Month: April 2024

The Democrat-Marxist plan to steal elections like they did in 2020 depends on mail-in voting schemes. It is well documented that the Democrats always do better with mail-in voting. It’s much easier to cheat that way.

In a pivotal legal ruling on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to a Texas statute that restricts mail-in voting based on age, marking a significant setback for efforts to expand no-excuse absentee balloting in the state, the Epoch Times reported.

This decision effectively halts the push by Democrats and other groups to broadly implement “no-excuse” mail-in voting in Texas, with potential ramifications extending to other states possessing similar legislation.

The case, originally brought forth in 2020 by the Texas Democratic Party and a cohort of voters amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, sought to eliminate the state’s age-based restrictions on mail-in voting.

Under current Texas law, only voters who are 65 years of age or older can vote by mail without providing a specific reason, such as illness or disability.

The plaintiffs in the case argued that the law was discriminatory against younger voters and in violation of the 26th Amendment, which prohibits age discrimination in voting. The plaintiffs aimed to make mail-in voting more accessible to all ages.

The Supreme Court’s refusal to take up the appeal effectively preserves the Texas law, marking a victory for those advocating for stringent election integrity measures. They argue that expanding mail-in voting without cause could compromise election security and increase the risk of fraud.

In 2021, the US Supreme Court ruled against universal vote-by-mail in Texas. This is good news for America, Texas, and the rule of law.

“The Supreme Court rejected a Democratic bid to force universal vote-by-mail in Texas, leaving intact a state law. We won’t compromise election integrity in Texas with voting schemes that are subject to fraud. We will protect elections in Texas,” Gov. Abbott wrote at the time.

Bloomberg reported:

The U.S. Supreme Court turned away a Democratic bid to force universal vote-by-mail in Texas, leaving intact a state law that lets people cast no-excuse absentee ballots only if they are 65 or older.

The Texas Democratic Party and its allies argued unsuccessfully that the law violates the Constitution’s 26th Amendment, which says the right to vote “shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age.”

Voting by mail became a sharply partisan issue amid President Donald Trump’s unsupported contentions that the practice led to widespread fraud in the November election. Texas’s Republican governor and attorney general urged the Supreme Court to reject the Democratic appeal.

Mail-in voting enabled Democrats to steal Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Georgia.

The post Supreme Court Declines Texas Democrats’ Challenge to Mail-In Voting Law appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The current House Speaker is cut from the same cloth as Mike Pence: a tergiversating weakling who always fails to stand for America First when push comes to shove.

Mike Johnson is at a crossroads: continue to appease the RINOs and Democrats in the House, thus maybe preserving his House seat through the November election, at which point it seems increasingly likely, regardless of the lower chamber’s composition, that he will be replaced with someone else.  Or he can stand with the American people and Donald Trump by denying Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan an endless stream of blank checks and instead focus on the two most pressing matters at hand: securing the border and securing our election system to ensure President Trump’s victory.

Unfortunately, given the results of the past week, which observed the House pass yet another nearly $100 billion package for the Ukraine, adding to the billion dollars plus spent on all foreign expenditures that was part of the resolution, Johnson appears to be following Kevin McCarthy’s footsteps in siding with the Uniparty over MAGA.

Johnson is hardly the paradigm of a strong man, but last week’s decision – in which reports expressed that he was kowtowed by none other than Democratic minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, “to do the right thing” clearly shows that the current Speaker is cut from the same cloth as Mike Pence: a weakling who cannot stand on principle.

The outrageous display of House Democrats brandishing the Ukrainian flag, amid chants of “Slava Ukraini,” where Johnson only meekly responded with “we should wave only one flag on the … House floor” struck the pathetic image of a man in dire straits.  Perhaps resigned to his fate as a lame duck Speaker in this dismal interim period of American history, as the country waits in almost a catatonic state for the next administration, Johnson appeared worn out, exhausted, helpless — terrible descriptors for the supposed leader of the opposition party.

Johnson has received threats from members to his right to be ousted from office.  This past week, in response to his signing off on the Ukrainian aid bill, Marjorie Taylor Greene, who first threatened to vacate the Speaker’s chair a few weeks ago, was joined by other House members, including Paul Gosar and Thomas Massie.  All three of them perceive in Johnson a leader who, as soon as he was given the Speaker’s gavel, quickly rolled over and capitulated to the Uniparty – including, worst of all, the Democrats, who now pretend to be his buddy as members from his own Party, frustrated by his performance, agitate for his removal.

Johnson of course in choosing to side with the Uniparty on foreign spending not only bucked the right flank of his party in the halls of Congress, but also the urgings of Donald Trump, who is currently going through a criminal trial in New York City, forcing him off the campaign trail, on groundless charges brought forth by Joe Biden’s weaponized justice system.  President Trump made known his position on the Ukrainian package, asking why Europe was not footing the bill for Ukraine, rather than us.

President Trump made known his position on the Ukrainian package, asking why Europe was not footing the bill for Ukraine, rather than us.  

Everyday Americans are still reeling from the decades-high inflation rates that have made the cost of living unmanageable, especially for a middle class that has already been largely offshored to China and other places by Washington’s Uniparty consensus.  Thus, Johnson, knowing how badly hundreds of millions of his fellow countrymen are suffering, should never have ratified more spending on a foreign conflict taking place in a country most Americans — and probably even most lawmakers — cannot even identify on a map.  This would be true in any time, but especially now, when an estimated seven million foreign invaders, at least, will cross the border under the four years of Joe Biden’s term: a literal invasion, in every sense of the word, which will have devastating effects on our economy, culture, and demographics, for potentially decades to come.

Moreover, as Johnson obsesses about what is already a losing battle thousands of miles away, the current presidential frontrunner has been forced off the campaign trail and into a dank courtroom, his constitutional rights brazenly stripped in the process by a rogue judge, district attorney, and attorney general, at the behest of a weaponized Department of Justice.  This should be Johnson’s foremost priority – every day he should be asking himself the question: what can I be doing to fight against the relentless lawfare of Biden’s DOJ? And yet, so far, there have been crickets.

Rather than allocate another six hundred million dollars (at least) to the FBI to build a fancy new building, Johnson should be mobilizing House Republicans to defund these agencies – or at the bare minimum, begin the preliminary talks for a game plan that will help Donald Trump’s next administration hit the ground running from day one.  There are ample opportunities at this juncture, none of which have been pursued yet, to mitigate at least some of the worst excesses of Biden Regime-orchestrated lawfare against President Trump and his supporters.

The first and most obvious solution would be to release the remaining J6 footage to help further debunk the “insurrection” narrative that was propagated by the illegitimate January 6th House Select Committee for years on end.

The second item on the agenda would be to issue congressional subpoenas for Alvin Bragg, Jack Smith, Letitia James, and Fani Willis.  Make these prosecutors appear before a House Committee and answer for what they are doing to President Trump on television the American people.  There is no reason on earth why these prosecutors should be allowed to hijack an election year – by whisking President Trump off the campaign trail for weeks on end – without accountability.  This is the clearest example of election interference in American history, and nothing else comes even close. This is something that every Republican lawmaker, who cares about the needs of their constituents, should not simply agree to, but make their number one priority.  

If Johnson is so concerned about appeasing Democrats like Hakeem Jeffries, he should have no problem at all subpoenaing Bragg and Willis, given how distasteful these characters are to the vast majority of Republicans.  Additionally, there is no reason on earth why Johnson should not pursue articles of impeachment against Biden, for pay to play schemes involving his son, Hunter, that have become an object of scandal — and national humiliation — over the course of the nearly four years he has served in office.

Finally – and perhaps most importantly – Johnson must do everything in his power to prevent the continued bloodletting of Republican House members, through resignations and early retirements, that have only further eroded the Republican Party’s already razor thin majority.  This is the ultimate test because if Johnson is unwilling or incapable of stopping the bleeding now, it will not matter whether there is a motion to vacate or not.  The House will have turned over control to the Democrats before Election Day, likely sabotaging President Trump’s hopes of re-election because it would mean that Democrats would have full control of the legislative process, and could then pass a bill that might remove him from the ballot, however unconstitutional that might otherwise be, with virtual impunity.

