Share

Sunday, August 26, 2018

In "Historic Bombshell", Vatican Official Accuses Pope Francis Of Covering Up Sexual Abuse, Calls For Resignation

Profile picture for user Tyler Durden 

by Tyler Durden

Sun, 08/26/2018 - 09:48

In an extraordinary 11-page written testament, one which the NYT's Ross Douthat called a "truly historic bombshell", a former papal nunco, or Vatican ambassador, to the US, it does what many have called for, and offers testimony concerning "who in the hierarchy knew what, and when," about the crimes of Cardinal McCarrick. The testimony implicates a host of high-ranking churchmen. And the pope.

Vigano said that he told Pope Francis in 2013 about allegations of sexual abuse against a prominent priest — and that Francis took no action. Now, the former official, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, 77, is calling for Francis to step down.

Vigano made the allegations in a lengthy statement that concludes with a call for Francis' resignation:

"In this extremely dramatic moment for the universal Church, he must acknowledge his mistakes and, in keeping with the proclaimed principle of zero tolerance, Pope Francis must be the first to set a good example to Cardinals and Bishops who covered up McCarrick's abuses and resign along with all of them."

The former Vatican official, who served as apostolic nuncio in Washington D.C. from 2011 to 2016, said that in the late 2000s, Benedict had “imposed on Cardinal McCarrick sanctions similar to those now imposed on him by Pope Francis” and that ViganĂ² personally told Pope Francis about those sanctions in 2013.

Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, former Apostolic Nuncio to United States.

Archbishop ViganĂ² then said in his written statement that Pope Francis “continued to cover” for McCarrick and not only did he “not take into account the sanctions that Pope Benedict had imposed on him” but also made McCarrick “his trusted counselor.”  Vigano said that the former archbishop of Washington advised the Pope to appoint a number of bishops in the United States, including Cardinals Blase Cupich of Chicago and Joseph Tobin of Newark.

CBS News spoke by telephone to Vigano, who confirmed he wrote the statement and said he was speaking out now "to combat the grave situation in the church, to protect the church and also to stop future abuse." He told CBS News producer Anna Matranga that he had no agenda and was stating facts.

Vigano, who retired in 2016 at age 75, described an exchange with Francis on June 23, 2013, shortly after he became pope, about Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the former archbishop of Washington, D.C., who resigned last month over claims he sexually abused seminary students and an altar boy.

Vigano writes that he told Francis about the allegations: "Holy Father, I don't know if you know Cardinal McCarrick, but if you ask the Congregation for Bishops there is a dossier this thick about him. He corrupted generations of seminarians and priests and Pope Benedict ordered him to withdraw to a life of prayer and penance."

Vigano writes the pope did not respond to the statement, and McCarrick continued in his role as a public figure for the church.

"Pope Francis has repeatedly asked for total transparency in the Church. He must honestly state when he first learned about the crimes committed by McCarrick, who abused his authority with seminarians and priests. In any case, the Pope learned about it from me on June 23, 2013 and continued to cover him."

Pope Francis addressed the sex abuse scandal on Saturday in comments made in Dublin. "The failure of ecclesiastical authorities — bishops, religious superiors, priests and others — to adequately address these repugnant crimes has rightly given rise to outrage, and remains a source of pain and shame for the Catholic community," he said. "I myself share these sentiments."

Pope Francis accepted McCarrick's resignation on July 28. McCarrick has maintained his innocence, but this month, a Pennsylvania grand jury issued a report that said more than 300 priests abused more than 1,000 children, and likely thousands more, over seven decades.

Father Boniface Ramsey of New York told CBS News this month that he repeatedly complained about McCarrick and heard about his disturbing behavior as early as 1986.

Nearly 100 of the accused clergy are from the Pittsburgh diocese alone, where Donald Wuerl, the current cardinal of Washington, D.C., was the bishop for 18 years.

In his statement, Vigano wrote that Wuerl also knew about McCarrick. "His recent statements that he knew nothing about it … are absolutely laughable. The cardinal lies shamelessly," Vigano wrote. 

In an interview with CBS News correspondent Nikki Battiste before the grand jury report, Wuerl said that he was quick to deal with allegations and that he was not aware of any rumors about McCarrick.

"If there were allegations, we dealt with them immediately," he said. "All the time that [McCarrick] was here and certainly all the time that I've been here, there was never any news. If I could tell you no one ever came to me and said this person did this to me. No one. No one. And remember, we were just talking about Pittsburgh. I was in Pittsburgh...we weren't following the rumors of different parts of the country."

Wuerl also suggested to CBS News that McCarrick had paid a price for his actions. "He has resigned and his resignation has been accepted. And he's been told to stay in seclusion...that's a pretty substantial penalty to be paying."

Vigano's statement calls on the church to take action.

"To restore the beauty of holiness to the face of the Bride of Christ — so tremendously disfigured by so many abominable crimes, if we truly want to free the Church from the fetid swamp into which she has fallen, we must have the courage to tear down the culture of secrecy and publicly confess the truths that we have kept hidden."

