Our KJV DEFENSE SITES
OUR WEBSITE
Dr. Sam Gipp
Brandon Staggs AV1611.COM
Boaz Baptist| בועז מטביל
Genesis Evidence Ministry
Pure Bible Forum
James A., Ph.D
Twitter has, for the umpteenth time, suspended my account…AGAIN. This time, in “lockstep” with all the other people telling the truth about the COVID scams. It’s ironic that of all the hundreds of tweets I’ve made about the COVID scams, it’s the one criticizing Trump that I get suspended for. Go figure.
By James A., PhD
What is controlled opposition? Lenin said, “the best way to control the opposition is to lead it”. Controlled opposition is when a third party controls the resistance of people rising against the status quo of the current parties in power. America has been dominated by a two-party system, both of who are on the same side. In fact, there’s a standing joke among Harvard Skull & Bones members about who will volunteer to be a Republican, and who wants to be a Democrat. With the rise of independent media, more patriots were waking up to the false dichotomy system of Republican Democrat, and started to rebel. The awakening among conservative Republicans probably began when George Bush, Sr gave his “New World Order” speech in 1990.
Let me explain why the Democrat vs Republican duopoly is so effective in controlling the masses before I explain why I believe Trump is controlled opposition. It’s easier to control a large group of people if you keep them divided and get them to fight among themselves. That way, they turn on each other, and not the government. The Deep State did that with blacks. When it was obvious that blacks would no longer tolerate being enslaved, Democrats with the help of Republicans that brought Nazis to America, created a plan called COINTELPRO that created a religious gang rivalry among blacks in Chicago. First, they pumped drugs into Chicago neighborhoods that would be controlled by a new face of Black Panther resistance called VICE LORDS. Vice Lords are ISLAMIC. After the VL was established, the CIA created a rivalry by giving drugs to Larry Hoover who founded the Black Gangster Disciples. The BGD are “Hebrew Israelites” or in other words, JEWISH. Can you see where the conflict arises! The Deep State created a rivalry that most of the current gang members haven’t even thought of, and to this day, those gangs still kill each other.
Every 4 years, when a Democrat is control of the presidency, there’s a Republican majority in the House or Senate. Liberals relax. Conservatives rage. Four years later, a Republican takes office, Democrats get the House and Senate, the liberals rage, and the conservatives relax. This relaxation every 4-8 years is based on HOPE. If you don’t like the current political atmosphere, JUST WAIT 4 YEARS and vote them out. As long as people have HOPE, THEY DON’T REVOLT.
HOWEVER, once people catch on to the fact that the two party system is rigged, and they’re both really on the same side, a middle opposition begins to rise that threatens the establishment. The Tea Party was a temporary answer to that, but Glenn Beck was no more a real conservative than the Bush Empire. The Deep State knew that something needed to be done to prevent an angry, patriotic middle party from rising up, gaining momentum, and possibly engaging in a 1776 part 2 style revolution. It’s that middle party that owns all the guns, after all. So how do you accomplish this? By getting someone who speaks out against the corruption of the Shadow Government, and promises to make America great again. Someone who attended the exact same Jesuit school as John Brennan: Fordham (even wonder why Trump’s SCOTUS appointees were ALL CATHOLIC, 2 of them, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, are both Jesuits as well. Trump’s wife is Roman Catholic and Trump praised Pope John Paul II at the anniversary of his death).
Trump was used to not only control the rising middle opposition, but was so obnoxious that defending him discredited many Christians. Try witnessing to someone who finds out you voted for Trump these days. You won’t get passed Romans 3:23. But after all, WHO ELSE was there that talked about defending capitalist and American values? Sure, he was a whoremonger, adulterer, foul mouthed, but he made the country prosper, didn’t he? Or was that all part of the show?
The 2 things that bothered about labeling Trump controlled opposition was the economy, and the opposition from the media. However, opposition from the media is what caused us to defend Trump! Why! Because conservatives have a general aversion to false accusations and we like to defend the innocent. The media purposely attacked Trump to provoke conservatives in to defending him. It also worked with Kavanaugh. How many protestant Christians would normally defend a Jesuit for the Supreme Court? Yet we ALL defended Kavanaugh because of the “persecution” he was getting. It was a slick trick, and we all fell for it.
But what about the economy? Wasn’t it a great economy? Sure. But who benefited the most? With a planned COVID crisis coming, the economy was never going to recover, but it DID benefit certain classes of people. If you KNOW a crisis is coming, you want to start prepping and building a nest egg, right? Trump’s economy benefited all of the Big Tech giants, Amazon, Elon Musk, and thousands of other moguls who are part of the Deep State, all who can ride out the storm now in spite of an impending recession or depression. The “booming economy” guaranteed that all of our overseers will not need to worry about their bills or obligations when the rest of the country is out of work. It’s a way to create a permanent slave class while guaranteeing that the tech giants can build a BEAST system unscathed by the COVID plandemic. Keep in mind, that it was Trump that approved of the initial lockdowns in the first place that led to the first wave of job losses.
So long as Trump told us what we wanted to hear, and Q Anon suckered everyone into “trusting the plan”, nobody revolted, or at least thought about revolting until it was too late. That’s controlled opposition. Trump has been loyal to his Rockefeller sock puppets the entire time. I’ll save the Nazi connections with Richard Nixon and Trump’s uncle, John Trump and the connection to Tesla, Elon Musk, and Nazi technology for another article.
Trump is now pushing a vaccine that will permanently alter your DNA. He endorsed vaccines that are experimental, and which gives the global government a perfect opportunity to use this is a test run for mark of the beast technology (I’m not saying vaccines are the mark, they are not in spite well-meaning prophecy teachers, but they do open the door for the tracking and mandatory receipt of unwanted bodily intrusions that you will either get or be unable to travel and eventually buy or sell without proof of vaccination, and in the future, proof of a mark).
Trump also helped negotiate a two-state solution in Israel in the recent Abraham Accords, which is dividing God’s land: one of the reasons He judges the nations (Joel 3:2).
