Biden Admin Replaces ‘Mothers’ With ‘Birthing People’ in Maternal Health Guidance.
BY BENJAMIN FEARNOW
6/7/21 AT 4:28 PM EDT
The White House’s 2022 fiscal year budget replaced the word mothers with birthing people in a section about public health funding, prompting ridicule Monday from President Joe Biden‘s conservative critics.
The Biden administration’s budget includes a public health section which addresses efforts to “reduce maternal mortality rates and end race-based disparities in maternal mortality.” The budget specifically addresses racial disparities between Black, American Indian/Alaska Native and other women of color. But it is the replacement of the word mother with birthing people that drew the ire of conservative think tank leaders and right-wing media members Monday following the release of Biden’s budget.
A Heritage Action lobbyist on Capitol Hill responded incredulously tweeting, “Why does Biden want to cancel mothers?”
“The United States has the highest maternal mortality rate among developed nations, with an unacceptably high mortality rate for Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, and other women of color. To help end this high rate of maternal mortality and race-based disparities in outcomes among birthing people,” reads the 2022 White House fiscal year budget proposal.
The budget goes on to tout the implementation of “implicit bias training for health care providers” as well as the creation of state-run pregnancy medical home programs and additional early childhood development funding.
The pro-choice nonprofit NARAL defended use of the term, tweeting, “When we talk about birthing people, we’re being inclusive. It’s that simple. We use gender neutral language when talking about pregnancy, because it’s not just cis-gender women that can get pregnant and give birth. Reproductive freedom is for *every* body.”
The legislative director for Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley tweeted Monday, “The President of the United States introduce a budget that replaces the term ‘mother’ with ‘birthing people’ in reference to maternal health programs.”
Heritage Action Executive Director Jessica Anderson responded on Twitter as well, remarking, “Biden’s budget would literally erase the word ‘mother’ and replace it with the woke and watered-down term ‘birthing people’ in relation to maternal health. Why does Biden want to cancel mothers?”
The phrase birthing people also drew mockery from Republicans last month after Missouri Congresswoman Cori Bush used the term during House testimony about the country’s Black maternal health crisis. “Every day, Black birthing people and our babies die because our doctors don’t believe our pain. My children almost became a statistic. I almost became a statistic,” the Democratic lawmaker testified on May 6.
The Biden budget proposal goes on to include “more than $200 million to: reduce maternal mortality and morbidity rates nationwide; bolster Maternal Mortality Review Committees; expand the Rural Maternity and Obstetrics Management Strategies program.”
On Monday, the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities announced a $250,000 grant had been issued to study the country’s vast disparity in cesarean births among Black and White women. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 31.7 percent of all deliveries in the U.S. are by cesarean birth, creating vastly increased risks of severe blood loss, infection and anesthesia complications.
Yet Another Media Tale — Trump Tear-Gassed Protesters For a Church Photo Op — Collapses
That the White House violently cleared Lafayette Park at Trump’s behest was treated as unquestioned truth by most corporate media. Today it was revealed as a falsehood.
By Glen Greenwald
For more than a year, it has been consecrated media fact that former President Donald Trump and his White House, on June 1 of last year, directed the U.S. Park Police to use tear gas against peaceful Lafayette Park protesters, all to enable a Trump photo-op in front of St. John’s Church. That this happened was never presented as a possibility or likelihood but as indisputable truth. And it provoked weeks of unmitigated media outrage, presented as one of the most egregious assaults on the democratic order in decades.
This tale was so pervasive in the media landscape that it would be impossible for any one article to compile all the examples. “Peaceful Protesters Tear-Gassed To Clear Way For Trump Church Photo-Op,” read the NPR headline on June 1. The New York Times ran with: “Protesters Dispersed With Tear Gas So Trump Could Pose at Church.” CNN devoted multiple segments to venting indignation while the on-screen graphic declared: “Peaceful Protesters Near White House Tear-Gassed, Shot With Rubber Bullets So Trump Can Have Church Photo Op.”
ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos “reported” that “the administration asked police to clear peaceful protesters from the park across the White House so that the President could stage a photo op.” The Intercept published an article stating that “federal police used tear gas and rubber bullets to clear protesters from Lafayette Square in front of the White House,” all to feature a video where the first interviewee said: “to me, the way our military and police have behaved toward the protesters at the instruction of President Trump has almost been Nazi-like.”Nazi-like. This was repeated by virtually every major corporate outlet:
This was the scene outside of the White House on Monday as police used tear gas and flash grenades to clear out peaceful protesters so President Trump could visit the nearby St. John’s Church, where there was a parish house basement fire Sunday night https://t.co/nFrCqYpqZRpic.twitter.com/DVP11iiVIh
This was the scene outside of the White House on Monday as police used tear gas and flash grenades to clear out peaceful protesters so President Trump could visit the nearby St. John’s Church, where there was a parish house basement fire Sunday night https://t.co/nFrCqYpqZRpic.twitter.com/DVP11iiVIh
At a June 2 Press Conference, then-Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) proclaimed with anger: “last night I watched as President Trump, having gassed peaceful protesters just so he could do this photo op, then he went on to teargas priests who were helping protesters in Lafayette Park.” Speaking on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi exclaimed: “What is this, a banana republic?,” when asked about NBC News’ report that “security forces used tear gas and flash-bangs against a crowd of peaceful demonstrators to clear the area for the president.”
There were some denials of this narrative at the time, largely confined to right-wing media. ABC News mocked “hosts on Fox News, one of the president’s preferred news media outlets, [who] have spent the days since the controversial photo op shifting defenses to fit the president’s narrative.” Meanwhile, The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway — in an article retweeted by Trump as a “must read” — cited sources to assert that the entire media narrative was false because force was to clear the Park not to enable Trump’s photo op but rather “because [protesters] had climbed on top of a structure in Lafayette Park that had been burned the prior night” and the Park Police decided to build a barrier to protect it.
