Monday, July 22, 2019

Update on Tracie Hunter. Justice is finally served when she is dragged off to jail.

After a 5-year long battle in the Ohio legal system, a convicted Democrat was finally sent off to jail to serve a six month sentence. This was no ordinary Democrat. This was Tracie Hunter who up until her conviction was an elected Hamilton County Juvenile Court Judge. And in a final act of defiance Tracie Hunter had to be literally dragged out of the courtroom this morning after losing the last of her numerous appeals.

I have been following the career of this woman since 2010 when she lost the election in Hamilton County to a Republican until after she won a federal lawsuit that required some previously uncounted votes to be counted. When they were counted, Hunter received enough votes to vault her over John Williams and win the election.
In the years following Tracie Hunter, a Black woman, began to demonstrate racial bias and favoritism toward Black defendants and I began to keep a record. But it was only after a Grand Jury indicted Tracie Hunter for 8-Felony counts of abuse in office was she put on trial for her crimes. The jury verdict was hung on 7 counts but convicted her of one and she was sentenced to six months in jail.

Watch the video of this disgraced former judge being dragged from the courtroom this morning. Justice is finally served.

Wednesday, June 26, 2019

Patriots call for NRA Executive Vice-President Wayne LaPierre's resignation

Alexander's Column

The Second Amendment v NRA Fratricidal Fire

"The NRA must get its act together quickly [and] stop the internal fighting." —Donald Trump
Mark Alexander · Jun. 26, 2019
“The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone. … The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any…” —James Madison (1788)
When I was 19, during the summer between my freshman and sophomore years, I graduated from a state police academy, which provided certification to work as a uniformed patrolman while completing my undergraduate degree. I was old enough to carry a sidearm as a police officer, but too young to purchase a handgun for academy training, so a department head purchased the gun for me to use for qualifications. These were the days just before semi-auto pistols became the standard sidearm, and my supervisor suggested a Colt revolver — a .357 Magnum Python with a four-inch barrel. It was my first sidearm, and I still have it.
I was the youngest recruit at the academy that summer, but on qualification day, I took the top marksmanship award with that Python — much to the mocking of the more experienced officers in my class. In the years that followed, I was involved in more than a few memorable calls ranging from humorous to life-threatening, and that Python was on my side for the whole tour. I even had the privilege of walking perimeter gun for two presidents.
A few years after graduating from college, I heard about two six-inch Pythons that were part of an estate sale — serial numbers three and five — and I managed to purchase those guns ahead of the auction for $2,500. That was a lot of money 30 years ago, and it was one of the most expensive “collectible” purchases I’ve ever made. But I have no regrets. In 2016, when doing an insurance evaluation, I thought those guns might now be worth twice their original value, and had each appraised. Much to my surprise, multiple appraisals returned values well into six figures for the pair. I was shocked at those valuations and decided against keeping something of such value in my house and paying those premiums.
Why am I telling you this?
Because I could’ve sold the two Pythons and put the proceeds against our home mortgage. But instead of having those end up in a private collection on somebody else’s shelf, I decided to share them with tens of thousands of people, and donated the pair to the NRA museum. They now belong to the NRA.
I did so because, like all Patriots, I’m a firearms enthusiast, and I want this donation to help inspire the next generation of Second Amendment defenders. Far more important than the value of those Pythons as works of art (which I think they are) is the fact that we need defenders of American Liberty in every generation — those who are committed to ensuring that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Which leads me to this…
There is no way to put a smiley face on the contentious and disgraceful leadership disputes at the National Rifle Association. While those spilled into the public domain in April, for years concerns about how the organization spends its member dues have been simmering among some board and staff members.
After former NRA President Oliver North resigned in late April — during the national convention in Indianapolis — it became clear that those expenditure concerns were not only unresolved, but had metastasized.
For the record, I’m a lifetime member of the NRA.
Let me state clearly that I take no pleasure in publishing the following analysis, which may infringe upon some annual support from a few NRA principals. But my devotion and our Patriot Post team’s allegiance is, first and foremost, to Liberty, which is protected, first and foremost, by our Constitution’s Second Amendment. Thus, central to The Patriot Post’s mission is advocating for the Second Amendment.
By extension, we stand with the grassroots Americans who sustain Liberty — and the five million NRA members whose dues sustain that organization’s standing as the nation’s foremost defender of the Second Amendment against enemies seeking to weaken or repeal that venerable “palladium of the liberties of the republic.”
In his resignation letter, North, who was elected to his NRA office in May of 2018, wrote about his concern regarding the organization’s spending, and specifically that of NRA Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre: “There is a clear crisis — it needs to be dealt with immediately and responsibly so the NRA can continue to focus on protecting our Second Amendment.” North was in the process of setting up a special committee to look into alleged financial misappropriations, which he believed were serious enough to threaten the NRA’s nonprofit status.
LaPierre, who has been at the NRA’s helm since 1991 and has the support of most of the NRA board, retained his position after North’s departure. He’s been a very effective leader for many years, and he now enjoys an annual compensation package of more than $5 million.