This doesn’t mean that Christians were wrong to vote for him. We can only vote on the information we have. We may not have liked some things about him, but our plight was about saving America from Communism. It was about saving our Constitution, not about a shady past and potty mouthed hedonist, so for patriotic Americans, it wasn’t about the person, but about the document that expresses our rights and liberties, and Trump just happened to be the only person available that we HOPED would make that happen. But that HOPE is what kept the people from revolting, and now the Deep State and Big Tech are so enriched and coordinated that a revolt is almost impossible to mount.
There’s a LOT more reasons to think Trump is controlled opposition given by my friend, Scott Johnson on ContendingForTruth.Com . Now I don’t agree with all of Scott’s arguments or conclusions because, in my opinion, some of the sources are too mainstream to be credible, and those from Wayne Marsden I believe are so bogus that even Snopes debunked them. But overall, I think Scott makes a good case for Trump being controlled opposition.
I voted for Trump. Twice. But Trump threw in the towel and gave up. That’s what a controlled puppet would do. Let people have hope right up until the clock runs out.
James A., PhD
One of the accusations against Constantine Simonides’ claims to being the actual author of the Codex Sinaiticus is that he was a forger (you would think being a forger, if true, actual FAVORS Simonides, not discredits him!), and thus was a liar. Although, no accusation of forgery against Simonides was ever proven, and at least on one occasion, Constantine Tischendorf had to retract a claim against Simonides regarding the Shepherd of Hermes.
In a debate with Chris Pinto, James White sided with the Romanists that Simonides was a forger. But there’s a glaring omission in White’s debate tactic against Pinto. White demanded that Pinto point to the examplar that Simonides used for Codex Sinaiticus if there was to be any truth to Simonides’ claims. I personally thought this line of debate was irrelevant given that Simonides produced 2 Greek copies of Hermas and Barnabas unknown to exist any where else in Christendom, so he obviously had exemplars that nobody else seen, but I digress. What’s interesting about White’s logic is that not once did he ever attempt to point to any exemplars that Simonides used for his so-called “forgeries”.
Wouldn’t that be important? I mean, come on, if it was important for Pinto to produce evidence of the exemplar Simonides used for Sinaiticus, would it not be equally important to point to the exemplars that Simonides used in documents he was accused of forging? That fact that White omits this shows he knew that line of questioning was a red herring that had nothing to do with Simonides claims to the authorship of Sinaiticus.
The debate tactics and logic of the rabid anti King James Only crowd is nearly as bad as the fake news main stream media.
James A., PhD
Twitter has now permanently suspended my account. No reason was given, but the last tweets that I published were screenshots sent to Trump, and several Republican senators with evidence that Trump’s Twitter feed was being censored.
On February 13, 2019, Trump had a yuge rally in El Paso Texas. Much of his speech echoed his epic State of the Union address. Immediately after the rally, Trump tweeted a photo of the massive audience which included several video excerpts from his speech at the rally. Since mainstream media always takes truncated clips of Trump’s speeches out of context, using Twitter has been Trump’s way of reporting what HE actually said, and last night, Twitter was trying to prevent Trump’s tweet from going viral, and I had proof.
Not only was “El Paso” not trending even though it had over 400 thousand tweets ascribed to the subject, but Trump’s tweet showed up ONLY on the El Paso hashtag, but did NOT show up on his own timeline. Within 30 minutes of sending the evidence for this to several FOX News reporters and US Senators, my account was permanently banned without explanation.
Part of my recent tweets also included criticism of Democrat Congresswoman, Ilhan Omar, for her antisemitic rhetoric. Given that I am half Native American and Jewish ethnically, Omar’s comments were particularly offensive. Omar also cause Jewish journalist, Laura Loomer, to be banned from Twitter.
I’m just one more Christian conservative in a long line of other conservatives who have been censored by Twitter.
UPDATE:
One thing I discovered with my new Twitter account is just how bad I was shadow banned on the suspended account. Below is the “tale of 2 screenshots”. The first one is my suspended account. My last tweet generated only 100+ impressions, which should be MUCH, MUCH higher given that I had @26 thousand followers, and the hashtags and names tagged. The new account, which barely has any followers, generated nearly twice as many impressions. 
James A., Ph.D
In Brannon Howse’s new book, Marxianity, Howse devotes a chapter to the migration crisis that is crippling Europe right now. However, although Howse doesn’t address the so-called “Russian Collusion” accusation by Democrats and RINOs, I think he has inadvertently exposed a fatal flaw in the Russian Collusion canard that proves Russian president Vladimir Putin would’ve never wanted Donald J. Trump to become president of the United States.
It is already a well established fact that Obama and Hillary Clinton worked out a plan that netted Putin 20% of American uranium through the Uranium 1 deal, and Hillary’s 2016 campaign staff in cooperation with FBI, DOJ, and UK officials worked with Russian intelligence to fabricate a dossier that provided the grounds for a FISA warrant used to spy on the Trump campaign (with information illegally obtained from the FISA warrant fueling Robert Mueller’s targeting of “suspects” to interrogate). It is becoming painfully obvious that there is a Democrat/Russian connection that involves a scheme to destabilize sovereign countries through the massive influx of immigrants which has given rise to hoards of Islamic terrorism and rape in Germany, England, France, and Sweden and elsewhere.
So while Democrats accuse Trump and his campaign staff of colluding with Russia, the facts are pretty clear that the accusations are a smoke screen to hide their cooperation with Russia in using not only ISIS, but Islamic migration in general to cause chaos from which they will ultimately use to forge a solution that involves global governance and full-blown communism. President Trump’s border policies, and his demand for a wall in particular to secure the US southern border, would be a direct threat to one of Putin’s-and the Democrat’s-largest schemes in destabilizing the US, and Putin’s plan on using Islam as a proxy army against conservative Americans. There’s no way that Putin would’ve ever sanctioned a scheme that made Donald Trump the president of the United States of America.
Here are the facts explicating the Nyquist-Cernea white paper on Russia’s weaponization of Islam excerpted from Howse’s Marxianity.
