There is a plethora of evidence that Trump is a lunatic (and a liar, fraud, con, pervert, bigot, Liberal, and traitor…) that one must be careful to not stumble and trip over over the festering piles of facts proving the whole-sale unfitness of Trump to be dog-catcher of Spickard, Missouri, let alone President of the United States of America.
This article will concern itself with the one, focused fact that Trump is a lunatic. Let us commence, shall we?
The man in charge of the world’s most powerful military is a deranged lunatic
President Trump is facing down an impeachment inquiry, and his former subordinates are starting to disobey his efforts to keep them from testifying. After a lifetime of total impunity for alleged crimes, sexual assaults, and business failures, Trump is just possibly facing a serious consequence.
So naturally, he chose to upset his own caucus by randomly ordering a withdrawal of American forces from northern Syria and green-lighting an invasion by Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan — thus throwing Kurdish militias who have been loyal allies of U.S. troops for years, and took thousands of casualties fighting ISIS on America’s behalf, directly to the wolves.Thousands are fleeing, and hundreds have been killed. After the House of Representatives voted 354 to 60 to condemn the action, Vice President Pence announced Thursday he had negotiated a five-day ceasefire to allow Kurdish forces to withdraw — which was over a week too late and, as Rachel Maddow outlines, gave Erdogan exactly what he wanted.
It turns out having an incurious, vicious dolt whose mind is clearly fading by the minute in charge of the world’s largest military is not so good.
It is hard to put into words just how weird and unsettling it is watching this oaf blunder his way around world politics. In some ways, it’s like being ruled by an abusive father.Every time something happens — like the unfortunate recent passing of Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) — people are on tenterhooks wondering what horrible poison Trump is going to tweet. With such a cruel and graceless person, you can never be sure what is going to set him off, or who is going to be shoved down the metaphorical stairs. (This time it wasn’t so bad, luckily.)
…abandoning the Kurds like this might just be the most purely loopy foreign policy act an American president has ever done.The U.S. has spent tens of billions of dollars since 2014 fighting ISIS, propping up both the Kurds on one side and the Iraqi military on the other.The whole U.S. position in the region has been oriented around this goal.Now not only are we giving up on that entire project, seemingly because Trump had a short conversation with a quasi-dictator, we didn’t even give our former allies — who are incidentally about the most sympathetic group in the entire region — a few days’ warning.
One can criticize President Obama’s war on ISIS, but instantly pulling up stakes like this is far from some responsible wind-down of an overextended U.S. military. It is a stark demonstration that the United States’ decisions have become impossible to predict because its president is anirrational maniac.
‘No idea too lunatic’: how Trump’s shock troops attack US democracy
Donald Trump once declared: “I alone can fix it.” He never made the claim: “I alone can break it.” When it comes to softening up institutions, eroding norms and chipping away at the foundations of democracy, it takes a village (IDIOT).
While the president has led the way in stirring outrage, he is aided and abetted by an entire ecosystem of activists, officials, politicians, pundits and social media stars. Far from being a lone voice screaming into the void, Trump can be confident that every baseless conspiracy theory he generates will be echoed, endorsed and enlarged – whatever the cost to the rule of law.
“There’s no idea too lunatic or extreme that Trump cannot find someone to amplify them for him,” said Charlie Sykes, a conservative broadcaster and journalist. “This is the new political normal. It’s no wonder that Trump is not deterred from saying crazy things, because he knows there will always be someone willing to go out there and repeat them.”
A case in point is the fallout from the special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Trump has spent two years throwing out words like “coup”, “deep state”, “hoax”, “treason” and “witch-hunt” with unnerving insouciance.When Mueller’s report emerged last month, Trump falsely claimed it totally cleared him of collusion and obstructing justice. There duly came a chorus of support, from Republicans in Congress to the extreme fringes of the web.
Emboldened, Trump is going further. He alleges without evidence that the FBI committed treason, spied on his election campaign and tried to rob him of victory. Last week, he gave the attorney general, William Barr, authority to declassify information about the origins of the investigation. Again, there is enthusiastic backing from cheerleaders who holler “investigate the investigators” and suggest that Barack Obama, not Trump, should be on trial.
Uh-oh. President Trump is in such a state of panic about his dimming reelection prospects that he’s getting his lies mixed up and occasionally blurting out the truth.
“It’s tough for Apple to pay tariffs if it’s competing with a very good company [Samsung] that’s not,” the president told reporters Sunday — flatly contradicting the ridiculous and utterly false narrative that he has spent months trying to sell.Trump apparently forgot his standard lie that China is somehow paying “billions of dollars” in tariffs, acknowledging instead that they are taxes paid by U.S. companies and, ultimately, the American consumer.
This reflects more than just the difficulty of juggling multiple lies. Evidence suggests that Trump is melting down. Again.
And for good reason.
Fears of a global recession, greatly exacerbated by Trump’s erratic and self-destructive trade policies, have sent financial markets tumbling. A sharp downturn would close off one of the principal lines of attack the president was hoping to use against his Democratic opponent. He tried it out at a rally in New Hampshire last week: “You have no choice but to vote for me,” he told the crowd, “because your 401(k)’s down the tubes, everything’s gonna be down the tubes” if he loses. “So whether you love me or hate me, you gotta vote for me.”
Fact check: No.
Trump is flailing. He berates his handpicked chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jerome H. Powell, for not cutting interest rates fast enough to goose the economy. He practically begs Chinese President Xi Jinping for a meeting to work out a trade deal — any trade deal, apparently — and is met with silence. He threatens more tariffs but then backs down, at least for now. According to published reports, he sees himself as the victim of a conspiracy to exaggerate the growing economic anxiety in order to hurt his chances of winning a second term.
He entertains grandiose, almost Napoleonic fantasies —purchasing Greenland from Denmark in what he calls “a large real estate deal,” perhaps, or imposing a naval blockade to force regime change in Venezuela. He apparently spent much of this past weekend fuming about not getting credit for how his New Hampshire rally broke an attendance record for the arena that had been set by Elton John.
And Trump can’t seem to stop railing against a recent Fox News poll that showed him losing to four of the leading Democratic contenders. The president seems to consider Fox News his administration’s Ministry of Propaganda — indeed, that is the role the network’s morning-show hosts and prime-time anchors loyally play — but the polling unit is a professional operation. “There’s something going on at Fox, I’ll tell you right now. And I’m not happy with it,” Trump told reporters Sunday . He added a threat, saying that Fox “is making a big mistake” because he is “the one that calls the shots” on next year’s general election debates — the implication being that Fox News might not get to broadcast one of them if it doesn’t toe the party line.
For the record, Trump’s claim about his political standing is that it couldn’t be better — but could be better.
“Great cohesion inside the Republican Party, the best I have ever seen,” he tweeted Monday. “Despite all of the Fake News, my Poll Numbers are great. New internal polls show them to be the strongest we’ve had so far! Think what they’d be if I got fair media coverage!”
An hour later, he was back on Twitter to attack Anthony Scaramucci, who famously spent 11 days as White House communications director and recently became the latest Trump supporter to hit the “eject” button. Predictably, Trump called him a “nut job,” claimed to barely know him and dusted off the ultimate insult, calling him “bad on TV.”
The astonishing thing is that the president of the United States is, let’s face it, raving like a lunatic — and everyone just shrugs.
TRUMP INSISTS HE’S SMART ENOUGH TO COMMIT CRIMES
“If I wanted to do quid pro quo, I would’ve done the damn quid pro quo.”
Last Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal editorial board ran a unique defense of Donald Trump in which it contorted itself to argue that while the president may have “wanted a quid-pro-quo policy ultimatum toward Ukraine,” people should consider the possibility that he “was too inept to execute it.”Most individuals facing impeachment would be grateful for this ridiculous theory, especially considering the evidence thus far suggests that Trump did demand a quid pro quo from Ukraine for nearly $400 million in military aid, a fact acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney just came out and admitted to the press before trying to walk it back after realizing how bad it sounded.
But Donald Trump isn’t most individuals.Instead, he’s an abnormally sensitive lunatic who flies off the handle at the slightest provocation, real or imagined, and would rather people think he’s “like, [a] really smart” criminal than dumb and innocent.And we know this because apparently Trump saw the editorial and insisted as much.
A source familiar with his reaction to the editorial told the Daily Beast: “[The president] mentioned he had seen it and then he started saying things like, ‘What are they talking about, if I wanted to do quid pro quo, I would’ve done the damn quid pro quo,’ and…then defended his intelligence and then talked about how ‘perfect’ the call [with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky] was.” Another person familiar with the matter confirmed the account. “He was clearly unhappy,” the first source said. “He did not like the word ‘inept.’”
While sad and pathetic, the story is not hard to believe.Trump has, of course, famously referred to himself as a “very stable genius,”challenged his former secretary of state to an I.Q. test, and claimed to posses “great and unmatched wisdom.” In March 2016, he said he doesn’t need to consult with experts on foreign policy because he relies on himself and his “very good brain.”On one occasion, when asked by a critic to prove his allegedly off-the-charts I.Q., he responded that it was “the highest, a$$hole!”On another, he literally tweeted, “Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest -and you all know it! Please don’t feel so stupid or insecure, it’s not your fault.” So yeah, this anecdote checks out.
To close let me posit this call-in to “Fox & Friends” by Donnie “Little Hands” TrumPutin:
Trump, to Fox & Friends, on Barr DOJ’s probe of Russia investigation: “What you’re going to see, I predict, will be perhaps the biggest scandal in the history of our country…I could get very much involved, but I don’t…I don’t have any obligation legally to [not get involved]”
[ME: ??? WHAT WAS THIS MANIAC BLATHERING ABOUT HERE?!!]
“They gave the server to CrowdStrike … that’s what the word is” — here’s Trump pushing the absolutely insane, debunked conspiracy theory that the DNC’s server is in Ukraine and that Russia was framed for interfering in the 2016 election
“I do want, always, corruption” — quite the Freudian slip from Trump
Fox & Friends hosts struggle to get a word in as Trump yells about Hunter Biden and “CHY-NA”
TRUMP on Kurt Volker, his former special envoy to Ukraine: “I don’t know him.”
TRUMP on Sondland, his current ambassador to EU and $1 million donor to his inaugural: “I hardly know him.”
“She wouldn’t hang my picture in the embassy … it took like a year & a half or 2 years for her to get the picture up … this was not an angel, ok?” — Trump says one of his big beefs with Ambassador Yovanovitch was that she wasn’t eager to hang up his portrait
[ME: WHO, BESIDES TRUMPSTER, WOULD WANT HIS PIC UP??]
Trump’s ramblings on how many “stars” he’s made over the years are completely off the rails
[ME: WHO CARES?!!]
Trump on Adam Schiff: “I want to put that guy with his, uh, with his — way. I almost said something that might’ve been slightly controversial.”
[ME: LIKE THIS HOUR LONG DIATRIBE IS “SANE”- EXCEPT FOR THIS PART HERE!!!]
Trump on Hong Kong protests: “We have to stand with Hong King, but I’m also standing with President Xi. He’s a friend of mine, he’s an incredible guy. We have to stand … if it weren’t for me, thousands of people would have been killed in Hong Kong right now.”
[ME: MEGLAMANIACAL MUCH, TRUMPY??]
Trump claims that if he hadn’t fired Comey, “I would have been in some trouble right now, because they were coming after me … turned out to be the best move I ever made — firing Comey. Because they were looking to take down the president.”
Sounds like obstruction!
[ME: IT IS OBSTRUCTION!!]
“Are you sure?” Trump’s effort to exonerate Russia for interfering in the election on his behalf was a bit much even for Fox & Friends
Are you sure?” Trump’s Ukraine conspiracy theory was a bit much even for Fox & Friends
Trump pushed a debunked conspiracy mere hours after Fiona Hill described it as Russian disinformation.
SIMPLY SCRIPTURE AND DIRECT, IN CONTEXT COMMENTARY: GOD’S WORD ON TRUMP.
TRUMP HAS DONE, IS DOING, AND IS THE ABOVE. ANYONE WHO SAYS OTHERWISE EITHER KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT TRUMP, OR IS A LIAR.
THIS APPLIES TO THE TRUMP SUPPORTER MOST OF ALL. ANYONE WHO DEFENDS AND SUPPORTS TRUMP, AND SAYS HE IS GOOD IS ABHORRED.