But as usual, the self-proclaimed Superior Liberal Truth Squad instantly declared them to be lying. The Washington Post’s “fact-checker,” Phillip Bump, mocked denials from Trump supporters and right-wing reporters such as Hemingway, proclaiming that a recent statement from the Park Police “brings the debate to a close,” as it proves “the deployment of security forces using weapons and irritants to clear a peaceful protest so that the president could have a photo op.”
All of this came crashing down on their heads on Wednesday afternoon. The independent Inspector General of the Interior Department, Mark Lee Greenblatt, issued his office’s findings after a long investigation into “the actions of the U.S. Park Police (USPP) to disperse protesters in and around Lafayette Park in Washington, DC, on June 1, 2020.” Greenblatt has been around Washington for a long time, occupying numerous key positions in the Obama administration, including investigative counsel at the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General and Assistant Inspector General for Investigations at Obama’s Commerce Department.
The letter released by Greenblatt’s office accompanying the report makes clear how far-reaching the investigation was:
Over the course of this review, our career investigative staff conducted extensive witness interviews, reviewed video footage from numerous vantage points, listened to radio transmissions from multiple law enforcement entities, and examined evidence including emails, text messages, telephone records, procurement documents, and other related materials. This report presents a thorough, independent examination of that evidence to assess the USPP’s decision making and operations, including a detailed timeline of relevant actions and an analysis of whether the USPP’s actions complied with governing policies.
The IG’s conclusion could not be clearer: the media narrative was false from start to finish. Namely, he said, “the evidence did not support a finding that the [U.S. Park Police] cleared the park on June 1, 2020, so that then President Trump could enter the park.” Instead — exactly as Hemingway’s widely-mocked-by-liberal-outlets article reported — “the evidence we reviewed showed that the USPP cleared the park to allow a contractor to safely install anti-scale fencing in response to destruction of Federal property and injury to officers that occurred on May 30 and May 31.” Crucially, “the evidence established that relevant USPP officials had made those decisions and had begun implementing the operational plan several hours before they knew of a potential Presidential visit to the park, which occurred later that day.”
The detailed IG report elaborated on the timeline even more extensively. It was “on the morning of June 1” when “the Secret Service procured anti-scale fencing to establish a more secure perimeter around Lafayette Park that was to be delivered and installed that same day.” The agencies had “determined that it was necessary to clear protesters from the area in and around the park to enable the contractor’s employees to safely install the fence.” Indeed, “we found that by approximately 10 a.m. on June 1, the USPP had already begun developing a plan to clear protesters from the area to enable the contractor to safely install the anti-scale fence” — many hours before Trump decided to go.
The clearing of the Park, said the IG Report, had nothing to do with Trump or his intended visit to the Church; in fact, those responsible for doing this did not have any knowledge of Trump’s intentions:
The evidence we reviewed showed that the USPP cleared the park to allow the contractor to safely install the anti-scale fencing in response to destruction of property and injury to officers occurring on May 30 and 31. Further, the evidence showed that the USPP did not know about the President’s potential movement until mid- to late afternoon on June 1—hours after it had begun developing its operational plan and the fencing contractor had arrived in the park.
Beyond that, planning for that operation began at least two days before Trump decided to visit the church. “The fencing contractor told us and emails we reviewed confirmed that on May 30, the assistant division chief of the Secret Service’s Procurement Division discussed with the contractor how quickly the contractor could deliver anti-scale fencing to Lafayette Park,” the Report found.
Plans for the fence were finalized at least the day prior to Trump’s walk: “the fencing contractor’s project manager told us that she learned on May 31 that the Secret Service had contacted the fencing contractor about an anti-scale fence.” And while Attorney General William Barr did visit the Park shortly before Trump’s walk and saw what he viewed as unruly protesters, causing him to ask Park Police commanders whether they would still be there when Trump arrived, the order to clear the Park had been given well before that and was unrelated to Trump or to Barr: there is “no evidence that the Attorney General’s visit to Lafayette Park at 6:10 p.m. caused the USPP to alter its plans to clear the park.”
Indeed, none of the key decision-makers had any idea Trump was coming when they implemented plans to clear the Park:
The USPP operations commander, the USPP incident commander, and the USPP acting chief of police told us they did not know the President planned to make a speech in the Rose Garden that evening. The USPP incident commander told us he was never informed of the President’s specific plans or when the President planned to come out of the White House. He said, “It was just a, ‘Hey, here he comes.’ And all of a sudden I turn around and there’s the entourage.”
The USPP acting chief of police also told us he did not know about the President’s plans to visit St. John’s Church and that the USPP incident commander told him the President might come to the park to assess the damage at an unspecified time. The USPP acting chief of police and the USPP incident commander told us this information had no impact on their operational plan, and both denied that the President’s potential visit to the park influenced the USPP’s decision to clear Lafayette Park and the surrounding areas. Numerous other USPP captains and lieutenants and the ACPD civil disturbance unit commanders also told us they received no information suggesting that the USPP cleared the area to facilitate the President’s visit to St. John’s Church. The DCNG major we interviewed told us that his USPP liaison appeared as surprised as he was when the President visited Lafayette Park, stating, “We [were] both kind of equally shocked.”
Of the dozens of people who participated in the investigation, “no one we interviewed stated that the USPP cleared the park because of a potential visit by the President or that the USPP altered the timeline to accommodate the President’s movement.”