As Douthat concludes, "This is either an extraordinary and vicious slander or an act of revelation that should be the undoing of just about every figure mentioned in its pages. It has an apocalyptic feel either way."

His full testimony is below (pdf link)

https://www.scribd.com/document/387067784/Testimonyxcmvx-Xenglish-Corrected-Final-Version

Testimonyxcmvx Xenglish Corrected Final Version by Zerohedge on Scribd

Instructor tries to quarantine gun owners in back of class

Frances Floresca 

Frances Floresca on Aug 21, 2018 at 6:33 PM EDT

  • A teaching assistant at the University of Utah tried to create a “Second Amendment zone” in a classroom, forcing students who legally carry to stand in a tiny, taped-off area with no desk during class.
  • A concerned student brought the matter to a Utah state representative, who then publicized the issue, prompting university officials to overrule the instructor and reassign them to non-teaching duties for the rest of the semester.
  • A teaching assistant at the University of Utah tried to create a “Second Amendment zone” in a classroom, forcing students who legally carry to stand in a tiny, taped-off area during class.

    Upon being alerted to the situation, the university promptly overruled the instructor and assigned them to non-teaching duties for the duration of the semester.

    "If you feel that it is somehow at all appropriate to bring a gun to class...you are restricted to spending your time in class in my ‘second amendment zone.’"    Tweet This

    [RELATED: UGA prof drops ‘stress reduction’ policy after backlash]

    “Concealed carry is protected under your second amendment rights! However, because the University of Utah reserves the right to restrict elements of the first amendment on campus to specifically sanctioned ‘free speech zones’ I am reserving the right to restrict elements of the second amendment in my own classroom,” the professor wrote in a “weapons policy” provided to students.

    “If you feel that it is somehow at all appropriate to bring a gun to class (hint: it is not—this is absurd, antisocial, and frightening behavior), you are restricted to spending your time in class in my ‘second amendment zone’ a 3x3 taped square on the floor in the very back of the classroom, that will be shared with all other gun carriers,” the policy elaborates. “This zone also does not include a desk, because desks are reserved for students who respect the personal and psychological safety of their classmates and instructor.”

    Utah State Representative Karianne Lisonbee shared the document after a student provided her the classroom policy file, remarking in the post that she is “livid” about the situation.

    “A University of Utah Professor doesn't understand the Bill of Rights and University policy on free speech - which is disturbing enough,” Lisonbee wrote. “But even more egregious, she is seeking to break state law and deprive students of their rights.”

    According to university policy and Utah law, students have the right to carry on campus as long as they have a permit or license to carry a gun.

    [RELATED: Writing course calls inclusive language ‘an ethical obligation’]

    A spokesperson for the University of Utah provided Campus Reform with the following statement indicating that the policy has been removed from the syllabus:

    “University of Utah officials recently learned that a graduate teaching assistant included a statement in an undergraduate course syllabus that violated both state law and university policy. The statement has been removed from the syllabus and students in the class have been alerted to the error,” the university explained.

    “The graduate student instructor has apologized and has received additional training about the university's policies,” the statement added, noting that the student instructor “will not teach this semester and will instead have other assignments.”

    “The approval of course syllabuses is handled by individual departments, and syllabuses are expected to comply with all university policies,” the spokesperson concluded.

    Follow Campus Reform on Twitter: @CampusReform

  • Campus Reform - Forced Socialism on the rise

    While America celebrates the success of capitalism, YDSA urges socialists to infiltrate public education https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11244 #Venezuela

    Profs get $248k grant to study ‘gender microaggressions’

    Profs get $248k grant to study 'gender microaggressions' https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11245

    Toni Airaksinen

    Toni Airaksinen Contributor @Toni_Airaksinen on Aug 23, 2018 at 10:50 AM EDT

  • The National Science Foundation recently awarded three Iowa State University professors a $248,000 research grant to study "gender microaggressions" among engineering students.
  • The lead researcher hopes the project will "contribute to diversifying engineering programs" and help students "feel safe" in class.

  • The NSF has awarded three Iowa State University professors more than $248,000 to study “gender microaggressions” in engineering, claiming that the research will ultimately help students “feel safe.”

    On August 13, the taxpayer-funded National Science Foundation (NSF) granted funding for the study “Collaborative Research: An Intersectional Perspective to Studying Microaggressions in Engineering Programs,” which is slated to cost taxpayers at least $248,744 over the next four years.

    "[Researchers] will collect stories from diverse identity groups in order to obtain a well-rounded understanding of microaggressions in engineering programs."    Tweet This

    [RELATED: ‘Social justice warriors’ are ruining engineering, prof warns]

    Engineering professor Cristina Poleacovschi—who will lead the project over the next four years—told Campus Reform that microaggressions are important to study in academia because they cause harm to students, especially minorities.

    “I find microaggressions particularly interesting because they are normalized in our everyday life but have significant consequences over time,” said Poleacovschi, who explained that the idea for the research came from her personal experience in engineering.

