we’ve got a policing problem in America.
In fact, Sessions thinks the police are doing a great job (apart from “the individual misdeeds of bad actors,” that is). 
For that matter, so does Trump.
Really, really great.
Indeed, Sessions thinks the nation’s police forces are doing such a great job that they should be rewarded with more military toys (weapons, gear, equipment) and less oversight by the Justice Department.
As for Trump, he believes “the dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America is wrong” and has vowed to “end it.”
Excuse me for a moment while I flush what remains of the Constitution down the toilet.
Clearly, Trump has not been briefed on the fact that it has never been safer to be a cop in America. According to Newsweek, “it’s safer to be a cop than it is to simply live in many U.S. cities... It’s safer to be a cop than it is to live in Baltimore. It’s safer to be a cop than it is to be a fisher, logger, pilot, roofer, miner, trucker or taxi driver. It’s safer to be a cop today than it’s been in years, decades, or even a century, by some measures.”
You know what’s dangerous?
Being a citizen of the American police state.
Treating cops as deserving of greater protections than their fellow citizens.
And training cops to think and act like they’re soldiers on a battlefield.

As journalist Daniel Bier warns, “If you tell cops over and over that they’re in a war, they’re under siege, they’re under attack, and that citizens are the enemy—instead of the people they’re supposed to protect—you’re going to create an atmosphere of fear, tension, and hostility that can only end badly, as it has for so many people.”
Frankly, if there’s a war taking place in this country, it’s a war on the American people.
After all, we’re the ones being shot at and tasered and tracked and beaten and intimidated and threatened and invaded and probed.
And what is the government doing to fix this policing crisis that threatens the safety of every man, woman and child in this country?
Not a damn thing.
Incredibly, according to a study by the American Medical Association, police-inflicted injuries send more than 50,000 Americans to hospital emergency rooms every year.
Yet as Slate warns, if you even dare to criticize a police officer let alone challenge the myth of the hero cop—a myth “used to legitimize brutality as necessary, justify policies that favor the police, and punish anyone who dares to question police tactics or oppose the unions’ agendas”— you will be roundly denounced “as disloyal, un-American, and dangerous.”
As reporter David Feige concludes, “We should appreciate the value and sacrifice of those who choose to serve and protect. But that appreciation should not constitute a get-out-of-jail-free card for the vast army of 800,000 people granted general arrest powers and increasingly armed with automatic weapons and armored vehicles.”
Vast army.
Equipped with deadly weapons.
Empowered with arrest powers.
Immune from accountability for wrongdoing.
What is this, Hitler’s America?
Have we strayed so far from our revolutionary roots that we no longer even recognize tyranny when it’s staring us in the face?
The fact that police are choosing to fatally resolve encounters with their fellow citizens by using their guns speaks volumes about what is wrong with policing in America today, where police officers are being dressed in the trappings of war, drilled in the deadly art of combat, and trained to look upon “every individual they interact with as an armed threat and every situation as a deadly force encounter in the making.”
Mind you, the federal government is the one responsible for turning our police into extensions of the military, having previously distributed billions of dollars’ worth of military equipment to local police agencies, including high-powered weapons, assault vehicles, drones, tactical gear, body armor, weapon scopes, infrared imaging systems and night-vision goggles—equipment intended for use on the battlefield—not to mention federal grants for militarized training and SWAT teams.
Thus, despite what Attorney General Sessions wants you to believe, the daily shootings, beatings and roadside strip searches (in some cases, rape) of American citizens by police are not isolated incidents.
Likewise, the events of recent years are not random occurrences: the invasive surveillance, the extremism reports, the civil unrest, the protests, the shootings, the bombings, the military exercises and active shooter drills, the color-coded alerts and threat assessments, the fusion centers, the transformation of local police into extensions of the military, the distribution of military equipment and weapons to local police forces, the government databases containing the names of dissidents and potential troublemakers.
Rather, these developments are all part of a concerted effort to destabilize the country, institute de facto martial law disguised as law and order, and shift us fully into the iron jaws of the police state.
So, no, the dramatic increase in police shootings are not accidents.
It wasn’t an “accident” that 26-year-old Andrew Lee Scott, who had committed no crime, was gunned down by police who knocked aggressively on the wrong door at 1:30 am, failed to identify themselves as police, and then repeatedly shot and killed Scott when he answered the door while holding a gun in self-defense. Police were investigating a speeding incident by engaging in a middle-of-the-night “knock and talk” in Scott’s apartment complex.
It wasn’t an “accident” when Levar Edward Jones was shot by a South Carolina police officer during a routine traffic stop over a seatbelt violation as he was in the process of reaching for his license and registration. The trooper justified his shooting of the unarmed man by insisting that Jones reached for his license “aggressively.”
It wasn’t an “accident” when Francisco Serna, a 73-year-old grandfather with early-stage dementia, was shot and killed by police for refusing to remove his hand from his pocket. Police were investigating an uncorroborated report that Serna had a gun, but it turned out he was holding a crucifix and made no aggressive movements before he was gunned down.
It wasn’t an “accident” when Nandi Cain, Jr., was thrown to the ground, choked and punched over a dozen times by a police officer after the officer stopped Cain for jaywalking.  Cain made no aggressive moves toward the officer, and had even removed his jacket to show the officer he had no weapon.
It wasn’t an “accident” when 65-year-old Thomas Smith, suffering from Parkinson’s Disease, called 911 because of a medical problem only to have his home raided by a SWAT team. Smith was thrown to the ground and placed in handcuffs because his condition prevented him from following police instructions.
It wasn’t an “accident” when John Wrana, a 95-year-old World War II veteran, died after being shot multiple times by a police officer with a Mossberg shotgun during a raid at Wrana’s room at an assisted living center. This, despite the fact that there were five police officers on the scene to subdue Wrana, who used a walker to get around and was “armed” with a shoehorn and not a knife, as police assumed.
It wasn’t an “accident” when a 10-year-old boy was subdued by two police officers using a taser because the child became unruly at the day care center he attended.
It wasn’t an “accident” when police in South Dakota routinely subjected persons, some as young as 3 years old, to catheterizations in order to forcibly obtain urine samples.
It wasn’t an “accident” when Charles Kinsey, a behavioral therapist, was shot by police as he was trying to help an autistic patient who had wandered away from his group home and was sitting in the middle of the road playing with a toy car. The officer who shot Kinsey was reportedly told that neither Kinsey nor the patient had a weapon.
It wasn’t an “accident” when Frank Arnal Baker was mauled by a police dog and kicked by an officer for not complying quickly enough with a police order. Baker, who had done nothing wrong, spent two weeks in the hospital with fractured ribs and collapsed lungs and needed skin grafts for the dog-bite injuries.
No, none of these incidents were accidents.
Nor are they isolated, anecdotal examples of a few bad actors, as Sessions insists.
Far from being isolated or anecdotal, police misconduct cases have become so prevalent as to jeopardize the integrity of all of the nation’s law enforcement agencies.
Unfortunately, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, this is what happens when you allow so-called “law and order” to matter more than justice: corruption flourishes, injustice reigns and tyranny takes hold.
Yet no matter what Trump and Session seem to believe, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Americans must obey the government.
Despite the corruption of Congress and the complicity of the courts, nowhere does the Constitution require absolute subservience to the government’s dictates.
And despite what most police officers seem to believe, nowhere does the Constitution state that Americans must comply with a police order.
To suggest otherwise is authoritarianism.
This is also, as abolitionist Frederick Douglass noted, the definition of slavery: “I didn’t know I was a slave until I found out I couldn’t do the things I wanted.”
You want to know what it means to be a slave in the American police state?
It means being obedient, compliant and Sieg Heil!-ing every government agent armed with a weapon. If you believe otherwise, try standing up for your rights, being vocal about your freedoms, or just challenging a government dictate, and see how long you last before you’re staring down the barrel of a loaded government-issued gun.



 John W. Whitehead

The Iron Jaws of the Police State: Trump’s America Is a Constitution-Free Zone






“Policing is broken... It has evolved as a paramilitary, bureaucratic, organizational arrangement that distances police officers from the communities they’ve been sworn to protect and serve. When we have shooting after shooting after shooting that most people would define as at least questionable, it’s time to look, not just at a few bad apples, but the barrel. And I’m convinced that it is the barrel that is rotted.”— Norm Stamper, former Seattle police chief
Please.
Somebody give Attorney General Jeff Sessions a copy of the Constitution.
And while you’re at it, get a copy to President Trump, too.
In fact, you might want to share a copy with the nation’s police officers, as well.
I have my doubts that any of these individuals—all of whom swore to uphold and defend the Constitution—have ever read any of the nation’s founding documents.
Had they actually read and understood the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights, there would be no militarized police, no mass surveillance, no police shootings of unarmed individuals, no SWAT team raids, no tasering of children, no asset forfeiture schemes or any of the other government-sanctioned abuses that get passed off as law and order these days.
We’ve got serious problems in this country, and they won’t be solved on the golf course, by wining and dining corporate CEOs, giving local police forces more military equipment, locking down the nation, or pretending that the only threats to our freedoms are posed by forces beyond our borders or by “anti-government” extremists hiding among us.
So far, Trump’s first 100 days in office have been no different from Obama’s last 100 days, at least when it comes to the government’s ongoing war on our freedoms.
Government corruption remains at an all-time high.
Police shootings and misconduct have continued unabated.
The nation’s endless wars continue to push us to the brink of financial ruin.
And “we the people” are still being treated as if we have no rights, are entitled to no protections, and exist solely for the purpose of sustaining the American police state with our hard-earned tax dollars.
Just take the policing crisis in this country, for instance.
Sessions—the chief lawyer for the government and the head of the Justice Department, which is entrusted with ensuring that the nation’s laws are faithfully carried out and holding government officials accountable to abiding by their oaths of office to “uphold and defend the Constitution”—doesn’t think we’ve got a policing problem in America.
In fact, Sessions thinks the police are doing a great job (apart from “the individual misdeeds of bad actors,” that is). 
For that matter, so does Trump.
Really, really great.
Indeed, Sessions thinks the nation’s police forces are doing such a great job that they should be rewarded with more military toys (weapons, gear, equipment) and less oversight by the Justice Department.
As for Trump, he believes “the dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America is wrong” and has vowed to “end it.”
Excuse me for a moment while I flush what remains of the Constitution down the toilet.
Clearly, Trump has not been briefed on the fact that it has never been safer to be a cop in America. According to Newsweek, “it’s safer to be a cop than it is to simply live in many U.S. cities... It’s safer to be a cop than it is to live in Baltimore. It’s safer to be a cop than it is to be a fisher, logger, pilot, roofer, miner, trucker or taxi driver. It’s safer to be a cop today than it’s been in years, decades, or even a century, by some measures.”
You know what’s dangerous?
Being a citizen of the American police state.
Treating cops as deserving of greater protections than their fellow citizens.
And training cops to think and act like they’re soldiers on a battlefield.