The NRA tried to contain this internal dispute, but within weeks of North’s resignation and replacement by Carolyn Meadows, one of the NRA’s most respected board members, Allen West, called for LaPierre’s resignation.
West, a former U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, former U.S. congressman, and longtime defender of the Second Amendment, said: “I do not support Wayne LaPierre continuing as the EVP/CEO of the NRA. There is a cabal of cronyism operating within the NRA and that exists within the Board of Directors. It must cease, and I do not care if I draw their angst. … It’s very important for us to have the trust and confidence of the members.”
Indeed it is.
At a time when the mayors of the nation’s most powerful socialist Democrat urban centers, New York and Los Angeles, in collusion with their Leftmedia propagandists, are trying to silence the NRA’s advocacy of our First Civil Right — the Second Amendment — by suppressing the organization’s First Amendment rights, the NRA dispute has become a very public distraction from its all-important agenda.
LaPierre said of the New York case, “This is perhaps the most important First Amendment case in the history of the United States of America.” Unfortunately, what the NRA leadership is also dealing with is the most significant challenge to its organizational support and tax status in its history, and the Demo/MSM talkingheads are basking in the glow of this circular fratricidal fire.
Coinciding with North’s resignation, the NRA sued its ad agency, Ackerman McQueen, over millions of dollars in billing issues and amid accusations of questionable expenses, including those of LaPierre. As a result, the NRA announced Tuesday that it is shutting down NRATV.
Then, earlier this month, LaPierre decided to file suit against North over his alleged effort to “coerce” LaPierre’s resignation.
Adding insult to injury, LaPierre then suspended NRA legislative director Chris Cox for the same reason. Cox, who also ran the NRA’s PAC and was arguably more indispensable than LaPierre, responded to his suspension, saying, “For over 24 years, I have been a loyal and effective leader in this organization. My efforts have always been focused on serving the members of the National Rifle Association, and I will continue to focus all of my energy on carrying out our core mission of defending the Second Amendment.”
In the best interest of the NRA’s mission, Cox elected to resign today.
By way of disclosure, I’ve met all of the above players, but I know LaPierre and Cox primarily by reputation.
However, I first met LtCol Oliver North more than 30 years ago when he worked for Ronald Reagan’s National Security Council. After his involvement in the so-called Iran-Contra Affair, I helped North’s former commanding general raise the funds necessary for North’s legal defense. In 1991, his convictions were vacated and reversed, and all charges filed against him dismissed.
Suffice it to say, I supported North because he was then, and remains now, a Patriot of the first order.
As for LtCol Allen West, in 2003 The Patriot Post was his earliest defender after he was charged with violating Articles 128 (assault) and 134 (general article) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The charges stemmed from an incident during Operation Iraqi Freedom, when West received an intelligence briefing of a pending plot to ambush men under his command near Tikrit, Iraq. In an effort to convince a detainee to divulge what he knew about the plot, West discharged his sidearm within safe proximity of the man’s head. “I know the method I used was not right,” said West, “but I wanted to take care of my soldiers.”
He did just that, and in order to defend West, we launched a successful media campaign. His charges were ultimately referred to an Article 15 proceeding instead of a court-martial, which resulted in a fine, but he was still relieved of his command. Notably, there were no ambushes against American forces in Taji until after West’s departure.
As is the case with Oliver North, Allen West is a Patriot of the first order.
The bottom line with the NRA disputes is this: It’s Wayne LaPierre against North, West, and Cox — and, increasingly, against the NRA’s grassroots membership. So, who should I side with amid what firearms policy expert Stephen Gutowski correctly labels “Chaos at the NRA”?
As such battles of Titans go, there is one thing that is plain to me, and it does not require taking any side other than that of the Second Amendment.
In his own letter to the NRA board about the dispute, LaPierre began with these words: “Leaders in every walk of life must often choose: between what is true, and what is polite; between what is convenient, and what is right.”
Regardless of the accusations being fired between battle lines, and taking full account of Wayne LaPierre’s remarkable service leading the NRA’s defense of the Second Amendment for decades, a growing number of NRA members agree with Allen West — that “what is right” for the good of the organization and its mission is for LaPierre to fall on his sword and humbly bow out. The fact he did not do so months ago is troubling.
Watching the NRA’s slow-motion leadership meltdown is reminiscent of another recent leadership meltdown that has left a once-great conservative organization in marked decline. It is my hope that the NRA does not go the way of the Boy Scouts of America. The NRA board needs to understand that the current dispute will show up in waning support for the organization in the coming years, if not resolved now.
The NRA’s most visible supporter, Donald Trump, insists, “The NRA … must get its act together quickly, stop the internal fighting, and get back to greatness fast!”
Achieving that goal is LaPierre’s responsibility.
All who stand with us as defenders of American Liberty have a stake in resolving the NRA dispute, and Justice Joseph Story outlined why in his foundational Commentaries on the Constitution: “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
(P.S. Wayne, if you can’t do the right thing, my wife would appreciate the return of those Pythons so we can retire our mortgage.)
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776