In sum, the media claims that were repeated over and over and over as proven fact — and even confirmed by “fact-checkers” — were completely false. Watch how easily and often and aggressively and readily they just spread lies, this one courtesy of CNN’s Erin Burnett and Don Lemon:
With the issuance of this independent debunking of their claims, the journalists who spread this latest lie have started to come to terms with what they did — yet again. “A narrative we thought we knew is not the reality,” NBC News’ chief CIA Disinformation Agent Ken Dilanian awkwardly acknowledged on Meet the Press Daily. Shortly before publication of this article, Politico begrudgingly admitted that while “the department’s Park Police failed to give Black Lives Matter demonstrators proper warning before it cleared them from Lafayette Park,” their primary media claim was untrue: “its actions were unrelated to President Donald Trump’s photo-op appearance at a nearby church.” Time will tell how readily others who spread this lie will account for how they — yet again — got this story so wrong.
Over and over we see the central truth: the corporate outlets that most loudly and shrilly denounce “disinformation” — to the point of demanding online censorship and de-platforming in the name of combating it — are, in fact, the ones who spread disinformation most frequently and destructively. It is hard to count how many times they have spread major fake stories in the Trump years. For that reason, they have nobody but themselves to blame for the utter collapse in trust and faith on the part of the public, which has rightfully concluded they cannot and should not be believed.
Alexandra Bruce – Millie Weaver’s stunning new documentary about the January 6th Capitol Riot has just been released, showing how what happened on January 6, 2021 was part of a well-prepared contingency plan to prevent the contesting and the overturning the fraudulent election results by any means necessary.
On January 6th, both houses of Congress were just about to deliberate the objections to certifying the Electoral College vote, when as if on cue, the Capitol building was breached and Congress moved to recess, disrupting one of the most historic moments in election history.
When they reconvened after the “storming”, the volumes of election fraud no longer mattered. Representatives who had publicly stated that they would contest the Electoral College results had magically changed their minds. Everything now became about the “siege” and the fake impeachment that followed, in what Weaver describes as “Wag the dog on steroids.”
Many members of the Soros-backed radical environmentalist group, the Sunrise Movement are employed within the US Government’s bureaucracy. In a Zoom meeting recorded by an operative who infiltrated them, we see several Federal employees from places like the Department of Labor and the Department of Energy plotting an Election Day coup and “100 Days of Unrest”, with the help of the Democrat Party and intelligence contractors.
Their stated plan was to shut down and take over Washington DC, starting November 4th to force Trump out of the White House. Democrat members of Congress, like AOC and Chuck Schumer also attended these Sunrise Zoom meetings.
All were part of the coalition celebrated by Time magazine: The “Shadow Campaign” to “fortify” the election involved “a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.”
One key figure who subverted President Trump’s rally was Ali “Akbar” Alexander, a political dirty trickster, blackmailer, agent provocateur and associate of the Lincoln Project, who makes frequent appearances on InfoWars. Intelligence contractor, Tore Maras claims Alexander has compromising footage of himself having sex with Republican strategist, Karl Rove.
Pretending to be a Trump supporter, Alexander proceeded to hijack events organized by ‘Women For America First’ and to mislead donors into giving him money for January 6th, while dragging in innocent participants as fodder for eventual accusations.
As Millie says, “You become the face of your enemy, so that when the media demonizes you, they’re actually demonizing your enemy. Slick!”
Another prominent organizer was Antifa militant John Sullivan, who impersonated a Trump supporter while storming the building and was paid $70,000 by CNN and NBC, for his video of the shooting of Ashli Babbitt. He had previously been voted out of the Utah chapter of Black Lives Matter, because they viewed him to be violent and dangerous.
John’s brother, James Sullivan claims to be a “Patriot” Conservative activist and their father is retired US Air Force Major General Kevin J. Sullivan. In 2008, the latter was caught in a shady deal transferring nuclear fuses via Taiwan, which was hushed-up and sent him into early retirement from the military. He now has a lucrative job brokering military contracts.
Kevin Sullivan is exactly the kind of person who Catherine Austin Fitts saw as being contracted to organize the BLM/Antifa riots we saw over the past year. These riots were so incredibly illegal, the fact that they weren’t shut down suggested to her that those weren’t street revolts, they were an operation.
Fitts says that when Trump wanted to send in troops to Minnesota, the DoD went ballistic. “They behaved like people who had negotiated contracts with private firms for all of this and…had priced it on a very tight Scope of Work [which] did not include doing this in the face of soldiers with guns trying to stop them. That would have blown the price a hundred times and called for a different army…If you look at how Esper reacted, he looked to me like a man who was in on the deal.”
Millie Weaver validated these suspicions when she confirmed three sources who were able to separately identify Kevin Sullivan and claims of his involvement in psychological operations.
Private security contractor, Jason Funes was willing to go on the record to say that the brothers are working both sides of the Conservative a Liberal movements “For their own private agenda,” and that their father, Kevin Sullivan had been in charge of getting Antifa members trained by Syrian rebels and Kurds to commit militant-style attacks on domestic soil.
Another source who chose to remain anonymous said that Kevin wanted to integrate a PSYOP team into his son’s political rallies. A third source recorded a conversation, played here, in which he confronted John, telling him he believes that he was an agent provocateur on January 6th *because* of the fact that his father was involved in psychological operations.
John and James Sullivan are reportedly working on a Netflix movie directed by Bryan Fogel about two brothers on opposite sides of the political spectrum.
Seasoned war correspondent, Michael Yon then analyzes John Sullivan’s video and shows how one agent provocateur, Zachary Alam changed clothes right after Ashli Babbitt was shot. He has since been criminally charged.
Yon analyzes footage taken outside of the Capitol, clearly showing a cell of agent provocateurs using what he calls “Hong Kong tactics”, walkie-talkies and earpieces to coordinate. He calls the people seen at the Capitol the “A-Team of Antifa”, as opposed to the meth heads one normally sees being rounded up in Portland.