It is incumbent upon Johnson to present a clear path forward – or else be vacated from his post for someone more competent, capable, and loyal to President Trump and his voters.  Johnson has already displayed an unnerving propensity to make pacts with the devil; if he should continue down that route, he will have sold out his countrymen for the Biblical equivalent of thirty pieces of silver – and no amount of sanctimonious excuses to his Christian faith as the putative reason for why he did so will ever convince the American public that he is anything but a weak and feckless traitor, who should never have taken up the awesome post he now occupies, for having shown himself utterly incapable of wielding power like a true statesman.

The post Mike Johnson’s Faustian Bargain appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

In a bold move, a renowned archbishop has taken a stand against the liberal agenda in his latest book release. In his exclusive preface, he fearlessly exposes the dangerous ideologies infiltrating our society and offers a conservative perspective that is sorely needed in these tumultuous times.

With a steadfast determination to uphold traditional values and defend the foundations of our nation, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano delivers a scathing critique of the current state of affairs. Through his sharp analysis and unwavering convictions, he sheds light on the alarming tactics being used to silence conservative voices and erode our freedoms.

The Murder of JFK:
“The subversive action of a coup d’état at the hands of deviant components of the state apparatus… in those years that the deep state began to operate with greater incisiveness, which today shows itself in all its evidence.https://t.co/PhFAAnMSqj

— Chance (@Manchester1898) April 22, 2024

One of the main points the archbishop makes in his preface is the importance of standing up against the rampant cancel culture that has been plaguing our country. He stresses the need for courage and resilience in the face of attacks from the left, who seek to silence anyone who dares to challenge their narrative.

Furthermore, Archbishop Vigano does not shy away from addressing the controversial topic of political correctness. He boldly states that it is nothing more than a tool used by the liberal elite to suppress free speech and manipulate public opinion. He calls upon fellow conservatives to reject this dangerous trend and speak their minds without fear of repercussions.

THE END OF DEEP STATE.
MAKE IT VIRAL! [AYE!]

Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano exposes Pizzagate and names Hillary Clinton, John Podesta and former editor of The Recount, Slade Sohmer, who was recently arrested for child porn.

He also discusses how Jeffrey Epstein ran a… pic.twitter.com/M9VkfG6KW6

— Andromeda11711 (@Andromeda11711) April 18, 2024

In his thought-provoking preface, the archbishop also highlights the threat of radical socialism and its dangerous implications for our nation. He urges readers to be vigilant and resist the allure of empty promises that only lead to government control and loss of individual liberties.

But it’s not all doom and gloom in the archbishop’s message. He offers a glimmer of hope through his unwavering faith and belief in the power of the conservative movement. He encourages readers to unite and stand together against the forces that seek to undermine our values and way of life.

As the political landscape becomes increasingly divided, Archbishop Vigano’s preface serves as a unifying force for conservatives. His powerful words remind us of the principles that bind us together and the importance of staying true to our beliefs.

In conclusion, this exclusive preface by Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano is a must-read for all conservatives. It serves as a wake-up call and a call to action in the face of the left’s relentless attacks on our values and freedoms. So let us heed his words and stand strong in the face of adversity, for the sake of our country and future generations.

What are YOUR thoughts on JFK’s Assassination?

We want to hear from you! Please comment below to join the discussion.

The post Top Archbishop Delivers Powerful Message in New Book appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

Guest post by Joe Hoft – republished with permission.

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and Gabe Sterling chief operating officer (COO) in the office of the Georgia Secretary of State.

The people were right. The 2020 Election results in Georgia never should have been certified. The 2020 election in Georgia was stolen. It’s a fact.

Georgia’s Gabe Sterling who was involved in the certification of the stolen 2020 Election claimed that there were no issues with the Georgia election results. This was false and is false. Even Governor Kemp agreed that there were issues with the 2020 Election.

Georgia citizen Joe Rossi looked into the 2020 Election and the recounts after the election and he found numerous issues with the election results in Fulton County.

After the 2020 Election, a Risk Limiting Audit (RLA) was carried out by Georgia’s Secretary of State’s (SOS’s) Office that included numerous errors.

Thanks to the efforts of Georgian Joseph Rossi, thirty-six errors were found in the Fulton County data in the RLA report posted on Georgia’s Secretary of State’s website.

As a result of Rossi’s work and Kemp’s team’s investigation, the Georgia State Elections Board (SEB) initiated an investigation into the Fulton County data from the RLA report.  This investigation was labeled SEB2021-181.  Eventually the SEB identified violations and errors in the recounts of the 2020 Election in Fulton County.

Another complaint related to Fulton County was filed that specifically called out 3,125 duplicate ballot counts and 17,852 votes counted without corresponding ballot images.  These ballots should never have been included in the election.  This complaint resulted in the creation of investigation SEB2023-25.  This investigation is complete and the results of this investigation will be presented to the SEB on May 7, 2023 per a letter recently received by Joe Rossi.  This complaint has been categorized by the Board as “violations found.”

Despite numerous issues that should have prevented the 2020 Election from being certified, the election was certified and then the SOS’s office lied about the accuracy of the recounts in Georgia.

[Remember that the 2020 results were certified for Biden three days after the election after he overcame President Trump’s 200,000 vote lead on election night to steal the election by less than 12,000 votes in Georgia. – See The Steal – Volume II: The Impossible Occurs for more information.

Note also that that the investigations noted above were independent of two court cases that occurred in Georgia after the 2020 Election.  At least three individuals involved in a recount that occurred in the state after the election identified 148,000 ballots that appeared to have been created by a machine and to be fraudulent.  Fulton county and others in the state are still preventing access to these ballots even though the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs have the right to audit these ballots.

In addition, a separate audit of voting machines was initiated after the 2020 Election which was finally released years later which showed that the systems used in Georgia had security issues and bad actors could hack into them and change the results of an election.

And, we recently found out that there was no signature validation for tens of thousands of votes counted in Fulton County.  A Fulton County Commissioner voted not to certify the election based on this issue.]

BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: The Errors, The Lie, and The Cover-Up in Georgia’s 2020 Election – PART II

Since being notified of the second investigation classified as “violations found”, Rossi requested that Gabe Sterling provide an explanation for his comments and email responses where he claimed that there were no issues in the 2020 Election in Georgia.

This is Rossi’s 11th email to Sterling:

After being behind the efforts to certify the uncertifiable election in 2020 and getting caught with not one, but two investigations into the 2020 Election results, and two court cases identifying thousands of issues with election results, and uncovering that no signature validations occurred in Fulton County for over 100,000 votes, Gabe Sterling is nowhere to be found.

Gabe is hiding.

The post Georgia’s Gabe Sterling Goes Silent and Is “In Hiding” Since Georgia State Election Board Finds Violations in Second 2020 Election Investigation appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

WATCH: Epps Violates Federal Law LYING To The FBI Multiple Times In Never Before Released Interview

New audio reveals suspected government operative James Ray Epps repeatedly lied to the Federal Bureau of Investigations in a never-before-released interview with the bureau obtained by The Gateway Pundit. Lying to the FBI is a crime punishable by up to an 8-year prison sentence.

In January 2021, when Ray Epps returned home to Arizona two days after the Capitol riot, he called the FBI and audaciously asked a federal agent to remove his photograph from the “Most Wanted” list, insisting that he would “do anything” to assist the weaponized intelligence agency with identifying suspects he believed should be arrested for their actions on Jan. 6 while providing fabricated accounts of what he did and what transpired that fateful day. 

“What federal violation are you calling to report tonight?” a female agent asks Epps at the start of the 27-minute interview with the bureau on Jan. 8, 2021, in an attempt to evade federal charges.

Epps informs the government that he had just become aware that his photograph was published on the FBI’s website.

“Well, uh, my brother-in-law called me and said that my picture is on your website as a person of interest at the Capitol. And I looked it up and sure enough, there I am,” he told the agent, chuckling.

Accompanied by his wife Robyn Epps during the interview, the concerned fugitive asks the agent to hold while they identify his BOLO number.