As journalist Daniel Bier warns, “If you tell cops over and over that they’re in a war, they’re under siege, they’re under attack, and that citizens are the enemy—instead of the people they’re supposed to protect—you’re going to create an atmosphere of fear, tension, and hostility that can only end badly, as it has for so many people.”
Frankly, if there’s a war taking place in this country, it’s a war on the American people.
After all, we’re the ones being shot at and tasered and tracked and beaten and intimidated and threatened and invaded and probed.
And what is the government doing to fix this policing crisis that threatens the safety of every man, woman and child in this country?
Not a damn thing.
Incredibly, according to a study by the American Medical Association, police-inflicted injuries send more than 50,000 Americans to hospital emergency rooms every year.
Yet as Slate warns, if you even dare to criticize a police officer let alone challenge the myth of the hero cop—a myth “used to legitimize brutality as necessary, justify policies that favor the police, and punish anyone who dares to question police tactics or oppose the unions’ agendas”— you will be roundly denounced “as disloyal, un-American, and dangerous.”
As reporter David Feige concludes, “We should appreciate the value and sacrifice of those who choose to serve and protect. But that appreciation should not constitute a get-out-of-jail-free card for the vast army of 800,000 people granted general arrest powers and increasingly armed with automatic weapons and armored vehicles.”
Vast army.
Equipped with deadly weapons.
Empowered with arrest powers.
Immune from accountability for wrongdoing.
What is this, Hitler’s America?
Have we strayed so far from our revolutionary roots that we no longer even recognize tyranny when it’s staring us in the face?
The fact that police are choosing to fatally resolve encounters with their fellow citizens by using their guns speaks volumes about what is wrong with policing in America today, where police officers are being dressed in the trappings of war, drilled in the deadly art of combat, and trained to look upon “every individual they interact with as an armed threat and every situation as a deadly force encounter in the making.”
Mind you, the federal government is the one responsible for turning our police into extensions of the military, having previously distributed billions of dollars’ worth of military equipment to local police agencies, including high-powered weapons, assault vehicles, drones, tactical gear, body armor, weapon scopes, infrared imaging systems and night-vision goggles—equipment intended for use on the battlefield—not to mention federal grants for militarized training and SWAT teams.
Thus, despite what Attorney General Sessions wants you to believe, the daily shootings, beatings and roadside strip searches (in some cases, rape) of American citizens by police are not isolated incidents.
Likewise, the events of recent years are not random occurrences: the invasive surveillance, the extremism reports, the civil unrest, the protests, the shootings, the bombings, the military exercises and active shooter drills, the color-coded alerts and threat assessments, the fusion centers, the transformation of local police into extensions of the military, the distribution of military equipment and weapons to local police forces, the government databases containing the names of dissidents and potential troublemakers.
Rather, these developments are all part of a concerted effort to destabilize the country, institute de facto martial law disguised as law and order, and shift us fully into the iron jaws of the police state.
So, no, the dramatic increase in police shootings are not accidents.
It wasn’t an “accident” that 26-year-old Andrew Lee Scott, who had committed no crime, was gunned down by police who knocked aggressively on the wrong door at 1:30 am, failed to identify themselves as police, and then repeatedly shot and killed Scott when he answered the door while holding a gun in self-defense. Police were investigating a speeding incident by engaging in a middle-of-the-night “knock and talk” in Scott’s apartment complex.
It wasn’t an “accident” when Levar Edward Jones was shot by a South Carolina police officer during a routine traffic stop over a seatbelt violation as he was in the process of reaching for his license and registration. The trooper justified his shooting of the unarmed man by insisting that Jones reached for his license “aggressively.”
It wasn’t an “accident” when Francisco Serna, a 73-year-old grandfather with early-stage dementia, was shot and killed by police for refusing to remove his hand from his pocket. Police were investigating an uncorroborated report that Serna had a gun, but it turned out he was holding a crucifix and made no aggressive movements before he was gunned down.
It wasn’t an “accident” when Nandi Cain, Jr., was thrown to the ground, choked and punched over a dozen times by a police officer after the officer stopped Cain for jaywalking.  Cain made no aggressive moves toward the officer, and had even removed his jacket to show the officer he had no weapon.
It wasn’t an “accident” when 65-year-old Thomas Smith, suffering from Parkinson’s Disease, called 911 because of a medical problem only to have his home raided by a SWAT team. Smith was thrown to the ground and placed in handcuffs because his condition prevented him from following police instructions.
It wasn’t an “accident” when John Wrana, a 95-year-old World War II veteran, died after being shot multiple times by a police officer with a Mossberg shotgun during a raid at Wrana’s room at an assisted living center. This, despite the fact that there were five police officers on the scene to subdue Wrana, who used a walker to get around and was “armed” with a shoehorn and not a knife, as police assumed.
It wasn’t an “accident” when a 10-year-old boy was subdued by two police officers using a taser because the child became unruly at the day care center he attended.
It wasn’t an “accident” when police in South Dakota routinely subjected persons, some as young as 3 years old, to catheterizations in order to forcibly obtain urine samples.
It wasn’t an “accident” when Charles Kinsey, a behavioral therapist, was shot by police as he was trying to help an autistic patient who had wandered away from his group home and was sitting in the middle of the road playing with a toy car. The officer who shot Kinsey was reportedly told that neither Kinsey nor the patient had a weapon.
It wasn’t an “accident” when Frank Arnal Baker was mauled by a police dog and kicked by an officer for not complying quickly enough with a police order. Baker, who had done nothing wrong, spent two weeks in the hospital with fractured ribs and collapsed lungs and needed skin grafts for the dog-bite injuries.
No, none of these incidents were accidents.
Nor are they isolated, anecdotal examples of a few bad actors, as Sessions insists.
Far from being isolated or anecdotal, police misconduct cases have become so prevalent as to jeopardize the integrity of all of the nation’s law enforcement agencies.
Unfortunately, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, this is what happens when you allow so-called “law and order” to matter more than justice: corruption flourishes, injustice reigns and tyranny takes hold.
Yet no matter what Trump and Session seem to believe, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Americans must obey the government.
Despite the corruption of Congress and the complicity of the courts, nowhere does the Constitution require absolute subservience to the government’s dictates.
And despite what most police officers seem to believe, nowhere does the Constitution state that Americans must comply with a police order.
To suggest otherwise is authoritarianism.
This is also, as abolitionist Frederick Douglass noted, the definition of slavery: “I didn’t know I was a slave until I found out I couldn’t do the things I wanted.”
You want to know what it means to be a slave in the American police state?
It means being obedient, compliant and Sieg Heil!-ing every government agent armed with a weapon. If you believe otherwise, try standing up for your rights, being vocal about your freedoms, or just challenging a government dictate, and see how long you last before you’re staring down the barrel of a loaded government-issued gun.



 John W. Whitehead


Wednesday, April 26, 2017

ISLAMOPHOBIA: EMBRACE IT AND PASS IT ON!

Islamophobia is a good fear. Get it! Spread it!

ISLAMOPHOBIA: EMBRACE IT AND PASS IT ON!




Some fears are good. Today we live in a world of tv-zombified simpletons who don’t recognize the wisdom that grew from the analogy of a youngster touching a hot stove. The punch line that flowered from that tiny proverb, of course, is that the child learned the hard lesson of not touching whatever experience warned him not to touch. Simple enough.

A couple of decades ago a very popular ad campaign generated enough two-worded bumper stickers to make any teenager on earth deathly afraid of admitting to having any fear. Living with unfounded fears is not good, certainly. But dismissing or ignoring the fears that keep us alive and healthy is just as bad or worse. The hangover from that stupid anti-fear trend gave us a crowd of people today who truly don’t understand the very legitimate value of caution. No, these days the quickest way to get the world to line up for and fully support ANYTHING is to put the word ‘phobia’ behind whatever is being promoted. Everyone then cringes at being the target of ridicule that will be aimed at the ‘phobes’.