Things got even more confusing, when Proud Boy Chairman, Enrique Tarrio instructed his members to dress up like Antifa. After his arrest in DC for transporting two high-capacity magazines, it emerged that he is a “prolific cooperator” with the FBI.
Assets and informants from both sides of the political spectrum, as well as a well-known Ukrainian provocateurs who participated in the 2014 Euromaidan collaborated to create chaos at the Capitol.
Weaver asks, “What are Ukrainians, that participated in an armed revolution in Ukraine doing inside the United States Capitol? You have to ask yourself, is it because the same people that were behind the Ukrainian Revolution are ALSO behind the ‘storming’ of the Capitol?”
Patrick Bergy, a PSYOP veteran of the War in Iraq and a developer of Social Media Psychological Warfare micro-targeting weapon called ShadowNet gives a rundown of what he saw on the ground on January 6th, where saw members of the 91st Cyber Brigade – the same unit with which he was deployed in Iraq and which developed ShadowNet – deployed throughout the area surrounding the Capitol.
He says in 2019, members of this same unit were deployed throughout all of the same states where we saw the worst riots and election fraud in 2020. “This is the exact same weapon I helped develop to destroy the integrity of elections through social media psychological warfare and hacking the voting machines – the exact same capabilities [Robert Mueller] indicted the 13 Russians for, I pioneered and sold commercially for General James Jones, Obama’s National Security Adviser.”
Bergy describes how ShadowNet was used to coordinate assets at the Capitol: “On the 6th, you have a lot of assets that are on the ground and what this does is it provides a common operational picture, allowing you to control the narrative that’s going out to the media – because media are also assets – and it allows you to time out everything on the ground, from the anarchists that are running around, which you are stirring-up, using your social media posts.
“People that you’ve already formed predictive behavior models on, you got them there, they’ve been predictively selected, based on their profiles and their social media, their criminal backgrounds, their medical, their financial – all of those go into making the profiles, where they pick out the particular people on the ground that they want to target and then they just manipulate them in whatever way is necessary. It’s called ‘Reflexive Control.’
“So, you have eyes on the ground, and that information is also being fed into the ShadowNet and instructions can be pushed out, through the ShadowNet, to the people down below…
“They took the Taxpayer-funded weapon I helped develop, that was designed to destroy the integrity of an election and then commercialized it, they trademarked it under the name ShadowNet and sold it in the US to influence US elections.
Being interviewed at a hotel in DC on January 6th, Bergy says, “My background’s in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, also. Everything that I’m seeing here are operatives from multiple different countries. They’re looking at this as being huge exposure for us, a vulnerability for us right now that I feel they’ve largely helped create, along with threat actors from our own country…
“So, this whole thing right now, it’s just a big intelligence operation, there’s no two ways about it. Pretty sure that 91st Cyber’s involved with this, which if POTUS hasn’t got that message yet, that’s gonna be a big problem…
According to Bergy, Ali Alexander and the Lincoln Project are assets of the same psychological warfare operation, recognized through their tactics, personas and deconfliction.
As Weaver says, “I don’t think the First Amendment gives protections to military-grade psychological warfare to be used against US citizens, let alone the President of the United States, to influence an election.
General Jim Jones’ Dynology was contracted to use ShadowNet for the McCain campaign and Jones then went on to be Obama’s National Security Adviser, revealing the bipartisan nature of the Military Industrial Complex’s influence over elections.
Weaver says, “With these new revelations, one thing is clear: This same syndicate of corruption is behind the coup against President Trump…So, when the Lincoln Project, founded by 2008 John McCain Campaign managers and advisers called out Ali Alexander, a McCain 2008 staffer by name for organizing the storming of the US Capitol on January 6th before the smoke had even cleared…they demonstrated foreknowledge of a scripted narrative.”
Biden brings up his brain aneurysm days after bloody eye incident.
By Emily Brooks
September 06, 2019 08:44 PM
In his Wednesday appearance on CNN during the network’s seven-hour climate town hall, part of Biden’s left eye filled with blood, prompting speculation about the cause and in the wake of concerns about the candidate’s age.
“Hopefully, this is no big deal,” tweeted former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain.
The blood appeared to be the result of a burst blood vessel, a common occurrence for any age with many possible causes. The Biden campaign declined to comment on the record about the reason for the blood.
“It looks terrible but it’s truly one of those things that looks bad but for the most part is not serious,” Dr. Thomas Steinemann, spokesman for the American Academy of Ophthalmology, told the Washington Examiner.
Biden has revealed little about his health since 2008, when he released his medical records as a vice presidential candidate.
NEW CASTLE, New Hampshire —After days of speculation about his health prompted by his eye filling with blood on live television, Joe Biden, 76, brought up one of the most traumatic health experiences he has endured: a brain aneurysm.
“I ended up with what they call a cranial aneurysm,” Biden said at a campaign event on Friday. “I had to be rushed to a hospital in the middle of a snowstorm, and the fact is, the president was nice enough to offer a helicopter to get me there. I couldn’t go up because of the altitude. My fire company got me down in time for [a] 13-hour operation and saved my life.”
Biden suffered the burst aneurysm in 1988, when he was a Delaware senator. Believing that he was close to death, a Catholic priest was preparing to administer Biden’s last rites. Surgeons clipped a second aneurysm before it bust a few months later.
The former vice president told the story about his aneurysm as a way to praise firefighters, having been introduced at the event by the president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, Harold Schaitberger. The union endorsed Biden for president days after his campaign launch in late April.
Donald Trump Jr. on Joe Biden’s Mental Decline: He’s Had Two Brain Aneurysms Requiring Surgery.