*In a recently published article by the Katehon Institute in Russia, B. Ozerov explained that the Soviet government in 1918 “was guided by understanding Islam as a close ideology to the communist doctrine.” After all, Islam favored ideals of equality, social justice, and the redistribution of wealth. According to Ozerov, Moscow’s initial plan in the region was to “transform Islam into an Eastern edition of Communism…”
*Some of our sources have claimed that modern terrorism was introduced to the Muslims by the communist block a half a century ago. This point must not be forgotten when evaluating the left’s strange love affair with Islam. “From the very beginning,” said former KGB Lt. Col. Konstantin Preobrazhensky, “the so-called Bolsheviks, or communists, were considering Muslims as the reserve [army], as the human resource for the world revolution.”
*Prof Przemyslaw Zurawski Vel Grajewski, is one of Poland’s best political analysts…According to Prof. Zurawski, the Russians are not responsible for all the refugees who have flooded in Europe, but is is certain “they did their best to make [the problem] larger…to confuse the political scene in European countries…as much as they can.
*In July 2005 the Russian KGB/FSB defector Alexander Litvinenko told the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita that Ayman al-Zawahiri (then Al-Qaeda’s second in command) was trained by the FSB in Dagestan in 1997.
*The Ukrainian MP, Anton Gerashchenko speaking on TV Channel News One, stated: “The crisis of migrants in Europe arose because of Putin. The war in Syria began in 2011, but migrants flooded [Europe] like a large river in the spring of 2015. Russia made a decision after Europe imposed economic sanctions on Russia: ‘Let’s create problems for them.’ They created a problem: $1,000 was allocated for the head of [each] refugee who will be taken from Syria to Europe. A million refugees are a billion dollars. This is nothing to Putin…” The cost to Europe, however, is much more than $1 billion. Gerashchenko added that an atmosphere of xenophobia has been created in Europe along with the growing influence of various nationalist parties, which are known for their favorable position toward Putin’s Russia.
*The Romanian intelligence defector, Lt. Gen. Ion Mahai Pacepa has described Moscow’s use of Arab terrorist organizations throughout the Cold War in his books. We know that Russia stands firmly behind the Islamic terror regime in Tehran [Iran].
*As reported by the BBC, U.S. Gen. Philip Breedlove, the senior NATO commander in Europe, said that Russia and Syria were “deliberately weaponizing migration in an attempt to overwhelm European structures and break European resolve.” He cited Russia’s use of barrel bombs against Syrian civilians. What was the purpose of such indiscriminate attacks? The purpose was, he said, to “get them [masses of people] on the road” to Europe.
*In terms of the Muslim refugee crisis in Europe: reports of ISIS training camps in Russia, reports of GRU/SVR and Russian Mafia assistance to a massive influx of refugees, reports of Russian infiltration of terrorist organizations throughout the Muslim world, etc., constitute a loaded gun.
James A., Ph.D
On December 13, 2018, The Daily Caller (“DC”) (founded by Tucker Carlson of FOX News) published an article claiming that Dr. Jerome Corsi helped raise $25,000 for a doctor that didn’t exist. I will direct the reader to the article so as to not take credit for their work and to avoid redundancy in repeating the same claims.
Corsi’s lawyer, Larry Klaymen, posted a response to the article here.
For the following reasons, I believe Jerome Corsi knowingly and intentionally engaged in wire fraud, theft, conspiracy to defraud, and assisted in a scam that bilked $25,000 from his followers to endorse a cause he knew to be fraudulent. I do not say this lightly. I have been a fan of Corsi’s for several years, and own some of his well-researched books. I supported and defended Jerome Corsi when he was attacked by the “Q Anon” crowd in April of 2018 [I believe Q Anon is an absolute fraud and have posted quite a bit of evidence on my Twitter page to prove it]
Let me address why I think every excuse that Corsi and Larry Klaymen-who I have a lot of respect for-have made in their defense against the Daily Caller article are absurd.
The Daily Caller Article Is Based On A Mueller Leak?
Corsi is the target of a Robert Mueller probe where Mueller is seeking to connect Corsi to Roger Stone and Wikileaks. I do not think Mueller can prove that, nor do I think Wikileaks got any of their information from Russian agents, so the entire premise of Mueller’s witch hunt is based on a question begging presupposition. Nevertheless, Corsi has asserted that Mueller tried to set him up to lie against president Trump, and the information obtained by the Daily Caller is just another one of those attempts to vilify Corsi. At most, I think that’s a half truth.
However, let’s assume arguendo that Mueller did leak the information. So what? That doesn’t prove that the content of the DC article is inaccurate. In fact, most conservatives point out that the attacks on Wikileaks should not detract from what’s revealed in them. Criticizing the DC article based solely on HOW the DC obtained is known as a pyschogenetic fallacy, and dismissing it based solely on its source is a classic genetic fallacy. The response offered by Klaymen does nothing to address the merits of the facts and arguments raised by the DC, and therefore the arguments Klaymen and Corsi raise against the DC article that are based solely on its source and how it was obtained are fallacious and erroneous.
Furthermore, what exactly did Mueller leak? Corsi published several videos endorsing the Go Fund Me campaign, offered several links to the “doctor’s” website, publicly named the person (Thomas Sickler) he was raising funds for and even had some fancy campaign videos made for him and publicly stated that his wife’s cousin was treated by this doctor (“Mendelsohn”) in Israel. So what exactly did Mueller convey to Chuck Ross (the author of the DC article) that wasn’t already open source, public information? All of these facts are listed in the DC article with the links where they can be verified.
It is interesting that of all the public appearances Corsi made on FOX and Youtube following his Mueller interrogation, which included the claims that Mueller was targeting his stepson, Corsi never mentioned that Mueller was also looking into his Go Fund Me campaign reference by the DC article. In my opinion, Mueller likely didn’t know about the Go Fund Me (given what Corsi himself told us about the interrogation) but now, Corsi is attempting to insert a peremptory defense in the event the Mueller uses it against him. In other words, if Mueller can’t charge Corsi with collusion, he’ll turn to the Go Fund Me fiasco, and when he does, Corsi can say “we told you so”. It’s kind of a round-about way of preventing Mueller from using the Go Fund Me campaign against him, but if he does, it will be bootstrapped to his argument as proof that Mueller leaked the information to Chuck Ross.