ALL THE EVANGELICAL LEADERS AND PROSPERITY HERETICS WHO PROSTRATE BEFORE TRUMP AND COVER FOR HIM…THIS IS YOU. TRUMP IS WICKED.
THIS IS Trump and ALL of his defenders. Lie. Name call. Slander. Malign. Libel. Curse…and then say they didn’t mean it, or didn’t mean it “that way”.
Again, THIS IS TRUMP. Dissembleth means: TO LIE, TO DISGUISE YOUR REAL INTENT WITH FEIGNED WORDS.
ONLY those WILLFULLY blind and deaf do not see that this IS Trump.
Trump is PART of God’s JUDGMENT on America’s sins.
I am contending against the EVIL of not only Trump, but of ALL Liberalism. I will NOT forsake The Law of God to praise a very unworthy man.
How can anyone, especially a Christian, read The Holy Scriptures and NOT see that THIS IS Trump?!!
15 As a roaring lion, and a ranging bear; so is a wicked ruler over the poor people.
16 The prince that wanteth understanding is also a great oppressor: but he that hateth covetousness shall prolong his days.
THAT IS Trump. Clearly.
CLEARLY THE LATTER IS TRUMP.
THIS SCREAMS “TRUMP”!
TRUMP IS THE LATTER PART OF THIS SCRIPTURE, THE WICKED.
TRUMP, THE GIFT RECEIVER/OVERTHROWER.
To WILLINGLY ASSOCIATE and BEFRIEND the Wicked IS to BE wicked. That IS Trump and his Defenders.
Trump & Associates.
Trump supporters, are YOU listening??
Trump IS an abomination to The JUST. If he’s NOT an abomination to YOU…then you are NOT just.
Daniel 11:36-39King James Version (KJV)
36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things againstthe God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, northe desire of women, norregard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.
38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
39 Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.
That speaks of The Anti-Christ, but Scripture speaks of “many antichrists” as forerunners to THE Anti-Christ.
1 John 2:18King James Version (KJV)
18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
2 Thessalonians 2:2-12King James Version (KJV)
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word,nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, buthad pleasure in unrighteousness.
What Christian, KNOWING The Scripture can read ALL this and deny that this firmly, clearly, and directly speaks of Trump and his defenders and followers?!!
Romans 1:18-32King James Version (KJV)
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heavenagainst all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
THIS DIRECTLY APPLIES TO TRUMP AND HIS DEFENDERS.
Galatians 5:16-25King James Version (KJV)
16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other:so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ’s havecrucifiedthe flesh with the affections and lusts.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1King James Version (KJV)
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
7 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
Christian, you can NO longer defend, support, or walk with Trump in ignorance. If you walk with him any further it is because you’ve chose to follow a wicked, dishonorable, vile man. And that means YOU ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH HIM.
NOTE: The source is Fox “News” …so the REAL reporting is buried 6 paragraphs in, but then runs for 6 paragraphs.
HERE is the truth, NOT Trumpy “McLiar” is claiming:
While Trump argued that Sondland’s statement proves there was no quid pro quo between his administration and Ukraine — the matter at the heart of the impeachment probe — Sondland gave a more nuanced account.
He confirmed he never heard directly from Trump on a quid pro quo linking military aid for Ukraine to politically advantageous investigations.
But Sondland said “we all understood” that a meeting at the White House for Ukraine’s president and a phone call with Trump would happen only if President Volodymyr Zelensky agreed to an investigation into the 2016 U.S. election and the Bidens. And he said he came to presume aid was linked to investigations too.
He said he sent an email on July 19, just days before the July 25 call at the center of the impeachment inquiry, where he laid out the issue in detail to members of the State and Energy departments and White House staff.
Sondland added: “It was no secret.”
Sondland testified later that he worked with Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, on Ukraine at Trump’s “express direction” and pushed a “quid pro quo” with Kiev because it was what Trump wanted…
Sondland “pointing a finger directly at Trump,” he said this: “I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a ‘quid pro quo?’ As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.Mr. Giuliani conveyed to Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker,and others that President Trump wanted a public statement from President Zelensky committing to investigations of Burisma and the 2016 election.Mr. Giuliani expressed those requests directly to the Ukrainians.Mr. Giuliani also expressed those requests directly to us.We all understood that these prerequisites for the White House call and White House meeting reflected President Trump’s desires and requirements.”…
…”Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker, and I worked with Mr. Rudy Giuliani on Ukraine matters at the express direction of the President of the United States. We did not want to work with Mr. Giuliani. Simply put, we played the hand we were dealt. We all understood that if we refused to work with Mr. Giuliani, we would lose an important opportunity to cement relations between the United States and Ukraine. So we followed the President’s orders.”…
…”In July and August 2019, we learned that the White House had also suspended security aid to Ukraine.I was adamantly opposed to any suspension of aid, as the Ukrainians needed those funds to fight against Russian aggression. I tried diligently to ask why the aid was suspended, but I never received a clear answer. In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 election and Burisma, as Mr. Giuliani had demanded.”
The TRUTH, per usual, is quite different than what Donnie “Little Hands” TrumPutin claims.
Lead attorney for the Clinton impeachment, Ken Starr, weighed in:
In speaking to Fox News on Wednesday, the head prosecutor in Bill Clinton’s impeachment hearings said Sondland’s testimony “doesn’t look good for the president, substantively.” Starr continued, “It’s over … The articles of impeachment are being drawn up, if they haven’t already been drawn up. … This obviously has been one of those bombshell days,” said Starr, who added that Democrats will claim Trump “committed the crime of bribery.”
“YEAH, BUT DIDN’T TRUMP’S AND THE REPUBLICAN’S STAR WITNESS HELP TRUMP’S CASE??”
Former US Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker was widely seen as Republicans’ impeachment ace in the hole. On Tuesday on Capitol Hill, it didn’t work out that way.
Volker’s opening statement repeatedly acknowledged that statements he made during his October 3 closed-door deposition in front of House investigators had been not fully informed. And that, in the six weeks between that first appearance and his public appearance before the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, much had changed that forced him to also revise and extend his original contentions.
*He acknowledged that he lacked a full understanding of the fact that many people involved in the Trump administration’s push for an investigation into an Ukrainian natural gas company on whose board Joe Biden’s son, Hunter sat, viewed that pressure campaign as synonymous with a call to investigate the Bidens.
“I now understand that others saw the idea of investigating possible corruption involving the Ukrainian company, ‘Burisma’ as equivalent to investigating former Vice President Biden,” said Volker. “I saw them as very different. The former being appropriate and unremarkable, the latter being unacceptable.”
*Volker initially said that investigations into Trump’s conspiracy theories and the release of almost $400 million in military aid for Ukraine were not mentioned in a July 10 meeting at the White House. But on Tuesday, Volker said he now knows that the investigations were mentioned.
*Volker said in his October testimony that any conversations with the Ukrainians about making an announcement on the opening of an investigation into the Bidens had ended in August. But on Tuesday, Volker acknowledged that US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland had told a top Ukrainian official on September 1 that he believed the military aid was tied to the announcement of an investigation.
Those are big changes, with big implications.
No longer is Volker claiming — as he did in his original testimony — that there were no efforts on the part of the Americans to force the Ukrainians to announce an investigation had ended in August, long before the September 11 decision was made to release the hold on nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine.
No longer is Volker claiming that the idea of investigations — into the Bidens and into a debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine somehow had meddled in the 2016 election to help Hillary Clinton and might be in possession of the hacked Democratic National Committee server — never came up in a White House meeting two weeks before the July 25 call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
No longer is Volker claiming that no one thought the push by some members of the Trump administration to investigate Burisma had anything to do with investigating a potential 2020 presidential challenger to Trump.
And then there was what Volker had to say about Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani — and his negative impact on Trump’s view of Ukraine. As Volker said Tuesday:
“It was clear to me that despite the positive news and recommendations being conveyed by this official delegation about the new President, President Trump had a deeply rooted negative view on Ukraine rooted in the past. He was clearly receiving other information from other sources, including Mayor Giuliani, that was more negative, causing him to retain this negative view.”
Which, again, wow.
Donnie “Little Hands” TrumPutin, his “associates”, and sycophant supporters all whine that “the deck is stacked against” poor widdle Trumpy-poo…well, he has been given an open invitation to join the hearings and given a personal account of himself.
Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Schumer invite the president to stand up for himself
Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi invited President Donald Trump to testify in front of investigators in the House impeachment inquiry ahead of a week that will see several key witnesses appear publicly, the AP reports.
Pushing back against accusations from the president that the process has been stacked against him, Pelosi said Trump is welcome to appear or answer questions in writing, if he chooses. “If he has information that is exculpatory, that means ex, taking away, culpable, blame, then we look forward to seeing it,” she said in an interview that aired Sunday on CBS’ Face the Nation. Trump “could come right before the committee and talk, speak all the truth that he wants if he wants,” she said. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer echoed that suggestion.
So, um, why wont TrumPutin go, swear an oath to tell THE TRUTH about all this and clear things up?
There are two reasons TrumPutin can’t/wont testify under oath:
TRUMP IS SUCH A RAMBLING LIAR NONE OF HIS ADVISORS OR ASSOCIATES WILL LET HIM TESTIFY,
TRUMP IS TERRIFIED OF THE TRUTH COMING OUT BECAUSE IT PROVES HIM GUILTY.
ONLY those with their head firmly buried up their own, or TrumPutin’s butt believe Trumpy is honest, innocent, and sane.
So as I close…IF TrumPutin’s/GOP’S “star witness” and EVERYONE ELSE associated with Trumpster and Pence say they are guilty…well, does it really matter what Donnie “Little Hands” TrumPutin says?
I work at a Walmart Super Center. I see a lot of people on a daily basis.
Lately, as if there’s a trend, there have been a great deal of folk, men and women of all ages, coming in proudly wearing The Confederate flag. Some with ridiculous messages, aka lies, about the Confederate flag like “It’s not about hate- It’s Heritage.” Yeah, a heritage of hate, bigotry, racism, and slavery.
I’ve not said a peep…til now.
Last week an 18 year old boy sporting the Confederate flag T-shirt with the message:
“If this flag offends you-
Then read your history.”
My blood boiled. I KNOW history.
NOT the revisionist, got-it-all-backwards “history” that they’ve been pushing in the Public “Skules” since at least the 1950’s.
So here’s REAL History. Directly FROM The Confederate State’s own Letters of Secession and other Confederate publications.
Confronting Civil War Revisionism:
Why the South Went To War
The rewriting of history in any area is possible only if: (1) the public does not know enough about specific events to object when a wrong view is introduced; or (2) the discovery of previously unknown historical material brings to light new facts that require a correction of the previous view. However, historical revisionism – the rewriting “of an accepted, usually long-standing view… especially a revision of historical events and movements” 1 – is successful only through the first means.
Over the past sixty years, many groups, exploiting a general lack of public knowledge about particular movements or events, have urged upon the public various revisionist views in order to justify their particular agenda. For example, those who use activist courts to advance policies they are unable to pass through the normal legislative process defend judicial abuse by asserting three historically unfounded doctrines: (1) the judiciary is to protect the minority from the majority; (2) the judiciary exists to review and correct the acts of elective bodies; and (3) the judiciary is best equipped to “evolve” the culture to the needs of an ever-changing society. These claims are directly refuted by original constitutional writings, especially The Federalist Papers. (See also the WallBuilders’ book, Restraining Judicial Activism.)
Likewise, those who pursue a secular public square seek to justify their agenda by asserting that the Founding Fathers: (1) were atheists, agnostics, and deists, and (2) wrote into the Constitution a strict separation of church and state requiring the exclusion of religious expressions from the public arena. These claims are also easily rebuttable through the Founders’ own writings and public acts. (See also the WallBuilders’ book, Original Intent.)
A third example of historical revisionism involves the claim that the 1860-1861 secession of the Southern States which caused the Civil War was not a result of the slavery issue but rather of oppressive federal economic policies. For example, a plaque in the Texas State Capitol declares:
Because we desire to perpetuate, in love and honor, the heroic deeds of those who enlisted in the Confederate Army and upheld its flag through four years of war, we, the children of the South, have united together in an organization called “Children of the Confederacy,” in which our strength, enthusiasm, and love of justice can exert its influence. We therefore pledge ourselves to preserve pure ideals; to honor our veterans; to study and teach the truths of history (one of the most important of which is that the war between the states was not a rebellion nor was its underlying cause to sustain slavery), and to always act in a manner that will reflect honor upon our noble and patriotic ancestors. (emphasis added)
Other sources make the same false claim, 2 but four notable categories of Confederate records disprove these claims and indisputably show that the South’s desire to preserve slavery was indisputably the driving reason for the formation of the Confederacy.