P.S. Since we launched The Patriot Post nearly 23 years ago, we’ve grown to become the Web’s most trusted grassroots journal dedicated to the preservation of Liberty. But we couldn’t have done it without the voluntary financial generosity of Patriots like you. Please support our 2019 Independence Day Campaign today — any amount, large or small, helps fund our operations into the third quarter.

My name is Nelson Abdullah and I am Oldironsides.
For the record I have been a Life Member of the NRA for over 50 years and a Benefactor Level member for the last 10 years. I have also been vocal in protesting the NRA past policies aligning themselves with Democrats. Here is a list of my columns criticizing the NRA.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Heroes of the NRA shaft American gun owners. Again.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
The day after the tidal wave hit Washington

Friday, August 13, 2010
The short history of the NRA: When you dance with the Devil you will get burned.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Is the NRA about to commit the ultimate treachery against gun owners?

Monday, June 13, 2011
Jeff Knox knows what's wrong with the NRA and so do I.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010
NRA Political Victory Fund chairman Chris W. Cox needs a brain transplant

Tuesday, November 9, 2010
When playing politics, don't let 'backburning' bite you in the butt.

Saturday, November 20, 2010
Wayne LaPierre continues to complain about the monster the NRA helped create.

Monday, May 2, 2011
Can we really believe this: "NRA Vows to Take Down Obama in 2012”

Saturday, August 28, 2010
I've told the NRA: Not one damn dime for a Democrat

Wednesday, July 21, 2010
NRA-PVF Chairman Chris W. Cox tries to soothe anti-Reid complaints

Monday, April 9, 2012
The NRA is a contradiction in logic. You cannot fight the anti-gun politicians and feed them at the same time.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Wayne LaPierre Standing Guard: His left hand doesn't know what his right hand is doing.

Monday, August 30, 2010
NRA supports Democrats who support amnesty and gun control

Friday, July 2, 2010
Responding to the treachery of the National Rifle Association.

Friday, June 21, 2019

National Black Republicans Association responds to House Democrats call for Reparations

Ten years ago in September 2009 I began to write a political blog. I called it my Conscience of a Conservative. One of the first posts I did was an outreach to the National Black Republicans Association and reposted the most remarkable story I ever read. It was a detailed rewrite of 200 years of racist history at the hands of the Democrat Party. The story was a list of grievances committed by Democrats against Black people in America.

Reparations Petition to Congress
Demanding a Formal Apology to  African Americans
 for the
 Democratic Party’s 200-year History of Racism

Frances Presley Rice is the creator of this blog and recently revisited the subject when the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives opened up the subject this week of the American government paying restitution to Black Americans for the years of slavery. This is her response.

Friday, June 21, 2019

BOOM: Burgess Owens drops truth bomb, says DEMOCRATS need to pay reparations for slavery

By Chris Pandolfo

Blaze Media | Facebook

Testifying to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil liberties Wednesday, former Oakland Raider Burgess Owens shocked the room by reminding the Democrats their party was the party of slavery.

Democrats had set up the hearing to inquire about passing slavery reparations for black Americans. Owens, a conservative, submitted that if any modern Americans should be held responsible for the evils of slavery and forced to pay restitution for it, it should be the Democratic Party.

“I used to be a Democrat until I did my history and found out the misery that that party brought to my race,” Owens said.

He continued, "I do believe in restitution. Let's point to the party that was part of slavery, KKK, Jim Crow, that has killed over 40% of our black babies, 20 million of them. State of California, 75% of our black boys can't past standard reading and writing test, a Democratic state. Let's pay reparation. Let's pay restitution. How about a Democratic Party pay for all the misery brought to my race."

The Democrats were left speechless.