    “The contribution of this grant is bringing an intersectionality perspective to the concept of microaggressions where we consider the interconnected nature of race and gender,” she explained.

    [RELATED: Engineers refute allegations of gender bias in licensing exam]

    Ultimately, the $248,744 grant will culminate in a research project that “will collect stories from diverse identity groups in order to obtain a well-rounded understanding of microaggressions in engineering programs.”

    According to the grant abstract, the professors’ first task will be to create a list of individual microaggressions suffered by each individual identity group, including white men, Latina women, African American men, and Asian women.

    Poleacovschi wouldn’t say exactly how the funds will be spent for this project, but noted that NSF grants can typically be used to hire graduate students, purchase supplies, buy statistical software, and compensate the lead researchers.

    [RELATED: Profs warn that ‘commitment to empirical science’ hurts women]

    When pitching her project to the NSF, Poleacovschi argued that increasing awareness of microaggressions will “contribute to diversifying engineering programs through increased awareness of the subtle behaviors that engineering students experience in college.”

    “Creating an environment where minority students feel safe and included allows educating a competitive workforce which will ultimately positively impact our society by incorporating the needs and perspectives of all student groups,” she asserted.

    University of Iowa Professors Gloria Jones-Johnson and Scott Feinstein will contribute to the research project, which is expected to be finished by December 2021. The NSF did not respond to a request for comment.

    Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @Toni_Airaksinen

  • Saturday, August 25, 2018

    Trump Breaks Dems 50 Year Hold on Black Voters

    Breaking News: John McCain’s 1969 “Tokyo Rose” Propaganda Recording Released Showing he WAS a Traitor who Turned Against His Own Country

    The “Songbird” Traitor, Doing His Fake Hero Act, Begins His Rise to Power

    An audio recording has surfaced proving that U.S. Senator John McCain collaborated with the North Vietnamese by recording a “Tokyo Rose”-style propaganda message that was broadcast on North Vietnamese radio in 1969.

    For many years, American former P.O.W.s who were in the “Hanoi Hilton” North Vietnamese prison with John McCain called him a “Songbird” who collaborated with the enemy against his own country. They accused him of turning against them and against his own country in exchange for preferential treatment while many of the actually brave and honorable American P.O.W.s endured torture and denial of medical care and food for refusing to collaborate. The P.O.W.s branded McCain a traitor who was no hero, but nonetheless used his fake hero status to rise to political power.

    But we only had their word against his – until now. Now, from the U.S. National Archives comes the proof of their allegations; McCain, by his own words, WAS in fact a traitor who collaborated with the enemy by recording a “Tokyo Rose” statement condemning his own nation by admitting “crimes” against the North Vietnamese people, stating “I, as a U.S. airman, am guilty of crimes against the Vietnamese country and people.” McCain’s recorded statement also painted a picture of humane treatment of prisoners even though he knew many of his fellow Americans were being tortured and denied medical care and adequate food. In the recording he is heard to say “I received this kind treatment and food even though I came here as an aggressor and the people who I injured have much difficulty in their living standards. I wish to express my deep gratitude for my kind treatment and I will never forget this kindness extended to me.”

    Watch this, and listen to the recording yourself:

    http://ow.ly/qmNz30lyus7

    John McCain, Traitor and Songbird, sings for his masters

    Las year, I (Stewart Rhodes) was attacked by the left wing media for calling McCain a traitor who deserved to be tried for treason (for his support for the use of military detention and military tribunals for Americans, rather than a jury trial as required by our Constitution), and then, once convicted, deserved to suffer the usual punishment for someone convicted of treason, which is to be hung by the neck until dead. Turns out I was right.  He IS a traitor, and now there is direct evidence to back that up, in addition to his horrid voting record against the Constitution. Well, now, can we finally try him for treason and then sentence him accordingly? Or will he, like Hillary Clinton, get a pass on his crimes despite direct, smoking gun evidence, because both of them are part of the political elite? You already know the answer to that.

    Truenews.com is to be commended for their work in making this recording public, after all these years. Here is what they have to say about this:

    (TRUNEWS) U.S. Senator John McCain recorded a Tokyo Rose-style propaganda message that was broadcast on North Vietnamese radio in 1969.

    TRUNEWS acquired the audio recording in cooperation with WeSearchR.com, a new media company founded by Charles Johnson.

    The 1969 North Vietnamese radio broadcast has never been heard in the United States of America. In fact, there has never been any knowledge that such a recording existed. The audio recording was found in a misplaced file in the National Archives in Washington, D.C. The broadcast was recorded by the Foreign Broadcast Information Service, a branch of the CIA that monitored international shortwave and foreign radio broadcasts.

    Lt. Commander John McCain was shot down over Hanoi by a North Vietnamese missile while flying his 23rd bombing mission. Both of his arms and one leg were broken. He was pulled ashore by North Vietnamese who took him to a prison known by POWs as the “Hanoi Hilton.”

    McCain was a prisoner of war for five and a half years. He was released on March 14, 1973, and returned to the United States of America as a war hero. His POW legacy propelled McCain to victory in a race for a U.S. Congressional seat in Arizona in 1982. He replaced Barry Goldwater in the Senate in 1986.