Featured on the FBI bulletin whispering in J6 political prisoner Ryan Samsel’s ear, Epps states that he is featured in “photograph number sixteen,” then immediately begins criminally implicating Samsel.

“Photograph sixteen, that is me, and I’ve got my arm on this guy because he started– he was trying to fight the cops, trying to pick a fight with the cops, the police officers,” Epps said. “And I was trying to calm him down.” 

While leveling criminal allegations against the demonstrators he stood alongside at the rally, Epps warns the FBI, “They came out of nowhere. And boom! Got through!”

Epps assured the agent that it was other people who had committed crimes — as if he had not invested hours in directing the crowd to “go into the building” and was not an active participant on the frontlines of “the first breach.” 

“That was other people that got through after?” the agent asks.

“Yes,” Epps responds. “I’m not sure if that kid was among them. I’m pretty sure he was.”

Contending her husband’s actions during the riot were law-abiding, Robyn Epps also criminally implicated Samsel, claiming she saw footage in which he was “running away” from her husband.

“I thought from the video that it was –the same kid. Running away from you.” Robyn interjected.

At no point during the riot did Samsel run from Epps. But he, evidently, should have. 

TGP provided Samsel the opportunity to review Epps’ interview with the FBI. Samsel suspects Epps stalked him nearly the entire time he was on the Capitol grounds. 

“There is a picture of me and this group of Marines and Ray Epps is in every single one of my pictures that I take of myself. I’m like, ‘How is this guy in the background at every single [turn], like —  he was following me!” Samsel told TGP in an exclusive interview after evaluating the audio.

Epps told the FBI “he went up and grabbed” Samsel moments before the crowd pushed over the bike racks to remind him the police are “doing their job.” 

“I went up and grabbed the guy — grabbed the guy, I kinda, kind of, I don’t know — put my arm around him and said, ‘Hey, you know that’s, that’s not what, you know, that’s not what we’re doing here. We don’t need this. These guys are on our side.’ They’re doing their job.’ And tried to calm him down,’” he claimed. ” And then it just blew up. I mean just, blew up. It, it — they forced a fence down. An officer fell down and it was not good.”

According to court documents, the government claims Epps told Samsel, “Relax, the cops are doing their job,” when he confronted Samsel. 

But Samsel contends Epps, in tandem with the Justice Department and the corporate press, disseminated a lie to cover for Epps and the government operation on the ground that day to entrap demonstrators.

“Ray Epps never whispered in my ear to ‘calm down,’” Samsel explained. “What he said was, ‘Don’t pull you’ve got to push. I got people, or wait until more people.” That’s exactly what he said. I’ve challenged the government to this, and I said, ‘Well, who don’t you have me take a polygraph test and have Ray Epps take a polygraph test.’

“They don’t want him to take a polygraph test because he’s lying. He’s lying about so, so much.”

WATCH: 

***PLEASE SUPPORT J6 POLITICAL HOSTAGE RYAN SAMSEL’S MEDICAL AND LEGAL BATTLE HERE***

Epps seemingly stuck to a script throughout his statement to the FBI as he and his wife repeatedly echoed the mantra that he was only “trying to calm them down” and assist police officers.

Epps claimed he tried to “calm them down” a whopping 14 times and both times his wife interjected she reiterated the “calm down” line.   

“This is what I tried to do. I mean, I tried to calm ’em down,” Epps said, describing his confrontation with protesters at BLM Plaza on Jan. 5, 2021. “I tried to let them know that, uh, you know, this is not what we are here for. We’re here to — because of the constitution, not the police. The police are on our side. And I probably stayed down there ’til 1:30 in the evening and the police are all witnesses for that.

“I tried to calm them down. Got on a bullhorn once and tried to calm them down.”

Epps never got on a “bullhorn” to “calm them down” on Jan. 5th or 6th. 

But the 62-year-old former Marine and Oathkkeeper is infamously caught on camera walking the streets of the nation’s capital on a bizarre mission to entice demonstrators to, “Go INTO the Capitol building!”

“Tomorrow, I don’t even like to say it because I’ll be arrested,” he yells in footage captured on January 5th by Anthime “Baked Alaska” Gionet and John “Jayden X” Sulivan at Black Lives Matter Plaza.

“Don’t say it!” Gionet shot back.

“I’ll say it!” Epps vehemently insisted. “We need to go in…to the Capitol!”

At BLM Plaza, Epps repeatedly interrupted debate among the rallygoers, reminding them to “focus” on a prime directive to “go into the Capitol!”

“Guys! Guys! Guys!” he screamed amongst the crowd a second time on Jan. 5. “I’m going to put it out there and I’m probably going to go to jail for it, okay? Tomorrow, we need to go into the Capitol! In… to the Capitol!”

Alarmed, suspicious and incensed by Epps’ calls to break the law, the crowd immediately began chanting “Fed! Fed! Fed! Fed!”

Epps also criminally implicated the protesters at BLM Plaza, warning the FBI that the other demonstrators were “right in the policemen’s face.” Footage shows they were primarily in his face for urging them to break the law.

Epps may get away with lying to the media and has even perjured himself before the hyperpartisan J6 House Select Committee with no repercussion.

But providing a false statement to a federal agent is a federal offense governed by 18 U.S. Code § 1001, a crime punishable by up to five years in prison. The penalty could be extended to a maximum of eight years if your statement relates to any act of international or domestic terrorism.

On Jan. 6, 2021, after Samsel and approximately 300 demonstrators pushed over flimsy bike racks that barricaded Peace Circle from the inauguration stage, where many presumed Trump was slated to speak, Epps along with scores of protesters ran towards the Capitol building.

According to the government, demonstrators who stepped foot in the temporarily “restricted area” violated 1512 Obstruction of an Official proceeding, a crime punishable by up to a 20-year prison sentence unprecedentedly used to prosecute demonstrators.

But Epps is above the law. 

Epps admitted in text messages to his nephew on Jan. 6 that he “orchestrated” the first breach, yet he inexplicably managed to evade the 1512 charge that has been leveled against hundreds of people who protested outside the building as federal judges continue to arbitrarily apply the statute in the selective prosecution of January 6 defendants for demonstrating on the “restricted area.”

Lying by omission, not once on the call did Epps disclose to the FBI his numerous unrelenting attempts to instigate peaceful demonstrators to “Obstruct an Official proceeding.” 

Perhaps the man even sedition hunters have named “FedBoomer” equates “calming them down” with incitement.

If the government applied the same standard to Epps as the plurality of incarcerated J6 defendants, he would be serving a 20-year prison sentence for inciting “insurrection” and conspiring to “overthrow the US government.”

While the Biden regime, so-called conservative, Trump appointees and state-run media dismiss claims that Epps is a government operative as a conspiracy theory, painting him to the masses as a “scapegoat” of “far-right media,”  Epps availed himself to “help” the FBI with “anything,” including identifying more suspects for arrest, before he ended the call.

“The one guy, I could identify him. There’s a couple that I could probably identify if, if you had pictures,” he said.  It’s so hard because some of them were covering their faces– these guys knew what they were doing.

“The officers on top, I was talking to them, they saw and they were witnesses that I was trying to calm those people down. I am guilty of being there and probably trespassing, uh. But I had a reason. I was trying to calm ’em down. I wanted to be there but I was trying to calm ’em down. Anything that I can do to help. There’s no call for that kind of behavior. I will be your witness.”

“You see? He’s a rat,” Samsel lamented after Samsel vowed to assist the government. “That statement, I would do ‘anything.’ What was he willing to do? ‘Anything. I hate that statement.

At the conclusion of Epps’ conspicuous call to the FBI, he had the nerve to ask the bureau to remove his picture from the Most Wanted list.

“Can you, can you take my picture down,” Epps shamelessly requested before bursting into laughter.

The agent refused at the time, noting she “will definitely get all of this documented in the appropriate areas.”

“Okay. No problem.” Epps replies, continuing to cackle.

Low and behold, the FBI granted Epps request and removed his picture from the Most Wanted list in July 2021.