I quote Joe Biden’s own doctor [in my book],” said Trump Jr. “Americans don’t know that this guy’s had two brain aneurysms requiring brain surgery. The chances of being normal after one of those things is not very high. After two, it’s almost impossible.”
Biden “forgets where he is on a daily basis” and often “can’t remember the point that he’s trying to make so often like we saw in the debate when remember I’m oh, you know the thing and I all I don’t want to take any more,” observed Trump Jr.
“If the average American knew that the guy who wants the nuclear football actually has a real cause and effect relationship with mental deficiency, you’d start questioning it,” he said.
Trump Jr. noted news media’s broad refusal to report on Biden’s cognitive decline. “If Donald Trump made a Joe Bidenism, the media would be all over it every day. This guy does it and they’re like, ‘Oh, he’s brilliant.’”
“I don’t mean to make light of mental decline,” continued Trump Jr. “A lot of people know people that deal with these issues. These are really serious things, but we’re going to give this guy the nuclear football? He’s going to get the codes? We’re going to trust him with your 401k and the world’s largest economy and overseeing democracy?”
Biden’s damaged mind allows him to be a puppet of his handlers, warned Trump Jr.
“Joe Biden is simply the camouflage to get those people a position of power,” concluded Trump Jr., describing Biden as a vehicle for Marxist and communist ideology via politicians like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX).
Despite clear historical evidence showing that the United States was established as a republic and not a democracy, there is still confusion regarding the difference between these two very different systems of government.
Some confusion stems because the word “democracy” is used to describe both a “type” and a “form” of government. As a “type” of government, it means that generally free elections are held periodically, which America has. But, as a “form” of government, it means rule by the majority, which America does not have; America is a republic. Webster`s 1828 dictionary states that a Republic is: “A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person…”1
In a democratic form of government, the populace votes on all matters that affect them, and do not elect others to represent their interests. Therefore, a majority-rules direct democracy gives unlimited power to the majority with no protection of the individual`s God-given inalienable rights or the rights of minority groups. In contrast, in a Republic, the power of the majority is limited by a written constitution which safeguards the God-given inalienable rights of minority groups and individuals alike.
It is historically relevant to note that since the birth of our nation in 1776, no American president referred to America as a democracy until Woodrow Wilson misapplied the term during World War I. Sadly, today, it has become common to use the term democracy in describing our form of government,2 including in recent years by both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
So why is this distinction between words important? It may be that President Obama was right when he asserted that “words matter.” Although meanings of words do evolve over time to reflect changes in culture, it appears, in this case, that progressives have intentionally sought to distort the terms “democracy” and “republic” so the misapplied term “democracy” could serve as an ideological Trojan horse that would help transform the republic into a system of government it was never meant to become.
The Founders never used the words” republic” and “democracy” interchangeably. They had studied various forms and systems of government from throughout history in order to establish a system of government that would best deter a tyrant (in their case King George III), or a group of tyrants, from denying God-given rights to Americans. Interestingly, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution do not use the term democracy to describe our form of government. Furthermore, “Neither the Articles of Confederation nor the Constitution set up direct democracies.”3
The authors of these founding documents disagreed on many points, but on one point they ALL agreed wholeheartedly: “The United States is not a democracy, never was, and never was intended to be. It is a Republic.”4 The following statements represent a small sampling of what the Founding Fathers thought about democracies.
Alexander Hamilton asserted that “We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship.”4 Hamilton, in the last letter he ever wrote, warned that “our real disease…is DEMOCRACY.”3
Thomas Jefferson declared: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
Benjamin Franklin had similar concerns of a democracy when he warned that “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” After the Constitutional Convention was concluded, in 1787, a bystander inquired of Franklin: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” Franklin replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
John Adams, our second president, wrote: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”
James Madison, the father of the Constitution wrote in Federalist Paper No. 10 that pure democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”3
The Constitution itself, in Article IV, Section 4, declares: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” Obviously the Framers were not speaking of a political party, as no political parties existed at that time. The Pledge of Allegiance, although not a founding document, does strike the right chord when it asks Americans to “…pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands…”
Clearly, the Founders have given us ample warning that democracies have historically led to tyranny and that, in their wisdom, they never intended our nation to devolve into a democracy. But it bears repeating–why does this distinction between the words “republic” and “democracy” matter today? Perhaps because ignorance of our own history has made it easier for statists in America to blur distinctions that have traditionally defined our Republic. If people are oblivious of America`s history and the changes that are slowly being made, they would naturally have little interest in defending it or the Founders` original intent.
So, what is the transformation for which progressives seek? It is the “total rejection in theory, and a partial rejection in practice, of the principles and policies on which America [has] been founded…” 5 By using the word “democracy,” progressives (in both political parties) have effectively begun to convert our Republican system that preserves unalienable and individual rights to an increasingly socialist system that replaces the individual`s rights with government distributed entitlements. Sadly, legislatively, on many counts, progressives have been successful in this quiet revolution. Although there are too many to list here, the following are a few examples of trends away from a republican and limited form of government.
The passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913 amended the Constitution to establish a progressive income tax, which was founded on the false pretense that “justice” could be found in redistributing wealth in America.6 Karl Marx and Frederick Engles wrote in the Communist Manifesto how “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax…[would be used] in most advanced countries.”7
The 17th Amendment, championed by Woodrow Wilson, changed the way senators were elected to office. Prior to this Amendment, they were chosen by state legislatures and now they are elected by the popular vote; the 17th Amendment moved the country away from a republic and closer to a democracy. A strength of a republic lies in the fact that the power of the political entities that make up government come from different sources.