    – See more at: http://www.trunews.com/article/john-mccains-1969-tokyo-rose-propaganda-recording-released#sthash.JAKZReP3.HpuKMBBb.dpuf

    Read more here.

    Here is a transcript of the recording:

    To the Vietnamese people and the government of the DRVN:

    From John Sidney McCain, 624787, Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Navy, born 29 August, 1936, Panama, home state Oregon. Shot down 26 October, 1967, A-4E aircraft.

    I, as a U.S. airman, am guilty of crimes against the Vietnamese country and people. I bombed their cities, towns and villages and caused many injuries, even deaths, for the people of Vietnam.

    I was captured in the capital city of Hanoi, while attacking it. After I was captured, I was taken to the hospital in Hanoi, where I received very good medical treatment. I was given an operation on my leg, which allowed me to walk again, and a cast on my right arm, which was badly broken in three places.

    The doctors were very good and they knew a great deal about the practice of medicine. I remained in the hospital for some time and regained much of my health and strength. Since I arrived in the camp of detention, I received humane and lenient treatment.

    I received this kind treatment and food even though I came here as an aggressor and the people who I injured have much difficulty in their living standards. I wish to express my deep gratitude for my kind treatment and I will never forget this kindness extended to me.

    – See more at: http://www.trunews.com/article/john-mccains-1969-tokyo-rose-propaganda-recording-released#sthash.JAKZReP3.HpuKMBBb.dpuf

    Note that Trunews.com reports that “the broadcast was recorded by the Foreign Broadcast Information Service, a branch of the CIA that monitored international shortwave and foreign radio broadcasts.” So, the CIA, our supposed Central Intelligence Agency, knew that he was a traitor. Did they report that bit of intelligence to President Nixon? Did they inform the Joint Chief of Staff? Did they even notify McCain’s command? Again, you already know the answer to that. What they did is sit on it, and no doubt they “misfiled” it in the National Archives, and let McCain know they had it there, somewhere, and that they could have the “misfiling” corrected anytime they wanted, so he would be compliant and do as commanded throughout his career.  That is how it is done.   They had McCain under their control, as a “Manchurian Candidate” from that moment on, which is why it was kept an internal CIA secret all those years, till now.

    I have to wonder if the CIA didn’t just now determine to throw McCain to the wolves for some reason.  I’d be curious to know how Truenews.com and friends found the recording.  Were they given an “anonymous tip?” Regardless, McCain’s goose is now good and cooked. If he had a shred of honor he would resign, but no doubt he will try to find a way to worm out of this. But I don’t think it will work. Not this time. And those who recently sided with him against Trump, such as Newt Gingrich, are now on the side of a confirmed Traitor. Again, perfect timing for an implosion of the corrupt GOP Old Guard. Interesting. You can bet Trump will use this to full effect.

    – Stewart Rhodes

    UPDATE AND ADDENDUM:

    Since I am getting comments condemning me for calling McCain a traitor for collaborating with the enemy by recording that propaganda broadcast for the North Vietnamese, here is my response:

    First, here is what the Code of Conduct says about this (I have highlighted in bold the most pertinent sections):

    Code of Conduct for Members of the United States Armed Forces[3][4][5]
    I. I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.
    II. I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.
    III. If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
    IV. If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.
    V. When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause
    VI. I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

    It really goes without saying that this recording shows that McCain violated that Code of Conduct. Doing so was not excusable because of the “duress” he was under. In fact, the same folks who dug this recording up also say they have his own statements to show he was not under duress: http://gotnews.com/breaking-senjohnmccain-not-duress-north-vietnam-blabbed-military-info-voiced-communist-propaganda/

    Even if he were actually under duress, that would not absolve him of his duty to “make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.” Nor does it absolve him of his duty to “accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy“ which is exactly what the other POWs accused McCain of doing.

    Medal of Honor recipient James Stockdale, in contrast to McCain, was actually brutally tortured and still refused to collaborate with the enemy. Let’s compare and contrast his actions to that of McCain:

    Stockdale was held as a prisoner of war in the Hoa Lo prison (the infamous “Hanoi Hilton”) for the next seven and a half years. As the senior Naval officer, he was one of the primary organizers of prisoner resistance. Tortured routinely and denied medical attention for the severely damaged leg he suffered during capture, Stockdale created and enforced a code of conduct for all prisoners which governed torture, secret communications, and behavior. In the summer of 1969, he was locked in leg irons in a bath stall and routinely tortured and beaten. When told by his captors that he was to be paraded in public, Stockdale slit his scalp with a razor to purposely disfigure himself so that his captors could not use him as propaganda. When they covered his head with a hat, he beat himself with a stool until his face was swollen beyond recognition. When Stockdale was discovered with information that could implicate his friends’ “black activities,” he slit his wrists so they could not torture him into confession.

    ….