‘Phobia’ or ‘phobe’ suffix was discovered to be a great bulldozer for moving the opinion of weak-minded people

In the early 80s we saw the ingenious campaign that first used ‘phobia’ to expedite the popular, consensual validation of certain alternative lifestyles. In that push, the ‘phobia’ or ‘phobe’ suffix was discovered to be a great bulldozer for moving the opinion of weak-minded people who simply didn’t want to be called a ‘phobe’. Seeing that was such a slam dunk success, the left has been automatically calling anybody who would like the security of sane immigration practices ‘xenophobic’. And today anyone who expresses any reluctance, however justifiable, to the seeding of Quran-raised-and-trained Islamists into the Western world that hasn’t a nodding acquaintance with the true dynamics of that dictatorial government posing as a ‘religion’, is insulted with the new and improved, ultra-hip anathema, ‘Islamophobe’. It’s dumb. It doesn’t follow. But it works. And this has NOTHING to do with hating any person. It is entirely the system that controls them. THAT is what concerns us.

The short video accompanying this article should be required viewing for every thinking person on the planet. Unfortunately only a comparative few will see it. It is simply an edited clip from a video taken of ex-Muslim and ‘Islamophobe’, Farid Smahi, as he is confronting the foolishness of his hometown, Paris’, mayor, Anne Hidalgo. His words need little explanation. Right now if there is a video in today’s world that needs to go viral, this is it. If his fear of Islam’s advance upon his country and the world is at all misplaced or unfounded, I would defy anyone to identify an ounce of that in his presentation.


America’s PRESIDENT Smashes The Syrian Syringe

I have written several articles regarding the insanity of our politicians opening our nation to the invading swarm of Islamists - WHOSE ‘RELIGION’ IS ONE THAT PROGRAMS ITS FOLLOWERS TO DESTROY EVERY GOVERNMENT OR RELIGION THAT IS NOT ISLAMIC. My most recent story, “America’s PRESIDENT Smashes The Syrian Syringe!”, was a more detailed, kindred version of the content and spirit of Smahi’s complaint.

But in all my writing on the subject I’ve never said anything better or more convincingly than the unavoidable crux of this righteously enraged Parisian’s horror. He uses the powerful, incisive words that Emile Zola used in a condemnation of the French military in the 1800s, “J’accuse!” (“I accuse!”) in a desperate attempt to rally his fellow French citizens to the outrageous conduct of their government.

The direly important WARNING ABOUT THE REALITY OF THE ISLAMIC RELIGION AND ITS CURRENT FORCED INSEMINATION INTO THE WORLD cannot travel fast enough to keep up with its damage - much of which is not being honestly reported to the media-dependent world. The cleverness of the dark lord, the very real devil, who is behind the promotion of Islam to the Western world can instantly be seen by experienced people like Farid. To anyone who has taken the time to closely and critically evaluate the substance and fruit of Islam, it is easily seen that this wolf is being sold to the unwary as a lamb.

For starters, the arrogant males of Islam, cruising under the boilerplate authority of sharia law, treat their wives - indeed all women - merely as housekeeping slaves and baby factories. Here in the West, Muslim females regularly dress in color-coordinated hijabs and robes. They can look real sharp adorned with scarves and waist jackets complementing the flowing colorful skirts that make a really independent statement gliding down the big city sidewalks of our free America. In that religion’s homelands however, where sharia is uncontested, such outfits or even a hint of feminism can earn a beating or even death for the woman.



‘Planned invasion’ engineered to overthrow Western civilization and all of Christianity
To give an example of how Islam is marketed to the unknowing Western world, this year’s New York City University commencement exercise will be officiated by an articulate, beautiful young Muslim lady who is most often seen freely talking up her version of the Muslim life and encouraging Islamic immigration. Here in the west, she very obviously sports full makeup with a bright red painted smile; in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia or anywhere else that the iron hammer of sharia is fully in place, she would be kept covered in black and she would be kept silent. But the naïve and trendy snowflake college girls don’t give that a second thought - because they are ignorant of it.

As former Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has recently, wisely pointed out, Muslim immigrants who are being literally pushed out of the Middle East are part of the ‘planned invasion’ engineered to overthrow Western civilization and all of Christianity. As Farid Smahi laments in another portion of his rant, but not included in this clip, ‘there is no more France!’ It is his truthful cry because he has watched as Islam has eaten it up. Just as shortly there will be no more Germany, Sweden and soon, very likely even Canada and America. The anti-Western cancer of a very population/culture-consuming Islam will absorb and devour what is left of the rapidly disappearing free world.

So many professional politicians here in America, like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Maxine Waters and others, who see crises only as opportunities for political control, act as though they are unaware of the fact that Islamists are programmed by the Quran - the texts are hidden in plain sight - to jihad and overcome everything of the infidel that exults itself against their Allah.

Osama bin Laden, the world-class terrorist himself, admitted that he merely had to finally, more carefully read his Quran in order to fully understand the ‘real message’ of Islam. And so much of America - a willfully ignorant America - is helping to pull the Islamic Trojan horse into our land faster than sincere, knowledgeable, cautious leadership can reason with them or legislate against it.

And when people make fun of the idea of America imposing a ‘religious test’ for immigrants? Yes, such a thought would be laughable if all religions were like what the West has been most accustomed to. Hustled on the West as a romantic form of Catholicism with robes and veils, the doctrine of the Quran is effectively a ticking time-bomb waiting to be armed, completely depending upon the depth of one’s familiarity with it.

Islam is a ‘religion’ that even authorizes deception
Islam is a ‘religion’ that even authorizes deception - LYING TO UNBELIEVERS - in order to further its cause - which is total domination and DEATH to all who oppose that. And for years Islam’s imams (teachers) have snickered at the sluggishness of the Western world’s rate of procreation compared to that of the Islamists who many proudly boast ‘breed like rats!’

Here at Canada Free Press I have shared many videos that have helped to expose the works of darkness, and (I say thankfully) in even helping to elect America’s most recent president. I have asked for the help of readers all over the world in forwarding clips that have aided in opening the eyes of many people to both good and bad things that need to be seen. I am here again asking for your help.

Our Christian Bible exhorts us to, “Have nothing to do with the works of darkness! But instead expose them!” (Ephesians 5:11) And so, my brothers and sisters in the faith - and indeed all those who love the truth - do a good deed this day and pass this video on to as many as you can! If we don’t act now, one day soon the opportunity to use our freedom for the good that the true God expects of us ... will surely be gone - and as history documents, will never return.

Islamophobia is a good fear. Get it! Spread it!

Dave Merrick -





Pro Deo et Constitutione –
Libertas aut Mors Semper Vigilans Fortis
Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber

http://feeds.feedburner.com/FreedomOrAnarchycampaignOfConscience
https://www.razoo.com/user/f499yf
https://www.facebook.com/FREEDOMORANARCHYCampaignofConscience
https://twitter.com/toptradesmen
https://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/
https://the-family-assistants-campaign.blogspot.com/
https://tradesmen.blogspot.com/
https://www.facebook.com/JosephBarberMastercarpenterBuilder/
https://www.facebook.com/lawfulrebelion/
https://plus.google.com/+JOSEPHBARBERforfreedom
Islamophobia is a good fear. Get it! Spread it!

ISLAMOPHOBIA: EMBRACE IT AND PASS IT ON!




Some fears are good. Today we live in a world of tv-zombified simpletons who don’t recognize the wisdom that grew from the analogy of a youngster touching a hot stove. The punch line that flowered from that tiny proverb, of course, is that the child learned the hard lesson of not touching whatever experience warned him not to touch. Simple enough.

A couple of decades ago a very popular ad campaign generated enough two-worded bumper stickers to make any teenager on earth deathly afraid of admitting to having any fear. Living with unfounded fears is not good, certainly. But dismissing or ignoring the fears that keep us alive and healthy is just as bad or worse. The hangover from that stupid anti-fear trend gave us a crowd of people today who truly don’t understand the very legitimate value of caution. No, these days the quickest way to get the world to line up for and fully support ANYTHING is to put the word ‘phobia’ behind whatever is being promoted. Everyone then cringes at being the target of ridicule that will be aimed at the ‘phobes’.


‘Phobia’ or ‘phobe’ suffix was discovered to be a great bulldozer for moving the opinion of weak-minded people

In the early 80s we saw the ingenious campaign that first used ‘phobia’ to expedite the popular, consensual validation of certain alternative lifestyles. In that push, the ‘phobia’ or ‘phobe’ suffix was discovered to be a great bulldozer for moving the opinion of weak-minded people who simply didn’t want to be called a ‘phobe’. Seeing that was such a slam dunk success, the left has been automatically calling anybody who would like the security of sane immigration practices ‘xenophobic’. And today anyone who expresses any reluctance, however justifiable, to the seeding of Quran-raised-and-trained Islamists into the Western world that hasn’t a nodding acquaintance with the true dynamics of that dictatorial government posing as a ‘religion’, is insulted with the new and improved, ultra-hip anathema, ‘Islamophobe’. It’s dumb. It doesn’t follow. But it works. And this has NOTHING to do with hating any person. It is entirely the system that controls them. THAT is what concerns us.

The short video accompanying this article should be required viewing for every thinking person on the planet. Unfortunately only a comparative few will see it. It is simply an edited clip from a video taken of ex-Muslim and ‘Islamophobe’, Farid Smahi, as he is confronting the foolishness of his hometown, Paris’, mayor, Anne Hidalgo. His words need little explanation. Right now if there is a video in today’s world that needs to go viral, this is it. If his fear of Islam’s advance upon his country and the world is at all misplaced or unfounded, I would defy anyone to identify an ounce of that in his presentation.