Author: Chris Pandolfo is a staff writer and type-shouter for Conservative Review. He holds a B.A. in politics and economics from Hillsdale College. His interests are conservative political philosophy, the American founding, and progressive rock. Follow him on Twitter for doom-saying and great album recommendations @ChrisCPandolfo.


Sunday, June 9, 2019

Repost: The Schizophrenic Muslim Mind

The Schizophrenic Muslim Mind

Muslims are torn by two competing realities. The first is the illusion of supremacy upon which they have been suckled all their lives by the Mother of all books (the Qur’an). The second is the real world in which they have to live.
See the source image
Talk with an average Muslim and sooner rather than later you will hear him/her boast — theirs is the best religion (“Today I have perfected for you your religion” — Quran 5.3); they have the best prophet (Muhammad is the seal of the prophets, i.e., the final prophet with Allah’s most complete revelation for mankind); they have the best book (the Qur’an is the literal, inimitable, unchangeable words of Allah); the best people (“You are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind” — 3.110); theirs is the best language (the language of Arabic is the language of heaven, and certainly the language of revelation); they have the best law (Shari’a is divine law, and all the world should be governed by it); they have the best “blood” (i.e., according to divine law the shedding of a Muslim’s blood is a capital crime, while the shedding of the blood of a kafir is halal (permitted), in some cases requiring a payment of restitution to the victim’s family, in other cases stirring promises of heavenly rewards for dispatching a disbeliever properly to hellfire.
Indoctrinated to believe in Islam’s paramountcy, and therefore in their supremacy over everything non-Islamic, Muslims mindlessly roar “Allahu akbar” in unison whenever the imperative “takbir” is shouted. 
See the source image
Often wrongly translated in the West as “Allah is great,” what this means more precisely is “Allah is greater!” It is a claim to superiority, to the supremacy of Allah’s name over any rival which the non-Muslim world might offer in competition.
As Allah’s followers, Muslims believe it is mandatory that they rule over non-Muslims. Slaves are permitted, because infidels lack the dignity and valoiue of Muslims. Islamic law forbids that non-Muslims ever hold positions of authority over Muslims, especially in government. The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights (the Islamic world’s 1990 response to the 1948 United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Muslim governments refused to acknowledge) openly states:
“The right to hold public office can only be exercised in accordance with the Shari’a, which forbids Muslims to submit to the rule of non-Muslims.”
Moreover, Muslims who rule can only do so in accordance with Islamic law — they are not permitted to innovate. Because Islam is perfect and supreme, according to its leaders, critical inquiry is not allowed. Any thinking which might question the received faith is initially discouraged, and if pursued, finally punished. According to the Quran (33:36):
It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.
The most chilling extension of this suppression is, of course, the penalty of apostasy, which all the schools of Shari’a (both Sunni and Shi’ite) label a capital crime, with execution typically by beheading.
So Muslims are raised to believe in the supremacy of Islam over all else, and they toe the line well under the shadow of the sword of judgment. But here is where real life begins to interfere with fantasy.
If Islam indeed is the best religion, why does it need a law to compel people to remain within its confines?
If it is the perfection of revealed truth, why is critical inquiry not encouraged? After all, an honest search for truth should lead toward what is ultimately true, and not away from it. Truth stands up under scrutiny. So, why not encourage scholars to study the early manuscript evidence of the Qur’an and reveal to their lay audiences the facts that there is no original text of the Qur’an in existence, and that the various early manuscripts which do exist contain discrepancies from one another.
If the Qur’an is only truly the revealed words of Allah when read and understood in classical Arabic, why did Allah not cause all humanity to speak Arabic, so that the world could truly grasp his revelation? Why today does less than one quarter of the world’s Muslim population speak or read Arabic, and even fewer among that elite group understand the ancient and complex classical Arabic of the Qur’an? Why do Muslim scholars not openly admit that due to the mists of history and evolution of language, roughly one out of every five sentences in the Qur’an is unintelligible, and we are left with the best guesses of linguists?
Why is the eternal, perfect revelation of Allah concerned about squabbles in Muhammad’s harem, or with whether he can marry the divorced wife of his adopted son? Why should the timeless word give detailed instructions about caravan raids and battles with neighbors? Would not one hope that God’s best revelation to the human race should contain things more lofty than the prosaic concerns of a desert warrior?
Wouldn’t we hope for a restatement or clarification of the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount from the Mother of All Books? And yet we find in the Qur’an no clear teaching of a universal morality woven into the fabric of creation by its Monarch. Indeed, if the Qur’an and Shari’a are any indication, what is “moral” or “righteous” before Allah is that which advances the cause of Islam (whatever it takes), and what is “wrong” is whatever impedes that advance:
O believers, whosoever of you turns from his religion, God will assuredly bring a people He loves, and who love Him, humble towards the believers, disdainful towards the unbelievers, men who struggle in the path of God, not fearing the reproach of any reproacher. That is God’s bounty; He gives it unto whom He will; and God is All-embracing, All-knowing (5:54).
 Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan (4:76).
Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves (48.29).
This is what leads to the summary doctrine of Islam known as al-Walaa’ w’al-Baraa’ (Loyalty and Disavowal).  A Muslim is to devote himself to everything that pleases Allah and to oppose whatever displeases Allah. Morality is defined by what pleases Allah (what advances his supremacy within creation), and immorality becomes whatever stands between Allah and recognition of his supremacy. Oppression, murder, slavery, rape, deception, hatred of the infidel, all become sanctified tools of Allah if they serve to extend his kingdom on earth (i.e., the Muslim conquest of non-Muslims).
Muslims who are troubled by such partisan morality cast their eyes around the world to other cultures and see more elevated, even universal, versions of moral order. They see in the West the stand for universal rights and freedoms, and the aspiration that all human beings should be treated equally. Then they look back at the 57 Muslim-majority nations in the world, and note the number of dictatorships, the endemic nepotism within their leadership, and the rank corruption of their political and religious leaders.
They see that according to international studies, Muslim countries steadily rank at or near the bottom when it comes to personal freedoms, economic opportunities, standard of living, education, and equal rights. They see that human slavery has been eradicated over most of the non-Muslim world, but that it continues to thrive in the heart of the Islamic ummah.
They recognize that all of the blockbuster scientific discoveries and mind-bending technological breakthroughs, all the impetus for invention and innovation, come from the non-Muslim world. Not least among these achievements are the continuous military upgrades which make the West far superior in might than even the best equipped Muslim coalition could conceivably muster.
These realities are what lead to the schizophrenic Muslim mind. While yelling “Allahu akbar,” active Muslim supremacists are forced to scatter for cover whenever US drones are overhead. Knowing they are militarily inferior to infidel forces, jihadis are compelled to use the tactics of asymmetrical warfare: hit and run thrusts, lone wolf suicide bombers, terror attacks against soft targets. They turn as well to non-military tactics, making use of immigration and refugee policies in the West which allow them to infiltrate in large numbers, live as parasite on government welfare, and out-reproduce the native populations so as to increase their size and influence in the decades to come.
Just a few years ago, the Islamic State (ISIS), inebriated with its success in Iraq and Syria, boasted that soon the black flag of Muhammad and his followers would fly over the White House. They boasted ad nauseum that nothing could stop their advance, Allah willing.
See the source image
Apparently, Allah was not willing, because when the Trump administration took charge in the White House and decided to act decisively against ISIS in Syria, it was expunged in short order. The roars of Allahu akbar receded into the silence of impotence.
All these tactics and setbacks are an implicit admission that Islam is not superior to the non-Muslim, Western world — even with all our moral weaknesses, the West still outshines the Islamic world in terms of human rights and privileges; our quest for truth in the scientific and technological realms dwarfs that of the Muslim nations; our military strength leads to their saber-rattling and shaky knees, but no offensive engagements.
How can it be that the subjects of Islam, to whom Allah has promised supremacy over all the world, should find themselves inferior to the non-Muslim societies of the West and East? How can it be that there is no Caliphate since the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1922 which sits as King of the hill, forcing infidel lands into submission before Allah? Why has Allah allowed disbelievers to effectively overrule the Muslim agenda and advance their own instead?
These are questions that the Islamic world is loath to address, because they expose the weaknesses of a religious community indoctrinated to believe it has no weaknesses and must always triumph in the cause of Allah. The Muslim Brotherhood, and other fanatical groups, to their credit have faced these questions. Their answer is that the Muslim world has lost to the West because it has not been committed enough to the cause of Allah and his prophet. If Muslims en masse offer their full devotion to Islam, Allah will make them once again victorious over the infidel world.
But for most other Muslims, this is not a palatable option. Thus, they are content to live a schizophrenic existence, closing their eyes and reciting that they are the best of all peoples with the best of all religions, all the while sensing, deep within their psyches, that it is a lie.
Reposted with permission.