    Stockdale was one of eleven prisoners known as the “Alcatraz Gang“: George Thomas Coker; George McKnight; Jeremiah Denton; Harry Jenkins; Sam Johnson; James Mulligan; Howard Rutledge; Robert Shumaker; Ronald Storz; and Nels Tanner. These individuals had been leaders of resistance activities while in captivity and thus were separated from other captives and placed in solitary confinement. “Alcatraz” was a special facility in a courtyard behind the North Vietnamese Ministry of National Defense, located about one mile away from Hoa Lo Prison. In Alcatraz, each of the prisoners was kept in an individual windowless and concrete cell measuring 3 by 9 feet (0.9 by 2.7 m) with a light bulb kept on around the clock, and they were locked in leg irons each night.[9][10][11][12][13] Of the eleven, Storz died in captivity there in 1970.

    In a business book by James C. Collins called Good to Great, Collins writes about a conversation he had with Stockdale regarding his coping strategy during his period in the Vietnamese POW camp.[14]

    I never lost faith in the end of the story, I never doubted not only that I would get out, but also that I would prevail in the end and turn the experience into the defining event of my life, which, in retrospect, I would not trade.[15]

    When Collins asked who didn’t make it out of Vietnam, Stockdale replied:

    Oh, that’s easy, the optimists. Oh, they were the ones who said, ‘We’re going to be out by Christmas.’ And Christmas would come, and Christmas would go. Then they’d say, ‘We’re going to be out by Easter.’ And Easter would come, and Easter would go. And then Thanksgiving, and then it would be Christmas again. And they died of a broken heart.[15]

    Stockdale then added:

    This is a very important lesson. You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end—which you can never afford to lose—with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.[15]

    Stockdale was released as a prisoner of war on February 12, 1973 during Operation Homecoming. His shoulders had been wrenched from their sockets, his leg shattered by angry villagers and a torturer, and his back broken.

    On March 4, 1976, Stockdale received the Medal of Honor. Stockdale filed charges against two other officers (Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel Edison W. Miller and Navy Captain Walter E. “Gene” Wilber) who, he felt, had given aid and comfort to the enemy. However, the Navy Department under the leadership of then-Secretary of the Navy John Warner took no action and retired these men “in the best interests of the Navy.”[16][17]

    Debilitated by his captivity and mistreatment, Stockdale could not stand upright and could barely walk upon his return to the United States, which prevented his return to active flying status. In deference to his previous service, the Navy kept him on active duty, steadily promoting him over the next few years before he retired as a vice admiral. He completed his career by serving as President of the Naval War College from October 13, 1977, until August 22, 1979.

    And here is Stockdale’s Medal of Honor Citation:

    For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while senior naval officer in the Prisoner of War camps of North Vietnam. Recognized by his captors as the leader in the Prisoners’ of War resistance to interrogation and in their refusal to participate in propaganda exploitation, Rear Adm. Stockdale was singled out for interrogation and attendant torture after he was detected in a covert communications attempt. Sensing the start of another purge, and aware that his earlier efforts at self-disfiguration to dissuade his captors from exploiting him for propaganda purposes had resulted in cruel and agonizing punishment, Rear Adm. Stockdale resolved to make himself a symbol of resistance regardless of personal sacrifice. He deliberately inflicted a near-mortal wound to his person in order to convince his captors of his willingness to give up his life rather than capitulate. He was subsequently discovered and revived by the North Vietnamese who, convinced of his indomitable spirit, abated in their employment of excessive harassment and torture toward all of the Prisoners of War. By his heroic action, at great peril to himself, he earned the everlasting gratitude of his fellow prisoners and of his country. Rear Adm. Stockdale’s valiant leadership and extraordinary courage in a hostile environment sustain and enhance the finest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service (emphasis added).

    Now THAT is a hero. And that is also a stellar example of an officer who lead by example, and put the well being of his men first, above himself, and loyalty to his country first, above himself, and his actions directly saved his men from further torture, bolstered their morale, and likely saved lives – the exact opposite of McCain’s actions.  Please do not tell me that John McCain somehow deserves a “pass” for his behavior because of supposed duress (with all evidence pointing to him singing like a bird before suffering anything approaching what Stockdale endured) and when a real man, Stockdale, endured real duress, to say the least, and refused to submit and collaborate.  And please don’t try to tell me I have no right to condemn him unless I too was a POW.  Stockdale tried to press charges against two other officers who were POWs, for corroborating with the enemy, and I have no doubt he would have done the same with McCain had he known the full truth. And many of the men who did know the truth did their best to expose it, but were brushed aside and ignored because McCain’s daddy was an admiral and Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.  Many of those men are now gone, and can no longer speak out.  So we will speak for them.