1. Southern Secession Documents
From December 1860 through August 1861, the southern states met individually in their respective state conventions to decide whether to secede from the Union. On December 20, 1860, South Carolina became the first state to decide in the affirmative, and its secession document repeatedly declared that it was leaving the Union to preserve slavery:
[A]n increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding [i.e., northern] states to the institution of slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations. . . . [T]hey have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery. . . . They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes [through the Underground Railroad]. . . . A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the states north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States [Abraham Lincoln] whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common government because he has declared that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. . . . The slaveholding states will no longer have the power of self-government or self-protection [over the issue of slavery] . . . 3
Following its secession, South Carolina requested the other southern states to join them in forming a southern Confederacy, explaining:
We . . . [are] dissolving a union with non-slaveholding confederates and seeking a confederation with slaveholding states. Experience has proved that slaveholding states cannot be safe in subjection to non-slaveholding states. . . . The people of the North have not left us in doubt as to their designs and policy. United as a section in the late presidential election, they have elected as the exponent of their policy one [Abraham Lincoln] who has openly declared that all the states of the United States must be made Free States or Slave States. . . . In spite of all disclaimers and professions [i.e., measures such as the Corwin Amendment, written to assure the southern states that Congress would not abolish slavery], there can be but one end by the submission by the South to the rule of a sectional anti-slavery government at Washington; and that end, directly or indirectly, must be the emancipation of the slaves of the South. . . . The people of the non-slaveholding North are not, and cannot be safe associates of the slaveholding South under a common government. . . . Citizens of the slaveholding states of the United States! . . . South Carolina desires no destiny separate from yours. . . . We ask you to join us in forming a Confederacy of Slaveholding States. 4
On January 9, 1861, Mississippi became the second state to secede, announcing:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world. . . . [A] blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution [slavery], a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove. The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787. [On July 13, 1787, when the nation still governed itself under the Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance (which Mississippi here calls the “well-known Ordinance of 1787”). That Ordinance set forth provisions whereby the Northwest Territory could become states in the United States, and eventually the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota were formed from that Territory. As a requirement for statehood and entry into the United States, Article 6 of that Ordinance stipulated: “There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory.”
When the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, the Founding Fathers re-passed the “Northwest Ordinance” to ensure its continued effectiveness under the new Constitution. Signed into law by President George Washington on August 7, 1789, it retained the prohibition against slavery.
As more territory was gradually ceded to the United States (the Southern Territory – Mississippi and Alabama; the Missouri Territory – Missouri and Arkansas; etc.), Congress applied the requirements of the Ordinance to those new territories. Mississippi had originally entered the United States under the requirement that it not allow slavery, and it is here objecting not only to that requirement of its own admission to the United States but also to that requirement for the admission of other states.]. . . It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves and refuses protection to that right on the high seas [Congress banned the importation of slaves into America in 1808], in the territories [in the Northwest Ordinance of 1789, the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854], and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction. . . . It advocates Negro equality, socially and politically. . . . We must either submit to degradation and to the loss of property [i.e., slaves] worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers to secure this as well as every other species of property. 5
(Notice that the Union’s claim that blacks and whites were equal both “socially and politically” was a claim too offensive for southern Democrat states to tolerate.)
Following its secession, Mississippi sent Fulton Anderson to the Virginia secession convention, where he told its delegates that Mississippi had seceded because they had unanimously approved a document “setting forth the grievances of the Southern people on the slavery question.” 6
On January 10, 1861, Florida became the third state to secede. In its preliminary resolutions setting forth reasons for secession, it acknowledged:
All hope of preserving the Union upon terms consistent with the safety and honor of the Slaveholding States has been finally dissipated by the recent indications of the strength of the anti-slavery sentiment in the Free States. 7
On January 11, 1861, Alabama became the fourth state to secede. Like the three states before her, Alabama’s document cited slavery; and it also cited the 1860 election victory of the Republicans as a further reason for secession, specifically condemning . . .
. . . the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States of America by a sectional party [the Republicans], avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions [slavery] and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama . . . 8
Georgia similarly invoked the 1860 Republican victory as a cause for secession, explaining:
A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the federal government has been committed [i.e., the Republican Party] will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia [in favor of secession]. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican Party under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. . . . The prohibition of slavery in the territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its [Republican] leaders and applauded by its followers. . . . [T]he abolitionists and their allies in the northern states have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions [i.e., slavery]. 9
Why was the Republican election victory a cause for secession? Because the Republican Party had been formed in May of 1854 on the almost singular issue of opposition to slavery (see WallBuilders’ work, American History in Black and White). Only six years later (in the election of 1860), voters gave Republicans control of the federal government, awarding them the presidency, the House, and the Senate.
The Republican agenda was clear, for every platform since its inception had boldly denounced slavery. In fact, when the U. S. Supreme Court delivered the 1857 Dred Scott ruling protecting slavery and declaring that Congress could not prohibit it even in federal territories, 10 the Republican platform strongly condemned that ruling and reaffirmed the right of Congress to ban slavery in the territories. 11 But setting forth an opposite view, the Democrat platform praised the Dred Scott ruling 12 and the continuation of slavery 13 and also loudly denounced all anti-slavery and abolition efforts. 14
The antagonistic position between the two parties over the slavery issue was clear; so when voters gave Republicans control of the federal government in 1860, southern slave-holding Democrat states saw the proverbial “handwriting on the wall” and promptly left the United States before Republicans could make good on their anti-slavery promises. It was for this reason that so many of the seceded states referenced the Republican victory in their secession documents.
It was not just southern Democrats who viewed the election of Lincoln and the Republicans as the death knell for slavery; many northern Democrats held the same view. In fact, New York City Democrat Mayor Fernando Wood not only attacked the Republican position on slavery but he also urged New York City to join with the South and secede, explaining:
With our aggrieved brethren of the Slave States, we have friendly relations and a common sympathy. We have not participated in the warfare upon their constitutional rights [of slaveholding] or their domestic institutions [slavery]. . . . It is certain that a dissolution [secession of the State of New York from the Union] cannot be peacefully accomplished except by the consent of the [Republican New York] Legislature itself. . . . [and] it is not probable that a partisan [Republican] majority will consent to a separation. . . . [So] why should not New York City, instead of supporting by her contributions in revenue two-thirds of the expenses of the United States, become also equally independent [i.e., secede]? . . . In this she would have the whole and united support of the southern states. 15
Other northern Democrats also assailed the anti-slavery positions of the Republicans – including Samuel Tilden (a New York state assemblyman and later the chair of the state Democrat Party, state governor, and then presidential candidate). Tilden affirmed that southern secession be could halted only if Republicans publicly abandoned their anti-slavery positions:
[T]he southern states will not by any possibility accept the avowed creed of the Republican Party as the permanent policy of the federative government as to slavery. . . . Nothing short of the recession [drawing back] of the Republican Party to the point of total and absolute non-action on the subject of slavery in the states and territories could enable it to reconcile to itself the people of the South. 16
Even the editorial page of the New York World endorsed the Democrats’ pro-slavery positions and condemned Republicans:
We cannot ask the South – we will not ask anybody – to live contentedly under a government . . . which burdens white men with oppressive debt and grinding taxation to try an unconstitutional experiment of giving freedom to Negroes. . . . A proposal for an abolition peace can never gain a hearing in the South. If the Abolition Party [Republicans] continues in power, the separation is final, [both] in feeling and in fact. 17
However, returning to an examination of southern secession documents, on January 19, 1861, Georgia became the fifth state to secede. Georgia then dispatched Henry Benning to Virginia to encourage its secession. At the Virginia convention, Benning explained to the delegates:
What was the reason that induced George to take the step of secession? That reason may be summed up in one single proposition: it was a conviction – a deep conviction on the part of Georgia – that a separation from the North was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. This conviction was the main cause. 18
On January 26, 1861, Louisiana became the sixth state to secede. Days later, Texas was scheduled to hold its secession convention, and Louisiana sent Commissioner George Williamson to urge Texas to secede. Williamson told the Texas delegates:
Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern Confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery. . . . Louisiana and Texas have the same language, laws, and institutions. . . . and they are both so deeply interested in African slavery that it may be said to be absolutely necessary to their existence and is the keystone to the arch of their prosperity. . . . The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery if Texas either did not secede or, having seceded, should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy. . . . As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of annexation [Great Britain abolished slavery in 1833; by 1843, southern statesmen were alleging – without evidence – that Great Britain was involved in a plot to abolish slavery in America. Southern voices therefore called for the immediate annexation of pro-slavery Texas into the United States in order to increase pro-slavery territory, but anti-slavery leaders in Congress – including John Quincy Adams and Daniel Webster – opposed that annexation. Their opposition was initially successful; and in his diary entry for June 10 & 17, 1844, John Quincy Adams enthused: “The vote in the United States Senate on the question of [admitting Texas] was, yeas, 16; nays, 35. I record this vote as a deliverance, I trust, by the special interposition of Almighty God. . . . The first shock of slave democracy is over. Moloch [a pagan god requiring human sacrifices] and Mammon [the god of riches] have sunk into momentary slumber. The Texas treason is blasted for the hour.” That victory, however, was only temporary; in 1845, Texas was eventually admitted as a slaveholding state.] not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slaveholding states are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery. The isolation of any one of them from the others would make her a theatre for abolition emissaries from the North and from Europe. Her existence would be one of constant peril to herself and of imminent danger to other neighboring slave-holding communities. . . . and taking it as the basis of our new government, we hope to form a slave-holding confederacy . . . 19
Williamson’s encouragement to the Texans turned out to be unnecessary, for on February 1, 1861, even before he arrived from Louisiana, Texas had already become the seventh state to secede. In its secession document, Texas announced:
[Texas] was received as a commonwealth, holding, maintaining, and protecting the institution known as Negro slavery – the servitude of the African to the white race within [Texas] – a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slaveholding states of the Confederacy. . . . In all the non-slave-holding states . . . the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party [i.e., the Republican Party] . . . based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these southern states and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men irrespective of race or color – a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of divine law. They demand the abolition of Negro slavery throughout the Confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and Negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us so long as a Negro slave remains in these states. . . . By the secession of six of the slave-holding states, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North or unite her destinies with the South. 20
On April 17, 1861, Virginia became the eighth state to secede. It, too, acknowledged that the “oppression of the southern slave-holding states” (among which it numbered itself) had motivated its decision. 21
On May 8, 1861, Arkansas became the ninth state to join the Confederacy. Albert Pike (a prominent Arkansas newspaper owner and author of numerous legal works who became a Confederate general) explained why secession was unavoidable:
No concessions would now satisfy (and none ought now to satisfy) the South but such as would amount to a surrender of the distinctive principles by which the Republican Party coheres [exists], because none other or less would give the South peace and security. That Party would have to agree that in the view of the Constitution, slaves are property – that slavery might exist and should be legalized and protected in territory hereafter to be acquired to the southwest [e.g., New Mexico, Arizona, etc.], and that Negroes and mulattoes cannot be citizens of the United States nor vote at general elections in the states. . . . For that Party to make these concessions would simply be to commit suicide and therefore it is idle to expect from the North – so long as it [the Republican Party] rules there – a single concession of any value. 22
As Pike knew, the federal government under the Republicans was unwilling to abandon its anti-slavery positions; therefore the only recourse for the guarantee of continued slavery in Arkansas was secession – which Arkansas did.
Eventually, North Carolina and Tennessee became the tenth and eleventh states to secede, thus finishing the formation of the new nation that titled itself the Slave-Holding Confederate States of America. Southern secession documents indisputably affirm that the South’s desire to preserve slavery was the driving force in its secession and thus a primary cause of the Civil War.
2. The Declarations of Congressmen who left Congress to Join the Confederacy
Beginning on January 21, 1861, southern Democrats serving in Congress began resigning en masse to join the Confederacy. During this time, many stood in their respective federal legislative chambers and delivered their farewell statements unequivocally affirming what the secession documents clearly declared.