Epps has yet to return TGP’s request for comment nor did his wife Robyn at the time of this publication.

Samsel has adamantly called on other January 6 defendants to refuse to cooperate with the government by accepting plea deals that he warns will ultimately be exploited to incarcerate Trump and more innocent people who protested nearly three and half years ago.

Like other defendants present when police waged a terror attack against the American people and the First Amendment, Samsel has been marred with claims by the political left and right of being a federal informant in light of his interaction with Epps during the first breach.

Yet, Samsel has been tortured for refusing an agreement with the government that would incriminate the Proud Boys and Trump. As a paralegal on the case, this reporter has obtained Samsel’s medical records. Guards in the DC jail brutally assaulted Samsel after he refused to lie about fellow J6 political prisoner and decorated Army veteran Joseph Biggs brandishing a gun during the riot.

As a result of repeated beatdowns, he was left with a broken eye socket, a broken jaw, brain injuries, and suffers loss of vision in his left eye. Judge Jia Cobb continues to refuse surgery for a condition that causes him to develop blood blots.

As TGP reported on Sunday, the FBI is also using illegal intimidation tactics against Samsel’s wife, Raechel Genco. Genco merely stood outside of the US Capitol on January 6 and committed no violent crimes. She pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge and was sentenced to community service and probation. The FBI claimed Genco never completed the required community service hours, even though she had. Suddenly, the DOJ is threatening Genco with felony charges.

“She is now facing felony charges because Christopher Way is retaliating after Troy Nehl’s challenged [him] on Genco was charged, and Ray Epps wasn’t at the time,” Samsel explained.

Steadfast amid potential retaliation by federal judges who add “terror enhancements” to the sentences of J6 defendants for exposing the Deep State malfeasance, Samsel is committed to exposing the government’s ploy to manipulate, intimidate, incarcerate and terrorize the American people for simply protesting.

“Everybody, please, repost and share this egregious miscarriage of justice, of selective prosecution and retaliation tactics again by Christopher Wray. This needs the attention of all American people, not just Republicans or Democrats if want to save this this country.”

***PLEASE SUPPORT J6 POLITICAL HOSTAGE RYAN SAMSEL’S MEDICAL AND LEGAL BATTLE HERE***

LISTEN TO JAMES RAY EPPS’ UNEDITED JAN. 8, 2021 INTERVIEW WITH THE FBI HERE:

The post RAY EPPS EXPOSED: Never Before Released FBI Interview Call Uncovered – J6 Political Prisoner Ryan Samsel Exposes James Ray Epps Breaking Federal Law, LYING To The FBI Multiple Times [Part 1] appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Recently, Laurie Smith wrote The Gateway Pundit after she visited her young son Brad Smith, who is serving time in federal prison.

Brad is a political prisoner of the Biden regime. Brad attended the protests on January 6, 2021 at the US Capitol and watched from outside the US Capitol.

Brad never entered the Capitol, never brought a weapon, never vandalized anything, and never hurt anyone.

But the Biden regime sentenced him to 41 months in prison for touching a huge Trump sign that passed over his head as he stood in the crowd that day.

** If you would like to help support Brad Smith, please go to https://www.givesendgo.com/G9DY8

Ray Epps, who was filmed pushing the sign and directing people, was never charged for this same crime that Brad and several others were sentenced for.

Brad Smith, who never broke the law in his life and respected the police, entered prison in 2022 for this made-up crime.

Laurie recently visited her son in prison. She sent us this photo.

Hi Jim, ( I will attach some photos in the next email)

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak out about my son. I struggled a little on what to write only because I just want to complain so much and express what an evil corrupted regime we have right now. But, I thought I would write more about how truly thankful and blessed we are for the support and how proud I am of my son. Visiting a child in prison is so surreal and such a physical draining event.

My son Charles Bradford Smith (Brad) attended the January 6 rally to show his support for President Trump. Over nine months later the FBI did a terrifying pre-dawn raid of our home and arrested our son who was 24 years old at the time.

Brad never entered the Capital, never brought a weapon, never vandalized anything, and never hurt anyone.

Despite that he was charged with Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding because of some hyperbolic rhetoric on his phone. Yet so many have said horrific things about President Trump with absolutely no consequences. They are even praised for it.

Ray Epps Lied – He Committed Criminal Acts and It Was ALL CAUGHT on Video — Here Are the Eight Trump Supporters the FBI Arrested and Who Are Serving Years in Prison for Committing Same Act

Then months later after Brad’s arrest they decided to add on a very serious felony assault charge. Our son was devastated. Not only because of the extreme charge, but he has always respected law enforcement. This charge was due to a very large Trump sign being passed over dozens and dozens of people and Brad also touched the sign for 7 seconds as it passed by. The sign never injured anyone but did eventually go into a line of police and was placed on the ground.

What is even more upsetting is that Ray Epps is seen on several video clips touching this sign and was never charged at all for it.

Ray Epps Lied – He Committed Criminal Acts and It Was ALL CAUGHT on Video — Here Are the Eight Trump Supporters the FBI Arrested and Who Are Serving Years in Prison for Committing Same Act

With no criminal background (not even a traffic ticket) Brad has been tragically sentenced to 41 months in prison for attending the January 6 rally and 36 months’ probation. He reported to prison November 1st, 2022.

My son just loved what Trump stood for. He went to his very first Trump rally in 2015, not long after graduating from high school. Then he went on to attend several other rallies and even ended up joining the Young Republican Club in college. Brad has always loved learning about history and politics, and he respected and valued Trump’s policies.

My son is a Patriotic Conservative Christian young man who never imagined he would be sent to prison for supporting President Trump at the January 6th rally.

People ask me many times how Brad is coping while being in prison these past 18 months and I can honestly say he rarely complains. The last thing I know he would want is for us to worry more than we already are. He has been so humbled by the outpouring of love and support. It’s something I could never put into words. All of this has reminded my son and myself as well that there are so many good people in the world despite what is happening right now to him. If anything, this has made my son stronger physically, mentally, and most importantly closer than he already was to God.

The day you must hug your young son goodbye and have him walk through those prison doors is something I would not wish on any parent. Please continue to pray for him.

If you would like to help support Brad Smith, please go to https://www.givesendgo.com/G9DY8

Sincerely,

Laurie Smith

The post A FAMILY GRIEVES: Heartbreaking Letter from Laurie Smith – The Mother of an Innocent J6 Political Prisoner After She Visits Him in Prison appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

As the Biden administration accelerates their strategy of promoting abortion as their go-to issue ahead of the November elections, a new poll confirmed the results of numerous previous polls, showing that a supermajority of American voters oppose abortion after the third month of pregnancy — a view that is not in line with the Democratic Party’s public position of unrestricted abortion.

On Wednesday, Rasmussen Reports released the results of a poll revealing that 66 percent of American voters are opposed to late-term abortions beyond 12 weeks. These latest numbers are largely similar to polling results from the last 20 years, which show anywhere from 55 to 71 percent of Americans opposing second trimester abortions and 70 to 86 percent opposing third trimester abortions.

Notably, Democratic lawmakers in recent years have consistently refused to say if they would place any limits on abortion, even up to the moment of birth.

The current Democratic Party platform makes no reference to placing any limits on the procedure, going so far as to say that the party would work to overturn any and all pro-life protections enacted by duly elected state lawmakers, as well as any federal protections: “Democrats oppose and will fight to overturn federal and state laws that create barriers to reproductive health and rights.”

The platform goes on to state that Democrats would force taxpayers to pay for abortions by “repeal[ing] the Hyde Amendment,” a position that is opposed by 60 percent of Americans.

The platform further declares that Democrats will sweep away all state pro-life protections by “codify[ing] the right to reproductive freedom” in federal law, which the party has already attempted to do with the “Women’s Health Protection Act.”

Despite the Democratic Party’s unwillingness to show any moderation on abortion, Republicans in recent months have struggled to find their footing on how to message on the issue and have often not taken advantage of the contrast between public opinion on late-term abortion and the Democratic position.

Former Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel has urged GOPers to point out the Democrats’ extremism in recent months. “We are the pro-life, pro-woman, pro-family party, and we can win on abortion,” she said. “But that means putting Democrats on the defense and forcing them to own their own extreme positions.”