    Here is what John McCain himself had to say about the Code of Conduct and the harm caused by prisoners that collaborated with the enemy:

    DOWNLOAD PDF

    If he were just some poor Joe who endured hardship as a prisoner, I could understand and by sympathetic to him breaking under pressure and collaborating.  But he was not just some average Joe.  He was an Admiral’s son, and he rode a wave of propaganda of him being some kind of hero into Congress, and he has been there ever since, and because of his status as a “war hero” he has received deference, forgiveness for his repeated sins against the Constitution, and repeated reelection so he can violate it yet again, term after term.   He was no war hero.  A collaborator simply is not a hero.  He is, in fact, the opposite.  Maybe someone like that can be forgiven, or considered with sympathy, but he sure as hell should not be hailed as some kind of hero, or “national treasure” like Newt Gingrich just called McCain.  Stockdale was a real hero.  Calling McCain a hero cheapens that term.   And while for years people asserted that he made this recording (which he denied), the public never heard it, until now.  – Stewart Rhodes

    COMMENT BY NAVY JACK:

    The Silver Star was awarded to John McCain for resisting extreme mental and physical cruelties inflicted upon him by his captors in an attempt to obtain a false confession for propaganda purposes. McCain later admitted to signing a confession during his captivity that read “I am a black criminal and I have performed deeds of an air pirate.” McCain denied having made the taped confession you have just heard.

    All pilots during the Vietnam War received the following general order:

    If you are captured and tortured, you must resist, avoid, or evade, to the best of your ability, all enemy efforts to obtain statements or actions that will help the enemy. Examples of statements or actions to resist that are harmful to the US, its allies, or other prisoners, include:
    • Oral or written confessions.
    • Questionnaires or personal history statements.
    • Propaganda recordings and broadcasts.
    • Appeals to other PWs and appeals for surrender or peace.
    • Engagement in self-criticism.
    • Oral or written statements or communications on behalf of the enemy.
    The enemy might use any confession or statement to convict you as a war criminal. It prolongs your right to repatriation until you serve a prison sentence.

    Article V of the Code of Conduct:
    When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country or its allies or harmful to their cause.

    John McCain has received his status and position as a Senator with false claims and false valor. It’s one thing to break down under torture, if he actually was tortured. It is another thing altogether to accept decorations, political advancement and public acclaim based on these lies.

    Stewart Rhodes

    Stewart is the founder and National President of Oath Keepers. He served as a U.S. Army paratrooper until disabled in a rough terrain parachuting accident during a night jump. He is a former firearms instructor, former member of Rep. Ron Paul’s DC staff, and served as a volunteer firefighter in Montana. Stewart previously wrote the monthly Enemy at the Gates column for S.W.A.T. Magazine. Stewart graduated from Yale Law School in 2004, where his paper “Solving the Puzzle of Enemy Combatant Status” won Yale’s Miller prize for best paper on the Bill of Rights. He assisted teaching U.S. military history at Yale, was a Yale Research Scholar, and is writing a book on the dangers of applying the laws of war to the American people.


    Thursday, August 23, 2018

    The Pathway to Solving Social Media Censorship – How President Trump Can Take on the Tech Tyrants

    by Assistant Editor August 23, 2018

    Guest post by J. Burns

    THE PATHWAY TO SOLVING THE SOCIAL MEDIA CENSORSHIP PLAGUE

    Remove Protections from Suit for Speech Tyrants

    In Tweets over the weekend, President Trump promised he would end ideological censorship on Social Media. As an attorney involved in these questions for years, I have some suggestions on how to do this. Mr. President please instruct Congress to:

    1. Eliminate 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2);
    2. Pass new legislation guaranteeing speech freedoms to all users of Social Media, regardless of their political persuasion;
    3. Pass new legislation requiring all publicly traded companies with a market capitalization of $10 Billion or more to provide First Amendment speech protections to all employees and product consumers; and
    4. Pass new legislation requiring any foreign owned media and/or social media company doing business as such in the US to provide First Amendment speech protections in their US market, as well as their top 5 global markets.

    President Trump has a golden opportunity to save and secure free speech on the Internet for the next 50 years.

    It Started Long Before the Jihad Against Alex Jones.

    As a lawyer, I represented one of the first individuals to be permanently banned by Twitter. In May of 2015, journalist Charles Johnson was banned from Twitter for supposedly threatening bodily harm to Jack Dorsey’s boyfriend, Deray McKesson. McKesson was internet famous in 2015 for leveraging the Ferguson Riots to his own benefit. In reality, Johnson had attempted to doxx Deray. Twitter’s rationale was an absurd pretext that no one actually believed. But Twitter alleged Johnson made their service less safe, and that was that. Twitter/Facebook censors in the name of safety, no matter how ridiculous or attenuated the claim. Charles lost 30,000+ Twitter followers overnight, and with it, his journalism platform and business. Twitter/Facebook have just about perfected their methods for silencing those they dislike , ratcheting-up the effort with bigger and bigger targets. Alex Jones is just biggest and latest personality to be culturally cleansed.

    The Government Gives Social Media A License to Censor

    The common response to conservatives and others who complain about Twitter/Facebookl s censorship is that the Socials are private businesses which can censor anyone they want. Under this theory, they are private companies that can refuse service to whomever they want.

    This is somewhat true, but not because the Socials are private , but because these companies have uniquely been deputized by the federal government to censor speech. In return, the Socials are granted full immunity from lawsuits by Charles Johnson, Alex Jones, and anyone else upset at the arbitrary destruction of their speaking platforms.

