Amazing Democrats read Kavanaughs 147,000 pages but Obamacare had to pass before anyone could read it

Amazing Democrats read Kavanaugh’s 147,000 pages but Obamacare had to pass before anyone could read it.

What is the DOJ and the FBI hiding?
When did the Democrats learn to read?

Kavanaugh documents take center stage in confirmation hearing: What do Dems want?

By Kaitlyn Schallhorn
Fox News

“Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing got off to a rocky start as multiple Democrats interjected and called for a delay – citing complaints that they haven’t seen all his records and only just received some of them.

Kavanaugh, 53, has served for the past 12 years on the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. He was involved with the independent counsel’s report in laying out the legal framework supporting then-President Bill Clinton’s impeachment and served in key positions in the White House when George W. Bush was president.

He faces questions about his opinions on presidential authority, particularly as Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation continues.

The contentious hearing has repeatedly been interrupted and fallen behind schedule as Democrats have called to pause the hearing due to document requests.

Sen. Kamala Harris, considered a potential 2020 Democratic presidential contender, raised objections to the recent release of some 42,000 documents just before the hearing kicked off; others called for a delay until the White House reverses course on its withholding of more than 100,000 pages of Kavanaugh’s record related to his time in the Bush administration.

Read on for a look at what lawmakers have had access to – and what Democrats want.

What documents does the committee have?

In all, about 267,000 pages of Kavanaugh documents from his Bush years have been made public with more than 147,000 pages given just to the committee.

Former President George W. Bush’s attorneys told the Senate Judiciary Committee Bush requested they “err as much as appropriate on the side of transparency and disclosure” in releasing documents to the committee. It said it withheld more than 46,000 documents – from both the public and the committee – because they were State Department records Kavanaugh possessed for consultation, did not fall within the time frame requested by the committee or were marked “protected by constitutional privilege” by the White House or Justice Department.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said the panel had been given access to more than 480,000 pages of emails and other documents from his service as an executive branch lawyer, more than 10,000 pages of judicial writings and 17,000 pages of speeches, articles, teaching materials and other items Kavanaugh attached to his 120-page questionnaire response.

Grassley, a Republican, also said the committee was able to review some 307 opinions he authored as well as hundreds more he joined.

“This is a half million pages of paper – more than the last five confirmed Supreme Court nominees combined,” Grassley, who has defended the document production as the most open in history, said.

Additionally, some 42,000 documents were made available to the committee relating to Kavanaugh’s work with past administrations just before the hearing’s start on Sept. 4.

Democrats vociferously argued for a delay in the hearing in order to have more time to review the documents. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, in particular, said it was impossible to go through them all in time for a fair hearing.

What do Democrats want?  

The White House blocked about 100,000 documents pertaining to Kavanaugh’s records from the Bush White House on the basis of presidential privilege – a point of contention for Democrats.

“We don’t know what is being hidden,” Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said during the hearing.

Schumer blasted President Trump ahead of the hearing for the withholding of certain documents.

“President Trump’s decision to step in at the last moment and hide [100,000] pages of Judge Kavanaugh’s records from the American public is not only unprecedented in the history of [Supreme Court nominees], it has all the makings of a cover up,” Schumer said in a tweet.

Democrats have also blasted Republicans for not requesting certain records, such as those pertaining to Kavanaugh’s time as a staff secretary.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., claimed Senate Democrats were not able to see records pertaining to “35 months of public service” as they “cannot even be considered.”

But Grassley, who has repeatedly rebuffed demands to postpone the hearing, said those documents “are the least useful in understanding his legal views and [are] the most sensitive to the executive branch.”

“What is being hidden and why?” Leahy asked Tuesday.”

Fox News’ Jennifer Earl and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Article

Article

Article

Moving Healthcare and Hospitals/Clinics from the Veterans Administration to the Department of Defense Medical Services

Moving Healthcare and Hospitals/Clinics from the Veterans Administration to the Department of Defense Medical Services

 

 

by Paul Vallely, MG U.S. Army (ret.)

As one of the oldest and most expensive government agencies, the VA is constrained by unions, continuing lack of oversight and failed stewardship. It is time to change the course of the discussion, reportability, and accountability and move the Healthcare and hospital facilities/administration of the Veterans Administration to and under the Department of Defense. The current VA then should be one of sole administration of Veterans issues and benefits administration.

The justifications are endless to reposition the VA under the Department of Defense, those most notable and listed below.