For example, as designed by the Founders`, House members are elected by the people, the president by the Electoral College, Supreme Court judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and senators were elected by state legislatures. Having the two houses of Congress “…elected by different constituencies–was designed to frustrate special-interest factions …by requiring the [combination] of a majority of the people with a majority of the state governments before a law could be enacted.” The 17th Amendment diluted our Republic, eroded federalism in America, weakened state powers, strengthened the federal government`s control over the states, and laid the “foundation for the modern special-interest state.”8
The passage of the Social Security Act in 1935, though very popular today, historically represented “… a complete change in the relationship between the individual and the federal government. Indeed, it marked one of the earliest and most tangible breaks from American economic and constitutional traditions.”9 Although the Social Security Act did not directly alter Republican governance, it did ignore the limiting powers of the Constitution. The new entitlements provided by the Social Security Act, over time, naturally increased people`s dependence on government, which expanded the size of the federal government, eroded individual liberties, and moved the country closer to socialism and away from the republican principles upon which our country was founded.
It appears that incremental progressives have effectively manipulated the conversation by controlling the words used to convey political concepts. Over time, foundational words that explained our heritage were altered as a necessary first step towards fundamentally transforming the republic. Our forefathers literally pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to secure inalienable liberties–not only for themselves, but also for their posterity. Now, “we the people” of our generation have been presented a similar choice. It is my conviction that millions have already chosen sides and have been prepared for this critical moment in time to rise up and restore our religious heritage and history and to fight for the restoration of the Republic.
Raphael Warnock Mentored by Radical Theologian James Cone, Who Railed Against ‘Satanic Whiteness’
By Sean Moran
Georgia Senate candidate Rev. Raphael Warnock’s mentor, Dr. James Cone, who fought against “satanic whiteness” and called for the “destruction of everything white” in society.
RADICAL LEFT RAPHAEL WARNOCK A WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING USES CHRISTIANITY TO PROMOTE SOCIALISM IN HIS SERMONS AT EBENEZER BAPTIST CHURCH.
Radical Left Raphael Warnock A Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing Uses Christianity To Promote Socialism In His Sermon’s At Ebenezer Baptist Church.
Warnock, the Democrat heading to a runoff against incumbent Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA), has praised Cone, a controversial black theologian, as a “poignant and powerful voice” of high “spiritual magnitude.”
Cone served as Warnock’s academic adviser at the Union Theological Seminary; Warnock described Cone as his “mentor.”
Cone is considered the “father of black theology,” as outlined in his 1970 book A Black Theology of Liberation.
Cone contends in the book that “American white theology is a theology of the Antichrist” and calls for a new, Marx-inspired “black theology” that will bring in a revolution to eliminate whiteness from society. For Cone, “black” and “white” are indeed ethnic descriptors but also labels of power; he identifies whites with the “oppressor” majority culture and blacks with the “oppressed” minority culture.
In orthodox Christianity, the divine savior Jesus Christ was crucified not just as an execution by the Roman empire but as an atoning sacrifice to reconcile sinful humans to God their creator. In Cone’s theology, the cross is not about atonement but about “solidarity” with the oppressed. God himself is black, he argues:
Because blacks have come to know themselves as black, and because that blackness is the cause of their own love of themselves and hatred of whiteness, the blackness of God is key to knowledge of God. The blackness of God, and everything implied by it in a racist society, is the heart of the black theology doctrine of God. There is no place in black theology for a colorless God in a society where human beings suffer precisely because of their color. The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God’s experience, or God is a God of racism.
Thus, Cone argues in Black Theology, salvation comes from being like God and becoming “black” — that is, adopting total political solidarity with the black community. He declares that “satanic whiteness” makes “white religionists” incapable of “perceiving the blackness of God;” therefore, they must purge themselves of said whiteness: “There will be no peace in America until white people begin to hate their whiteness, asking from the depths of their being: ‘How can we become black?’”
Warnock’s mentor charged that this black theology would pursue the “destruction of everything white,” explaining:
The goal of black theology is the destruction of everything white, so that blacks can be liberated from alien gods… If whites were really serious about their radicalism in regard to the black revolution and its theological implications in America, they would keep silent and take instructions from blacks. Only blacks can speak about God in relationship to their liberation. And those who wish to join us in this divine work must be willing to lose their white identity — indeed, destroy it.
To drive the point home, this directive to destroy all that is white extends to God himself. “If God is not for us, if God is not against white racists, then God is a murderer, and we had better kill God,” he writes.
And in his political praxis, Cone does not rule out physical violence:
We have reached our limit of tolerance, and if it means death with dignity, or life with humiliation, we choose the former. And if that is the choice, we will take out some honkies with us… The black experience is the feeling one has when attacking the enemy of black humanity by throwing a Molotov cocktail into a white-owned building and watching it go up in flames. We know, of course, that getting rid of evil takes something more than burning down buildings, but one must start somewhere.
Decades after Black Theology‘s publication, Cone wrote in a preface for a new printing that he no longer views the Bible or Jesus Christ as exclusive revelations of spiritual truth. “I am black first — and everything else comes after that,” he said. “This means I read the Bible through the lens of a black tradition of struggle and not as the objective word of God.”
The Bible therefore is one witness to God’s empowering presence in human affairs, along with other important testimonies. The other testimonies include sacred documents of the African-American experience — such as the speeches of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr., the writings of Zora Neale Hurston and Toni Morrison, the music of the blues, jazz, and rap. Liberating stories, myths, and legends are also found among men and women of all races and cultures struggling to realize the divine intention for their lives. I believe that the Bible is a liberating word for many people but not the only word of liberation.
Warnock touted Cone in his own 2013 book, 2013’s The Divided Mind of the Black Church, as well as in a 2018 eulogy.
“How blessed we are that someone of the spiritual magnitude and power and commitment of Dr. James Hal Cone passed our way,” Warnock said at Cone’s funeral.