America’s PRESIDENT Smashes The Syrian Syringe

I have written several articles regarding the insanity of our politicians opening our nation to the invading swarm of Islamists - WHOSE ‘RELIGION’ IS ONE THAT PROGRAMS ITS FOLLOWERS TO DESTROY EVERY GOVERNMENT OR RELIGION THAT IS NOT ISLAMIC. My most recent story, “America’s PRESIDENT Smashes The Syrian Syringe!”, was a more detailed, kindred version of the content and spirit of Smahi’s complaint.

But in all my writing on the subject I’ve never said anything better or more convincingly than the unavoidable crux of this righteously enraged Parisian’s horror. He uses the powerful, incisive words that Emile Zola used in a condemnation of the French military in the 1800s, “J’accuse!” (“I accuse!”) in a desperate attempt to rally his fellow French citizens to the outrageous conduct of their government.

The direly important WARNING ABOUT THE REALITY OF THE ISLAMIC RELIGION AND ITS CURRENT FORCED INSEMINATION INTO THE WORLD cannot travel fast enough to keep up with its damage - much of which is not being honestly reported to the media-dependent world. The cleverness of the dark lord, the very real devil, who is behind the promotion of Islam to the Western world can instantly be seen by experienced people like Farid. To anyone who has taken the time to closely and critically evaluate the substance and fruit of Islam, it is easily seen that this wolf is being sold to the unwary as a lamb.

For starters, the arrogant males of Islam, cruising under the boilerplate authority of sharia law, treat their wives - indeed all women - merely as housekeeping slaves and baby factories. Here in the West, Muslim females regularly dress in color-coordinated hijabs and robes. They can look real sharp adorned with scarves and waist jackets complementing the flowing colorful skirts that make a really independent statement gliding down the big city sidewalks of our free America. In that religion’s homelands however, where sharia is uncontested, such outfits or even a hint of feminism can earn a beating or even death for the woman.



‘Planned invasion’ engineered to overthrow Western civilization and all of Christianity
To give an example of how Islam is marketed to the unknowing Western world, this year’s New York City University commencement exercise will be officiated by an articulate, beautiful young Muslim lady who is most often seen freely talking up her version of the Muslim life and encouraging Islamic immigration. Here in the west, she very obviously sports full makeup with a bright red painted smile; in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia or anywhere else that the iron hammer of sharia is fully in place, she would be kept covered in black and she would be kept silent. But the naïve and trendy snowflake college girls don’t give that a second thought - because they are ignorant of it.

As former Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has recently, wisely pointed out, Muslim immigrants who are being literally pushed out of the Middle East are part of the ‘planned invasion’ engineered to overthrow Western civilization and all of Christianity. As Farid Smahi laments in another portion of his rant, but not included in this clip, ‘there is no more France!’ It is his truthful cry because he has watched as Islam has eaten it up. Just as shortly there will be no more Germany, Sweden and soon, very likely even Canada and America. The anti-Western cancer of a very population/culture-consuming Islam will absorb and devour what is left of the rapidly disappearing free world.

So many professional politicians here in America, like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Maxine Waters and others, who see crises only as opportunities for political control, act as though they are unaware of the fact that Islamists are programmed by the Quran - the texts are hidden in plain sight - to jihad and overcome everything of the infidel that exults itself against their Allah.

Osama bin Laden, the world-class terrorist himself, admitted that he merely had to finally, more carefully read his Quran in order to fully understand the ‘real message’ of Islam. And so much of America - a willfully ignorant America - is helping to pull the Islamic Trojan horse into our land faster than sincere, knowledgeable, cautious leadership can reason with them or legislate against it.

And when people make fun of the idea of America imposing a ‘religious test’ for immigrants? Yes, such a thought would be laughable if all religions were like what the West has been most accustomed to. Hustled on the West as a romantic form of Catholicism with robes and veils, the doctrine of the Quran is effectively a ticking time-bomb waiting to be armed, completely depending upon the depth of one’s familiarity with it.

Islam is a ‘religion’ that even authorizes deception
Islam is a ‘religion’ that even authorizes deception - LYING TO UNBELIEVERS - in order to further its cause - which is total domination and DEATH to all who oppose that. And for years Islam’s imams (teachers) have snickered at the sluggishness of the Western world’s rate of procreation compared to that of the Islamists who many proudly boast ‘breed like rats!’

Here at Canada Free Press I have shared many videos that have helped to expose the works of darkness, and (I say thankfully) in even helping to elect America’s most recent president. I have asked for the help of readers all over the world in forwarding clips that have aided in opening the eyes of many people to both good and bad things that need to be seen. I am here again asking for your help.

Our Christian Bible exhorts us to, “Have nothing to do with the works of darkness! But instead expose them!” (Ephesians 5:11) And so, my brothers and sisters in the faith - and indeed all those who love the truth - do a good deed this day and pass this video on to as many as you can! If we don’t act now, one day soon the opportunity to use our freedom for the good that the true God expects of us ... will surely be gone - and as history documents, will never return.

Islamophobia is a good fear. Get it! Spread it!

Dave Merrick -





Pro Deo et Constitutione –
Libertas aut Mors Semper Vigilans Fortis
Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber

http://feeds.feedburner.com/FreedomOrAnarchycampaignOfConscience
https://www.razoo.com/user/f499yf
https://www.facebook.com/FREEDOMORANARCHYCampaignofConscience
https://twitter.com/toptradesmen
https://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/
https://the-family-assistants-campaign.blogspot.com/
https://tradesmen.blogspot.com/
https://www.facebook.com/JosephBarberMastercarpenterBuilder/
https://www.facebook.com/lawfulrebelion/
https://plus.google.com/+JOSEPHBARBERforfreedom


ISIS monsters killed by . . . rampaging wild boars?

Th-th-th-th-th-th-that's all folks!

ISIS monsters killed by . . . rampaging wild boars?




I can’t decide if I should drop some serious spiritual commentary on you - about my longstanding theory that animals are more attuned than humans to the presence of spiritual evil - or make some wise-# remark. There’s really no wrong way to give you news like this, because it’s simply too good:

Three ISIS militants were mauled to death by a herd of wild boar moments after committing a massacre.


Five other terrorists were injured in the rampage by the beasts who attacked them in southern Kirkuk.

It is understood the boars went on a frenzied rampage near farmland in al-Rashad region, 53km south of Kirkuk.

Sheikh Anwar al-Assi, a local tribal chief, told The Times that the militants had hidden among some dense reeds.

“It is likely their movement disturbed a herd of wild pigs, which inhabit the area as well as the nearby cornfields,” he said.

“The area is dense with reeds, which are good for hiding in.”

Sheikh al-Assi said it took place on Sunday moments after ISIS had killed 25 people in Hawija.

The pigs were later punished.

A source told Alsumaria News that: ” Daesh (Islamic State) militants took revenge at the pigs who attacked the farmland,” but did not say how.


Taking revenge against pigs?
This is what ISIS is now reduced to? Taking revenge against pigs?

You know, when you lose more than 100 jihadis who were sneaking around in tunnels when the Mother Of All Bombs falls on them, well, that’s the Mother Of All Damn Bombs.

These. Were. Pigs.

Now look, wild boars are very vicious and very dangerous. If a bunch of them decide to charge you, you’re probably not going to make it either. Then again, if you don’t show up at someone’s farm and kill a bunch of people, there will probably be no occasion for a pack of wild boars to bother with you.



Now that President Trump is taking it to ISIS, we see they’re very beatable. So beatable, in fact, that even wild pigs are capable of taking them down.
The only cloud to this silver lining is the possibility that that “revenge” might have been pretty sadistic. That would be standard operating procedure for ISIS. That said, jihadis thrive on the perception of their strength and their ability to intimidate their potential victims. How intimidated can you really be by a bunch of chuckleheads who get killed by pigs?

Remember when Obama called ISIS the Al Qaeda JV team? That was an example of a guy who refusing to take a real threat seriously, because he just didn’t want to. It’s not that they couldn’t have been defeated, but you can’t defeat an enemy when you’re not even interested in trying. Now that President Trump is taking it to ISIS, we see they’re very beatable. So beatable, in fact, that even wild pigs are capable of taking them down.

Dan Calabrese


Pro Deo et Constitutione –
Libertas aut Mors Semper Vigilans Fortis
Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber

http://feeds.feedburner.com/FreedomOrAnarchycampaignOfConscience
https://www.razoo.com/user/f499yf
https://www.facebook.com/FREEDOMORANARCHYCampaignofConscience
https://twitter.com/toptradesmen
https://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/
https://the-family-assistants-campaign.blogspot.com/
https://tradesmen.blogspot.com/
https://www.facebook.com/JosephBarberMastercarpenterBuilder/
https://www.facebook.com/lawfulrebelion/
https://plus.google.com/+JOSEPHBARBERforfreedom
Th-th-th-th-th-th-that's all folks!

ISIS monsters killed by . . . rampaging wild boars?




I can’t decide if I should drop some serious spiritual commentary on you - about my longstanding theory that animals are more attuned than humans to the presence of spiritual evil - or make some wise-# remark. There’s really no wrong way to give you news like this, because it’s simply too good:

Three ISIS militants were mauled to death by a herd of wild boar moments after committing a massacre.


Five other terrorists were injured in the rampage by the beasts who attacked them in southern Kirkuk.

It is understood the boars went on a frenzied rampage near farmland in al-Rashad region, 53km south of Kirkuk.

Sheikh Anwar al-Assi, a local tribal chief, told The Times that the militants had hidden among some dense reeds.