Thursday, May 2, 2019

God Bless America

For all those liberal bigots out there, the song GOD BLESS AMERICA, was written by a Russian Jew named Irving Berlin as a thank you for the blessings this country gave him. There is an interesting story behind this along with a video of the first radio broadcast of the song by Kate Smith.

Friday, April 12, 2019

The real cause of the child sex scandal in the Catholic Church

It must be part of the mental illness that prevents liberals from accepting any blame for the mess they make. It happens everywhere they go, in government, in business and even in the Catholic Church, previously known for being the Rock of the Ages. I know a small part of this story from personal experience because I was there.

My wife Jacqueline and I were married in 1960 in St. Genevieve's a small Catholic Church in Roxbury, New York, the town she grew up in. When we moved back there in 1965 with our three small children we attended Mass every Sunday. Back then the Mass was totally different than it is today but it was already in the process of changing because of the edicts handed down from the 2nd Vatican Council in Rome a few years before.

In the last 20 or 30 years the Catholic Church has been embroiled in a worldwide sex abuse scandal involving children. Mostly young Altar Boys abused by homosexual priests. The abuses began years before but were covered up by homosexual Cardinals and Bishops and the stench took many years to reach the light of day. As a side effect of the scandals many church parishes were bankrupted by the huge civil lawsuits that followed.

When the liberal theologians convened The 2nd Vatican Council they turned the Catholic Church upside down. It literally turned the inside of churches backward when the altar, primary focus of the Celebration of the Mass, was replaced by a table and the priest who before was facing the altar, leading the congregation, was now facing the people putting on a display. The other big change in the Celebration of the Mass was to replace the centuries old Latin text that had always been used worldwide with whatever the colloquial language happened to be. These were only the outward visible signs of change. The unseen changes were directed against the role the priests played among their flock, they were becoming more secular.  It was the accumulation of all the changes that had a profound affect on the seminaries where young men studied for the priesthood. The seminaries were becoming empty. In a desperate move to attract more men the church lowered the standards for entering the priesthood. And it was then, in the late 1960s that homosexuals flooded into the seminaries.
Make no mistake and do not believe the liberal media that so often defends them, by their very nature, homosexuals are pedophiles and young boys are their secret desire.

Jump to the present day and read the story behind the Fox News headline:
Retired Pope Benedict weighs in Catholic Church sex abuse scandals, blames it on swinging 60s

You might almost think he got it right when retired Pope Benedict XVI wrote: "Absence of God, the sexual revolution of the swinging ‘60s and the formation of “homosexual cliques” in seminaries are to blame for the Catholic Church’s rampant sex abuse scandals."

The Catholic Church has always been by its very nature a conservative organization, always the historical bastion of civilization, which played such an important part in the development of the Western world. That made the Catholic Church a target in the mindset of liberals, progressives and Marxist-Socialists. As with other revolutions throughout history, just look at Russia as a prime example, it was necessary first to destroy the ruling organization to begin to tear down any civilization.
In the 1970s I met a young man who was attending a Catholic Seminary in Huntington, Long Island. His name was Clarence Kelly and he gave me first-hand accounts of what life was like back there. After being ordained he wrote a book, "Conspiracy Against God And Man"

Rev. Kelly and I became friends for many years when I still lived in New York. I bought a copy of his book in 1974 and he autographed it for me. You may be surprised to see what this book now costs on the link above.

Some useful reference can be found here:
Society of Saint Pius V
The Society of Saint Pius V (SSPV; Latin: Societas Sacerdotalis Sancti Pii Quinti), is a Traditionalist Catholic society of priests, formed in 1983 and based in Oyster Bay Cove, New York. The priests of SSPV broke away from the Society of St. Pius X over liturgical issues, and hold that many in the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church no longer adhere to the Catholic faith but instead profess a new, modernist, Conciliar religion. SSPV priests regard the questions of the legitimacy of the present hierarchy and the possibility that the Holy See is unoccupied (sedevacantism) to be unresolved. The SSPV is led by its founder, Bishop Clarence Kelly.
To be perfectly honest and candid there is one teaching of Christ I have difficulty understanding when He preached about how we should love our enemies. I do not consider myself a heretic in saying this but unless Jesus had a different meaning for the "love" he prescribed for our enemies, I think that left unchecked those enemies will ultimately destroy His church and the rest of our civilization. If that is the preordained climax that leads to the Book of Revelations in the bible and our Apocalypse then it is the Word of God but where does it say we good Christians should not rise up and protect our church and our civilization from its enemies?
Christians all over the world are being persecuted today, many are killed for refusing to deny Jesus. In America today Christian churches are firebombed and congregations are massacred. A few churches have resorted to placing armed guards for protection.
In the Middle East under the domination of Islam, Muslims still wage a 7th Century war against Jews and Christians because the Qur'an, their so-called holy book tells them to do so.  Christian homes are marked by the Arabic letter "N" which represents "Nasrani" the followers of the Nazarene.
I am a Nasrani.
My name is Nelson Abdullah and I am Oldironsides