    The Communications Decency Act (“CDA”) Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230), keeps Charles Johnson, Alex Jones, and countless others who could successfully sue Twitter, Facebook and other Socials out of court.

    CDA 230 immunizes internet service providers such as Twitter from any legal liability in two contexts. First, Twitter cannot be held liable for the defamatory speech of third party commenters (see 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1)). This is a good thing. Without it, comment boards and social media could not exist, because the website publishers would be sued for every awful thing said on their comment boards.

    Second, Twitter cannot be held liable for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material, and may censor speech even if the speech would be constitutionally protected. As long as they try to remove the worst material, they can’t be sued if some slips through.

    (2) Civil Liability – No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of –

    • any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or
      availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
    • any action taken to enable or make available to information content
      providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

    The Courts have taken a very absolutist position on CDA 230, in that they consider it an absolute bar on Plaintiffs coming into Court. There are virtually no cases or precedents regarding CDA 230(c)(2), simply because many censorship victims are being told by Courts that they don’t have any right to sue. In so doing, the Courts are granting these billionaire internet corporations greater rights than newspapers, tv stations, and radio networks.

    Section 230(c)(2) Is The Evil Twin Of Section (c)(1).

    Federal Courts across half a dozen circuits including the 2nd, 6th, 7th, and 9th, , have all held that the immunity in CDA 230 is virtually absolute, and invincible. Only the 7th and 9th Circuits have recognized any limitation on the extent of the immunity. See Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008); Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights I WOULD EXPLAIN THE BASIC FACT PATTERN FOR BOTH CASES.
    Under Law v. Craigslist, 519 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2008). However, no court before or since has limited CDA 230, and many plaintiffs have unsuccessfully attempted to use both of these cases. In short, Federal Courts have been unwilling to deprive internet service providers of the blanket immunity from lawsuits conferred by Congress via CDA 230. These are rights greater than any newspaper, magazine, radio, or television program enjoys.

    This means that the US Government has given Twitter, Facebook, and every other social media site a license to censor.

    The CDA was originally passed in 1996 and at that time it contained criminal provisions that punished the knowing transmission of “offensive” content, including “obscene or indecent” content. The criminal provisions were struck down as unconstitutional and unenforceable violations of the First Amendment in 1997 in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) – back when the ACLU actually gave a damn about protecting speech.

    CDA 230(c)(2) is similarly unconstitutional because in it, the Federal Government merely deputizes private actors to engage in the kinds of censorship the government itself was prohibited from conducting in Reno. Congress has immunized censorship,
    permitting titans such as Twitter and Facebook to use CDA 230(c)(2) d censoring political and other speech with which it disagrees, while hiding behind its blanket immunity. This outsourcing of censorship is unconstitutional and CDA 230(c)(2) can and should be eliminated.

    As part of this program of censorship, Alex Jones, Charles Johnson and others have been deprived of their First Amendment rights. Further, while Jones and Johnson were also the victims of torts, they were denied Due Process and therefore have suffered and continue to suffer further Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment deprivations as their property interests in their lawsuits are foreclosed. See Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1981) (). REWORD FROM LEGALESE

    Twitter and Facebook are not simply private businesses immune to the First Amendment, because CDA Section 230(c)(2) transforms them into public actors, deputized by Congress to censor speech.

    Twitter is almost certainly a public actor in line with a number of key “state actor” / “joint participation” SCOTUS cases. See, e.g., Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948); Burton v. Wilmington Park Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961) (financial relationship between a state agency and private restaurant transforms the restaurant into government actor). Adickes v. S.H. Kress Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970); Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337 (1969); Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972); Mitchell v. W.T. Grant Co., 416 U.S. 600 (1974); Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982); Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158 (1992) (judge’s ministerial issuance of an attachment order renders a seizure subject to Due Process); Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, 531 U.S. 288 (2001) (public institution’s and officials’ “pervasive entwinement” converted a private athletic regulatory body into a state actor); Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946) (company town is the equivalent of a municipality and is engaged in a public function); Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614 (1991) (jury selection is a “traditional function of
    government” and that private attorneys are thus prohibited from using race-based peremptory challenges).

    Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946) is an excellent comparison point. In that case, a Jehovah’s Witness was handing out religious materials on the streets of a town entirely owned by a shipping company. The shipping company told her she needed a permit to hand out the magazine, and had her removed by a deputy sheriff for trespassing. The US Supreme Court held in favor of the Jehovah’s Witness, reasoning that the more a property owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.

    The Social Media situation is similar to Marsh v. Alabama. Just as the shipping company controlled the streets and sidewalks of the company town, Social Media giants hold monopolies on the electronic public speech common areas. Over 90% of online Americans are on Facebook. Almost 30% are on Twitter. Because they are monopolies, where is the public supposed to go? The Court can’t say you have free speech only in the town park where no one goes. The common area where people are discussing politics is online, often on these platforms.