“It is likely their movement disturbed a herd of wild pigs, which inhabit the area as well as the nearby cornfields,” he said.

“The area is dense with reeds, which are good for hiding in.”

Sheikh al-Assi said it took place on Sunday moments after ISIS had killed 25 people in Hawija.

The pigs were later punished.

A source told Alsumaria News that: ” Daesh (Islamic State) militants took revenge at the pigs who attacked the farmland,” but did not say how.


Taking revenge against pigs?
This is what ISIS is now reduced to? Taking revenge against pigs?

You know, when you lose more than 100 jihadis who were sneaking around in tunnels when the Mother Of All Bombs falls on them, well, that’s the Mother Of All Damn Bombs.

These. Were. Pigs.

Now look, wild boars are very vicious and very dangerous. If a bunch of them decide to charge you, you’re probably not going to make it either. Then again, if you don’t show up at someone’s farm and kill a bunch of people, there will probably be no occasion for a pack of wild boars to bother with you.



Now that President Trump is taking it to ISIS, we see they’re very beatable. So beatable, in fact, that even wild pigs are capable of taking them down.
The only cloud to this silver lining is the possibility that that “revenge” might have been pretty sadistic. That would be standard operating procedure for ISIS. That said, jihadis thrive on the perception of their strength and their ability to intimidate their potential victims. How intimidated can you really be by a bunch of chuckleheads who get killed by pigs?

Remember when Obama called ISIS the Al Qaeda JV team? That was an example of a guy who refusing to take a real threat seriously, because he just didn’t want to. It’s not that they couldn’t have been defeated, but you can’t defeat an enemy when you’re not even interested in trying. Now that President Trump is taking it to ISIS, we see they’re very beatable. So beatable, in fact, that even wild pigs are capable of taking them down.

Dan Calabrese


Pro Deo et Constitutione –
Libertas aut Mors Semper Vigilans Fortis
Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber

http://feeds.feedburner.com/FreedomOrAnarchycampaignOfConscience
https://www.razoo.com/user/f499yf
https://www.facebook.com/FREEDOMORANARCHYCampaignofConscience
https://twitter.com/toptradesmen
https://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/
https://the-family-assistants-campaign.blogspot.com/
https://tradesmen.blogspot.com/
https://www.facebook.com/JosephBarberMastercarpenterBuilder/
https://www.facebook.com/lawfulrebelion/
https://plus.google.com/+JOSEPHBARBERforfreedom


Will we survive the next 90 days?

Shambolic Doings in Washington

Will we survive the next 90 days?



There remains one good thing to say about Donald Trump: he is not Hillary. The boneheaded cruise missile attack in Syria would have occurred even earlier under President Rodham Clinton and there would undoubtedly be no-fly and safe zones already in place. Oh, and Ukraine and Georgia would be negotiating their entries into NATO to make sure that old Vlad Putin would be put on notice and understand that the days of namby-pamby jaw-jaw-jaw that characterized the Obama Administration are now ancient history.

Apart from that, I can only observe dumbstruck how yet again a candidate promising peace and dialogue could be flipped so quickly. Or maybe he never believed in anything he said, which is perhaps more to the point. Be that as it may, we now, after only ninety days in office, have a neo-neocon foreign policy and the folks clustered around their water coolers in the Washington think tanks are again smiling. And as the ruinous Syrian civil war continues thanks to American intervention, there are probably plenty of high fives within Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu government. Bibi again rules the roost.

The Israelis are no doubt particularly delighted to hear Donald Trump’s latest factually exempt voyage into the outer reaches of the galaxy regarding Iran. Or perhaps The Donald is only having continuing digestive problems dealing with “most beautiful piece of chocolate cake that you’ve ever seen” when dining with mortified Chinese leader Xi Jinping while simultaneously launching cruise missiles intended to send a message to Beijing’s ally Russia. It is inevitably Iran’s turn for vilification, so Trump, while conceding that the Iranians have been compliant with the nuclear weapons agreement they signed, also felt compelled to add that they continue to be a threat and have not entered into the “spirit” of the pact. Apparently the spirit codicil was somehow left out of the final draft, an interpretation that will no doubt surprise the other signatories consisting of Russia, China and the European Union.

To make its point that Tehran is somehow a cheater, the White House has ordered a 90 day review of Iran policy which will empower hardliners in that country in upcoming elections as well as nut cases like Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham on this side of the Atlantic. Iranian opposition groups like the terrorist Mujaheddin e Khalq (MEK) are already rising to the challenge by floating phony intelligence while Graham is currently advocating a preemptive attack on North Korea, conceding that it would be catastrophic for every country in the region while noting smugly that the carnage and destruction would not reach the United States. Too bad that Pyongyang’s fury cannot be directed straight to Graham’s house in South Carolina.

Graham is reportedly a good dancer and multitasker who can pivot back to Iran effortlessly as soon as Pyongyang is reduced to rubble, so those who want to deal with Iran sooner rather than later should not despair. As things continue to go south nearly everywhere, tension in the Middle East will no doubt lead to a rapidly deteriorating situation in the Persian Gulf that will require yet another ham-handed show of strength by the United States of Amnesia. There will be a war against Iran.

There have been a couple of other interesting stories circulating recently, all demonstrating that when Benjamin Franklin observed that we Americans had created a republic, “if we can keep it,” he was being particularly prescient. Robert Parry has observed that all the fuss about Russiagate is misleading as the only country that interferes with the political process in the U.S. persistently and successfully while also doing terrible damage to our national security is Israel. He wonders when we will have Congress convening investigative commissions to look into Israel-gate but then answers his own question by observing that it will never happen given who controls what in the United States. “No one dares suggest a probe of Israel-gate,” he concludes, but it is interesting and also encouraging to note that some Americans are actually starting to figure things out.

One of the curious things relating to the Russiagate scandal is the issue of who in the U.S. intelligence community leaked highly classified information to the media, a question which somehow seems to have disappeared from whatever final reckoning might be forthcoming. The issue is particularly relevant at the moment because there are reports that the Justice Department is pulling together a case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange as part of a possible attempt to remove him forcibly from his refuge in Britain and try him for constituting what CIA Director Mike Pompeo describes as a “hostile intelligence service helped by Russia.” It all suggests that low hanging fruit is fair game while some “official” leakers at high levels are somehow being protected.

To cite another example of Justice Department hypocrisy, three current and four former U.S. officials leaked to Reuters last week’s story about a Russian think tank having created a plan to subvert the U.S. election. If that is so, their identities might be discernible or surmised. Why aren’t they in jail? Or is it that many in government now believe that Russia is fair game and are prepared to look the other way?

It is significant that the recent House Intelligence Committee hearing on Russiagate, featuring FBI Director James Comey and NSA Director Mike Rogers, provided very little new information even as it confirmed troubling revelations that had already surfaced regarding the corruption of the nation’s security services. Given that former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) head John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) chief James Clapper have been most frequently cited as the Obama administration’s possible bag men in arranging for the generation, collection, dissemination, and leaking of information disparaging to Trump, why weren’t they also being questioned?

The latest focus on Brennan, an Obama/Clinton loyalist who might safely be regarded as the most likely candidate seeking to discredit Team Trump and reap the benefits from Hillary, explores some suspicions about what actually took place last year and how it might have been arranged. The story broke in The Guardian on April 13th, headlined “British spies were first to spot Trump team’s links with Russia.” The article rehashes much old information, but, relying on a “source close to UK intelligence,” it describes how Britain’s NSA equivalent GCHQ obtained information late in 2015 relating to suspect “interactions” between Trump associates and the Russian intelligence. GCHQ reportedly routinely passed the information on to its U.S. liaison counterparts, and continued to do so over the next six months. The information was supplemented by similar reporting from a number of European intelligence services as well as the remaining “Five Eyes”: Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

According to the Guardian source and reporters, who are clearly hostile to Trump, the collection was not directed or targeted but was rather part of random interception of Russian communications. This may or may not be true but it serves as a useful cover story if someone was up to something naughty. And it also makes one wonder about the highly incriminating British intelligence sourced “dossier” on Trump and his associates, which The Guardian strangely does not mention, that appeared in January. Another apparent Guardian source called GCHQ the “principal whistleblower” in sharing the information that led to the opening of an FBI investigation in July 2016, a suggestion that the British role was not exactly passive.

The article goes on to describe how John Brennan, then CIA Chief, was personally the recipient of the material passed hand-to-hand at “director level” because of its sensitivity. So the Guardian article is essentially saying that the information was both routine and extremely sensitive, which would seem to be contradictory. Brennan was reportedly then the driving force behind launching a “major inter-agency investigation” and he briefed selected members of Congress regarding what he had obtained. Shortly thereafter leaks began appearing in the British press followed subsequently by revelations in the media in the U.S.

An October request to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court reportedly was initiated after particularly damaging information was received from Estonia concerning Trump associate Carter Page and also regarding allegations that a Russian bank was funneling money into the Trump campaign. This led to an investigation of Page and the tapping into servers in Trump Tower, where the presidential campaign offices were located. Estonia, it should be noted, was particularly concerned about Trump comments on de-emphasizing NATO and strongly supported a Hillary victory so it is fair to speculate that the intelligence provided might have been cherry picked to make a particular case, but The Guardian fails to make that obvious point.