Corsi Endorsed The Campaign With A Personal Testimony
Jerome Corsi claimed that his wife’s cousin was treated by this doctor in Israel. Even if the “doctor” (“Mendelsohn”) and the “cancer victim” (“Sickler”) (who may be the same person given that the organization’s medical practice website in Florida is registered in the “cancer victim’s” name) had “misled” Corsi, and were the ones scamming him, Corsi would’ve known that the practice was a scam once his wife’s cousin arrived in Israel and realized that no such doctor existed. That would likely make for one very angry cousin if she was truly suffering from cancer and traveled from Argentina to Israel only to find that no such treatment is available at the hospital where it is claimed to be practiced at, nor does the doctor exist who is claimed to be its champion.
Corsi’s followers may have been reluctant to contribute to this campaign, but given Corsi’s endorsement of the treatment, and his claim that the doctor cured his wife’s cousin, Corsi put any doubt to rest and put his potential contributors at ease by vouching for the cancer treatment.
Was Corsi Duped and Mislead by Dr. Mendelsohn and Thomas Sickler?
Corsi asserts that it’s possible that he was mislead or “bamboozled” by Sickler and the doctor, but that he genuinely believed that Sickler was a cancer patient and the Dr. Mendelsohn was a real doctor. HOWEVER, keep in mind it was Corsi’s claim that this doctor healed his wife’s cousin that gave credence to the claims of the medical treatment, and therefore, for the endorsement of Sicker’s campaign. That means that the narrative about Corsi’s cousin came BEFORE the campaign was started for Thomas Sickler. Hence, Corsi knew it was fraud before he started the campaign on Sickler’s behalf.
Moreover, how ironic is it that the “cancer patient” Corsi was raising funds for just happens to also be the same patient who owns the website for one Dr. Eliad Mendelsohn? If the doctor was a fraud when Corsi sent his wife’s cousin to Israel (if THAT is even true: we haven’t heard from the cousin), he was a fraud when Corsi established the campaign for Sickler, and Corsi knew it. But my, what a coincidence that Corsi just happens to run into the very person who created Dr. Mendelsohn after his cousin returning from Israel would’ve told him that no such doctor exists! This clearly implies that not only did Corsi know that Dr. Mendelsohn did not exist, but implies he knew who was behind the fraud because the odds that he would start a Go Fund Me campaign for the very person who created Dr. Mendelsohn after knowing that his wife’s cousin was not treated by any such person, while not being suspect about the person approaching him for the need to be treated by this “doctor” would be astronomical.
Therefore, it appears to me that Jerome Corsi knew all along that the Dr. Mendelsohn “cancer treatment” was fraudulent, and he compounded the scam by lying about the treatment of his wife’s cousin which gave the campaign a veridical appearance, when in fact, it resulted in defrauding hundreds of people who contributed to what they thought was a genuine campaign to treat a cancer patient.
Conclusion
I am not only disappointed in Jerome Corsi as a long time faithful follower of his, but I am angry. Corsi has given the impression that he is a Christian, and has declared that he would not accept Robert Mueller’s plea agreement because he could not “lie before God and country” to something he knows to be a lie. And yet, it is obvious to me that Corsi lied about the Sickler/Mendelsohn Go Fund Me campaign. These kind of actions give other Christians a bad name, and it should be called out.
Corsi owes his followers an apology. He owes his followers reimbursement for their contributions to this campaign. Corsi should also be criminally prosecuted for theft and conspiracy to defraud the contributors (note: Corsi denies receiving any of the proceeds of the campaign, but at this point, I believe even that needs to be investigated).
One of my biggest complaints against the current Trump presidency is that not enough has been done to drain the swamp. I believe Mueller’s inquisition is a witch hunt, and good people like Mike Flynn are being destroyed while crooks and liars like Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Eric Holder, Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein and the rest of the Deep State cabal seem to get away with murder. It’s obvious that there’s one standard of justice and another for conservatives. Nevertheless, it numbs the mind to think that Corsi should be exonerated merely because Deep State actors aren’t held accountable for their actions. Corsi should be held to the same standards as anyone else, and any defense of Corsi’s actions are inexcusable. I pray Corsi seek’s the counsel of the Lord, and after some long reflection comes to repentance.
James A., Ph.D
“Creepy Porn Lawyer”, Michael Avenatti, was arrested on or about November 14, 2018, for felony domestic battery. Although Avenatti denies being either “charged”, or accused of a felony, the LAPD website states both: that Avenatti was not only “charged”, but charged with a class F Felony.
After Avenatti’s release on $50,000 bail, Avenatti accused Jacob Wohl of orchestrating a smear campaign against him. In other words, Avenatti was arrested not because he actually assaulted someone, but because there’s a vast conspiracy between Jacob Wohl and the Los Angeles Police Department (which just happens to be one of the most liberal strongholds in the country).
For the following reasons, this accusation against Wohl is patently absurd.
1. Avenatti’s grounds for this accusation seems to be based on a single tweet made by “Surefire Intelligence” which stated simply, “Surefire strikes again”. It is obvious that the tweet was not an admission to Wohl’s “complicity” in Avenatti’s arrest, but a sentiment that they thought they were first to circulate the story, which is a common “puffing” tactic used by all news reporting agencies and marketers. Even if Surefire was playing head games with Avenatti, that’s not evidence that Wohl was behind Avenatti’s arrest.
2. The reports which rely heavily on TMZ and AP Network News, who report getting their information from the LAPD, state that the victim reporting the incident had visible injuries. The injuries were serious enough to charge Avenatti with a felony as opposed to a misdemeanor. To think Wohl orchestrated the physical, visible bruises on the victim is absurd. Avenatti has attacked TMZ for being part of the “conspiracy” against him as well because it’s owner is friends with President Trump, even though TMZ has quite a plethora of negative anti-Trump articles. However, ironically, Avenatti is silent on the same reporting done by AP, who is clearly not Trump-friendly.