For example, Democrat U. S. Senator Alfred Iverson of Georgia bluntly told his peers:
I may safely say, however, that nothing will satisfy them [the seceded states] or bring them back short of a full and explicit recognition and guarantee of the safety of their institution of domestic slavery. 23
Democrat U. S. Senator Robert Toombs of Georgia (soon to become the Secretary of State for the Confederacy, and then a general in the Confederate Army) declared that the seceded South would return to the Union only if their pro-slavery demands were agreed to:
What do these Rebels demand? First, that the people of the United States shall have an equal right to emigrate and settle in the present or an future acquired territories with whatever property they may possess (including slaves). . . . The second proposition is that property in slaves shall be entitled to the same protection from the government of the United States, in all of its departments, everywhere, which the Constitution confers the power upon it to extend to any other property. . . . We demand in the next place . . . that a fugitive slave shall be surrendered under the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 without being entitled either to a writ of habeas corpus or trial by jury or other similar obstructions of legislation. . . . Slaves – black “people,” you say – are entitled to trial by jury. . . . You seek to outlaw $4,000,000,000 of property [slaves] of our people in the territories of the United States. Is not that a cause of war? . . . My distinguished friend from Mississippi [Mr. Jefferson Davis], another moderate gentleman like myself, proposed simply to get a recognition that we had the right to our own – that man could have property in man – and it met with the unanimous refusal even of the most moderate, Union-saving, compromising portion of the Republican party. . . . Mr. Lincoln thus accepts every cardinal principle of the Abolitionists; yet he ignorantly puts his authority for abolition upon the Declaration of Independence, which was never made any part of the public law of the United States. . . . Very well; you not only want to break down our constitutional rights – you not only want to upturn our social system – your people not only steal our slaves and make them freemen to vote against us – but you seek to bring an inferior race into a condition of equality, socially and politically, with our own people. 24 (emphasis added)
Democrat U. S. Senator Clement Clay of Alabama (soon to become a foreign diplomat for the Confederacy) also expounded the same points:
Not a decade, nor scarce a lustrum [five year period], has elapsed since [America’s] birth that has not been strongly marked by proofs of the growth and power of that anti-slavery spirit of the northern people which seeks the overthrow of that domestic institution [slavery] of the South, which is not only the chief source of her prosperity but the very basis of her social order and state polity. . . . No sentiment is more insulting or more hostile to our domestic tranquility, to our social order, and our social existence, than is contained in the declaration that our Negroes are entitled to liberty and equality with the white man. . . . To crown the climax of insult to our feelings and menace of our rights, this party nominated to the presidency a man who not only endorses the platform but promises in his zealous support of its principles to disregard the judgment of your courts [i.e., Lincoln had indicated that he would ignore the Supreme Court’s egregious Dred Scott decision], the obligations of your Constitution, and the requirements of his official oath, by approving any bill prohibiting slavery in the territories of the United States. 25
Democrat U. S. Senator John Slidell of Louisiana (soon to be a Confederate diplomat to France and Great Britain), echoed the same grievances:
We all consider the election of Mr. Lincoln, with his well-known antecedents and avowed [anti-slavery] principles and purposes . . . as conclusive evidence of the determined hostility of the Northern masses to our institutions. We believe that he conscientiously entertains the opinions which he has so often and so explicitly declared, and that having been elected on the [anti-slavery] issues thus presented, he will honestly endeavor to carry them into execution. While now [as a result of secession] we have no fears of servile insurrection [i.e. a slave revolt], even of a partial character, we know that his inauguration as President of the United States, with our assent, would have been considered by many of our slaves as the day of their emancipation. 26
Democrat U. S. House Representative William Yancey (who became a Confederate diplomat to Europe and then a Confederate Senator) similarly complained:
[The North is] united in pronouncing slavery a political and social evil. . . . There exists but one party that, either in spirit or sentiment, manifests any disposition to stand by the South and the Constitution, and that is the Democratic Party. . . . The institution of slavery. . . . exists for the benefit of the South and is its chief source of wealth and power; and now in the hour of its peril – assailed by the great Northern antagonistic force [the Republicans and abolitionists] – it must look to the South alone for protection. . . . The question then, naturally arises, what protection have we against the arbitrary course of the Northern majority? . . . The answer is . . . withdraw from it [i.e., secede]! 27
Perhaps the no-holds-barred pro-slavery position of Democrats and southern states was best summarized by Democrat U. S. Senator Judah P. Benjamin of Louisiana (who became the first Attorney General of the Confederacy, then its Secretary of War, and finally its Secretary of State), who declared:
I never have admitted any power in Congress to prohibit slavery in the territories anywhere, upon any occasion, or at any time.28 (emphasis added)
Once the South seceded and organized its Confederate government, it immediately sought official diplomatic recognition from Great Britain and France, wrongly believing that by halting the export of Southern cotton into those nations they could strong-arm them into an official recognition of the Confederacy. But Great Britain and Europe already held large stores of cotton in reserve and also had access to textile imports from other nations, so the poorly conceived Confederate plan was unsuccessful.
France had been willing to extend official recognition to the Confederacy but would not do so unless Great Britain did the same. But Charles Francis Adams (U. S. Minister to England, and the son of John Quincy Adams and grandson of John Adams) rallied anti-slavery forces in Europe and England to successfully lobby Great Britain not to extend official recognition to the Confederacy. Those early diplomatic successes by the Union were bolstered by President Lincoln’s 1862 announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation freeing slaves in the American states in rebellion – an act very popular among working-class Britons. By October 1863, the Confederacy, not having received the official support it so badly needed, expelled British representatives from southern states.
Although Great Britain never extended official recognition, she did indirectly assist the South in many ways, including supplying the Confederacy with naval cruisers that pillaged Union merchant shipping and also providing weapons to southern troops, including the Whitworth rifle (considered one of the most accurate rifles in the Civil War). A number of Britons even crossed the ocean to serve in the Confederate Army; and in some British ranks, the sympathy for the Confederacy was so strong that after popular Confederate General Stonewall Jackson was accidentally shot down by his own troops, the mourning was just as visible in parts of England as it had been throughout the Confederacy. Some in the British press even likened the death of Jackson to that of their own national hero, Lord Nelson; and a British monument to General Jackson was even commissioned, paid for, and transported to Richmond, Virginia by Confederate sympathizers in Great Britain.
Christian leaders in France – seeing Britain’s unofficial support for the slave-holding Confederacy – dispatched a fiery letter to British clergy, strongly urging them to oppose every British effort to help the Confederacy. As the French clergy explained:
No more revolting spectacle has ever been before the civilized world than a Confederacy – consisting mainly of Protestants – forming itself and demanding independence, in the nineteenth century of the Christian era, with a professed design of maintaining and propagating slavery. The triumph of such a cause would put back the progress of Christian civilization and of humanity a whole century. 29
Foreign observers clearly saw what southern Democrat U. S. Representatives and Senators in Congress had already announced: the Civil War was the result of the South’s desire to perpetuate slavery.
3. The Confederate Constitution
On February 9, 1861 (following the secession of the seventh state), the seceded states organized their new Confederate government, electing Jefferson Davis (a resigned Democrat U. S. Senator from Mississippi) as their national president and Alexander Stephens (a resigned Democrat U. S. Representative from Georgia) as their national vice-president. On March 11 (only a week after the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln as President [Confederate apologists not only claim that slavery was not the central issue to the Confederacy but they also frequently portray Abraham Lincoln as a dictator, tyrant, atheist, homosexual, incompetent, drunk, etc. To “prove” this view, they rely heavily on The Real Lincoln by Thomas Dilorenzo (2002), The Real Lincoln by Charles Minor (1901), and Herndon’s Lincoln by William H. Herndon (1888). These three books (and a few others) portray Lincoln in a negative light, but literally hundreds of other scholarly biographies written about Lincoln – including by Pulitzer Prize-winning historians such as Carl Sandburg, Ida Tarbell, Garry Wills, Merrill Peterson, Don Fehrenbacher, and others – reached an opposite conclusion.
A similar corollary would be to study the life of Jesus only by reading The DaVinci Code or The Last Temptation of Christ, or to study the life of George Washington only by using W. E. Woodward’s George Washington: The Image and the Man. In both cases, those writings present a view of that person but hundreds of other writings present an opposite and more accurate view; so, too, with Lincoln. The view of Lincoln presented by Confederate apologists is indeed a view, but it is contradicted by scores of other writers who, after examining all the historical evidence, reached an opposite conclusion.]), a constitution was adopted for the new confederacy of slave-holding states – a constitution that explicitly protected slavery in numerous clauses:
ARTICLE I, Section 9, (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in Negro slaves shall be passed.
ARTICLE IV, Section 2, (1) The citizens of each state . . . shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any state of this Confederacy with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
ARTICLE IV, Section 2, (3) [A] slave or other person held to service or labor in any state or territory of the Confederate States under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall . . . be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs.
ARTICLE IV, Section 3, (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory. . . . In all such territory, the institution of Negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States. 30
Ironically, southern apologists claim that the Confederacy was formed to preserve “states’ rights,” yet the Confederacy expressly prohibited any state from exercising its own “state’s right” to end slavery. Clearly, the Confederacy’s real issue was the preservation of slavery at all costs – even to the point that it constitutionally forbade the abolition of slavery by any of its member states.
4. Declaration of Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens
On March 21, 1861 (less than two weeks after the Confederacy had formed its constitution), Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens delivered a policy speech setting forth the purpose of the new government. That speech was entitled “African Slavery: The Corner-Stone of the Southern Confederacy.” In it, Stephens first acknowledged that the Founding Fathers – even those from the South – had never intended for slavery to remain in America:
The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. 31
What did Vice-President Stephens and the new Confederate nation think about these anti-slavery ideas of the Founding Fathers?
Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. 32 (emphasis added)
Notice that by the title (as well as the content) of his speech, Confederate Vice-President Stephens affirmed that slavery was the central issue distinguishing the Confederacy.
Were Economic Policies a Major Factor in Secession?
Many southern apologists assert that the primary cause of the Civil War was unjust economic policies imposed on the South by northerners in Congress, 33 but secession records refute that claim. In fact, of the eleven secession documents, only five mention economic issues – and each was in direct conjunction with slavery. For example:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions; and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. 34MISSISSIPPI
Texas [and] Louisiana . . . have large areas of fertile, uncultivated lands peculiarly adapted to slave labor; and they are both so deeply interested in African slavery that it may be said to be absolutely necessary to their existence and is the keystone to the arch of their prosperity. 35LOUISIANA
They [the northern abolitionists in Congress] have impoverished the slave-holding states by unequal and partial legislation [attempting to abolish slavery], thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance. 36TEXAS
We had shed our blood and paid our money for its [slavery’s] acquisition. . . . [But b]y their [the North’s] declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property [i.e., slaves] in the common territories of the Union. . . . To avoid these evils, we . . . will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquility [by forming the Confederacy]. 37GEORGIA
We prefer, however, our system of industry . . . by which starvation is unknown and abundance crowns the land – by which order is preserved by an unpaid police and many fertile regions of the world where the white man cannot labor are brought into usefulness by the labor of the African, and the whole world is blessed by our productions. 38SOUTH CAROLINA
Clearly, even the economic reasons set forth by the South as causes for secession were directly related to slavery. Therefore, to claim that economic policies and not slavery was the cause of the Civil War is to make a distinction where there is no difference.