National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Sen. Steve Daines voiced similar sentiments, pushing candidates to “not run away from the issue.”

In comments to The Washington Stand, Director of Family Research Council Action Matt Carpenter contended that the Democratic Party is engaging in a money-centric strategy to overcome the discrepancy between their abortion extremism and public opinion.

“Across the nation, pro-abortion groups are pushing for ballot measures which would amend state constitutions to allow abortion through all stages of pregnancy, on the taxpayer dime,” he observed. “Liberal dark money groups are pouring campaign cash into these efforts, and Democrat political operatives are licking their chops at the thought of a super-charged pro-abortion turnout at the polls. Forgetting for a moment that poll after poll shows voters are concerned mostly about the cost-of-living crisis, rising crime, and the daily invasion at the southern border, the reality is voters are not supportive of second and third trimester abortions.”

Nonetheless, Carpenter went on to acknowledge that pro-life Republicans face challenges in educating voters on abortion ahead of November.

“While the pro-abortion side relies on a phalanx of pundits repeating their euphemisms, the pro-life movement has their work cut out for them to educate voters as to the extreme nature of these measures, which would prevent states from protecting unborn children from abortion in the second and third trimesters,” Carpenter said.

Mary Szoch, director of the Center for Human Dignity at Family Research Council, also acknowledged the challenges in the current political climate but encouraged GOP candidates to be unafraid of making plain the Democratic Party’s position on abortion.

“The tragedy of only 66 percent of voters opposing late-term abortion points to the prevalence of the culture of death,” Szoch told The Washington Stand. “It demonstrates that our culture has become one that values people based on what they can do or accomplish as opposed to the fact that each person is a son or daughter of God. We have a lot of work to do building a culture of life.”

Szoch concluded, “That said — 66 percent of voters is a majority of Americans who agree that killing an unborn child after viability is a grave evil. Political candidates should recognize that speaking the truth about the Democratic Party’s views on life — their desire for abortion through (and even infanticide after) birth — is out of step with the American people.”

This article appeared originally on The Washington Stand.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Poll: Supermajority of American Voters Oppose Abortion Past 12 Weeks appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Skin color, which vies with sexuality for distinction as the most tedious subject in America, has once again made headlines.

Stephen Jackson, who won the 2002-03 NBA championship with the San Antonio Spurs and who happens to be black, illustrated the modern mind’s toxic obsession with race when he denigrated black journalist Gayle King, co-host of “CBS Mornings,” for using the first-person plural pronoun “we” when referring to fans who rooted for the Iowa Hawkeyes women’s basketball team and superstar guard Caitlin Clark, who happens to be white.

“I don’t consider her black media,” Jackson said of King in a short video posted to Instagram on Saturday.

The former NBA champion cited the veteran journalist’s conduct during an interview with South Carolina Gamecocks head coach Dawn Staley, who also happens to be black.

On April 7, the Gamecocks completed an undefeated season with an 87-75 win over Iowa in the NCAA championship game.

Clark, who helped elevate the popularity of women’s basketball, finished her career as the NCAA Division I all-time scoring leader. On April 15, the Indiana Fever selected Clark with the 1st overall pick in the WNBA draft.

Jackson who played 17 NBA seasons with eight different teams, had nothing negative to say about Clark.

He did, however, betray the ugly tribalism at the root of “race” consciousness when he criticized King for not behaving as he thought a black journalist should behave.

Race, of course, has no meaning outside of human tribalism. As a biological factor, skin color matters as much as eye color or hair color — that is to say, not at all.

Nor is this a new argument. In fact, lawyers for the plaintiff made this same anti-segregation argument — in vain, as it turned out — during the infamous 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

But this does not satisfy people who cling to tribalism and will not let it go.

“Y’all give her all these passes because she f*** with — she’s Oprah[‘s] friend. I don’t give a f*** whose friend she is. That don’t do nothing for nobody,” Jackson said of King.

In her interview with Staley, King said, “We were all cheering for Iowa, of course, and Caitlin Clark,” according to the New York Post.

Jackson took issue with a statement so offensive to tribalists.

“But you cannot demean Dawn Staley like that. You talkin’ to her about winning the championship, about going undefeated. And you have the nerve to get on there and say, ‘Well, we was rootin’ for Caitlin Clark, and you broke everybody hearts,’” Jackson said on Instagram.

He assumed that King, because of her darker complexion, should speak for others with a dark complexion.

“Who is ‘we’? Who is ‘we’? All the black people I know was rootin’ for Dawn Staley,” Jackson said.

Again, the former NBA champion did not attack Clark personally. But he did take issue with King celebrating Clark at what he regarded as Staley’s expense.

“We all fans of Caitlin Clark. But the way you put it? That s*** was trash,” he said.

“You just demeaned [Staley] and made it about Caitlin Clark. That’s trash — super-trash,” he later added.

Readers may view Jackson’s full comments in the video below.

WARNING: The following video contains vulgar language some readers may find offensive.

King, of course, did nothing wrong.

Nor did Staley, whose undefeated South Carolina team deserves all the accolades it gets.

Nor did Clark, whose playing style and scoring prowess attracted many thousands of new fans.

Only Jackson, who cannot let go of the shopworn tribalism we call “race,” came out of this looking boorish.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Watch: NBA Champ Goes on Race Rant, Says Journalist Isn’t ‘Black Media’ After Praising Caitlin Clark appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

In July 2012, I came within a hair’s breadth of ruining my life. I escaped, but the very talented Canadian writer Mark Steyn did not. My mention of his name will rightly signal to many readers that this is a story about the infamous verdict in a D.C. Superior Court earlier this year. It will signal to others who care about such things that this is also a story about the hollowness of much of what passes as “climate science.” But let me tell the story in my own convoluted way. 

For those for whom the words “infamous verdict” and “Mark Steyn” fail to ring a bell, here is a short course. Steyn was sued by the climate “scientist” Michael Mann, who had taken umbrage twelve years ago when Steyn likened him to convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky. On February 8, a Washington, D.C., jury agreed with Mann and found Steyn and co-defendant Rand Simberg guilty of defaming Michael Mann. It was an extraordinarily odd verdict. The jury assessed “compensatory damages” of one dollar each from Steyn and Simberg—which is to say they found no real harm to Mann in his ability to make money. But the jury didn’t stop there. It added a fine of $1,000 for Simberg and a cool $1 million for Steyn for “punitive damages.” This was retribution for their supposedly making statements with “maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance or deliberate intent to harm.”

It took a dozen years for Mann’s defamation suit to reach a trial court. What the case was really about was Mann’s reputation as a liar and a hack who had nonetheless gained wide influence in the political world for his promotion of the idea of runaway man-made global warming.  

Mann had risen to international fame beginning in 1999 by propounding his “hockey stick graph,” which purported to show that global temperatures had risen very little until 1900, then began to rise rapidly. In 2001, the International Panel on Climate Change put Mann’s hockey stick chart in the prominent summary of its Third Assessment Report. This conferred on Mann the science (or pseudo-science) equivalent of rock star status. After that, Mann would throw a tantrum when skeptics—of whom there were many—criticized his work. Rather oddly, he refused to divulge the data out of which his famous graph was constructed. 

Steyn was only one of the many who mocked Mann and his pretensions to scientific rigor. The Jerry Sandusky jibe was just colorful rhetoric, i.e. Sandusky molested children; Mann molested data.

The court case was closely watched and nearly all observers thought that Mann was thoroughly defeated. He was shown indeed to have made numerous false claims and to have suffered no material damage at all from Steyn’s satire. Mann had instead prospered in the years that followed.

But in the closing minutes of the trial, Mann’s lawyer, John Williams, turned the case into a referendum on Donald Trump, who of course had no part in what Steyn had said in 2012 and as far as anyone knows had no opinion at the time on Michael Mann’s career. Williams urged the jury to award punitive damages to send a message to others who might engage in “climate denialism,” which he likened to Trump’s “election denialism.” 