  • The VA services process system was created during the FDR years and since has had an almost manual custom coded software upgrades where no cutting edge technology exists. The VA process and procedure platform is perhaps one level above a paper and pencil system. The hardware is up to date but the software systems are archaic. Making full use of more advanced computer structure would be a giant leap forward.
  • At the VA, there is no integrated database integrated system connecting the VA’s to each other, or to the Social Security Administration, or the Pentagon or to locations where vital service records are stored. At issue, when a vet seeks medical service from a different VA facility, he/she must have their own complete records with them, when burial services are requested, the VA does not recognize death notices/certificates from the SSA or the Pentagon. Under the Department of Defense, connectivity and approvals and sped-up considerably.
  • Vets today are allowed a 30-minute appointment with the doctor, 20 minutes of that the doctor is working the input process into the computer, paperwork too cumbersome. Having a feature like Dragon, voice to text is required, an inexpensive and forward-leaning solution managed by dedicated active military software personnel.
  • The VA personnel has no empathy, compassion or recognition of the veterans, there is no respect, no honor, no appreciation, hence no customer service. Brothers keeping watch over brothers will immediately cure this condition.
  • 30% of medical cases are for hearing loss, the veteran must prove military service where hearing loss was probable, 50 mm howitzers, cannons, artillery etc. Research and development under which the medical community as DoD contractors can address this condition on veteran case files while being assertive in curing and addressing hearing loss prognosis that would relieve medical case backlogs.
  • At the VA, there is no peer support staff, meaning VA ambassadors that promote and market the services offered by the VA, items like housing, education, loans, job searches benefits go unknown to those former active duty uniformed personnel. Incorporation of other current Department of Defense benefits for active personnel is prudent and pro-active.

Doctors at the Veterans Administration have no structure or set schedule or term. VA doctors see about 2-3 patients a day, in the civilian world, doctors see 6-10. If a doctor does not show up for a workday and veterans have scheduled appointments, there is no call made to the veteran and to reschedule appointments go out another 3-4 months. Using automated scheduling and an active outward call program is the solution and the DOD currently applies these technologies.

 

  • Veterans are forced to be self-advocates such that they have to navigate a labyrinth and bureaucracy that is not understood and leads to erroneous ratings and alters benefits. Words have meanings, where clarity and protocols within the Department of Defense offers an immediate change to the culture and attitude.
  • The VA is union heavy, where up to 5 unions exist in some locations, where the worst is SEIU, the most corrupt and felonious of all labor organizations, hence no one can be fired for dereliction of duty, altering paperwork, malfeasance, drug abuse, etc. Under the UCMJ, this behavior would be eliminated immediately.
  • Phone numbers for assistance to VA locations are voice mail and push #’s hell only to receive countless recordings, having the Department of Defense apply the existing telecom structure would eliminate this condition.
  • Veterans cannot seek simple medical procedures from civilian locations like a’ doc in the box’, dentist or even a closer military base for items like stitches, x-rays and even prescriptions like an antibiotic. The vets should have a choice card, demonstrating military service that is accepted at any local medical facility and could even have a modest co-pay. Under the Department of Defense, oversight of this process would be expedient.
  • The VA has no process to educate or seminars to aid in advancement for jobs for existing employees or for returning vets to gain an education and work at the VA in R&D, IT, the medical field, vets should work for vets due to the fraternity/sorority and military ethos. This issue is readily adaptable within existing programs at the DOD.
  • All VA locations should have random polygraphs or voice testing to determine honesty, work ethic (not selling narcotics or theft). These systems are currently in use at thousands of Defense and military posts domestically and globally.
  • Privatize a select group of existing VA hospitals by transferring them to the local communities and counties.

 

Supporting Articles:

Article

Article

Article

Article

Article

Article

Article

Article

Article

 

The Deep State Covers for Feinstein…because there is more…Imagine if U will…


What are the FBI and the DOJ covering up?

 

You mean there is more…”
Is that a printout in your hand?


That Girl.


Explain the Chinese spy, Sen. Feinstein

By Marc Thiesen

Imagine if it emerged that the Republican chairman of the House or Senate intelligence committee had a Russian spy working on their staff. Think it would cause a political firestorm? Well, this month we learned that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) had a Chinese spy on her staff who worked for her for about 20 years, was listed as an “office director” on payroll records and served as her driver when she was in San Francisco, all while reporting to China’s Ministry of State Security through China’s San Francisco Consulate. The reaction of the mainstream media? Barely a peep.

Feinstein acknowledged the infiltration but played down its significance. “Five years ago the FBI informed me it had concerns that an administrative member of my California staff was potentially being sought out by the Chinese government to provide information,” Feinstein said in a statement — which means the breach took place while Feinstein was heading the Intelligence Committee. But, Feinstein insisted, “he never had access to classified or sensitive information or legislative matters” and was immediately fired. In other words: junior staffer, no policy role, no access to secrets, quickly fired — no big deal.