It is interesting to note how for the first time, in this media account, Brennan surfaces as the central player in the investigation of Team Trump. And it is perhaps not out of line to suggest that the European reporting of information on Trump associates was not exactly due to random collection of information, as The Guardian seeks to demonstrate. It could just as easily have been arranged at the “director level” by Brennan and his counterparts to disrupt the Trump campaign and enhance the electability of Hillary Clinton, which would have directly benefited Brennan and his inner circle as well as the Europeans, all of whom feared a Trump victory. Intelligence can be skewed, “fixed around a policy” or even fabricated and can say whatever one wants it to say so it is fair to suggest that the role of a politically committed John Brennan remains to be explored much more fully.

It is now being reported that Brennan will be summoned to give testimony at a closed House Intelligence Committee meeting on May 2nd. Hopefully his comments will be somehow leaked to the media plus those of James Clapper, who is also scheduled to appear. Nevertheless, one imagines that, as was the case in Comey’s first appearance, both former officials will spend most of their time refusing to confirm or deny anything.

The active participation of Brennan in the background to the 2016 electoral campaign is unprecedented and it is also suggestive of what America’s national security agencies have become, basically creatures of the White House. It is hard to escape the conclusion that Benjamin Franklin would undoubtedly deplore the fact that we have failed to keep the republic that the Founding Fathers bequeathed to us. That would be bad enough, but we are slipping into a pattern of foreign wars based on tissues of lies and deceptions by the very people who are in place to protect us, quite possibly exemplified by unscrupulous and ambitious ladder climbers like John Brennan, who was also the architect of Obama’s assassination policy. If we go to war because of suspected lack of “spirit” in our adversaries or merely because someone in the White House had a piece of chocolate cake and wanted something to talk about over his cup of espresso then we are doomed as a nation.

Libertas aut Mors Semper Vigilans Fortis
Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of FREEDOM OR ANARCHY Campaign of Conscience
Shambolic Doings in Washington

Will we survive the next 90 days?



There remains one good thing to say about Donald Trump: he is not Hillary. The boneheaded cruise missile attack in Syria would have occurred even earlier under President Rodham Clinton and there would undoubtedly be no-fly and safe zones already in place. Oh, and Ukraine and Georgia would be negotiating their entries into NATO to make sure that old Vlad Putin would be put on notice and understand that the days of namby-pamby jaw-jaw-jaw that characterized the Obama Administration are now ancient history.

Apart from that, I can only observe dumbstruck how yet again a candidate promising peace and dialogue could be flipped so quickly. Or maybe he never believed in anything he said, which is perhaps more to the point. Be that as it may, we now, after only ninety days in office, have a neo-neocon foreign policy and the folks clustered around their water coolers in the Washington think tanks are again smiling. And as the ruinous Syrian civil war continues thanks to American intervention, there are probably plenty of high fives within Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu government. Bibi again rules the roost.

The Israelis are no doubt particularly delighted to hear Donald Trump’s latest factually exempt voyage into the outer reaches of the galaxy regarding Iran. Or perhaps The Donald is only having continuing digestive problems dealing with “most beautiful piece of chocolate cake that you’ve ever seen” when dining with mortified Chinese leader Xi Jinping while simultaneously launching cruise missiles intended to send a message to Beijing’s ally Russia. It is inevitably Iran’s turn for vilification, so Trump, while conceding that the Iranians have been compliant with the nuclear weapons agreement they signed, also felt compelled to add that they continue to be a threat and have not entered into the “spirit” of the pact. Apparently the spirit codicil was somehow left out of the final draft, an interpretation that will no doubt surprise the other signatories consisting of Russia, China and the European Union.

To make its point that Tehran is somehow a cheater, the White House has ordered a 90 day review of Iran policy which will empower hardliners in that country in upcoming elections as well as nut cases like Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham on this side of the Atlantic. Iranian opposition groups like the terrorist Mujaheddin e Khalq (MEK) are already rising to the challenge by floating phony intelligence while Graham is currently advocating a preemptive attack on North Korea, conceding that it would be catastrophic for every country in the region while noting smugly that the carnage and destruction would not reach the United States. Too bad that Pyongyang’s fury cannot be directed straight to Graham’s house in South Carolina.

Graham is reportedly a good dancer and multitasker who can pivot back to Iran effortlessly as soon as Pyongyang is reduced to rubble, so those who want to deal with Iran sooner rather than later should not despair. As things continue to go south nearly everywhere, tension in the Middle East will no doubt lead to a rapidly deteriorating situation in the Persian Gulf that will require yet another ham-handed show of strength by the United States of Amnesia. There will be a war against Iran.

There have been a couple of other interesting stories circulating recently, all demonstrating that when Benjamin Franklin observed that we Americans had created a republic, “if we can keep it,” he was being particularly prescient. Robert Parry has observed that all the fuss about Russiagate is misleading as the only country that interferes with the political process in the U.S. persistently and successfully while also doing terrible damage to our national security is Israel. He wonders when we will have Congress convening investigative commissions to look into Israel-gate but then answers his own question by observing that it will never happen given who controls what in the United States. “No one dares suggest a probe of Israel-gate,” he concludes, but it is interesting and also encouraging to note that some Americans are actually starting to figure things out.

One of the curious things relating to the Russiagate scandal is the issue of who in the U.S. intelligence community leaked highly classified information to the media, a question which somehow seems to have disappeared from whatever final reckoning might be forthcoming. The issue is particularly relevant at the moment because there are reports that the Justice Department is pulling together a case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange as part of a possible attempt to remove him forcibly from his refuge in Britain and try him for constituting what CIA Director Mike Pompeo describes as a “hostile intelligence service helped by Russia.” It all suggests that low hanging fruit is fair game while some “official” leakers at high levels are somehow being protected.

To cite another example of Justice Department hypocrisy, three current and four former U.S. officials leaked to Reuters last week’s story about a Russian think tank having created a plan to subvert the U.S. election. If that is so, their identities might be discernible or surmised. Why aren’t they in jail? Or is it that many in government now believe that Russia is fair game and are prepared to look the other way?

It is significant that the recent House Intelligence Committee hearing on Russiagate, featuring FBI Director James Comey and NSA Director Mike Rogers, provided very little new information even as it confirmed troubling revelations that had already surfaced regarding the corruption of the nation’s security services. Given that former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) head John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) chief James Clapper have been most frequently cited as the Obama administration’s possible bag men in arranging for the generation, collection, dissemination, and leaking of information disparaging to Trump, why weren’t they also being questioned?

The latest focus on Brennan, an Obama/Clinton loyalist who might safely be regarded as the most likely candidate seeking to discredit Team Trump and reap the benefits from Hillary, explores some suspicions about what actually took place last year and how it might have been arranged. The story broke in The Guardian on April 13th, headlined “British spies were first to spot Trump team’s links with Russia.” The article rehashes much old information, but, relying on a “source close to UK intelligence,” it describes how Britain’s NSA equivalent GCHQ obtained information late in 2015 relating to suspect “interactions” between Trump associates and the Russian intelligence. GCHQ reportedly routinely passed the information on to its U.S. liaison counterparts, and continued to do so over the next six months. The information was supplemented by similar reporting from a number of European intelligence services as well as the remaining “Five Eyes”: Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

According to the Guardian source and reporters, who are clearly hostile to Trump, the collection was not directed or targeted but was rather part of random interception of Russian communications. This may or may not be true but it serves as a useful cover story if someone was up to something naughty. And it also makes one wonder about the highly incriminating British intelligence sourced “dossier” on Trump and his associates, which The Guardian strangely does not mention, that appeared in January. Another apparent Guardian source called GCHQ the “principal whistleblower” in sharing the information that led to the opening of an FBI investigation in July 2016, a suggestion that the British role was not exactly passive.

The article goes on to describe how John Brennan, then CIA Chief, was personally the recipient of the material passed hand-to-hand at “director level” because of its sensitivity. So the Guardian article is essentially saying that the information was both routine and extremely sensitive, which would seem to be contradictory. Brennan was reportedly then the driving force behind launching a “major inter-agency investigation” and he briefed selected members of Congress regarding what he had obtained. Shortly thereafter leaks began appearing in the British press followed subsequently by revelations in the media in the U.S.

An October request to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court reportedly was initiated after particularly damaging information was received from Estonia concerning Trump associate Carter Page and also regarding allegations that a Russian bank was funneling money into the Trump campaign. This led to an investigation of Page and the tapping into servers in Trump Tower, where the presidential campaign offices were located. Estonia, it should be noted, was particularly concerned about Trump comments on de-emphasizing NATO and strongly supported a Hillary victory so it is fair to speculate that the intelligence provided might have been cherry picked to make a particular case, but The Guardian fails to make that obvious point.

It is interesting to note how for the first time, in this media account, Brennan surfaces as the central player in the investigation of Team Trump. And it is perhaps not out of line to suggest that the European reporting of information on Trump associates was not exactly due to random collection of information, as The Guardian seeks to demonstrate. It could just as easily have been arranged at the “director level” by Brennan and his counterparts to disrupt the Trump campaign and enhance the electability of Hillary Clinton, which would have directly benefited Brennan and his inner circle as well as the Europeans, all of whom feared a Trump victory. Intelligence can be skewed, “fixed around a policy” or even fabricated and can say whatever one wants it to say so it is fair to suggest that the role of a politically committed John Brennan remains to be explored much more fully.

It is now being reported that Brennan will be summoned to give testimony at a closed House Intelligence Committee meeting on May 2nd. Hopefully his comments will be somehow leaked to the media plus those of James Clapper, who is also scheduled to appear. Nevertheless, one imagines that, as was the case in Comey’s first appearance, both former officials will spend most of their time refusing to confirm or deny anything.