“Denialism” appears to be Williams’ term for disagreeing with the left’s established views. Such denialism has to be obliterated like the dangerously invasive lantern fly wherever it is encountered. And the D.C. jury did what Williams asked. It came back with a crushing punitive judgment against Steyn.

This happened in early February. Since then, we have had several lessons on how juries in unfriendly cities can be relied on to impose preposterous fines on Trump and to use “lawfare” to destroy the lives of innocent people who have some connection to Trump. Even those like Steyn who are not connected to Trump can be targets of this legal maliciousness.  

Let’s go back to the beginning. In July 2012, former FBI director Louis Freeh released a 250-page examination of how Penn State University had handled child molester and former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky. What had university officials known? What had they done or failed to do? Freeh had been commissioned in November 2011 by the university’s board of trustees to lead this study, immediately after they fired President Graham Spanier. Freeh’s report blamed Spanier and Penn State’s revered football coach Joe Paterno for concealing what they knew about Sandusky from “the Board of Trustees, the University community and authorities.” Freeh blamed them as well for allowing Sandusky to continue to molest children.  Spanier disputed the findings and to this day continues his attempts to claw back his reputation, but it is a stiff climb. In 2017, he was convicted in state court of endangering the welfare of children and spent two months in jail. 

I wasn’t especially interested in the Sandusky scandal, but I had had my eye on Graham Spanier since 2010 when he had orchestrated the Penn State branch of the coverup of the “Climategate” affair of 2009. Professor Mann had been caught red-handed in the suppression of scientific findings that ran counter to his own. Penn State had quickly rallied to Mann’s defense, but public doubt remained intense, and to put it to rest Spanier established a committee to look into the matter. The committee in short order determined that “Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community.”

By 2009, I had begun to follow closely stories that dealt with “climate science” and its overlap with higher education. My interest grew out of finding that the dean of residence life at the University of Delaware had imposed a Stasi-like regime on students in the name of “social justice.” The planning documents for this Delaware dorm-based indoctrination called it a “sustainability program.” As I peeled back the layers, I found that “sustainability” took its intellectual warrant from the supposed crisis of global warming. At the bottom of all this, “climate science” and climate scientists were promoting a vision of impending catastrophe caused by humans recklessly burning fossil fuels. I initiated a project called “How Many Delawares?” aimed at documenting how far this effort by university administrators had penetrated American higher education. 

Global warming hysteria was truly launched way back in 1988, but it was not one of those movements that first poked up on college campuses. It was, rather, a combination of government bureaucrats and grant-hungry scientists who invented it and politicians who marketed it. The International Panel on Climate Change was formed in November 1988. The Rio Summit (“The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development”) was held in 1992. It would take almost two decades before climate hysteria became epidemic in American higher ed.

In time, I caught up with this history, and later I co-wrote a book about it with Rachelle Peterson, Sustainability: Higher Education’s New Fundamentalism (2015). Global warming hysteria finally caught on with students when college presidents, rallied by John Kerry, took up the cause, attracted by the potential for vast amounts of new federal funding to support “climate research.” President Spanier was one of the early adopters; Michael Mann joined his faculty in 2005, after leaving the University of Virginia. 

Mann’s sojourn in Virginia bears telling as well. It was there that he developed his “hockey stick.” In the wake of Climategate, in 2010, Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli attempted to force the University of Virginia to divulge records of Mann’s research on the grounds that Mann may have committed fraud against the state’s taxpayers. The university refused to cooperate and the press smeared the investigation as a violation of academic freedom. The case had various twists and turns but eventually landed before Virginia’s Supreme Court, which ruled that Cuccinelli had no right to see the records.  

To this day, the actual data that Mann supposedly used to construct the hockey stick remains hidden away. This hasn’t gone unnoticed. Mark Steyn, for one, compiled a 300-page book in 2015, A Disgrace to the Profession, which consists entirely of statements by “The World’s Scientists in Their Own Words on Michael Mann, His Hockey Stick, and Their Damage to Science.” It was an audacious conceit on Steyn’s part to gather so much salt to rub into the wounds in Professor Mann’s sensitive ego. It was possibly not the gentle balm with which to convince the partisan public that he meant no harm to Mann’s career. 

Any sensible person who cares about the integrity of science and good public policy should want to cure the problems presented by Mann’s odd ways of conducting “science.” There is no lack of earnest efforts by well-informed writers to do just that. A. W. Montford’s The Hockey-Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (2010) is a classic of the genre, but there has been a steady stream of expert deconstruction of Mann-ian science in the last decade. My favorite among recent ventures is Stephen Einhorn’s Climate Change: What They Rarely Teach in College (2023). These are not polemics. They are efforts to synthesize the scientific data that bears on the questions of what has happened and what is happening to the Earth’s temperature. And it just so happens that Michael Mann’s testimony on these matters does not come off well.

Many climate researchers have not been shy in devising more and more terrifying forecasts. Global warming circa 2010 (not yet rebranded “climate change”) was supposedly taking off like a sky rocket or, ahem, a hockey stick.     

Back in 2009, when I was new to the subject, I expected the news of “Climategate” would desolate the field. Here were esteemed researchers emailing one another about ways to bury the findings of other researchers who had discovered deep discrepancies in the warmist narrative. Here were researchers discussing a “trick” they could use to make the existence of warm medieval temperatures disappear. (It was awkward that the Earth had warmed before the invention of the internal combustion engine or indeed the Industrial Revolution.) And at the center of the Climategate scandal stood one redoubtable figure: Michael Mann.  

The scandal, however, failed to dethrone him, thanks in considerable part to Penn State’s determination to prop him up. Mere months after Climategate broke, President Spanier appointed the committee to look into it and early in 2010 the committee came back with its finding that Mann was clean, honest, and reliable—or something like that.

So when Penn State convened another special committee in 2011 in the Sandusky matter, I had trepidations. Was another cover-up in progress? It turned out not, but when the Freeh report was issued I saw an opportunity to remind readers of my weekly columns in The Chronicle of Higher Education that Spanier’s decision to cover up Sandusky’s lewdness and Paterno’s indifference was nothing new. I possessed no first-hand knowledge of either the Sandusky case or the Mann matter, but from a distance the evidence of a look-the-other-way attitude among Penn State administrators with Sandusky and a protect-our-asset attitude towards Mann seemed awfully convincing.

How close could I dare draw the parallel? In my article, “A Culture of Evasion,” I decided to tread lightly:  

Then there was the Michael Mann case, the well-known advocate of the theory of man-made global warming, accused in the wake of the Climategate memos in 2009 of scientific misconduct. Penn State appointed a university panel, headed by the vice president for research, Henry Foley, to investigate Mann. According to ABC News Foley’s committee asked:

whether Mann had 1) suppressed or falsified data; 2) tried to conceal or destroy e-mails or other information; 3) misused confidential information; or 4) did anything that “seriously deviated from accepted practices” in scholarly research.

The committee exonerated Mann on the first three and punted on the fourth. Make of this what you will, but a review by the university’s vice president for research, who oversees grant-funded projects, does not have exactly the same standing as an investigation carried out by the former director of the FBI. Penn State has a history of treading softly with its star players. Paterno wasn’t the only beneficiary.

Even this bland summary raised the ire of the famously thin-skinned Professor Mann. He strikes me as the sort of person who drags a heavy load of guilt through life. The evidence is indirect:  He viciously attacks anyone who impugns his intellectual integrity but utterly refuses to divulge the data and other details that would go far to clear his name. The points that have prompted others to express their doubts about his honesty are matters of fact that simple candor could settle once and for all.  

When I published that passage in 2012, I already knew about and had grazed Michael Mann’s litigious wrath. In August 2011, I published an article, “Climate Thuggery,” in which I cataloged some of Mann’s “nuisance lawsuits,” including one against a Canadian geographer, Tim Ball, who had joked that Mann “should be in the state pen, not Penn State.” Mann had also threatened a Minnesota group for a satiric video, and he had won the allegiance of a handful of admirers who were making it their business to harass his critics. One of these was a fellow named John Mashey who was praised in the pages of Science for “trying to take the offense” against global warming skeptics. Mann praised Mashey for “exploring the underbelly of climate denial.”  