After the 2016 presidential election, Warnock condemned white Christians and called President Donald Trump a “fascist, racist, sexist xenophobe.” Warnock has also repeatedly praised the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright and defended Wright’s “God Damn America” sermon. The Georgia Democrat has also praised Marxism as a way to “teach the black church.”
Wright also thanked Cone’s work for inspiring his own religious writings.
Raphael Warnock Was Assistant Pastor at Church That Hosted Fidel Castro in 1991
Raphael Warnock, the Democrat challenging Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.) in the U.S. Senate special election that is going to a runoff, served as an assistant pastor at a church that hosted and celebrated the late Cuban dictator Fidel Castro in 1995, Fox News’ Sam Dorman reported. Warnock’s campaign insisted the candidate was not a decision-maker at the church when Castro spoke there.
C-SPAN footage of Castro’s speech at the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem shows an exuberant crowd chanting “Fidel! Fidel! Fidel!” as Calvin Butts — still the church’s senior pastor — praises the dictator. Sister Rosemari Mealy, who belonged to the National Alliance of Third World Journalists, also prompted applause at the event when she introduced the “great, most honorable commandante, el jefe Fidel Castro.”
Castro spoke at the church after the U.S. allowed the Cuban dictator to speak at the United Nations in New York City, where he condemned the U.S.’s embargo on Cuba. Castro could legally remain in the U.S. so long as he stayed within a 25-mile radius of the U.N.
Dorman connected Warnock to the event by linking Warnock’s church bio with news reports from 1995. Warnock currently serves as senior pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, a church he has led since 2005. According to a bio on Ebenezer Baptist Church’s website, Warnock served for 10 years at Abyssinia. A New York Times article in 1997 mentioned him in connection with Abyssinia.
At the time, The Miami Herald reported that Castro “blast[ed] the United States with the vigor that was missing from his speech to the United Nations earlier in the day and winding up the evening with a rousing rendition of the socialist hymn Internationale.”
Warnock’s campaign did not deny the connection. Rather, a spokesman insisted that the reverend did not have decision rights at the church.
“Twenty-five years ago, Reverend Warnock was a youth pastor and was not involved in any decisions at that time,” Terrence Clark, a spokesperson for the campaign, told Fox News. The campaign did not comment on whether or not Warnock attended the event in question.
Loeffler’s campaign tied Warnock’s connection to the Castro speech with the Democrat’s left-wing activism. “Raphael Warnock celebrating Fidel Castro and welcoming him to his church is just the latest example in a long line of his radical, far-left, socialist positions,” Stephen Lawson, a spokesman for Loeffler’s campaign, told Fox News.
“Georgians need someone like Kelly Loeffler who has a record of results creating jobs and opportunities for hardworking families – not a radical socialist who cozies up to brutal dictators,” Lawson concluded.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who describes himself as a Democratic socialist, endorsed Warnock, but the reverend has stopped short of endorsing Sanders-style policies. Warnock does not support “Medicare-for-All,” instead backing an expansion of Obamacare in a position closer to that of Joe Biden. Warnock also stops short of endorsing the Green New Deal, but he has called for rejoining the Paris Climate Accords and for transitioning “to a clean economy by 2050.”
Warnock, like Biden, dresses up his support for radical change in a “moderate” garb.
While the results of the 2020 elections remain inconclusive, Republicans picked up seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and seem to be on track to preserve their majority in the U.S. Senate. Moderate Democrats have warned that the party’s leftward lurch toward socialism in the form of Medicare for All and the Green New Deal is marginalizing the party, costing Democrats seats they should be able to win. Radical leaders like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) have argued that the more open socialist candidates won their races in safe seats.
Georgians will vote in two runoff elections on January 5, in races that will almost certainly determine which party controls the majority of the U.S. Senate for the next two years. Democrats have alienated voters with radical policies like the Green New Deal and Medicare for All, but they have also taken extreme stances in support of packing the U.S. Supreme Court and potentially adding states to the U.S., fundamentally shifting elections in the Democratic direction.
Warnock and Jon Ossoff, the Democratic candidate who is facing Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.), will have to navigate their party’s extreme policies in a traditionally red state.
Democratic Senate candidate Raphael Warnock said in a 2011 sermon that Americans cannot serve God while also serving in the U.S. military.
The newly unearthed comments threaten to complicate Warnock’s candidacy in a tight Georgia Senate race: Georgia is home to the fifth largest active duty military population in the country, according to a 2018 Department of Defense report.
“America, nobody can serve God and the military,” Warnock said in the sermon delivered at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where he serves as senior pastor. “You can’t serve God and money. You cannot serve God and mammon at the same time.”
“America choose ye this day who you will serve. Choose ye this day!” he added.
Video of the remarks surfaced as Warnock is facing criticism for other controversial statements, including his claim that “America needs to repent for its worship of whiteness.” He has also come under scrutiny for his support for his religious mentor James Hal Cone, who said that white Christians practice the “theology of the Antichrist” and described white people as “satanic.”
Warnock’s campaign did not respond to request for comment.
Military veterans took exception to Warnock’s remarks. Former U.S. Army National Guard chief chaplain Kenneth E. Brandt, who retired in April after 30 years of service, said he disagrees with the notion that Americans cannot serve both God and the military.
“If he’s saying you cannot be in the military and be a Christian, I would take issue with that,” Brandt, who ran a short-lived campaign for the U.S. House of Representatives as a Republican in 2018, told the Washington Free Beacon.
“I’ve met some great people in the military, young men and women in the country who have raised their right hand and took an oath to defend this country against all enemies foreign and domestic,” Brandt said. “They have a deep belief, whether it’s in God or a higher power, whatever you want to call it.”