The active participation of Brennan in the background to the 2016 electoral campaign is unprecedented and it is also suggestive of what America’s national security agencies have become, basically creatures of the White House. It is hard to escape the conclusion that Benjamin Franklin would undoubtedly deplore the fact that we have failed to keep the republic that the Founding Fathers bequeathed to us. That would be bad enough, but we are slipping into a pattern of foreign wars based on tissues of lies and deceptions by the very people who are in place to protect us, quite possibly exemplified by unscrupulous and ambitious ladder climbers like John Brennan, who was also the architect of Obama’s assassination policy. If we go to war because of suspected lack of “spirit” in our adversaries or merely because someone in the White House had a piece of chocolate cake and wanted something to talk about over his cup of espresso then we are doomed as a nation.

Libertas aut Mors Semper Vigilans Fortis
Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of FREEDOM OR ANARCHY Campaign of Conscience


A New Dark Age


Thoughts On A New Dark Age




Joseph Sobran. Subtracting Christianity: Essays on American Culture and Society. FGF Books, 2015. 425 pp.

“On the whole, the secularist media seem to be resigned to the election of a Catholic to the papacy” (210). This line, written in 2005 shortly after Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI, is vintage Joe Sobran. It is not just extremely witty. In a few words, it communicates so much: the stability of Roman Catholic doctrine, the hatred of that doctrine by so many moderns, and those moderns’ reluctant acknowledgment that the church is not inclined to change in order to suit them.

Subtracting Christianity: Essays on American Culture and Society, where this line has most recently appeared, is the latest published collection of the essays of Joseph Sobran (1946–2010), one of the most dynamic and controversial journalists of the last generation. Famously fired by William F. Buckley from National Review in 1993 after twenty-one years as editor amid charges of anti-Semitism (an episode recounted in the volume), Sobran continued thereafter to write for many other publications and also became the author of his own newsletter.

Subtracting Christianity features selected writings spanning twenty-five years from various publications, including multiple syndicates, the Catholic newspaper The Wanderer, and SOBRAN’S. It is the second volume of Sobran’s essays the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation has published since his death. (The first was Joseph Sobran: The National Review Years in 2012.) The volume’s unifying theme is the problems created by the contemporary world’s attempts to remove Christian influence from society and culture. The title essay, which appears about midway through the book, is from 1999. In it, Sobran writes, “Modern culture is a negative, not a positive thing. It’s what is left when you subtract Christianity from Christian culture—so it’s a barren, bloodless, desiccated, and uninspiring thing, sometimes called ‘secular humanism’” (185). Sacrifice, honor, nobility, and chastity all become meaningless and absurd. Without the ability to inspire, secularized culture becomes legalistic and social relations turn into legal and political relations. Most of the essays in the book turn on this idea in some way.


The four-hundred-page volume is divided into eleven sections, beginning with affirmative defenses of the truth of Christianity and reminiscences of Sobran’s own spiritual journey. Here my attention rested on “The Reluctant Anarchist” (2002), in which Sobran traces his meandering journey over several decades toward philosophical anarchism. I noted this piece in particular because I heard it delivered, prior to its publication, as a speech at the Ludwig von Mises Institute before a very enthusiastic audience. Having only recently discovered both Sobran and libertarianism at that point, I was intensely interested in his reasoning through the failure of the US Constitution to prevent the triumph of modern liberalism in the twentieth century. His account of discovering the ideas of Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, coupled with a rediscovery of St. Paul’s and the church fathers’ writings about the state, was compelling to me in 2002 and remains so today.

These early sections also feature several moving essays in which Sobran recounts his own apostasy and rediscovery of the Christian faith in early adulthood. His love for the “strange moral authority” of the Catholic Church is evident; “I don’t defend the Church’s morality because I am a Catholic. I became and remain a Catholic because the Church maintains a consistent morality—while the rest of the world keeps veering off into moral fads” (46). Although most of these essays stress distinctively Catholic ideas, for example, transubstantiation, Sobran also writes appreciatively of Protestants, who “must be among the world’s most decent people” and are often “too nice for their own good” (43).

The heart of the book is the third, fourth, and fifth sections, which describe the “new dark age” of secular liberalism and the “war on Christian society” along with detailed examinations of “noteworthy persons, historic and modern.” For Sobran, the liberals’ “new morality” consists in large part of absolute sexual autonomy and government-sponsored removal of any inconveniences it causes. In “The Real News of the Century” (2000), we find a characteristically robust attack on this position. Sobran argues that all civilized people in world history have recognized some form of natural sexual morality, “perversely confirmed by the universal phenomena, especially in wartime, of obscene sexual insults, sexual torture, and rape, all of which are felt to be ultimate degradations of enemies” (83). In wartime, “men passionately intent on doing evil instinctively express their real convictions in violence against the wives, mothers, and daughters of their foes” (83). Liberals, who can be extremely moralistic on practically every other question, “single out sexual conduct as a privileged circle, where normal moral thinking doesn’t apply” (83). Sobran labels this pretending not to recognize the difference between good and evil as hypocrisy of the worst sort. In the end, though, for him the refusal to call things what they are is just one more fruit of the Left’s hatred of Christianity.

Perhaps the most refreshing part of the book is the playful examination of “noteworthy persons.” Sobran fails to appreciate John Milton sufficiently, finding his manner “tedious and priggish,” but his comments on Samuel Johnson, G. K. Chesterton, and C. S. Lewis are delightful. One example must suffice: “We can only regret that Johnson did not live to confront the Political Heresy in its full bloom [in the French Revolution]; he would never have gotten around to writing a full treatise about it, but he would have found succinct words more memorable than any treatise” (152).

Subtracting Christianity’s remaining six sections focus on relatively narrow topics: abortion, the “Historical Jesus,” papal politics, gay rights, Zionism, and Islam. Throughout, as readers will have come to expect by this point, Sobran pulls no punches. Progressives perusing these essays may dismiss them as unseemly examples of a straight white man’s “punching down,” but in fact most of them are spirited counterattacks in response to one writer or another’s rhetorical assaults on Sobran’s beloved Catholic Church. For example, “Sacraments and Sodomy” (2003) is at once an expression of sympathy for Christians who experience feelings of same-sex attraction and a reply to the “self-absorbed childishness” of popular blogger and gay Catholic Andrew Sullivan, who publicly declared his refusal to attend Mass as long as the Church “failed” to alter its historic teaching on sexuality to embrace homosexual conduct. Sobran observes, “[Sullivan] can’t admit that a principle may be at stake; he demands that the moral law itself be altered to accommodate homosexuals” (306).

Even conservatives may feel squeamish when reading the section titled “For Fear of the Jews.” As noted above, William F. Buckley fired Sobran from National Review in 1993, claiming that a series of his articles criticizing the influence of Israel’s lobbying interests was “contextually anti-Semitic.” In other words, according to Buckley, if Sobran had written similar criticisms of Arab states’ or China’s lobbyists, no one would have thought twice, but the memory of the Holocaust demands that Israel’s lobby be exempt from such treatment. For his part, Sobran believed that “the Jewish lobby is, if not Washington’s 800-pound gorilla, at least in the 500-pound range” and that frank criticism of it had to be on the table (329).

Several of the essays in this section confront in a healthy way Jewish critics of Christianity and the much-maligned Pope Pius XII. Others are sharply critical of Israel and its influence. The most delicate is the 2002 essay that gives its title to the section, not so much for its contents (which deal with the ambiguity of the term “anti-Semitism” and the double standard insisted upon by Israel for its actions) as for its original audience, the annual conference of David Irving’s Institute for Historical Review. The consternation among mainstream conservatives occasioned by Sobran’s appearance before this group was intense; his refusal to cancel the speech allegedly scuttled his opportunity to write a regular column for Patrick Buchanan’s American Conservative magazine, which itself was usually more than ready to take a skeptical line on Israel. Unfortunately, despite Sobran’s declaration that “I expect to be judged by what I say, not whom I say it to” (358), to this day some critics think his guilt by association is all they need to know about him.

Viewed from the perspective of 2017, many of Sobran’s observations are surprisingly timely and his predictions unnervingly prescient. For example, in “Advancing toward Savagery” (2000), Sobran blew the whistle on the selling of aborted children and their body parts. The general public, of course, remained unaware of this practice until the Center for Medical Progress released its bombshell videos of Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards discussing a potential sale of fetal remains in 2015. Several years earlier in “Love and Marriage” (1996), Sobran confronted the incipient movement for same-sex marriage with a brief but cogent argument centered on the social necessity of creating an environment conducive to childrearing; “The whole point of the institution is to make men responsible to their wives and children; no reform that loses sight of that purpose can succeed” (314). In its essentials, this argument is the same as that made by Robert P. George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan Anderson in the widely discussed 2012 book What Is Marriage?. Sobran noted, moreover, that same-sex-marriage advocates wanted already in the mid-1990s to redefine marriage to eliminate the presumption of monogamy; such observations became commonplace in the wake of Obergefell v. Hodges. I found myself repeatedly consulting the original publication dates of essays that speak so directly to our historical moment and shaking my head in disbelief upon realizing how long ago they had been written.

Perhaps the major shortcoming of this collection is that its topical arrangement results in one’s reading the same anecdote or rhetorical point repeatedly in different essays in the space of a few pages, even though the essays themselves might have been published years or decades apart. There may have been no good way around this problem, but I confess to experiencing a bit of tedium after reading, for example, two discussions of Hilaire Belloc’s 1936 warning of a resurgent Islam within ten pages of each other.