    The usual remark here is that conservatives and other disfavored internet minorities should simply “make their own competitor” to Facebook/Twitter and the rest. This is absurd. So what, if Apple and Samsung and the others don’t want Alex Jones speaking on a smart phone, is Jones supposed to invent a “Jones” Phone? Should he have to invent his own internet? Is free speech only available to those with a billion dollars at their disposal? Sure seems like Kommissar Zuckerberg thinks so.

    President Trump’s Opportunity to Secure Free Speech On the Internet

    President Trump has a once in a lifetime opportunity to secure free speech on the internet. Twitter and Facebook have engineered a program of cultural genocide. Their goal is social engineering, and to push their left-wing agenda by covertly silencing their political opponents and amplifying their ideological friends. Their goal is to eliminate entire ways of thinking. By shifting the range of ideas which can be discussed , a man is made a prisoner in his own mind. Thoughts which cannot be expressed are not easily remembered.  That which cannot be remembered is forgotten and erased: cultural genocide.

    We’re witnessing a watershed moment in the history of American speech. The Social Media threat to speech is an existential threat to freedom in this country because the technology involved is so subtle, so powerful, and without the ability to combat its effects.  We’re on the verge of a cultural revolution.  What we’ve been seeing in the past couple years is the emergence of a new generation within media companies. t The companies’ censorship policies and departments are created and staffed by very recent college grads .  As we know, the colleges continue to get bolder and more militant – in this culture war, and they are now scary autocratic and utterly unconcerned about the rights of nonconformists.  Twitter used to be staffed with attorneys who were legendary defenders of First Amendment Speech –people who were legitimate free speech champions.  But those free speech liberals were purged in 2014. Uy

    What remains are people who are not civil libertarians and don’t pretend to be, they aren’t people who would defend nazis marching in Skokie, Illinois. They are not the people who would defend rap music against people like Tipper Gore. They have come to a conclusion, and the process by which they arrive to it is incidental. And now they have the power and legal immunity to do so in total, with the thoroughness of a machine, to completely crush any kind of dissenting views.

    President Trump: without decisive action NOW, advocates of authoritarian style thought policing (read: the adolescent management of Twitter, Facebook, and Google) will decisively seize this moment in history to control all thought and expression on the internet. Their Congressional enablers like Senator Mark Warner will applaud and cheer them FORWARD. See https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/31/democrats-tech-policy-plans-leaked

    There is no reason to continue coddling major internet billionaires as a baby industry. They deserve to be subject to the exact same rules as other media entities by repealing CDA 230(c)(2), giving those against whom they have discriminated the chance to fight for free speech in the courts.

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/08/the-pathway-to-solving-social-media-censorship-how-president-trump-can-take-on-the-tech-tyrants/

    Tristan Mouradian & Aidan Mussalli, Young PP Club Interview: August 22, ...

    Wednesday, August 22, 2018

    Trump: Dems Would Turn US Into “Big, Fat Sanctuary For Criminal Aliens”

    https://www.newswars.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/82218potustrumpgetty.jpg

    Points to recent tragedy in call for tighter borders

    Image Credits: Spencer Platt / Getty Images.

    By Dan Lyman Wednesday, August 22, 2018

    13

    President Trump hammered ‘extremist’ Democrats during a rally speech Tuesday night by saying they are working to turn the United States into a giant sanctuary nation for criminal illegal aliens.

    His comments come immediately after an alleged illegal migrant was arrested as a suspect in the disappearance and death of University of Iowa student Mollie Tibbetts.

    “The Democrats want to turn America into a big, fat sanctuary city for criminal aliens,” the President told a packed house in West Virginia, who vehemently booed in response. “Honestly, they’re more protective of… the criminal aliens, than they are of the people.”

    After providing an update regarding funding for a border wall, which the President assured his audience will be built, Trump touched on Tibbetts’ case.

    “You heard today about the illegal alien coming in, very sadly, from Mexico, and you saw what happened to that incredible, beautiful young woman. It should have never happened. Illegally in our country.”

    “We’ve had a huge impact, but the laws are so bad, the immigration laws are a disgrace,” Trump continued. “We’re getting them changed, but we have to get more Republicans. This election is bigger than any one race – it’s about whether we want to continue the amazing progress we’ve made for America, or whether we want to surrender that progress to the forces of extremism and obstruction.”

    The Tibbetts investigation has gripped the nation since she vanished over a month ago.

    Vice President Mike Pence traveled to visit her family last week, where he consoled and prayed with them during an anguishing search.

    Christian Bahena-Rivera, a Mexican migrant who reportedly worked on a farm near Tibbetts’ residence in Iowa, was arrested and charged with first-degree murder after he led authorities to her body, officials say.

    “On Aug. 21, ICE lodged a detainer with the Poweshiek County Sheriff’s Office on Christian Bahena-Rivera, 24, an illegal alien from Mexico, after he was arrested on murder charges,” Immigration and Customs Enforcement said in an official statement.

    https://www.newswars.com/trump-dems-would-turn-us-into-big-fat-sanctuary-for-criminal-aliens/