Numerous categories of official Confederate documents affirm that slavery was indeed the primary issue that drove the secession movement and was central to the rebellion; it is therefore blatant and unmitigated revisionism to assert – as do Confederate apologists – that “one of the most important” of the “truths of history” is “that the War Between the States [Many southerners ardently insist on describing the conflict as “The War Between the States” and strenuously object to use of the descriptor “Civil War” (see, for example, “Let’s Say ‘War Between The States’ “ (at: https://www.civilwarpoetry.org/FAQ/wbts.html) ). However, cursory examinations of dozens of Confederate documents, as well as histories of the war written by Confederates immediately following the conflict, demonstrate that the descriptor they themselves most frequently used was “Civil War.” (Other descriptors used much less often by southern authors include “War Between the States,” “War of Southern Secession,” and “War for Southern Independence.”) Therefore, the assertion that the term “Civil War” is an inaccurate or biased title for the conflict is refuted by an examination of Confederate soldiers and historians who lived at the time of that conflict.] was not a rebellion [While the question of whether the conflict constituted a “rebellion” was not addressed by this work, a simple query raises a significant implication: If the “war between the states” was not a “rebellion” (as modern southern apologists assert), then why did southern leaders during the Civil War describe themselves and other southern participants as “Rebels” – a derivate of the word “rebellion”? The simple descriptor “Rebels” used by the Confederates themselves certainly suggests that they certainly viewed the Civil War as a “Rebellion.”] nor was its underlying cause to sustain slavery.” 39
2. “Derby, Kansas Middle School Suspension Denounced by Sons of Confederate Veterans,” Sons of Confederate Veterans (at: https://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/TNMAURY/1998-05/0895312266) which declares “[T]he War Between the States was fought over issues such as the rights of individual states to set their own tariffs, establish their own governments, and receive full profit from their agricultural production. . . . the question of slavery was brought into the war by Lincoln in late 1862 as an emotional one to bolster the sagging Northern war effort . . .”; and “Children of the Confederacy: Creed,” United Daughters of the Confederacy (at: https://www.hqudc.org/CofC/index.html) which declares “We, therefore pledge ourselves . . . to study and teach the truths of history (one of the most important of which is, that the War Between the States was not a rebellion, nor was its underlying cause to sustain slavery)”; etc.
3.Edward McPherson, The Political History of the United States of America During the Great Rebellion (Washington: Philip & Solomons, 1865), pp.15-16, “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union,” December 24, 1860.
6. Addresses Delivered Before the Virginia State Convention, February 1861 (Richmond: Wyatt M. Elliott, 1861), “Address of Hon. Fulton Anderson, of Mississippi,” p. 7.
7. Orville Victor, The History, Civil, Political and Military, of the Southern Rebellion (New York: James D. Torrey, 1861), Vol. 1, p. 194, Florida, “Preliminary Resolution Prior to Secession,” January 7, 1861.
8. Orville Victor, The History, Civil, Political, and Military, of the Southern Rebellion (New York: James D. Torrey, 1861) Vol. 1, p. 195, “An Ordinance to dissolve the union between the State of Alabama and the other States united under the compact styled ‘The Constitution of the United States of America,’” January 11, 1861.
10. Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U. S. 393, at 449-52 (1856). The Dred Scott decision is arguably the first example of judicial activism by the Supreme Court: it struck down the congressional law of 1820 prohibiting the extension of slavery into certain federal territories.
11. Thomas Hudson McKee, The National Conventions and Platforms of All Political Parties, 1789-1905 (New York: Burt Franklin, 1906 original; reprint 1971), p. 98, Republican Platform of 1856.
12. See, for example, the Democrat Platform following the Dred Scott decision; not only was there no condemnation of decision, but the platform instead declared: “The Democrat Party will abide by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States upon these questions of constitutional law.” McKee, Platforms, p. 108.
13. See, for example, the Democrat Platform of 1856 declaring: “That Congress has no power under the Constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States. . . . [And] the Democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made. . . . [T]he only sound and safe solution of the ‘slavery question.’ . . . [is] non-interference by Congress with slavery in state and territory, or in the District of Columbia.” McKee, Platforms, pp. 91-92.
14. See, for example, the Democrat Platform of 1856 declaring: “All efforts of the abolitionists, or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences; and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union.” McKee, Platforms, p. 91.
16. The Union! It’s Dangers! And How they can be Averted. Letters from Samuel J. Tilden to Hon. William Kent (New York: 1860), pp. 14-15.
17. William P. Rogers, The Three Secession Movements in the United States (Boston: John Wilson and Son, 1876), pp. 16-17, quoting an editorial in the New York World, September 1, 1864, “The Democratic Platform.”
18. Addresses Delivered Before the Virginia State Convention, February 1861 (Richmond: Wyatt M. Elliott, 1861), “Address of Hon. Henry L. Benning, of Georgia,” p. 21.
19. Journal of the Secession Convention of Texas, E. W. Winkler, editor (Austin Printing Company, 1912), pp. 122-123, address of George Williamson, Commissioner from Louisiana, February 11, 1861. See also “Address of George Williamson to the Texas Secessiono Convention,” American Civil War.com (at: https://americancivilwar.com/documents/williamson_address.html).
22. Southern Pamphlets on Secession, November 1860 – April 1861, Jon Wakelyn, editor (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996), pp. 334, 338, “State or Province? Bond or Free?” by Albert Pike, March 4, 1861.
23. Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 2nd Session (Washington: Congressional Globe Office, 1861), p. 589, January 28, 1861. See also Thomas Ricaud Martin, The Great Parliamentary Battle and the Farewell Addresses of Southern Senators on the Eve of the Civil War (New York and Washington: Neale Publishing Co., 1905), p. 214, farewell speech of Alfred Iverson, January 28, 1861.
24. Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 2nd Session (Washington: Congressional Globe Office, 1861), pp. 268-270, January 7, 1861. See also Thomas Ricaud Martin, The Great Parliamentary Battle and the Farewell Addresses of Southern Senators on the Eve of the Civil War (New York and Washington: Neale Publishing Co., 1905), pp. 148-152, 167, 169, 170-171, 172, farewell speech of Robert Toombs, January 7, 1861.
25. Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 2nd Session (Washington: Congressional Globe Office, 1861), p. 486, January 21, 1861. See also Thomas Ricaud Martin, The Great Parliamentary Battle and the Farewell Addresses of Southern Senators on the Eve of the Civil War (New York and Washington: Neale Publishing Co., 1905), pp. 202, 204, farewell speech of Clement Clay, January 21, 1861.
26. Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 2nd Session (Washington: Congressional Globe Office, 1861), p. 721, February 4, 1861. See also Thomas Ricaud Martin, The Great Parliamentary Battle and the Farewell Addresses of Southern Senators on the Eve of the Civil War (New York and Washington: Neale Publishing Co., 1905), pp. 222-223, farewell speech of John Slidell, February 4, 1861.
27. The Secession Crisis, 1860-1861, edited by P. J. Staudenraus (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963), pp. 16-18, speech of William Yancey, delivered at Columbus, Georgia, in 1855.
28. Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 2nd Session (Washington: Congressional Globe Office, 1861), p. 238, January 3, 1861. See also Thomas Ricaud Martin, The Great Parliamentary Battle and the Farewell Addresses of Southern Senators on the Eve of the Civil War (New York and Washington: Neale Publishing Co., 1905), pp. 222-223, speech of Judah P. Benjamin, January 3, 1861.
29. William J. Jackman, History of the American Nation (Chicago: K Gaynor, 1911), Vol. 4, p. 1124.
30. “Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861,” Avalon Project (at: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp). See also Edward McPherson, The Political History of the United States of America During the Great Rebellion (Washington: Philip & Solomons, 1865), pp. 98-99.
31. Echoes From The South (New York: E. B. Treat & Co., 1866), p. 85. See also The Pulpit and Rostrum: Sermons, Orations, Popular Lectures, &c. (New York: E. D. Barker, 1862), pp. 69-70, “African Slavery, the Cornerstone of the Southern Confederacy,” by Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy.
32. Echoes From The South, pp. 85-86. See also The Pulpit and Rostrum, pp. 69-70, “African Slavery, the Cornerstone of the Southern Confederacy,” by Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy.
38. Edward McPherson, The Political History of the United States of America During the Great Rebellion (Washington: Philip & Solomons, 1865), p. 15, “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union,” December 24, 1860.
39. Plaque from the Children of the Confederacy hanging inside the Texas State Capitol. See also “Children of the Confederacy: Creed,” United Daughters of the Confederacy (at: https://www.hqudc.org/CofC/index.html).
J. Murray Mitchell showed as early as 1963 a multidecadal cooling since about 1940. At a conference on climate change held in Boulder, Colorado in 1965, evidence supporting Milankovitch cycles triggered speculation on how the calculated small changes in sunlight might somehow trigger ice ages. In 1966, Cesare Emiliani predicted that “a new glaciation will begin within a few thousand years.” …
…Climate scientists were aware that predictions based on this trend were not possible – because the trend was poorly studied and not understood (for example see reference). Despite that, in the popular press the possibility of cooling was reported generally without the caveats present in the scientific reports, and “unusually severe winters in Asia and parts of North America in 1972 and 1973…pushed the issue into the public consciousness”.…
…On January 11, 1970, the Washington Post reported that “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age”.
2. BUT by the early 1980’s the SAME “scientific” community began to warn of “Global Warming“.
The early 1980s would mark a sharp increase in global temperatures. Many experts point to 1988 as a critical turning point when watershed events placed global warming in the spotlight.
The summer of 1988 was the hottest on record (although many since then have been hotter). [MY NOTE: Not true. The summer of 1988 was NOT the summer of the hottest global temps. In the 1930’s temps were higher, with 132 degrees recorded in The Mojave Desert, we had “The Dust Bowl”!]1988 also saw widespread drought and wildfires within the United States.
Scientists sounding the alarm about climate change began to see media and the public paying closer attention. NASA scientist James Hansen delivered testimony and presented models to congress in June of 1988, saying he was “99 percent sure” that global warming was upon us.
4. So the SAME batch of “scientists” changed their warnings yet AGAIN from “Global Warming” to…wait for it…”Global Climate Change“. The “scientific” community first held a conference on “Climate Change” in 1988, it was not til the data on BOTH cooling and warming were proven to be hoaxes that they began to popularize the new scare term “Climate Change” in 2002.
5. Climate-gate . Thousands upon thousands of documents from THE CENTER of “Global Cooling, Warming, Climate Change” HOAX were leaked that PROVED that the “scientists” at the very core of all this were, simply put, LIARS. Data was left out. “Data” was added. “Data” was simply made up. All to fit the “Watermelon’s” agenda. (Watermelon is a term used to describe “scientists” who are Green on the outside, aka “EnvironMENTAList”, BUT Red on the inside, aka Communists.
In short, all the weather/climate nonsense is simply the Communist’s way to scare us into letting them take control of our lives.
When it’s cold. Global cooling.
When it’s hot global warming.
UNLESS it’s been debunked- and it has been– then cooling or warming are BOTH signs of “Global Cooling/Warming”, aka “Climate Change.
So depending on the temperatur and weather conditions of any particular day…that IS “proof” of “Global-X”…and we need to let them take and have control.
Btw, here is what the terms mean IN REALITY:
WEATHER . the state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc.
CLIMATE . the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.
Notice something. Weather DEFINES Climate.
The SAME people who can’t predict the temperature or rain fall TOMORROW, are the ones shrieking warnings about something 15-20 YEARS FROM NOW!!
In closing let me posit this:
You can forget “Global Warming” as the harbinger of Earthly doom. I have been meticulously measuring the hours of daylight since June and the data is irrefutable. Daylight hours are steadily waning and I calculate within 30 months the planet will be cast into TOTAL darkness. The consequences are obvious. Vegetation will die, the planet will freeze and all life will be extinguished shortly thereafter.
You laugh, but this is the same kind of “irrefutable data” argument being espoused by those little ‘Green’ people who want government to take total control of the means of manufacturing, transportation and distribution…sound familiar? Others are in it for the cold cash in the form of carbon credits.
If the climate never changed, we’d still be suffering from the last ice age. Geologically, it was not that long ago that carbon dioxide (what plants breathe) was four times what it is now. Oxygen (what animals breathe) levels were double. LIFE FLOURISHED.
So there you have it.
You can believe what you want…I believe the above, and this .
The shrinking number of Trump supporters* need to STOP. Just STOP. And take the time to REALLY THINK. Slow down to a crawl…AND THINK.
What about THE DIRECT RESULTS of Trump’s actions do you support?
What exactly about THE DIRECT RESULTS of Trump’s Supreme Court picks ACTUALLY panned out to be the Conservatives and Constitutionalist he/they said they were?
What about Trump’s HAND-PICKED Cabinet and Administrative picks says to you that they are ACTUALLY honest, Conservative, Constitutional, Patriotic, Rule of Law, moral picks?
What about Trump’s VERY OWN words, deeds, Tweets, behaviour, and life lead you to HONESTLY believe that Trump is REALLY a Christian, moral man, Honest, a man of Integrity, a Constitutionalist, and a REAL Patriot?
*Trump has 70% of GOP support…BUT those claiming to BE GOP are much fewer.