On the whole, though, Subtracting Christianity is lively reading. Sobran’s prose style is bracing and worthy of emulation; a perusal of this volume makes clear why so many conservative writers of the last forty years expressed admiration for his essays. The book makes a fine addition to the collection of anyone interested in paleoconservative writing or Christian cultural apologetics.


Jason Jewell

Libertas aut Mors Semper Vigilans Fortis
Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of FREEDOM OR ANARCHY Campaign of Conscience

Thoughts On A New Dark Age




Joseph Sobran. Subtracting Christianity: Essays on American Culture and Society. FGF Books, 2015. 425 pp.

“On the whole, the secularist media seem to be resigned to the election of a Catholic to the papacy” (210). This line, written in 2005 shortly after Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI, is vintage Joe Sobran. It is not just extremely witty. In a few words, it communicates so much: the stability of Roman Catholic doctrine, the hatred of that doctrine by so many moderns, and those moderns’ reluctant acknowledgment that the church is not inclined to change in order to suit them.

Subtracting Christianity: Essays on American Culture and Society, where this line has most recently appeared, is the latest published collection of the essays of Joseph Sobran (1946–2010), one of the most dynamic and controversial journalists of the last generation. Famously fired by William F. Buckley from National Review in 1993 after twenty-one years as editor amid charges of anti-Semitism (an episode recounted in the volume), Sobran continued thereafter to write for many other publications and also became the author of his own newsletter.

Subtracting Christianity features selected writings spanning twenty-five years from various publications, including multiple syndicates, the Catholic newspaper The Wanderer, and SOBRAN’S. It is the second volume of Sobran’s essays the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation has published since his death. (The first was Joseph Sobran: The National Review Years in 2012.) The volume’s unifying theme is the problems created by the contemporary world’s attempts to remove Christian influence from society and culture. The title essay, which appears about midway through the book, is from 1999. In it, Sobran writes, “Modern culture is a negative, not a positive thing. It’s what is left when you subtract Christianity from Christian culture—so it’s a barren, bloodless, desiccated, and uninspiring thing, sometimes called ‘secular humanism’” (185). Sacrifice, honor, nobility, and chastity all become meaningless and absurd. Without the ability to inspire, secularized culture becomes legalistic and social relations turn into legal and political relations. Most of the essays in the book turn on this idea in some way.


The four-hundred-page volume is divided into eleven sections, beginning with affirmative defenses of the truth of Christianity and reminiscences of Sobran’s own spiritual journey. Here my attention rested on “The Reluctant Anarchist” (2002), in which Sobran traces his meandering journey over several decades toward philosophical anarchism. I noted this piece in particular because I heard it delivered, prior to its publication, as a speech at the Ludwig von Mises Institute before a very enthusiastic audience. Having only recently discovered both Sobran and libertarianism at that point, I was intensely interested in his reasoning through the failure of the US Constitution to prevent the triumph of modern liberalism in the twentieth century. His account of discovering the ideas of Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, coupled with a rediscovery of St. Paul’s and the church fathers’ writings about the state, was compelling to me in 2002 and remains so today.

These early sections also feature several moving essays in which Sobran recounts his own apostasy and rediscovery of the Christian faith in early adulthood. His love for the “strange moral authority” of the Catholic Church is evident; “I don’t defend the Church’s morality because I am a Catholic. I became and remain a Catholic because the Church maintains a consistent morality—while the rest of the world keeps veering off into moral fads” (46). Although most of these essays stress distinctively Catholic ideas, for example, transubstantiation, Sobran also writes appreciatively of Protestants, who “must be among the world’s most decent people” and are often “too nice for their own good” (43).

The heart of the book is the third, fourth, and fifth sections, which describe the “new dark age” of secular liberalism and the “war on Christian society” along with detailed examinations of “noteworthy persons, historic and modern.” For Sobran, the liberals’ “new morality” consists in large part of absolute sexual autonomy and government-sponsored removal of any inconveniences it causes. In “The Real News of the Century” (2000), we find a characteristically robust attack on this position. Sobran argues that all civilized people in world history have recognized some form of natural sexual morality, “perversely confirmed by the universal phenomena, especially in wartime, of obscene sexual insults, sexual torture, and rape, all of which are felt to be ultimate degradations of enemies” (83). In wartime, “men passionately intent on doing evil instinctively express their real convictions in violence against the wives, mothers, and daughters of their foes” (83). Liberals, who can be extremely moralistic on practically every other question, “single out sexual conduct as a privileged circle, where normal moral thinking doesn’t apply” (83). Sobran labels this pretending not to recognize the difference between good and evil as hypocrisy of the worst sort. In the end, though, for him the refusal to call things what they are is just one more fruit of the Left’s hatred of Christianity.

Perhaps the most refreshing part of the book is the playful examination of “noteworthy persons.” Sobran fails to appreciate John Milton sufficiently, finding his manner “tedious and priggish,” but his comments on Samuel Johnson, G. K. Chesterton, and C. S. Lewis are delightful. One example must suffice: “We can only regret that Johnson did not live to confront the Political Heresy in its full bloom [in the French Revolution]; he would never have gotten around to writing a full treatise about it, but he would have found succinct words more memorable than any treatise” (152).

Subtracting Christianity’s remaining six sections focus on relatively narrow topics: abortion, the “Historical Jesus,” papal politics, gay rights, Zionism, and Islam. Throughout, as readers will have come to expect by this point, Sobran pulls no punches. Progressives perusing these essays may dismiss them as unseemly examples of a straight white man’s “punching down,” but in fact most of them are spirited counterattacks in response to one writer or another’s rhetorical assaults on Sobran’s beloved Catholic Church. For example, “Sacraments and Sodomy” (2003) is at once an expression of sympathy for Christians who experience feelings of same-sex attraction and a reply to the “self-absorbed childishness” of popular blogger and gay Catholic Andrew Sullivan, who publicly declared his refusal to attend Mass as long as the Church “failed” to alter its historic teaching on sexuality to embrace homosexual conduct. Sobran observes, “[Sullivan] can’t admit that a principle may be at stake; he demands that the moral law itself be altered to accommodate homosexuals” (306).

Even conservatives may feel squeamish when reading the section titled “For Fear of the Jews.” As noted above, William F. Buckley fired Sobran from National Review in 1993, claiming that a series of his articles criticizing the influence of Israel’s lobbying interests was “contextually anti-Semitic.” In other words, according to Buckley, if Sobran had written similar criticisms of Arab states’ or China’s lobbyists, no one would have thought twice, but the memory of the Holocaust demands that Israel’s lobby be exempt from such treatment. For his part, Sobran believed that “the Jewish lobby is, if not Washington’s 800-pound gorilla, at least in the 500-pound range” and that frank criticism of it had to be on the table (329).

Several of the essays in this section confront in a healthy way Jewish critics of Christianity and the much-maligned Pope Pius XII. Others are sharply critical of Israel and its influence. The most delicate is the 2002 essay that gives its title to the section, not so much for its contents (which deal with the ambiguity of the term “anti-Semitism” and the double standard insisted upon by Israel for its actions) as for its original audience, the annual conference of David Irving’s Institute for Historical Review. The consternation among mainstream conservatives occasioned by Sobran’s appearance before this group was intense; his refusal to cancel the speech allegedly scuttled his opportunity to write a regular column for Patrick Buchanan’s American Conservative magazine, which itself was usually more than ready to take a skeptical line on Israel. Unfortunately, despite Sobran’s declaration that “I expect to be judged by what I say, not whom I say it to” (358), to this day some critics think his guilt by association is all they need to know about him.

Viewed from the perspective of 2017, many of Sobran’s observations are surprisingly timely and his predictions unnervingly prescient. For example, in “Advancing toward Savagery” (2000), Sobran blew the whistle on the selling of aborted children and their body parts. The general public, of course, remained unaware of this practice until the Center for Medical Progress released its bombshell videos of Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards discussing a potential sale of fetal remains in 2015. Several years earlier in “Love and Marriage” (1996), Sobran confronted the incipient movement for same-sex marriage with a brief but cogent argument centered on the social necessity of creating an environment conducive to childrearing; “The whole point of the institution is to make men responsible to their wives and children; no reform that loses sight of that purpose can succeed” (314). In its essentials, this argument is the same as that made by Robert P. George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan Anderson in the widely discussed 2012 book What Is Marriage?. Sobran noted, moreover, that same-sex-marriage advocates wanted already in the mid-1990s to redefine marriage to eliminate the presumption of monogamy; such observations became commonplace in the wake of Obergefell v. Hodges. I found myself repeatedly consulting the original publication dates of essays that speak so directly to our historical moment and shaking my head in disbelief upon realizing how long ago they had been written.

Perhaps the major shortcoming of this collection is that its topical arrangement results in one’s reading the same anecdote or rhetorical point repeatedly in different essays in the space of a few pages, even though the essays themselves might have been published years or decades apart. There may have been no good way around this problem, but I confess to experiencing a bit of tedium after reading, for example, two discussions of Hilaire Belloc’s 1936 warning of a resurgent Islam within ten pages of each other.

On the whole, though, Subtracting Christianity is lively reading. Sobran’s prose style is bracing and worthy of emulation; a perusal of this volume makes clear why so many conservative writers of the last forty years expressed admiration for his essays. The book makes a fine addition to the collection of anyone interested in paleoconservative writing or Christian cultural apologetics.


Jason Jewell

Libertas aut Mors Semper Vigilans Fortis
Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of FREEDOM OR ANARCHY Campaign of Conscience