3. Avenatti was arrested for a DOMESTIC battery, which typically indicates the victim and perpetrator were in a close relationship.* This is also supported by the fact that the victim obtained a restraining order (screenshot of relevant portion of the article below) against Avenatti on November 15, 2018. The fact that the victim feared that Avenatti would return not only shows trauma, but also shows that Avenatti and the victim knew each other, and knew each other long enough for there to have been a relationship. For Wohl to have orchestrated this, he would have to have known who Avenatti was dating, and then somehow, convinced the victim to cooperate in a conspiracy to have Avenatti arrested for battery, in addition to being willing to take a punch.
To think that Wohl just schmoozed into this woman’s life and someone convinced a girl he didn’t know to accuse her boyfriend of domestic abuse is just absurd. How did Wohl know who Avenatti was dating? How did Wohl know where they lived? Note that in all of Avenatti’s public statements, he has not denied knowing the woman, he has not denied having a relationship with the woman, and he has not directly accused the woman or Jacob Wohl of knowing each other.
4. Avenatti is reported to have told the police, “she hit me first”. Avenatti has not denied that he made this statement to police. This statement made in the heat of the incident would be considered in law “res gestae, excited utterance”. These kind of utterances are often the most powerful statements because they reflect what a person is thinking and feeling in the moment without having time to reflect on how they could have or should have responded differently, and before you give your official spin narrative to the media. The fact that Avenatti has claimed he never hit the woman, AT ALL, yet claims that she hit him first based on his excited utterance shows that not only is he lying about hitting her, but is trying to give the impression that even if he did, it would be OK to crush a woman’s face simply because she hit him first.
So much for “believe survivors”, and “believe women”.
The media, and Avenatti’s supporters have pointed to another incident in where they accuse Wohl of orchestrating an attack against Robert Mueller. Even if this were true (and there’s no proof that it is), it is a post hoc ∴ propter hoc fallacy to claim that Wohl is behind the Avenatti arrest based solely on Avenatti’s question-begging premise that Wohl orchestrated a “Mueller smear”.
Thus ultimately, the only grounds so far that Avenatti has put forward in an attempt to substantiate his claim that Jacob Wohl was behind his arrest is a single tweet that is quite ambiguous. This is just sloppy, irresponsible lawyering, and hardly constitutes evidence of a conspiracy.
Unfortunately, California is an activist state. It is where the ACLU goes judge shopping, and where courts have exonerated illegal immigrants in the face of overwhelming evidence of murder, and warned them in advance of impending arrests by ICE. It is highly likely, in my opinion, Avenatti will seek the assistance of the US Senator over Los Angeles, Dianne Feinstein, the senator who was involved in smearing Justice Kavanaugh, who will then put pressure on local LAPD officials and the mayor, and thus it is unlikely Avenatti will face any real consequences, and the victim will not get any real justice. But until the case against Avenatti has been adjudicated, it is absurd to make Jacoh Wohl into a patsy, and direct public ire against him without any evidence whatsoever that Wohl had anything to do with putting Michael Avenatti’s fist into the face of his girlfriend as reported by the LAPD, TMZ, and AP. All Avenatti is doing at this point is harpooning the public pool of opinion. “Harpooning the jury” is a lawyer tactic where even though a lawyer knows a comment will be objected to and ordered stricken from the record, it nevertheless stews in the minds of the jurors and can often be persuasive in deliberations. It is clear that’s what Avenatti is doing. Even though there’s absolutely no substance to his accusations, he’s employing a common propaganda technique to deflect and project the entire case onto Jacob Wohl. In my opinion, if all this is true, Avenatti should take the advice of Jacob’s father:
*Although it appears that the victim was misidentified at first as Avenatti’s ex-wife, Lisa Avenatti, it is clear that Avenatti was accused of hitting SOMEONE. It would not be difficult for any media to make this kind of mistake given that Avenatti was charged with a domestic battery, and his last known spouse was Lisa Avenatti. However, domestic battery can include a girlfriend. What Avenatti has attempted to do is deny that any person was assaulted at all by laying the entire alleged assault on Lisa, and since Lisa denies being the victim, ergo it follows that no victim exists at all and the event as alleged never happened. Again, bad lawyering and really bad logic.
James A., Ph.D,
Tucker Carlson made headlines the week of November 7-8, 2018, as the domestic terrorist groups, Antifa, Smash Fascism, with Think Progress, surrounded his home, tried to break into his house, threatened him with mail bombs, and terrorized his wife.
But over the weekend, we learned there was another event that precipitated this, which Tucker was trying to keep a low profile on to protect his children. According to a statement by Tucker Carlson, a Leftist confronted his daughter, and called her Tucker’s whore. His daughter returned to their table in tears, and the Leftist was subsequently confronted by Tucker and his son. The restaurant investigated the matter and suspended the Leftist’s membership.
It has been said that it’s not the crime, but the cover up that always seems worse, and in this instance, Creepy Porn Lawyer, Michael Avenatti, takes the cake. In a not-really-surprising twist, Avenatti is representing the Leftist who accosted the Carlson family, and is attempting to spin the narrative, and accuse the Carlson’s of doing exactly what his client did to them. Of course, this isn’t the client’s first rodeo with an establishment like this. Avenatti’s client, Juan Granados, once sued a Virginia Health Club over similar allegations (we’ve also seen similar tactics like this from the LGBT Mafia who target Christian businesses, like cake shops).
Avenatti released the following statement on Twitter, which was preceded by several other tweets (which will all be addressed below), and it is my purpose to challenged every statement made.