Forget all the spin from the WH. Ignore the spin from Fox, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham et al…what in REALITY is there about Trump that is truly/really: good, moral, honest, Conservative, Constitutional, Patriotic, and normal? Be honest. IGNORE all the spin from ALL your favorite spinsters. What about Trump THE PERSON- who he REALLY is- do you like?
While you’re thinking let me go over the above 4 “bullet points” again. This time with Real World answer.
What about THE DIRECT RESULTS of Trump’s actions do you support? Tariffs? They have raised TAXES ON US! Farmers, the auto industry, and every retailer is getting hit HARD, many declaring and/or close to declaring bankruptcy because of Trump’s Foolish, aka Marxist, Tariff wars. His “tax cut” was so worded, and targeted as to ONLY “help” a miniscule minority, namely they benefited Trump and a few, select supporters. Trump’s rash, brazen, illegal, and unconstitutional Tweets and exchanges with the media (whom Trump calls “The Enemy of The State”!!) all enrage and endanger our Allies, and aid and abet our enemies. BE HONEST…ask yourself: If this was Obama, Hillary, or any Democrat would you STILL give them a pass??
What exactly about THE DIRECT RESULTS of Trump’s Supreme Court picks ACTUALLY panned out to be the Conservatives and Constitutionalist he/they said they were? Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh have ALREADY several times voted WITH the LIBERAL Justices.And the WORST thing is this: they and Trump’s AG pick think the President should have more power, AND be more immune to scrutiny and from consequences.
What about Trump’s VERY OWN words, deeds, Tweets, behaviour, and life lead you to HONESTLY believe that Trump is REALLY a Christian, moral man, Honest, a man of Integrity, a Constitutionalist, and a REAL Patriot? For a detailed look at Trump’s profanity, perversion, corruption, fraud, lying, and treason seeHERE , HERE , HERE, HERE , HERE , HERE .
There are a boat-load links to scads of articles chock-full of facts, evidence, eye-witness accounts, and corroboration in the above links. They have ALL been abundant and easy to find…for those who looked.
Let me close with a smattering of memes and facts, enjoy…
ACTUAL COURT DOCUMENT NAMING TRUMP IN CHILD RAPE CASE WITH JEFFERY EPSTEIN.
THAT is but ONE wicked aspect of who and what Trump is.
There are some who have followed me and read my posts who are about to be surprised, maybe even shocked by the following statement:
I’ve held back.
Using restraint I always spoke The Truth, always backed it with facts, evidence, and witnesses…BUT due to discretion I softened what and HOW I said it a LOT.
[NOTE: This is quite a long read. You may want to put on a pot of coffee and cut out an hour for reading this. BUT IF you criticise this WITHOUT reading it ALL I will NOT talk to you about ONE point. I have spent years studying The Bible, studying history, praying, researching, and observing…do NOT offer one iota of disagreement IF you have NOT read the entirety of this article.]
The above Scripture IS an spot-on depiction of who and what Trump is, as are the following Scriptures:
Let’s read that again:
12 A naughty person, a wicked man, walketh with a froward mouth.
13 He winketh with his eyes, he speaketh with his feet, he teacheth with his fingers;
14 Frowardness is in his heart, he deviseth mischief continually; he soweth discord.
15 Therefore shall his calamity come suddenly; suddenly shall he be broken without remedy.
16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
THAT IS TRUMP.
FIRST, LET ME SPEAK TO THOSE WHO CLAIM CHRISTIAN AND SUPPORT TRUMP…
IF you claim to be a Christian QUIT EXCUSING SIN!
ONLY those who claim to be “Christian” but are either weak, cold, backslid or hypocrites/liars excuse sin.
The Sins of Trump that YOU HAVE EXCUSED:
The Profanity President: Trump’s Four-Letter Vocabulary
***WARNING! TRUMP’S GRAPHIC PROFANITY IS REPORTED BELOW!! I CLEAN UP AS MUCH AS I CAN WITHOUT RUINING THE LINKS TO THE SOURCES.***
In modern times, presidents have rarely been church mice afraid of a little salty language. But President Trump has grown increasingly willing in recent months to say in public what most of his predecessors tried to keep behind closed doors.
His is the profanity presidency, full of four-letter denunciations of his enemies and earthy dismissals of allegations lodged against him. At rallies and in interviews, on Twitter and in formal speeches, he relishes the bad-boy language of a shock jock, just one more way of gleefully provoking the political establishment bothered by his norm-shattering ways.
In a single speech on Friday alone, he managed to throw out a “hell,” an “ass” and a couple of “bullsh*ts” for good measure. In the course of just one rally in Panama City Beach, Fla., earlier this month, he tossed out 10 “hells,” three “damns” and a “crap.” The audiences did not seem to mind. They cheered and whooped and applauded…
…Martha Joynt Kumar, a longtime scholar of presidential communication, said gritty language was part of the show put on by Mr. Trump, the onetime reality television entertainer, for his fans.
“He knows they like him to use words that lie over the edge of the traditional boundary of presidential decorum,” she said. “His controversial word choices are an aspect of his role as the disrupter he promised his constituents he would be.”
But critics say the vulgarity comes at a cost. “No one has debased the civil discourse in this country more than President Trump, and the president really does set the tone in the country,” said Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California. “We see it reflected in our offices by the hateful, belligerent, obscene and violent calls that we get now that we didn’t used to get.”
Mr. Schiff has experienced it personally when Mr. Trump turned his name into a profanity last fall by nicknaming him “little Adam Schitt.” …
…if anything, Mr. Trump is growing more comfortable with crudeness. He used the word “bullsh*t” in public just once in his first two years in office, according to the Factba.se database that tracks his speeches, but on four occasions in the last three months.
Never has any president pushed the boundaries of language as far as Mr. Trump. He had a foul mouth long before politics, of course, but he seemed to try, however fitfully, to clean it up for a while when he set his sights on the White House. Still, he could not resist at times. At one rally during his 2016 campaign, he quoted a supporter calling a Republican rival, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a “pussy.”
Once taking office, he tried, at least, to keep it private, but he was uninhibited when the cameras were not on. After the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, was appointed, he told aides, “I’m fucked.” Speaking with lawmakers, he called African nations “shithole countries.”…
…Any restraint Mr. Trump may have sought to exhibit early in his term seems to have eroded in recent months. In a January interview with The Times, he boasted that he had “beat the shit out of” Republican rivals in 2016. A month later, he told the Conservative Political Action Conference that his enemies were trying to take him out “with bullshit,” a word he then took up with vigor.
A few weeks later, he told a rally in Grand Rapids, Mich., that Democrats were peddling it (BS). In April, he used it (BS) to describe some statements in the special counsel report.
By the time the president took the stage before the National Association of Realtors in Washington on Friday, he was in a feisty mood.
He recalled that a consultant tried to make work for himself by identifying environmental concerns on a property Mr. Trump wanted to develop. “I fired his ass so fast,” the president recalled…
…[Trump] went after one of his favorite targets — journalists — claiming that recent reports of infighting within his national security team were made up. “There is no source,” he said. “The person doesn’t exist. The person’s not alive. It’s bullsh*t, O.K.? It’s bullsh*t.”
Trump described his attempt to seduce a married womanand indicated he might start kissing a woman that he and Bush were about to meet. He added, “I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”
In the video, Trump tells Billy Bush about a failed attempt to seduce Nancy O’Dell, who was Bush’s co-host at the time (circa 2005) of the recording:
I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it.
I did try and f*ck her. She was married.
And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, “I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.” I took her out furniture—I moved on her like a b*tch. But I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.
Later, referring to Arianne Zucker (whom they were waiting to meet), Trump says:
I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the p*ssy. You can do anything.
Trump called out by some Christians for using ‘Lord’s name in vain’ at fiery NC rally
The controversial “send her back” crowd chant at President Donald Trump’s North Carolina rally may have gotten all the headlines, but some Christians are grumbling over something most of the media completely ignored.
Trump cursed, and it was not just a few vulgarities. He took the Lord’s name in vain.
…Among the two instances Trump used the term, according to RawStory, was an anecdote the president told of a meeting with a disliked business competitor who Trump says admitted to prospering under the Trump administration.
“If you don’t support me, you are going to be so Godd*mn poor, you are not going to believe it’,” Trump quoted himself telling the man.
The president used “godd*mn” a second time in a reference to how hard the nation’s armed forces might strike Iran, should it come to a military conflict.
NOTE: ONLY some “Christians” were offended by Trump’s taking the name of The Lord in vain!!
ALL REAL Christians were, and ARE offended by Trump’s taking OUR Lord and Saviour’s name in vain! ONLY phony hypocrites are ok with it! And secondly, apparently even the ones who took issue with Trump’s taking The Lord’s Name in vain were NOT bothered in the least by ALL the other documented instances of profanity and perversion from this vile creature!
THAT IS TRUMP! THAT IS WHO AND WHAT TRUMP IS!
And the corruption is seen elsewhere in Trump:
The 25 women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct
President Trump’s proclivity for spouting exaggerated numbers, unwarranted boasts and outright falsehoods has continued at a remarkable pace. As of Aug. 5, his 928th day in office, he had made 12,019 false or misleading claims, according to the Fact Checker’s database that analyzes, categorizes and tracks every suspect statement the president has uttered.
Trump crossed the 10,000 mark on April 26, and he has been averaging about 20 fishy claims a day since then. From the start of his presidency, he has averaged about 13 such claims a day.
NOTE: “Misleading”, “false”, “inccorrect”, “made-up” are soft-soap ways of saying Trump IS a Sociopathic, psychopathic LIAR.
I guarantee that if Trump had ran as the Democrat, NY Liberal he REALLY IS, instead of PRETENDING to be a Christian and a Conservative all these phony-baloney, so-called Christians would have FROM THE START been denouncing him!
The reason they don’t do so is HYPOCRISY! They are bribed, blackmailed, or bullied into supporting a raving, profane, perverted ANTI-CHRIST! Or worse, THEY WILLINGLY AGREE WITH TRUMP.
But wasn’t Trump led to The Lord Jesus Christ early in his run for office?
The person that (so-called) led Trump to Christian faith is a prosperity “gospel”, heretic named Paula White.
WHO IS PAULA WHITE?
1. Part of the controversy surrounding White, and perhaps why she appealed to Trump, is because she teaches “prosperity gospel”, which holds that faith and donations to religious causes will boost adherents’ financial wellbeing as well as their spiritual health. As recently as last year, White encouraged members of her congregation to send their first month’s salary to her ministry to enjoy God’s blessings. (!!!WHAT?!!!) White is now married [3rd marriage; not counting her affairs.] to Jonathan Cain, the keyboardist from the rock band Journey, and the two often travel together, including to DC to see the president.
2. While living in Maryland in 1984, she converted to Christianity at the DamascusChurch of God. She later claimed to have received a vision from God shortly after her conversion: “When I was just eighteen years old, the Lord gave me a vision that every time I opened my mouth and declared the Word of the Lord, there was a manifestation of His Spirit where people were either healed, delivered, or saved. When I shut my mouth, they fell off into utter darkness and God spoke to me and said ‘I called you to preach the gospel.'”
3. Southern Baptist theologian and ethicistRussell D. Moore said that “Paula White is a charlatan and recognized as a heretic by every orthodox Christian, of whatever tribe.”Michael Horton, a professor of theology at Westminster Seminary California, wrote in early January 2017 that White represented a heretical movement and that her then-upcoming address at President Trump’s inauguration was helping to introduce heresy into mainstream public life. Horton addressed White’s alleged denial of the Trinity and the prosperity gospel’s position that Christ died on the cross not for the forgiveness of humankind but to rescue people from financial hardship.
4. Connor Gaffey has drawn attention to a 2007 televised event at which White stated, “Anyone who tells you to deny yourself is from Satan.” Gaffey contrasts that with Jesus’ words in the Gospel of Matthew: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.”
5. Adulterous relationship with (married) Benny Hinn; In 2010 White’s relationship with married televangelist Benny Hinn gave rise to controversy after being photographed leaving a hotel in Rome holding hands. Hinn said “A friendship did develop” though “the relationship is over.” Both denied an affair.
IF it was “innocent” WHY were they sharing a hotel room when he was MARRIED? WHY leave the hotel room HOLDING HANDS? WHY say “it’s over” IF it was truly innocent? They were caught- but refused to confess and repent.