Tuesday, April 2, 2019

Shame on FOX19 my local Fox TV station for covering up Democrats dirty deeds

Shame on FOX19 my local Fox TV station WXIX Channel 19. They just ran a story about some state legislators in Ohio proposing to award Ohio Electoral Votes to the nation-wide winner of the presidential popular vote - and did not mention the name or party affiliation of who wrote the proposal. Republicans are well aware that the popular vote is controlled by the liberal states of California and New York and eliminating the Electoral College would prevent a Republican from ever again getting elected president.
Most of the states use a winner-take-all method to apply the votes from their delegates while a few states allow the votes from the delegates on the Electoral College to be proportioned to the Election Day vote tally within that state. But this Ohio proposal would effectively disenfranchise every Ohio voter by giving their votes to another state. So if this amendment passes then Republican Ohio voters might just as well stay home on Election Day and let California and New York Democrats decide who will be president.
The Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution had the wisdom and foresight to balance the power of the smaller states against the power of the large states. That same Constitution has worked very well for 230 years so if anyone doesn't like it there is a formal way to adopt an amendment to change the U.S. Constitution. A ballot petition isn't the right way. The Democrats lost the presidential election because their influence doesn't extend beyond the liberal coastal states.
Recently, WXIX reported several stories about 5 Cincinnati City Council members who called themselves The Gang of Five and didn't remind their viewers these people were ALL DEMOCRATS. So when Democrats do dirty deeds their party affiliation isn't important enough to write about.

Here is a perfect example how unethical Democrats work and how the news media hides their party affiliation.

If you don’t live in Cincinnati, Ohio or the surrounding suburbs you probably haven’t heard about The Gang of Five, the self-named Democrat majority on the Cincinnati City Council.

It was discovered months ago these five Democrats, who held the majority of City Council votes, had decided to conduct city business among themselves in violation of the Open Records law. The investigation into their cell phone, text messages and emails has cost the taxpayers over one million dollars. 

In almost every newspaper story their Democrat Party affiliation is never mentioned. This is how the news media provides cover for Democrats.

Gang of Five: Democrat Wendell Young, Democrat P.G. Sittenfeld, Democrat Chris Seelbach, Democrat Greg Landsman and Democrat Tamaya Dennard.

Cincinnati City Council Members
Greg Landsman (D)
David Mann (C, D)
Amy Murray (C, R)
Chris Seelbach (D)
Tamaya Dennard (D) President Pro-Tem
P.G. Sittenfeld (D)
Christopher Smitherman (I) Vice Mayor
Jeff Pastor (R)
Wendell Young (D)

Party designations: C - Charter Party. D - Democratic Party. I - Independent / Unendorsed. R - Republican Party

Friday, March 22, 2019

Should Chief Justice John Roberts be removed from the Supreme Court if he broke the law?

The integrity of judicial decisions demands impartiality. But what happens when someone holds a gun to the head of the blind lady holding the scales of justice? In this case, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

This first quoted source is dated, March 1, 2019.
Hold the Revolution: Roberts Keeps Joining High Court Liberals
“Chief Justice John Roberts is showing a new willingness to side with the U.S. Supreme Court’s liberal wing after the divisive confirmation fight over Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Roberts joined the liberals Wednesday in two rulings that left the conservatives in dissent. Most notably, he cast the deciding vote to order a new look at the mental competence of a death row inmate who says he can’t remember the crimes he committed.”
Why would he do such a thing?

Chief Justice John Roberts has been a reliably conservative upholder of the Constitution since he was appointed to the Supreme Court by President George W. Bush in 2005. But in 2012, he went off the deep end over the ObamaCare matter. 

When the ObamaCare case went before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012, Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to be inclined to overturn it on the rule of law which declared the mandate as a penalty was unconstitutional, but then he switched his position at the last moment and wrote the deciding opinion to uphold ObamaCare on a new technical definition where Roberts dreamed up how the mandate was a tax and not a penalty as it was enacted.
It was rumored at the time that he had been blackmailed with the revelation about illegally adopting two Irish born children.
Source:  Personal Liberty column written by Bob Livingston
More Evidence That The U.S. Government Is A Criminal Enterprise, July 15, 2013
“It’s likely that Chief Justice John Roberts, who switched his vote in the final minutes before the Supreme Court released its Obamacare decision, did so because he was blackmailed over the illegal adoption of his children.”
But first some background. 