First of all, let’s address the elephant in the room. Given that the November attack by Antifa at Tucker’s residence was about his opinion over the Honduran caravan approaching the border, it is beyond ironic that the Leftist accosting his family at the restaurant just happens to be “an immigrant”. What a great way to spin a narrative than by claiming that Tucker’s family conspired to attack an immigrant, giving the impression that his views on FOX about the caravan are actually based on racism. Secondly, are we really supposed to believe that Carlson’s entire family was involved in some vast conspiracy to find a gay Latino at a restaurant to confront him over his immigration status, as opposed to visiting the restaurant to enjoy a meal with family? What’s entirely missing from Avenatti’s narrative is how this conflict arose in the first place if he’s denying that he did what the Carlson’s say he did.
Inappropriate Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)
Avenatti attempts to commit a common fallacy of appealing to credentials and authority to bolster his client’s credibility (as he attempted to do with a Kavanaugh accuser, Julie Swetnick). In other words, my client isn’t guilty because he’s an activist in good standing with his activist community. It also begs the question: how do we know he has great character? I would argue, however, that his activism is what makes him more suspect, not a credible witness. Leftists have adopted a win-by-any-means-necessary revolutionary tactic, and seeking out the Carlson family in a restaurant attempting to provoke a confrontation and then use it to create a false narrative in the mainstream media against Carlson is not beyond the type of typical tactics we’ve seen from the Left.
1. Granados claims that he has witnesses that claim he did not call Tucker’s daughter a whore or a cunt. Yet none of those witnesses have provided a statement which as Avenatti well knows, is hearsay. So on point 1, it’s the word of Granados against Tucker and his two children, and other witnesses in a video that Avenatti audaciously claims supports his client.
The obvious question looming here is how the Carlson’s came into contact with Granados in the first place? In a short one minute video posted Avenatti, Avenatti argues for Granados that Tucker told him to “go back where you came from”, yet this would require Tucker to know where he came from. How would Tucker have known that? The video shows nothing of the sort. There are numerous voices shouting, and a lot of profanity exchanged, but what is never said is “go back where you came from”. Avenatti is attempting to “Acosta” the video, make you see something or not see something based on gaslighting. In fact, the video shows that other witnesses support Tucker’s claim. One witness attempting to get Granados to leave says, “you’re going to defend that guy? [uses thumb to point to Granados] Did you see what he did?”.
2. Granados then claims that Tucker’s daughter never returned to her table in tears. How would he know that? Did he follow her back to the table? What made him pay attention to her in the first place if he claims the confrontation never happened? Isn’t it kind of odd that he would be watching her return to a table after a confrontation he says didn’t occur? In denying the description provided by Tucker’s daughter on this point, Granados actually incriminates himself.
3. Granados then asserts that Tucker and his son are/were the aggressors “as shown in the video”. As stated above, the video shows nothing of the sort. Furthermore, the video is taken AFTER the incident described by Tucker Carlson’s statement. This is the equivalent of the older brother punching his little brother in the stomach (remember “The Good Son”!), and then filming his brother’s reaction for the purpose of blaming the victim for being aggressive. The video does nothing to refute what Carlson claims happened before the video was taken. Moreover, it would be even more suspicious if there just happened to be a camera rolling ab initio.
4. Granados alleges that Tucker’s daughter was drinking, and was “underage at 19”. First of all, how does this creep know how old she is? Granted, he could have learned that later, but a statement such as what Avenatti is providing is supposed to recite events AS YOU WERE AWARE OF THEM AT THE TIME, not as you became aware of them later, and Granados is affirming that he knew of her age AT THAT TIME. Was he stalking Tucker’s daughter? Furthermore, Granados never mentions how he knew Tucker’s daughter was drinking an alcoholic beverage. Did he ask the bartender what he served her? Did Avenatti get a statement from the bartender? Is this even true at all? Perhaps the bar was the closest place to get a refill on a soda without having to wait for a waitress. This statement is unproven and slanderous, and frankly, the restaurant should sue Granados for defamation by accusing them of serving alcohol to minors.
It is extraordinary how much Granados seems to know about where Tucker’s daughter sat, what she drank, that she traveled to a bar on several occasions, and whether or not she was crying, all while denying he never had any contact with her that night as described by Tucker. For a person who didn’t know what she was talking about, he sure knows an awful lot about her, and her activities at the restaurant.
__________________________
Now that we’ve disposed of the Granados statement, and the video, let’s move on to Avenatti’s explanatory tweets (I’m going to skip some of the first tweets because they are redundant to what his client argues in his written statement above, and those arguments have already been addressed).
In Tweet 2/3, Avenatti posts,
2/3 – and battery (on video). You are the aggressor in the video as is your friend. The man at the bar sits there calmly. Numerous witnesses contradict your claim of innocence. Your daughter was drinking underage in a bar with your assistance and knowledge. You were intoxicated.
At first, Avenatti claimed that Tucker’s daughter was “LIKELY” drinking underage. Then he moves to claiming it as an absolute fact that not only was Tucker’s daughter drinking, but that Tucker himself was intoxicated. How does Avenatti know either statement is true, and where are the witnesses and forensic evidence to prove his statements? This is a defamatory claim that the Carlson family should sue Avenatti for.
Secondly, Avenatti claims that “numerous witnesses” contradict Tucker, but then why is he asking for help to find witnesses? If there were numerous witnesses, shouldn’t Avenatti already know who they are and obtained and published their statements? It seems the strategy is to create the narrative first, then search for the elements necessary to prove the crime later. Publicizing only one small part of the story allows activists to come forward claiming they were there, when all of the evidence that Avenatti claims he relies on should’ve been presented before making his claims.
2/2 – We are attempting to locate additional witnesses and to identify those depicted in the video. In particular, we need assistance identifying the balding man that grabs the man seated at the bar. We anticipate charges being filed. Anyone with knowledge, pls contact us.
Finally, Avenatti asks in a tweet,
3/3 – You told the man to “go back where you came from” before the video starts. And if you were so innocent, why didn’t you disclose it weeks ago as you recently did in connection with the protest at your home?