But doesn’t Trump have a personal, evangelical Christian minister pray with him daily? Um, not really…unless you count another blasphemous heretic as “an evangelical Christian minister”…
I was heartened the other day when I read that the President of the United States took time out of his busy schedule to allow an “Evangelical Minister” to lay hands on Him and pray. He needs prayer, and the support of the evangelical church, as much as possible.
But then my joy turned to angst when I read further, that the “evangelical minister” who prayed for Trump, was in fact a spiritually dangerous counterfeit, a purveyor of false doctrine and gnostic, experience based spirituality named Rodney Howard Browne.
I shouldn’t have been surprised because one of the President’s closest Spiritual advisor, is a televangelist and Word of Faith heresy proponent Paula White who is of the same heretical ilk as Rodney Howard Browne.
In short Rodney Howard Browne is the Father of the so called “Laughing Revival” of mysticism and Spiritual Drunkenness which led directly to the disastrously destructive “Toronto Blessing” which spread through Pentecostal, Charismatic and Even evangelical churches in the late 1990’s spreading heresy, false doctrine, mystical experience, deception and delusion throughout the world.
Howard Browne is famous for calling himself the “Holy Ghost Bartender” and inducing people into states of Spiritual Drunkenness, and has destroyed much of what was left of the sense of the true Fear of God in many, many Pentecostal, Charismatic churches. I consider him a minister of Judgment and part of the Strong, God sent Delusion.
He was born into a Pentecostal home, an atmosphere that was bathed in prayer. By his own testimony, he was saved at the age of five and baptized in the Holy Spirit at age eight. Both at home and in the Pentecostal church he attended, he testifies of
“continually [seeing] supernatural manifestations.”2
His own “baptism of fire” occurred in 1979, while he was still a teenager. Here is how he tells it.
I knew that there was more, much more…In July of 1979, I cried out to God in sheer desperation. I wanted Him to manifest Himself to me and in me. I was hungry…As I prayed that day, I told the Lord, “Either you come down here and touch me, or I am going to come up there and touch you.” I was desperate. I must have called out to God for about 20 minutes that day. Suddenly, the fire of God fell on me. It started on my head and went right down to my feet. His power burned in my body and stayed like that for three whole days…I was really praying, “Lord, I am too young to die.” In the fourth day, I am not praying, “O Lord send your glory,” I am praying, “Please lift it off me so that I can bear it.” I was plugged into heaven’s electric light supply…my desire has been to go and plug other people in. My whole body was on fire…Out of my belly began to flow a river of living water. I began to laugh uncontrollably and then I began to weep and then speak with tongues. I was so intoxicated on the wine of the Holy Ghost that I was beside myself…Because of that encounter with the Lord, my life was radically changed from that day on.3
Rodney Howard Browne proceeds in the book to relate changes in his ministry after that anointing with fire, while preaching in a Methodist church. I’ll let him tell it in his own humorous way.
We were preaching in a Methodist church. I was back in the vestibule—which is a holy name for a plain old office—preparing for service. One of the young ladies came into the office and asked me to pray for her because she was in terrible pain…I got my hand halfway to her head, almost like a gunslinger would draw a gun out of a holster, and point it at his opponent. Suddenly, unexpectedly, it felt like my finger tips came off. I felt a full volume of anointing flow out of my hand. The only way I can explain it is to liken it to a fireman holding a fire hose with a full volume of water flowing out of it. The anointing went right into her. It looked like someone had hit her in the head with an invisible baseball bat and she fell to the floor…4
On and on it goes.
Notice the sensuality of the testimony, though. The fire of God courses through his body, it shoots out of his fingers, like a gun, she gets hit by an invisible bat! The concept behind the word sensual is not always referring to “sexual.” Sensual refers to the things pertaining to the five physical senses.Rodney Howard Browne has a very sensual ministry. The promise is held out that you are going to be touched by God, you’re going to feel God, you’ll even get drunk on the new wine! You’ll laugh, stagger, get stuck to the floor, and generally have an all out good time! It’s “fun” going to these meetings!
Back to Who is Rodney Howard Browne?
In 1987, Rodney Howard Browne left his native South Africa to come to the
United States, on a “word from God.” By that time, he had already pioneered a church, pastored for a time and been on the pastoral staff of Ray McCauley’s Rhema Bible Church in Johannesburg. Upon arriving in America, he commenced an itinerant ministry.
It was at a series of meetings in Albany, New York in 1989 that the unusual manifestations had begun to take place. It began to occur at a time when both he and his wife were hungry for God to move. As he was preaching at a morning meeting, he said a cloud filled the room, visible to others, but not to him. He could feel it, though. People began falling out of their seats as he preached.
While I was preaching, the power of God began to fall. Many people began to fall out of their seats. It looked like someone was shooting them and in some places whole rows at a time would go down. They were laughing and crying and falling all over the place and looked like drunken people.5
Rodney Howard Browne became an internationally prominent revivalist after a Spring, 1993 meeting at an Assembly of God church in Lakeland, Florida, the Carpenter’s Home Church. He was scheduled for one week, but the meeting lasted four! People who heard about it flew in from as far away as Africa, Great Britain and Argentina. What made the difference in this revival meeting? According to Charisma Magazine,
The difference was the laughter.No matter what Howard Browne did or said, hundreds who attended the daily sessions always ended up on the sanctuary floor in helpless laughter. When the services were broadcast on radio, more curious seekers showed up to join the fun.6
I suppose I could go on and on, “building a case,” about my reservations of the ministry of Rodney Howard Browne, but why? After all of the above, if you don’t have serious problems, you are also a victim of the continuous conditioning that has taken place. Keep in mind that it was a transference of his “anointing” into Randy Clark who brought “it” to Toronto, that “birthed” the Toronto Blessing. I hope that I have brought some clarity to the issue. This is not about personality, it’s about truth. Can you see Jesus or the apostles even remotely promoting anything like this? I think not.
Is Rodney Howard Browne correct when he dismisses his critics by saying things like,
RHB-Now some would say, “I don’t believe it,” that’s fine, those people that don’t want to believe it, they probably wouldn’t believe anything. They probably wouldn’t believe the Bible…16
On the contrary, I don’t buy this, and I believe in the Bible! I also believe in the present activity of the Holy Spirit. I consider myself to be spirit filled and have seen many “signs, wonders, and gifts of the Holy Ghost” over the years in my ministry as well as in many other fellow ministers. We have witnessed the casting out of devils, healing of the sick, and powerful life transformations, all to confirm the preaching of the gospel! So don’t dismiss me as an unbelieving, religious dead head!
I want to close this chapter by encouraging you to hold fast to that which is good. We know that certain men have crept in unawares, but that doesn’t mean that we have to throw out the validity of supernatural workings of God. The Pentecostal experience is needed now more than ever, God’s people do need a fresh baptism in the Holy Ghost, to witness afresh to this sin-sick generation.
According to another hypocritical sell-out, Ralph Reed-
Christians ‘have a moral obligation to enthusiastically back’ Trump in 2020, according to prominent evangelical
2. Matthew 7:1 “Judge not, that you be not judged.” This passage is abused among the haters of Christianity. It’s not used to teach us to guard against being hypocritical, as Jesus intended it to be used, but used to silence anyone who would espouse any godly standard above that of being a dog. Jesus isn’t giving a blanket statement for not judging, but given a lesson on how to judge rightly.
I like what Paul Washer said concerning this verse: “People always tell me, ‘Judge not, lest ye be judged.’ I reply, ‘Twist not Scripture, lest ye be like Satan.’”
A text taken out of context, becomes a pretext Many Christians today just take one verse out of the Bible without even poring over its whole context – and at times not going through the whole story. This practice is tantamount to isolating the taken text from its co-text. It’s imperative for readers to read the whole chapter and the succeeding verses – not just one verse – for us to get what the Bible really wants to convey to us.
(1) Judge not, that you be not judged. (2) For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. (3) And why behold you the mote that is in your brother’s eye, but consider not the beam that is in your own eye? (4) or how will you say to your brother, Let me pull out the mote out of your eye; and, behold, a beam is in your own eye? (5)You hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of your own eye; and then shall you see clearly to cast out the mote out of your brother’s eye.
In verse 5, we can clearly see that the Bible is actually teaching us not ‘not to judge’ – but ‘how to judge righteously’. It says that, for us not to be called hypocrites, we must cast out first the beam that is in our own eye before we cast the mote out of our brother’s eye. So you see, it’s fairly easy for Christians to take this out of context – most especially if their intentions were to be in a safe side by not pointing at a brother’s smudge. To stay silent about a brother or a sister engaging in fornication or adultery because you too are ‘not sin-less’ is ignorance of the Word – but staying silent about the same because you yourself are a fugitive murderer is another thing. The Bible actually encourages believers to judge – but rather in a righteous manner – it’s just that we should be very careful when judging others. It tells us that we should not judge them if we ourselves are of the same league as them – and that is sheer hypocrisy.
READ THE ABOVE SCRIPTURE AGAIN:
John 7:24Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
THAT IS THE LORD JESUS CHRIST SPEAKING…AND HE SAYS THAT WE ARE TO JUDGE RIGHTEOUS JUDGMENT.
As Christians in the United States of America, we join together as people of faith to express our conviction that an impeachment inquiry is necessary to reveal the truth, hold President Donald J. Trump and other public officials accountable, and bolster democracy in the United States. We welcome the light of truth, honesty, and transparency that this moment affords our country, whatever may be revealed. We call for an open inquiry that shines light on this administration’s dealings behind closed doors and petition people of faith and integrity to join us in calling forth this light.
“I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life,” Jesus said (John 8:12). Jesus’ words and ministry highlight the connection between truth and the well-being of the poor, the sick, the immigrant, the imprisoned, and the earth. Likewise, we who follow Jesus must make visible that any President’s violation of his oath of office would harm the most vulnerable among us.
The current impeachment inquiry is focused specifically on whether President Trump solicited help from a foreign government in his 2020 re-election campaign, buried evidence of that solicitation, and then attacked the whistleblowers and Congressional representatives who brought evidence to light. The constitutional process that gives the U.S. Congress power to investigate and try a sitting President is needed in this moment, because none of us can know the full truth apart from this process. But we have already seen enough to know that the accusations are both serious and credible.
While President Trump claims there is an evangelical revival supporting him, we know there is also a revival of people of faith whose commitment to truth remains strong and vigilant. We are Christians who resolutely affirm Jesus’ teachings of justice, love, and equality — echoed in the basic values at the heart of our democracy. This is not a matter of partisanship, but of deepest principle.
For the sake of our nation’s integrity and the most vulnerable in our society, we call on fellow Christians to support the current impeachment inquiry. Now is the time to shine the light of truth. Please join us in praying that the truth will be revealed and set us all free.