Brandt noted that Georgia is home to a massive military community that includes Fort Benning, one of the largest U.S. military installments in the world, and Fort Gordon, which houses the U.S. Army Cyber and Signal schools.
“It just makes no sense to me how you can say that, especially if you’re running in Georgia,” he said.
Warnock is headed into a runoff election against incumbent senator Kelly Loeffler (R., Ga.) on January 5. National political organizations are expected to pour record-breaking funds and resources into the highly contested race, which is one of two runoff elections in Georgia that will determine party control of the U.S. Senate next year.
Warnock: Americans Must ‘Repent’ for Backing Trump and ‘Worship of Whiteness’
‘If it is true that a man who has dominated the news and poisoned the discussion for months needs to repent, then it is doubly true that a nation that can produce such a man and make his vitriol go viral needs to repent’
Georgia Democrat Raphael Warnock argued in late 2016 that Americans needed to “repent” both for supporting Donald Trump and for the country’s “worship of whiteness.”
The comments came in an address at Atlanta’s Candler School of Theology shortly before Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.
“If it is true that a man who has dominated the news and poisoned the discussion for months needs to repent, then it is doubly true that a nation that can produce such a man and make his vitriol go viral needs to repent,” Warnock said to raucous applause. “No matter what happens next month, more than a third of the nation that would go along with this, is reason to be afraid. America needs to repent for its worship of whiteness, on full display this season.”
A full version of Warnock’s remarks can be found here. The Warnock campaign did not respond to a request for comment. While Trump’s support among white men eroded in the 2020 presidential race, he gained ground with African-Americans and Hispanics.
The senior pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church, Warnock is now locked in a tight Senate race against Republican incumbent Kelly Loeffler. He is already under fire for a bevy of his previous statements, from calling Israel an “oppressive regime” to his defense of the anti-Semitic Rev. Jeremiah Wright. He is also come under scrutiny for praising his religious mentor, Dr. James Cone, who argued that white Christians practice the “theology of the Antichrist” and described whites as “satanic.”
In the same sermon, Warnock also argued for raising the minimum wage, telling the audience that refusing to do so while demanding Americans work is dehumanizing. “Whenever we refuse to raise the minimum wage while demanding that people ought to work, we are saying, ‘I can do with them whatever I want,'” he said.
Warnock is headed into a runoff election against Loeffler on Jan. 5. National political organizations are expected to pour record-breaking funds and resources into the highly contested race, which is one of two runoff elections in Georgia that will determine party control of the U.S. Senate next year.
A computer system that reassigned thousands of votes in one Michigan county from Republicans to Democrats is used in 30 states — and has ties to high-ranking Democrats.
“In Antrim County, ballots were counted for Democrats that were meant for Republicans, causing a 6,000-vote swing against our candidates. The county clerk came forward and said, ‘Tabulating software glitched and caused a miscalculation of the votes,’” Michigan Republican Party chairwoman Laura Cox said in a Friday press conference. “We have now discovered that 47 counties used this same software in the same capacity.”
Meanwhile, in Georgia, which employed Dominion systems statewide for the first time this year, two counties had to stop voting “for a couple of hours” because of a “glitch” in a software update that was installed the night before the election, wrote Politico.
Dominion’s machines have been known to be glitchy and vulnerable to hacking for years.
“In Texas, Dominion Voting Systems was turned down THREE TIMES for certification in state elections. It listed numerous reasons why the system had major security issues,” Kyle Becker tweeted with a link to the Texas secretary of state’s report.
In January, NBC News reported that Dominion’s voting machines contain modems that connect to cellphone networks so they can transmit data over the Internet to provide unofficial election returns. Although these systems supposedly have firewalls to prevent hacking, they are not 100-percent secure.
“Modems in voting machines are a bad idea,” Princeton University computer science professor Andrew Appel told NBC. “Those modems … are network connections, and that leaves them vulnerable to hacking by anybody who can connect to that network.”
“Once a hacker starts talking to the voting machine through the modem, the hacker cannot just change these unofficial election results, they can hack the software in the voting machine and make it cheat in future elections,” he explained.
The House Administration Committee held hearings on electronic voting machines in January. According to Becker, chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) “revealed voting components from China, widespread Internet & hacking vulnerability & WORSE.”
“Securing our elections,” Lofgren declared, “should not be a partisan issue.”
When election irregularities benefit one political party that happens also to be closely tied to one of the leading manufacturers of voting machines, however, securing elections becomes a partisan issue.
In 2014, Dominion donated $2.25 million to the Clinton Foundation “to providing emerging and post-conflict democracies with access to voting technology.”
Today, Nadeam Elshami, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) former chief of staff, works as a lobbyist for Dominion, and Richard Blum, Senator Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif) husband, is a major stockholder in the company, Sidney Powell, a member of Trump’s legal team for the election, told Fox News Channel’s Maria Bartiromo.
“They have invested in it for their own reasons and are using it to commit this fraud to steal votes. I think they’ve even stolen them from other Democrats in their own party who should be outraged about this also,” Powell said, suggesting that such chicanery may have cost Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) his shot at the presidency.
There’s no question that Democrats are the primary beneficiaries of election shenanigans. They are the ones who pushed for early voting and mail-in voting and have consistently opposed requiring voters to provide identification at the polls. And Biden has made hay out of the curious shift of momentum from Trump to himself beginning in the wee hours of Wednesday, even going so far as to be proclaimed the president-elect by the mainstream media despite the many questions surrounding the vote counts.
Indeed, Democrats have hardly made it a secret that they are trying to take the White House by hook or by crook, but they have calculated that they can get away with it. “They know,” observed columnist Andrea Widburg, “that the media, which should be a watchdog on behalf of American citizens, is actually an arm of the Democrat Party that will do everything necessary to cover for Democrat election crimes.”