Tucker already explained why he never mentioned this incident, an explanation that is ignored by Avenatti, and it’s more than a reasonable explanation. Unlike Democrats who enjoy using children as political props, Conservatives don’t exploit their own children to help their career or agenda. He wanted to keep his children out of the media. Given the actions of these mobs, what parent wouldn’t? The difference between this restaurant incident, and the mob at Tucker’s house, is that it was the mob itself that posted the video of what they did and made it public, whereas the incident at the restaurant was never made public until Michael Avenatti spoke about it publicly on behalf of his client. For Avenatti to even ask this question shows either abject incompetence, or deliberate means to promote propaganda.
I may add more to this later, so check back often, and leave your comments. But in my opinion, I believe that Avenatti is orchestrating these events, and should be investigating by the Department of Justice.
I am reposting the Breitbart list because it was hacked earlier this week, and will likely be attacked again given liberal’s bent on interfering in the upcoming elections. When referencing these facts, please quote/site/link the Breitbart article unless it’s not working.
James A., PhD
Imagine if a new political party arose in America called “Death to America”, and it’s values were stated as follows:
*We believe in the abolishment of private property
*We believe that America is an illegitimate nation founded on the backs of slaves
*The United States Constitution is outdated and should reflect the progressive values of modern liberalism, and therefore needs to be reconstructed
*We believe government should be in control of all private business and means of production (including insurance companies, health maintenance organizations, etc..). We believe that all earnings from the working class should be equally distributed by the state for the provision of the masses, each according to his ability, each according to his need.
*We believe the state should impose mandatory education on all children under 18, and the school curriculum should be dictated by the state. No “higher education” should be permitted or degrees conferred except upon approval of state accreditation
*We advocate control of all media, with ‘fact checkers’ utilized to determine whether any agency or person attempts to be an “independent media figure”. If the Fact Finders make such a determination that the views or opinions of the independent media appear to rival or be antithetical to the views of Death to America, they shall be censored
*We believe that guns are unnecessary. No person should have the “right” to bear arms. All munitions should be utilized by the state and its agents
*We believe in open borders. Nationalism, patriotism, should be abolished and in its place recognition of a global cooperation that incorporates the values of all nations and ideologies however antithetical to the so-called “United States of America”
*Christianity is an affront to democracy and should be outlawed, and its participants ridiculed and incarcerated for causing sedition, hate and division
*We believe that the very name “United States of America” should be amended. “United States OF America” reflects an unacceptable sense of sovereignty to the exclusion of other nations. Our goal is to have a United States of a New World Order
Would the ACLU and Southern Poverty Law Center seek to defend politicians attempting to gain office who openly subscribe to these views? Would Republicans accept this albeit however reluctantly because such views are protected by “Freedom of Speech”? The fact is, the ACLU has already defended it: it’s called Communism/Socialism/Progessivism./Marxism, and it is the prevailing view of the modern Democratic Party, with a few nuances to protect their rhetoric in carefully crafted subterfuge.
In the early 1900s, the ACLU (which was itself founded by Communists) successfully challenged numerous ‘Criminal Syndicalism” laws that protected Communists from prosecution. Although the Constitution would seemingly protect a variety of speech in the public arena, it is unconscionable to think that these protections would extend to practices for legislatures. Common sense dictates that the founding fathers had no intention of allowing a politician to hold office in any of our three branches of government who openly advocated for the destruction of everything that our Constitution stands for. Yet that’s exactly what has happened. Through the fallacious logic of reductionism, the ACLU argues that the right to express different ideas in pubic extends to the right to implement those policies in practice as an employee of the government.
Some Democrats, like Bernie Sanders, and Democrat candidates (like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) overtly identify themselves as “Democratic Socialists” (it should be remembered that one of the leading parties that preceded the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was called “Democrat Socialists”, so the attempts of Sanders and his defenders’ to persuade Americans that Democratic Socialism is some novel concept that isn’t really borrowed from “radicals” like Stalin, Lenin and Hitler, is very disingenuous). Hillary Clinton praised a radical Marxist, and revered him as her mentor (Saul Alinsky, who’s book “Rules for Radicals” has become the playbook for Democrat Jihadists like ANTIFA). Project Veritas has exposed a plethora of operatives openly admitting their tactics to undermine the current administration in a series of undercover videos. The modern Democratic Party *IS* the party of Soviet Socialism. [This probably explains why they accused Trump of “colluding with Russia”. Part of Socialist/Communist propaganda is to accuse your enemy of doing exactly what you are doing]
Alarms against the dangers of Communism were sounded off loudly in the 1950s. In 1954, President Eisenhower signed the Communist Control Act. This act has never been repealed (although the Supreme Court ruled that it could not prevent members of the Communist Party from participating in insurance benefits programs. Communist Party v Catherwood, 367 U.S. 389 (1961)). The infamous “Naked Communist” was the product of notes taken from Congressional hearings on Communism which included over 40 stated goals of the Communist Party. It would be wise for our current administration to reconsider reviving this Act, and enforcing it.
Not only should Republicans do everything they can to reverse the Communist infestation, but I argue that its persistence in America presents law abiding gun owners of America a justifiable grounds for civil war. The Second Amendment was designed primarily to protect us from a tyrannical government, and with the direction that the Democrat Party is headed, America will eventually be Venezuela and Soviet Russia if the Democrats have their way. The Democratic Mob has adopted the Communist “any means necessary” mantra to implement their ideas, including 600 documented cases of violence against conservatives, and we’ve patiently endured their persecutions, trying to ameliorate problems in America peacefully through debate and civil discourse. But Democrats have closed their ears to debate. Hillary Clinton admitted that civility will only return to America if Democrats get control of the House and Senate, and former Attorney General Eric Holder under Czar Obama encouraged Democrats to kick Republicans if they’re down. Americans may not like the idea, and I’m sure nobody in 1776 got warm & fuzzy over the idea of war, either, but we are at a fork in the road where it’s either another 1776, or we give up and submit to slavery to Communists. As a Christian, I hate violence, but I have a duty to protect my family, and my country, and so do you.