But it is a big deal. I asked several former senior intelligence and law enforcement officials how serious this breach might have been. “It’s plenty serious,” one former top Justice Department official told me. “Focusing on his driver function alone, in Mafia families, the boss’s driver was among the most trusted men in the crew, because among other things he heard everything that was discussed in the car.”

A former top CIA clandestine officer explained to me what the agency would do if it had recruited the driver of a senior official such as Feinstein. “We would have the driver record on his phone all conversations that Feinstein would have with passengers and phone calls in her car. If she left her phone, iPad or laptop in the car while she went to meetings, social events, dinners, etc., we would have the driver download all her devices. If the driver drove for her for 20 years, he would probably would have had access to her office and homes. We would have had the source put down an audio device in her office or homes if the opportunity presented itself. Depending on the take from all of what the source reported, we would use the info to target others that were close to her and exhibited some type of vulnerability.”

“In short,” this officer said, “we would have had a field day.”

It seems improbable that Feinstein never once discussed anything sensitive in her car over a period of years. But let’s assume that Feinstein was extraordinarily careful and never discussed any classified information in front of her driver or on any devices to which he had access. Even so, one former top intelligence official told me, “someone in that position could give an adversary a whole bunch on atmospherics and trends and attitudes which are from time to time far more important than the things we call secrets.” He added, “It’s like [having access to her] unclassified emails.” (And we all know no one everexposes classified information on unclassified emails).

Washington is understandably focused on the threat from Russia. But according to FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, “China from a counterintelligence perspective represents the broadest, most pervasive, most threatening challenge we face as a country.” It was China, after all, that hacked the Office of Personnel Management in 2015, stealing the SF-86 security clearance forms of many thousands of executive-branch employees in the most devastating cyberattack in the history of our country. Beijing has successfully recruited FBI agents and State Department employees as spies, and has used information from U.S. informants to kill more than a dozen CIA sources inside the regime. And now, we know China recruited a high-value Senate staffer who worked in immediate proximity to the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Feinstein owes the country a detailed explanation of how she let a Chinese spy into her inner sanctum. And the media should give this security breach the same attention they would if it involved Russia and the Republicans.

Marc Thiessen writes a twice-weekly column for The Post on foreign and domestic policy and contributes to the PostPartisan blog. He is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and the former chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush.

Article

 

How The FBI Let A Chinese Spy Skate To Protect This Powerful Democrat

“For 20 years, California Senator Dianne Feinstein had a Chinese spy on her office payroll.”

“The Prime Directive was obviously to do nothing to embarrass Feinstein and that is exactly how the FBI handled the situation. Compare and contrast it with the scorched earth policy the FBI has used in regards to the Trump campaign and administration.”

Article

Feinstein’s Ties to China Extend Beyond Chinese Spy

“According to the article, “For many years, Ms. Feinstein has tried to promote friendship and trade with China, and she has countered critics of the Chinese human-rights record by emphasizing what she described in a Senate speech last year as ‘major improvements in human rights’ there.”

“One of Feinstein’s first acts on becoming mayor of San Francisco in January 1979, was to visit Shanghai to establish sister-city relations.

The next apparent priority was re-establishing passenger airline service between China and the United States. Service was restored on Jan. 8, 1981, after a “32-year hiatus when a Boeing 747 with 139 Chinese passengers arrived exactly on time at San Francisco International Airport,” according to The New York Times.”

“According to the San Jose Mercury: “He [Jiang] once invited her and her husband to see Mao Tse-tung’s bedroom in his old residence, the first foreigners to do so. Feinstein had entertained Jiang in San Francisco, dancing with him as he sang ‘When We Were Young.’”

“This relationship proved fruitful in 1999, when President Bill Clinton was pushing to bring China into the World Trade Organization.”

Interuptus…

“A visit to Washington that year by Chinese Prime Minister Zhu Rongji, which many had hoped would seal the deal, produced nothing. Relations got even worse after U.S. bombers accidentally destroyed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade that May.”


Beverly Hills 90210. GO figure.

Article

“How come the lights went on before he clapped.”

“What do you mean that you don’t remember the exact count?”

 

a

 

THE LEFT’S EMBARRASSING PLEA FOR OPEN BORDERS by Michael Cutler


 

Illegal:
Not according to or authorized by law: unlawful; illicit.

 

THE LEFT’S EMBARRASSING PLEA FOR OPEN BORDERS

The real facts immigration anarchists try to hide from the public.