Dr. Efrain Agosto, New York Theological Seminary Dr. Neomi De Anda, University of Dayton Rev. Amanda Hambrick Ashcraft, Middle Collegiate Church Dr. Brian Bantum, Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary Rev. Dr. William Barber, II, Repairers of the Breach Rev. Jennifer Barrows, Retired, Episcopal Diocese of Albany Dr. Nancy E. Bedford, Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary Rev. Dr. Moses Biney, New York Theological Seminary Rev. Traci D. Blackmon, United Church of Christ Rev. Dr. Chloe Breyer, St. Philip’s Episcopal Church Daryle E. Brown, Trinity United Church of Christ Rev. Micah Bucey, Judson Memorial Church Rev. Jennifer Butler, Faith in Public Life
Sister Simone Campbell (SSS), NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice Rev. Dr. Tony Campolo, Eastern University Rosemary P. Carbine, Whittier College Dr. Amy Carr, Western Illinois University Rev. Dr. J. Kameron Carter, University of Indiana Rev. Dr. Noel Castellanos, Camino Alliance Shane Claiborne, Red Letter Christians Rev. Dan Clark, Faith in Public Life Ohio Rev. Peggy Clarke, Community Church of New York Rev. Sharon Codner-Walker, Stuyvesant Heights Christian Church Dr. Stephen Cooper, Franklin & Marshall College Rev. Dr. Benjamin L. Corey, Public Theologian Rev. Angie Cox, Broad Street United Methodist Church Rev. Dr. Chuck Currie, Pacific University Amy Dalton, Center and Library for the Bible and Social Justice Rev. Fred Davie, Union Theological Seminary Dr. Teresa Delgado, Iona College Rev. Kaji S. Dousa, Park Avenue Christian Church Rev. Dr. Gary Dorrien, Union Theological Seminary Rev. Gordon Duggins, Retired, Episcopal Diocese of New York Rev. Dr. Stacey Edwards-Dunn, Trinity United Church of Christ Rev. Nathan Empsall, Faithful America Dr. Wendy Farley, San Francisco Theological Seminary Rev. Dr. Nancy Fields, New York Theological Seminary Rev Dr. Yvette A. Flunder, The Fellowship of Affirming Ministry Rev. Susan Fortunato, Christ Episcopal Church Rev. Dr. Mary Foulke, St. Mary’s Episcopal Church Rev. Dr. Mary Fulkerson, Duke Divinity School Rev. Dr. Oscar Garcia-Johnson, Fuller Theological Seminary Rev. Joel A. Gibson, The Micah Institute Rev. Dr. Jeff Golliher, St. John’s Episcopal Church Rev. Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons, The Resistance Prays Rev. Dr. Gwendolyn Hadley, Hall Christ Temple United Baptist Church Lisa Sharon Harper, FreedomRoad.us Prof. Dr. Christine Helmer, Northwestern University Rev. Dr. Peter Goodwin Heltzel, New York Theological Seminary Rev. Dr. Katharine Henderson, Auburn Seminary Rev. Dr. Robyn Henderson-Espinoza, Activist Theology Project Rev. Susan E. Hill, Church of the Holy Apostles Rev. Stephen C. Holton, St. Phillips Episcopal Church Rev. Dr. Chaz Howard, University of Pennsylvania Dr. David H. Jensen, Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary Dr. Russell Jeung, San Francisco State University Bishop J. Alfred Johnson, United Methodist Church Rev. Stephanie Kendell, Park Avenue Christian Church Kathy Khang, Author Rev. Dr. Earl Kooperkamp, Church of the Good Shepherd Rev. Posey Krakowsky, Church of the Ascension Rev. Melissa Lamkin, Trinity School Rev. Dr. Insook Lee, New York Theological Seminary Britney Winn Lee, Red Letter Christians
Rev. Dr. Jacqui Lewis, Middle Collegiate Church Rev. Dr. Pamela R. Lightsey, Meadville Lombard Theological School Rev. John Liotti, Able Works Rev. Dr. Wanda Lundy, New York Theological Seminary Rev. Dr. C. Vernon Mason, New York Theological Seminary Rev. Elizabeth G. Maxwell, Church of the Ascension Dr. Joy Ann McDougall, Emory University Rev. Richard McKeon, The Episcopal Church of the Messiah Brian McLaren, Author Rev. Rochelle Michael, Trinity United Church of Christ Rev. Brian Moll, Rescue Alliance Rev. Dr. Otis Moss, III, Trinity United Church of Christ Rev. Weldon D. Nisly, Retired, Christian Peacemaker Teams – Iraqi & Kurdistan Team Rev. Sam Owen, Haitian Congregation of the Good Samaritan Episcopal Church Doug Pagitt, Vote Common Good John Pavlovitz, Pastor and Author Dr. James W. Perkinson, Ecumenical Theological Seminary Rev. Benjamin Perry, Union Theological Seminary Rev. Sue Phillips, Sacred Design Lab Rev. Dr. Nancy Claire Pittman, Phillips Theological Seminary Rev. Dr. Soong-Chan Rah, North Park Theological Seminary Elaina Ramsey, Red Letter Christians Rev. Dr. Rafael Reyes, III, New York Theological Seminary Rev. Dr. Rosalie Richards, Stetson University Rev. Dr. Joerg Rieger, Vanderbilt University Rev. Dr. Raymond J. Rivera, Latino Pastoral Action Center and Sanctuary Church Rev. Betsy Johns Roadman, Retired, Episcopal Church Rev. Brandan J. Robertson, Missiongathering Christian Church The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, IX Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire Bishop Dr. Raymond H. Rufen-Blanchette, The Clergy Campaign for Social & Economic Justice Dr. Michele Saracino, Manhattan College Rev. Dr. Jill Schaeffer, New York Theological Seminary Rev. Dr. Donna Schaper, Judson Memorial Church Rev. Frederick W. Schraplau, St. Paul’s Church Rev. Bryan Sirchio, McFarland United Church of Christ Rev. Dr. Susan K. Smith, Crazy Faith Ministries
Rev. Dr. Stephany Rose Spaulding, University of Colorado Margot Starbuck, Author Rev. Dr. Marti Steussy, Christian Theological Seminary Rev. Cynthia Stravers, Church of the Heavenly Rest Rev. Margaret H. Sullivan, St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church Rev. Adam Russell Taylor, Sojourners Rev. Jasmin Taylor, Trinity United Church of Christ Dr. John J. Thatamanil, Union Theological Seminary Rev. Liz Theoharis, Kairos Center, Union Theological Seminary Rev. Dr. Linda E. Thomas, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago Rev. Dr. Al Tizon, North Park Theological Seminary Rev. Dr. Emilie M. Townes, Vanderbilt Divinity School Rev. Laura Sumner Truax, Senior Pastor LaSalle Street Church Rev. Michael Vanacore, Fort Washington Collegiate Church Rev. Kevin VanHook, The Riverside Church Rev. Dr. Mark I. Wallace, Swarthmore College Rev. Jim Wallis, Sojourners Rev. Dr. LaKeesha Walrond, New York Theological Seminary Michelle Ferrigno Warren, Christian Community Development Association Dr. Sharon Welch, Meadville Lombard Theological School Rev. Dr. Damaris Whittaker, Fort Washington Collegiate Church Rev. Dr. D. Newell Williams, Brite Divinity School Rev. Dr. Reggie L. Williams, McCormick Theological Seminary Rev. Dr. Rodney E. Williams, Swope Parkway United Christian Church Rev. Terry D. Williams, Orchard Hill United Church of Christ Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove, School for Conversion
Now, To Turn My Sights on so-called Conservatives…
THIS was said by a REPUBLICAN:
“The country has never before now elected somebody who is so manifestly unfit intellectually, morally, temperamentally, for the office of President of the United States”.. – Steve Schmidt, Republican.
A quick look at the very unConservative issues and people Trump supports WITH HIS MONEY AND VOTES!!
When asked during the press conference if there had been a quid pro quo, Mulvaney said: “We do that all the time with foreign policy. … Get over it.” Sources tell the Washington Post that Mulvaney’s remarks took other White House officials by surprise and there was a rush to put out a new statement.
Trump Uses Controversial New Word on Impeachment
This is a ‘lynching,’ he says, and black lawmakers are not pleased
President Trump doesn’t think the impeachment investigation is merely a “witch hunt.” In a tweet Tuesday, he called it a “lynching,” …”So some day, if a Democrat becomes President and the Republicans win the House, even by a tiny margin, they can impeach the President, without due process or fairness or any legal rights,” wrote Trump. “All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here—a lynching. But we will WIN!”
NOTE: The INVESTIGATION, Impeachment Inquiry, are NOT:
a witch hunt
IT IS The Constitutional remedy for such vile, putrefying corruption as Trump.
NYT Says Ukraine Timeline Isn’t What We Thought
Paper says documents, sources show Ukraine knew about aid freeze in early August
Diplomat William Taylor’s Tuesday testimony to House impeachment investigators drew “sighs and gasps”—and a “pfft!” from President Trump, who dismissively tweeted on Wednesday morning, “Neither he (Taylor) or any other witness has provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld.” Not so, reports the New York Times, which claims sources and documents indicate “high-level Ukrainian officials” knew the aid was on ice by the first week of August.That runs counter to a major line of defense presented by Trump and his supporters: That there was no quid pro quo because the Ukrainians were unaware the nearly $400 million military aid package had been frozen until weeks later, in late August.
Before Key Testimony, Trump Lashes Out
He dismisses NSC’s Vindman as a ‘Never Trumper’
It could be a troubling day for President Trump in terms of impeachment testimony, and he unleashed a series of tweets Tuesday morning to undermine the credibility of a key witness. “Why are people that I never even heard of testifying about the call,” Trump tweeted. “Just READ THE CALL TRANSCRIPT AND THE IMPEACHMENT HOAX IS OVER! Ukrain said NO PRESSURE.” The tweet came hours before the testimony of a White House official who listened in on Trump’s July call with Ukraine’s leader, notes Politico. In an opening statement released in advance, Lt. Col Alexander Vindman of the National Security Council said he worried that Trump’s pressure on Ukraine to launch an investigation into the Bidens would undermine US national security, per the Hill.
Trump criticized Vindman Tuesday without mentioning him by name. “Supposedly, according to the Corrupt Media, the Ukraine call ‘concerned’ today’s Never Trumper witness,” Trump tweeted. “Was he on the same call that I was? Can’t be possible! Please ask him to read the Transcript of the call. Witch Hunt!”
NEW: Vindman told House investigators that a WH meeting AND nearly $400 million in security and military aid was “contingent” on Ukrainian officials carrying out multiple investigations, including into Burisma, the Bidens, the 2016 election and Crowd Strike. w/
This is a bribe. Any other American who offered cash to the jury before a trial would go to prison for felony bribery. But he can get away with it?” Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, wrote on Twitter. “Criminal.“
Lastly, due to the fact that many Christians say they are Conservative and vice versa, let me close with this:
Fellowship of the Pharisees preach fealty to Trump, call it faith in God
In the summer of 2016, so-called evangelicals along with a bunch of prosperity gospel con-artists — a group I refer to as the Fellowship of the Pharisees— held a private get-together with Donald Trump to allegedly discuss issues important to Christians and America. In reality, it was an occasion for the Fellowship to reject G-O-D and replace him with the G-O-P where Trump — the twice-divorced, thrice-married, unrepentant, pro-Planned Parenthood, adulterous, strip-club owner — was praised for his incredible “family values.”
With their seats at Herod Trump’s table firmly secured, and with Trump’s 2020 re-election less-than-certain, the Fellowship has been busy lately building a “hedge of protection” around their orange messiah as they defend and praise him for his god-like character.
In an appearance on Tony Perkins’ Washington Watch program last week, former congresswomen Michele Bachmann, who used to be chairwoman of Perkins’ Family Research Council, defended Trump against his coming impeachment and declared that he “understands the difference between good and evil.” Additionally, she said that “We have not seen a president with greater moral clarity than this president.”
Based on past statements, Bachmann’s declaration of Trump’s morality was actually a little subdued. Earlier this year, she said in an appearance on Understanding the Times that Trump is “highly biblical” and that we’ll “never see a more godly, biblical president again in our lifetime.”
One of the prosperity gospel con-artists in Trump’s inner circle of “spiritual advisors” is twice-divorced, thrice-married — hey, just like Trump — Paula White, who was recently hired to work as an advisor for his Faith and Opportunity Initiative. White has a long history with Trump; she’s known him since 2002, prayed at his inauguration, and visits the White House often as his personal pastor.
When Trump officially announced his re-election in June, White prayed against the “demonic network” opposed to Trump. When asked a few weeks prior to her new gig at the White House about her political relationship with Trump, White said she could never say “no” to Trump because it would be like “saying no to God.”
Right Wing Watch
Pastor Paula White claims that she was ordered by God to serve as an adviser to Trump: “To say ‘no’ to President Trump would be saying ‘no’ to God, and I won’t do that.”
Jeffress also trumpeted that “99 percent of evangelicals oppose impeachment” because “never in the history of America have we had a president who was a stronger warrior for the Judeo-Christian principles upon which this nation was founded than in President Donald J. Trump.”The Southern Baptist Pharisee also said that “the effort to impeach President Trump is really an effort to impeach our own deeply held faith values.”
If by “our own deeply held faith values” he means the values held by the Fellowship of the Pharisees — like when Tony Perkins gave Trump a “mulligan” for paying hush money to a porn star to hide his affair with her — I can see where Jeffress is coming from.
When Ralph Reed recently argued that evangelicals “have a moral obligation to enthusiastically” back Trump in 2020, I noted how if it was Jesus instead of Trump, America would be in the midst of revival. Instead, the Fellowship of the Pharisees has rejected God’s Son to worship God’s Man…who is in actuality an Anti-Christ.
===================== IF you made this far, and read it ALL, and still are not convinced that Trump should be in prison instead of having YOUR support then there is NO hope for you, and NO hope for America.
As for me…I’ll ALWAYS and ONLY trust in The Lord Jesus Christ, for HE IS my Blessed Hope.