The Democrat Party has never held American values. It has been a party of racism and slavery since its inception, and is now openly advocating for the destruction of America and the suppression of conservatism up to and including the use of violence, and the censorship of conservatives on all social media outlets. The liberal machine has so infested our government and strategically planted operatives in every part of our government that war may be the ONLY way to get our country back. We went to war once over a country that treated us exactly the way Democrats are treating America now, and then again, when the same Democratic Party in place today refused to recognize the God given rights of African Americans. I believe a third war is inevitable because the Democratic Party will not stop their subversion until they have gained complete control of our country, and turned America back into their old plantations, and if we let them, Death to America won’t be an analogy for a blog post, it will be a reality.
____________________________________________
I would also encourage readers to peruse the Declaration of Independence, and look at the reasons we went to war with England. What the Democratic Party has done has far exceeded the grounds we relied on to fight the British in 1776.
THE NAKED COMMUNIST: 45 COMMUNIST GOALS
On Jan. 10, 1963, Congressman Albert S. Herlong Jr. of Florida read a list of 45 Communist goals into the Congressional Record. The list was derived from researcher Cleon Skousen’s book “The Naked Communist.” These principles are well worth revisiting today in order to gain insights into the thinking and strategies of much of our so-called liberal elite:
1. U.S. should accept coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. should be willing to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war. [Note: These encapsulate the Kennan Doctrine, which advocated for the “containment” of communism. Establishment figures supporting the amoral containment policy at least implicitly worked with the communists in scaring the wits out of the American people concerning atomic war. President Ronald Reagan undid the doctrine when he took an aggressive stand against the Evil Empire by backing freedom fighters from around the world that were struggling against the left-wing communist jackboot. As a result, the Soviet Union and its satellites imploded, aconsiderable and unexpected setback to the international communist edifice.]
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the U.S. would be a demonstration of “moral strength.” [Note: The nuclear freeze advocates supported a freeze on American nuclear development only. Rarely were Soviet nukes or those of other nations mentioned in their self-righteous tirades. The same advocates now call for reducing American military might, claiming that there is something immoral about America preserving its military pre-eminence in the world.]
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war. [Note: Today, there are calls to end the embargo on the slave island of Cuba, there were complaints about the embargo against Iraq, and the U.S., not Saddam Hussein, was blamed for the suffering of the Iraqi people. Would they have advocated for free trade with Hitler and his National Socialist regime?]
5. Extend long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination. [Note: Such aid and trade over decades contributed greatly to the left-wing communist liquidation of over 100 million people worldwide, according to the well-documented “Black Book of Communism.” This aid and trade marks a shameful chapter in American history. Without the aid and trade, the left-wing international communist behemoth would have imploded on its own rot a lot sooner and umpteen millions would have been saved from poverty, misery, starvation and death.]
7. Grant recognition of Red China and admission of Red China to the U.N. [Note: Not only did President Jimmy Carter fulfill this goal but he also betrayed America’s allies in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iran, Afghanistan, Angola and elsewhere.]
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the Germany question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the U.S. has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. [Note: There are still American intellectuals, and elected members of Congress, who dream of an eventual one world government and who view the U.N., founded by communists such as Alger Hiss, the first secretary-general, as the instrument to bring this about. World government was also the dream of Adolf Hitler and J.V. Stalin. World government was the dream of Osama bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers.]
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party. [Note: While the idea of banning any political party runs contrary to notions of American freedom and liberty, notions that are the exact opposite of those held by the left-wing communists themselves, nevertheless these goals sought to undermine the constitutional obligation of Congress to investigate subversion. The weakening of our government’s ability to conduct such investigations led to the attack of 9/11.]
13. Do away with loyalty oaths. [Note: It is entirely proper and appropriate for our government to expect employees, paid by theAmerican taxpayer, to take an oath of loyalty.]
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the U.S. [Note: In his book, “Reagan’s War,” Peter Schweizer demonstrates the astonishing degree to which communists and communist sympathizers have penetrated the Democratic Party. In his book, Schweizer writes about the presidential election of 1979.]
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights. [Note: This strategy goes back to the founding of the American Civil Liberties Union by Fabian Socialists Roger Baldwin and John Dewey and Communists William Z. Foster and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn among others.]
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for Socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations that are under Communist attack. [Note:The success of these goals, from a communist perspective, is obvious. Is there any doubt this is so?]
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV & motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all form of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings,” substituting shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. ” Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV. [Note: This is the Gramscian agenda of the “long march through the institutions” spelled out explicitly: gradual takeover of the “means of communication” and then using those vehicles to debauch the culture and weaken the will of the individual to resist.]
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural and healthy.” [Note: Today those few who still have the courage to advocate public morality are denounced and viciously attacked. Most Americans are entirely unwitting regarding the motives behind this agenda.]
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.” [Note: This has been largely accomplished through the communist infiltration of the National Council of Churches, Conservative and Reform Judaism, and the Catholic seminaries.]
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state”
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of “the big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over. [Note: Obliterating the American past, with its antecedents in principles of freedom, liberty and private ownership is a major goal of the communists then and now.]
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture – education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat. [Note: The Soviets used to send “social misfits” and those deemed politically incorrect to massive mental institutions called gulags. The Red Chinese call them lao gai. Hitler called them concentration camps.]
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose communist goals. [Note: Psychiatry remains a bulwark of the communist agenda of fostering self-criticism and docility.]
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. [Note: Done! The sovereign family is the single most powerful obstacle to authoritarian control.]
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents. [Note: Outcome-based education, values clarification or whatever they’re calling it this year.]
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special interest groups should rise up and make a “united force” to solve economic, political or social problems. [Note: This describes the dialectical fostering of group consciousness and conflict, which furthers the interests of authoritarianism.]
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally Reservation so the U.S. cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems.
Give the World Court jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.
WHAT KILLS YOU MAKES YOU STRONGER! ROMANS 8:13, 7:24-25 |AN IFB MINISTRY
WHAT KILLS YOU MAKES YOU STRONGER! ROMANS 8:13, 7:24-25 |AN IFB MINISTRY
WHAT KILLS YOU MAKES YOU STRONGER! ROMANS 8:13, 7:24-25 |AN IFB MINISTRY
Do Right Christians 