Mashey came after me, and I was told by my editor at the Chronicle that Mann himself did as well, but nothing much came of it. The Chronicle soon dropped its experiment in having a handful of conservative columnists, but I had already been sternly warned off writing about climate change.  

As it happened, I wasn’t the only writer who conjured a connection between the Sandusky and Mann cases. Mann sued Rand Simberg and the Competitive Enterprise Institute for publishing Simberg’s comment that Mann had “molested and tortured data” and sued Mark Steyn and National Review for referencing and expanding upon Simberg’s statement.

I certainly do not want to be sued by Michael Mann or get The American Conservative drawn into such bother. So I will continue to mind my words. It is my personal opinion that Michael Mann’s research, especially on reconstructions of global temperature, is profoundly flawed. It is also my opinion that the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is a compound of leftist ideology, mass delusion, biased, self-confirming pseudo-science, and over-interpretation of fragmentary and ambiguous data. What relative proportions of these four factors go into the mix depends on the individual and the situation. Millions of people go along with so-called climate science because they don’t know any better. A fair number of scientists are so psychologically invested in the theory that they are literally unable to question it. Others have doubts but make their peace with it because it has become their livelihood. Still others are straight-on radicals intent on “decarbonization” as the shortest route to their anti-capitalist revolution.  

Put all this together, and we have the figure of Michael Mann alongside a few others such as Greta Thunberg, Al Gore, and Bill McKibben as our latter-day Jeremiahs pronouncing world-ending doom as punishment for modern prosperity. They enjoy the backing of most of the world’s governments and a huge number of foundations. 

For all that, they have failed to create the crisis mentality on a mass scale that they hope for. Last year, Pew Research Center reported that only 27 percent of Americans say fighting climate change “should be a top priority for the president and Congress.” Another 34 percent say such a fight is important but not a priority. Among Republicans only 13 percent say it is a “top priority.” That makes it by definition a political issue, which in turn means that the apocalyptos have not prevailed. If a world-ending catastrophe were in the offing and people really believed that, these numbers would look very different.

Where then does Mark Steyn stand? He is a hero to many who, like me, count ourselves among the climate skeptics. There are others, especially many scientists who have risked their reputations and careers by coming out as climate skeptics. There are organizations such as the Heartland Institute and the CO2 Coalition that put real intellectual muscle into gathering and analyzing facts that belie the prevailing climate-change narrative.

All of us need a Mark Steyn who with cussed determination and quick wit has stood up against climate thuggery and its most self-important champion. Steyn will appeal the absurd verdict and the outlandish penalty. May he win. In the meantime, I recommend the excellent day-by-day recreation of the trial by the Irish documentarians Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer. Their podcast, “Climate Change on Trial,” presents the whole debacle.

The post The Long Road to the Steyn Verdict appeared first on The American Conservative.

Everyone knows that the Moscow Patriarchate is in bed with the Kremlin. Few realize that the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is deeply beholden to the United States government. 

This ignorance is surprising, given that many Greek Orthodox leaders are quite proud of the fact. In 1942, Athenagoras Spyrou—the Archbishop of America for the Greek Orthodox Church—wrote to an agent of the Office of Strategic Services. “I have three Bishops, three hundred priests, and a large and far-flung organization,” Athenagoras wrote. “Every one under my order is under yours. You may command them for any service you require. There will be no questions asked and your directions will be executed faithfully.” 

In 1947, the OSS was rechristened as the Central Intelligence Agency, or CIA. One year later, Athenagoras was elected Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, the spiritual leader of Eastern Orthodoxy. 

One might point out that, when Athenagoras reached out to the OSS, his native Greece was under Nazi occupation. It is understandable that a Greek bishop in America would support the American war effort. But it was more than that. Athenagoras was a strong supporter of American exceptionalism and encouraged Washington’s militarist foreign policy. The U.S. Consul in Istanbul recounted a conversation with Athenagoras in 1951: “As usual, he talked at some length of his belief that the United States must remain in the Near East for several centuries to fulfill the mission which had been given it by God to give freedom, prosperity and happiness to all people.”

(These quotes, by the way, are pulled from a talk given by an Orthodox historian called Matthew Namee at Holy Cross Hellenic College, the Greek seminary in Boston. These are not malicious forgeries peddled by Russian propagandists—the Greek Orthodox are quite proud of their association with the American deep state.)

Athenagoras was not merely an Americanist. He was also known as a renovationist, as liberal Orthodox are known. In 1964, he met with Pope Paul VI in Jerusalem; together, they officially lift the mutual excommunications placed by their predecessors in 1054. This gesture sparked outrage across Orthodox world. Athenagoras was accused of compromising the Orthodox Faith for the sake of a paper union with Rome.

The current Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew, is cut from the same cloth as Athenagoras. He is very close to Pope Francis; the two share a passion for mass immigration and environmental activism. Also like Athenagoras, Bartholomew shares a close relationship with the U.S. government—a partnership that has proven mutually beneficial.

The Ecumenical Patriarch is the spiritual leader of Orthodoxy. However, he only has direct jurisdiction over a few thousand Orthodox Christians in Turkey. The rest of the Greek Orthodox world are autocephalous, or self-governing. This includes the Church of Greece, the Church of Cyprus, and the American metropolises (or dioceses). Many look to Bartholomew for leadership, but they are not directly under his authority. It is also worth noting that a large majority of Orthodox Christians around the world belong to the Russian Orthodox tradition. These churches do not look to Bartholomew for leadership in any meaningful way. Some, like the Patriarchate of Moscow, are in schism with Constantinople.

Bartholomew is not the “pope” of Orthodoxy—although he would like to be. Over the last few decades, the ecumenical patriarch has also worked to consolidate hard power over the various Greek Orthodox churches. This effort has proven most fruitful in the United States. 

In 2014, Elpidophoros Lambriniadis, the current Archbishop of America and Bartholomew’s heir apparent, published a short essay called “First Without Equals.” Its name was a play on the phrase primus inter pares, or first among equals. This title originally referred to the Pope of Rome, but was transferred to Patriarch of Constantinople by the Orthodox following the Great Schism of 1054. Of course, the Schism itself was caused in no small part by a sense that the Roman Pontiffs failed to respect the rights and privileges of their fellow bishops, especially in the Christian East. Clearly, the Archbishop was signaling his desire to cultivate a more authoritarian, centralist ecclesiology within the Orthodox Church, a philosophy which has been dubbed Greek papism. 

In 2022, during an interview with the Greek newspaper Ta Nea, Elpidophoros was asked if he expected to become the next Ecumenical Patriarch. Elpidophoros demurred, claiming that “the succession will be decided by God.” This, too, is a radical departure from Orthodox tradition. In fact, it goes beyond Greek papism. Even the Roman Catholic Church explicitly denies that the Pope is chosen by God.

Nevertheless, the United States government officially supports the doctrine of Greek papism, as will be shown. Strengthening the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s position within global Orthodoxy serves two purposes. First, it necessarily subtracts from the influence of Constantinople’s rival, the Moscow Patriarchate. Washington regards Russian Orthodoxy as a tool for Kremlin propaganda and, therefore, a legitimate target for counterintelligence operations. Secondly, the renovationist Ecumenical Patriarchs are willing partners in Washington’s campaign to spread liberal, democratic values across the globe. 

Consider, for example, the schism in the Ukrainian Church. In 1990, the Patriarchate of Moscow granted self-governing status to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC). It was not, however, given full autocephaly. However, a group of Ukrainian nationalists led by then-president Minister Petro Poroshenko organized an “independent” Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU). With the support of Western media, these nationalists successfully branded the canonical UOC as the “Russian Church.”

In 2018, when asked about the Orthodox Church of Ukraine’s bid for autocephaly, Kurt Volker—then Special Representative of the United States Department of State for Ukraine—appeared to wave the question off. He insisted that the U.S. government does not take a position on such matters and would respect the decision of Bartholomew and his synod. 