Do you know how Barack Hussein Obama became a U.S. Senator from Illinois? Obama won the seat in 2004 in an election against Alan Keyes who replaced the Republican Primary election winner, Jack Ryan. Therein lies the mystery.
Jack Ryan was a popular Republican Senator from Illinois. He was married to Jeri Lynn Zimmerman, former Miss Illinois 1989, later known as Hollywood actress Jeri Ryan from 1991-1999.  During their divorce, Jeri Ryan claimed in court that her husband took her to sex clubs in New York and Paris. The important point is the divorce records were sealed by the court. It was rumored that someone loyal to Barack Hussein Obama managed to get a hold of the records and release them to the media, which caused Jack Ryan to end his reelection campaign and resign.

Source: Jeri Ryan -- The Real Obama Girl
“If Barack Obama ends up winning the White House, the first person he should probably thank on Election Night is ... Jeri Ryan. Like, "Star Trek's" Seven of Nine Jeri Ryan? Yup.

Let's explain. Back in 2004, when Obama was a small-time State Senator from Illinois and running for a U.S. Senate seat, his GOP opponent was Jack Ryan, a super-wealthy businessman who was actually favored in the contest -- and who had gone through a messy divorce from ... Jeri Ryan.

The divorce was a slapfight of Hasselhoffian proportions, and Jeri's allegations that Jack had forced her to go to sex clubs in New York and Paris -- and wanted her to have sex with him in the clubs -- completely ruined Jack's campaign ... and Obama went on to win the seat. And now, perhaps, the one in the Oval Office.”
So is it even possible to question the integrity of any of Barack Hussein Obama's most trusted aids who managed to get a copy of records sealed by a court? It is not too far a stretch to imagine that given the level of political intrigue in Washington that someone would look for an angle to twist some arms. If Obama was so desperate to protect his landmark legislation, is it conceivable he would blackmail the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?

Back in August 2005, a website called Underneath the robes, which specialized in rumors heard in the hallways of our highest courts, ran a story about the adoption of two Irish-born babies by Chief Justice John Roberts and his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts.
In 2000, Chief Justice John Roberts and his wife Jane Sullivan Roberts adopted two infant babies born that same year in Ireland.  According to the law in Ireland at the time, children born in Ireland could only be adopted by citizens of Ireland. To skirt around the law, the two infants were flown to Bolivia where the adoption was finalized.
It is very possible the source for the blackmail, if that is what happened, came from this courthouse blog in 2005. All it would take would be a whisper in the ear that we know you broke the law so you better play our game.

3. So were the children adopted from Ireland?

This is not clear -- the Associated Press reports that they were "adopted from Latin America." This seems a bit puzzling, in light of the Time magazine report indicating that the children were born in Ireland. Also, their blonde hair and fair skin do not seem conventionally Latin American. Perhaps the children were born in Ireland, but were in Latin America immediately prior to their adoption.

4. How were the children adopted?

According to The New York Times, based on information from Mrs. Roberts's sister, Mary Torre, the children were adopted through a private adoption. As explained by Families for Private Adoption, "[p]rivate (or independent) adoption is a legal method of building a family through adoption without using an adoption agency for placement. In private adoption, the birth parents relinquish their parental rights directly to the adoptive parents, instead of to an agency.”
A person who identified herself as Ellen immediately posted the following comment to sum up the rumor.
Comment by: Ellen.
Does Ireland place children for adoption internationally? If not, then he probably did some finagling to have the children sent to Bolivia so they could adopt them in that country. But that doesn't really make any sense, as he and his wife are not citizens of Bolivia.

A possible scenario: The Roberts wanted to adopt, put out some feelers, found two pregnant women around the same time in Ireland, and it was all arranged privately. I don't think it's common practice to set out to adopt one child and then suddenly have an opportunity to adopt a second almost immediately after. Usually, for the common folk, you have to wait and then go through the process again for the 2nd child.

But the scenario above would enable them to skirt US (?) and Irish law, perhaps.

The fishy thing is who was responsible for the children after they left Ireland and arrived Bolivia? I don't think an adoption agency would be party to whatever occurred here.

Posted by: Ellen | August 09, 2005 at 11:07 PM
Just today, I read CNN author Joan Biskupic's abbreviated excerpt from her book, “The inside story of how John Roberts negotiated to save Obamacare”, on CNN Politics. Given the fact that CNN is one of the prime sources of Fake News, it is easy to suspect anything relating back to the Democrats self-anointed holy man, Barack Hussein Obama, would be scrubbed clean of any innuendo.  I wanted to ask her what she may have known about the rumor that the Chief Justice was being blackmailed to change his position on ObamaCare because of his illegal adoption of two Irish children from Ireland. The only contact I could find was for Kait Howard, Publicist, BASIC BOOKS so I sent her an email. I will update this if, and when, I get an answer.