Make no mistake: By declaring that the decision belongs to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the U.S. government is taking a position. First of all, autocephaly cannot be granted unilaterally by any patriarch or bishop. Second, if the decision belonged to anyone, it would be the Patriarch of Moscow, the spiritual leader of Slavic Orthodoxy. Even the great Kallistos Ware denounced the Ecumenical Patriarchate for meddling in the Ukrainian Church:

Though I am a metropolitan of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, I am not at all happy about the position taken by Patriarch Bartholomew. With all due respect to my Patriarch, I am bound to say that I agree with the view expressed by the Patriarchate of Moscow that Ukraine belongs to the Russian Church. After all, the Metropolia of Kiev by an agreement of 1676 was transferred from the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to that of the Patriarchate of Moscow. So, for 330 years Ukraine has been part of the Russian Church.

Third, just days before Volker gave his interview, Joe Biden—then only the former vice president—flew to Ukraine to express his support for the OCU. As soon as Bartholomew ruled in favor of the OCU church, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo expressed the Trump administration’s firm support for his decision. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, our government has implicitly supported Ukrainian president Vladimir Zelensky’s policy of seizing property (including church buildings) from the UOC and transferring them to the OCU. In one particularly egregious episode, a nationalist mob attacked a UOC church in the middle of a funeral, dispersed the worshippers and beat the celebrant-priest so badly he had to be hospitalized. The kicker? It was a funeral for a Ukrainian soldier who died fighting against Russia.

This one detail cannot be emphasized enough: Whatever the media claims, the canonical UOC is not an arm of Russian influence. Its members are not “pro-Russia”; much less are they Russian collaborators. They, too, are giving their lives to defend their homeland against Russian aggression. But that doesn’t matter to Washington or Constantinople. By supporting the separatists, Bartholomew is undermining Moscow’s influence within global Orthodoxy. And that’s good for the Russophobes in our foreign-policy establishment.

In 2019, the State Department gave $100,000 to the Orthodox Times, a news site strongly aligned with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The purpose? “To counter entities spreading fake news and misguiding believers in Orthodox communities”—in other words, Russian disinformation. 

It’s ironic that Trump’s State Department pursued this pro-Constantinople agenda given that the Ecumenical Patriarchate is openly and proudly aligned with the Democratic Party. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America boasts: 

President Truman often emphasized the pro-American convictions of Patriarch Athenagoras and the importance and influence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, along with the Greek Orthodox community in the U.S., as vital to American foreign policy objectives. Indeed, Truman saw the Patriarchate and Athenagoras as crucial to bolstering the pro-Western resolve of both Greece and Turkey, as well as to promoting stability in the Middle East.

In 2020, Patriarch Bartholomew wrote to congratulate his old friend Biden for defeating Donald Trump in the presidential election. “You can only imagine my great joy and pride for your successful election as the 46th president of your distinguished nation, the United States of America.” Archbishop Elpidophoros, in that same interview with Ta Nea, also offered a thinly-veiled endorsement of Joe Biden:

In America, the issue of abortion has been completely politicized…. It is as if the only qualification for being a good Christian or a good politician depends on one’s stance on the issue of abortion. All other principles and doctrines of Christianity do not matter; you can be a crook, a liar, a swindler, a warmonger, violent, or a misogynist, but if you are against abortion, then you are a politician suitable enough for “pious people” to support.

As Rod Dreher pointed out, this little-noticed interview contains quite a few shocking revelations. For instance, Elpidophoros is not simply concerned that abortion has been “politicized”: he is openly pro-choice. “Women bear the full burden in giving birth and raising their children, while men, otherwise directly involved in the pregnancy, do not bear the same burden,” he told Ta Nea. “Therefore, we must support women’s right to make reproductive decisions of their own free will.” Elpidophoros also discusses how proud he was to support the protests which erupted after the death of George Floyd, as well as the infamous “gay baptism.”

For those who aren’t up on their Orthodox church politics: In 2022, Elpidophoros baptized the sons of two wealthy Greek-Americans, Evangelo Bousis and Peter Dundas. (The children were conceived through surrogacy.) The baptism was performed in Vouliagmeni, a suburb of Athens. This set off a firestorm in world Orthodoxy for two reasons. Firstly, it is wrong to baptize a child if there is little to no chance of their being raised according to the Church’s teachings. The parents are making a commitment to their child to the Christian faith without giving them the tools to fulfill that commitment. Second, visiting clergy (including bishops) must receive permission from the local metropolitan before publicly celebrating the sacraments within their jurisdiction. In this case, the local metropolitan was Antonios of Glyfada. Elpidophoros requested and was granted permission to baptize the children of an American couple, but did not inform Antonios that the parents were a same-sex couple. 

Elpidophoros was condemned by the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece as well as the monks of Mount Athos, but he didn’t care. The Archbishop was simply giving the Orthodox world a taste of how he’ll do things once he becomes Ecumenical Patriarch. 

There’s more. In 2019, Elpidophoros appointed Father Alexander Karloutsos as vicar-general for the Archdiocese of America. Father Alexander is, for all practical purposes, the Biden family’s pastor. He sits on the board of the Beau Biden Foundation and serves as a spiritual advisor to the President. In 2015, Father Alexander attended a (now infamous) dinner hosted by Hunter Biden at the Café Milano in Georgetown. The dinner was a private reception for several Eastern European oligarchs, including Yury Luzhkov, the profoundly corrupt former Mayor of Moscow. This was the night that Hunter introduced his father to Vadym Pozharskyi, an executive at Burisma, allegedly fulfilling the deal for which Baturina had paid Hunter $3.5 million the year before.

More troublingly, Father Alexander is also close to John Poulos, the Greek-Canadian founder of Dominion Voting Systems. Father Alexander has been credibly accused of serving as a go-between for Poulos and the Bidens during the 2020 election scandal. It is said that the priest relayed information between the two parties, but cannot be subpoenaed due to New York’s clergy privilege laws. Though all parties admit that Father Alexander was in frequent communication with both parties during that time, they also insist that he was simply offering them spiritual counsel. Undoubtedly both Poulos and Biden spent those difficult months in prayer and fasting.

As it happens, in 2018, Father Alexander also found himself at the center of an $80 million financial scandal, which was probed by the U.S. government. The federal government’s investigation to the matter was dropped shortly after it began, despite the fact that no explanation was ever unearthed. When President Biden awarded Father Alexander the Presidential Medal of Freedom last year, he jokingly warned, “I’m going to ruin your reputation by talking.”

Unfortunately, such allegations of corruption are fairly widespread in the Archdiocese of America. The Greek Orthodox Church is by far the wealthiest denomination in this country relative to its size. (A Roman Catholic priest can expect to make no more than $45,000 per year; a Greek Orthodox priest can earn upwards of $130,000.) There are many well-established second-generation families who still feel a deep loyalty to the Church even if they tend not to practice very faithfully. 

In other words, the Archdiocese of America is in roughly the same position that the Catholic Church was under Kennedy. It is rich in capital and assets but largely beholden to secular, liberal donors. Hence why the Hellenic College Holy Cross, the Greek Orthodox seminary, refers to former congressman Michael Huffington as a “faithful Orthodox Christian” despite the fact that he’s a practicing homosexual who publicly dissents from the Church’s teaching on sexuality.

Happily, most Greek Orthodox jurisdictions are not renovationist; neither are they in the pocket of the American government or beholden to liberal, secular donors. In fact, when the Greek parliament voted to ratify same-sex marriage, the Church of Greece called the decision “demonic” and excommunicated several of the “immoral lawmakers” who voted for the bill. 

But whatever our government may claim, it will promote Bartholomew and his successor, Elpidophoros, as “Greek Popes” in order to liberalize Greek Orthodoxy and counter Russian Orthodoxy. This is the policy of the U.S. government. There are State Department personnel (and taxpayer dollars) dedicated to achieving this exact goal. It is discussed—openly; gleefully—in the major institutions of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Archdiocese of America. And yet anyone who suggests that this is a gross betrayal of both the American people and the Orthodox faithful is immediately accused of being a “Russian asset.” Go figure.

The post The CIA’s Man in Constantinople appeared first on The American Conservative.