By: Michael Cutler

July 19, 2018

Pro law-and-order immigration advocates in America whine about the emotional arguments and unhinged publicity stunts used by the open borders/abolish-ICE anarchists to sway public opinion.

But, when they use these emotional arguments, the abolish ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) crowd are merely playing to their own personal strengths: irrationality, magical thinking, and projection. The important issue is that law-and-order advocates, like us, have failed abysmally to use our own emotional arguments in changing minds on the immigration topic.

Indeed, the most persuasive emotional arguments strongly favor secure borders and effective immigration law enforcement.

Let’s begin by understanding that a nation’s leaders should be most concerned about the safety, well being and futures of its own citizens the same way that rational parents must prioritize the safety and well being of their own children above all others. From a nurturing perspective, pro law-and-order immigration advocates will have an edge by using this argument.

While we are on the topic of children, consider how the DREAM Act and then DACA were sold to us on the lies that this legislative detritus was supposed to help “young immigrants” who were brought here as children and had no control over their situation.

Of course, those “young immigrants” could have been in their mid-thirties and simply had to claim to have been present in the U.S. prior to their 16th birthdays.  Then, when that bill failed to pass, President Obama cobbled together DACA — again claiming that this was about the children because, “Congress had failed to act.” I wrote about this deception in my article, DACA: The Immigration Trojan Horse, How the original DREAM act was designed to cover 90% of the illegal alien population in the US.

Now the press,  and the Democrats along with certain judges, have gone off the deep end where an estimated 3,000 children have been separated from their parents along the U.S. Mexican border when they were caught being smuggled into the United States.

Various religious and charitable organizations like T’ruah and Church World Services have turned this into a media circus. Psychologists have been rushed in to help treat these “traumatized” children.

Had their own caregivers not brought these children across the border – in a brazen act of law-breaking – there would be no separation between family members.  The caregivers took those illegal and irresponsible actions.  The Trump administration was compelled to act as a consequence of the actions of those law-breaking caregivers.

Many of those children were not brought into the United States by their parents,  but by human traffickers – this fact has been ignored by the media. Those children’s lives were endangered when they were brought by criminals, with whom their parents possibly conspired with in an effort to circumvent our immigration laws.

Even the children brought here by their parents or other family members were placed at risk by the arduous trek across dangerous terrain — with it’s sweltering temperatures, poisonous insects and snakes at every few feet, and with roving murderous thugs of the drug cartels waiting to pounce on innocent people.

The incredible hypocrisy is that those now demanding the demise of ICE are deafeningly silent on the mental condition, and the ultimate fate, of American children in foster care.

The website Children’s Rights Children’s Rights posted a section on Foster Care that included the following statistics:

On any given day, there are nearly 438,000 children in foster care in the United States.

In 2016, over 687,000 children spent time in U.S. foster care.

On average, children remain in state care for nearly two years and six percent of children in foster care have languished there for five or more years.

Despite the common perception that the majority of children in foster care are very young, the average age of kids entering care is 7.

In 2016, more than half of children entering U.S. foster care were young people of color.

While most children in foster care live in family settings, a substantial minority — 12 percent — live in institutions or group homes.

Many of the children were taken from their families in the U.S. because their parents were incarcerated, were homeless or were, in one way or another deemed unfit to care for their own children.

Where is the news coverage about this foster care crisis that involves a far greater number of children in the United States? How many psychologists are rushing to comfort these hundreds of thousands of children in America who are in foster care, not for several weeks but as noted above, in some cases, for years?

Once again, the so-called “concerns” about children that have been exploited to evoke antagonism for the Trump administration and immigration law enforcement, are as fake as their other arguments.

The facts are crystal clear: our immigration laws have nothing to do with race, religion or ethnicity.  Safety, security and employment opportunities for Americans, irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity are at the foundation of America’s immigration laws.

The bullying tactic employed by the immigration anarchists whereby they accuse pro-law-and-order immigration advocates of being racists and xenophobes is quickly dispelled by reviewing a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Title 8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens.

This section of law enumerates the categories of aliens who are to be excluded from the United States.  There are absolutely no references about race, religion or ethnicity.  Rather, this section of law that guides CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors at America’s ports of entry.

Among these categories are:  aliens who were previously deported (removed), aliens who suffer from dangerous communicable diseases or are severely mentally ill and prone to violence, and aliens who are criminals, spies, war criminals, human rights violators or terrorists.  Exclusions include: aliens who would likely become public charges or work illegally, thereby displacing and suppressing the wages of American workers and lawful immigrant workers.

Open borders and a lack of interior enforcement of our immigration laws has enabled transitional gangs to enter the United States and establish themselves in towns and cities around the country.   Recent news of MS-13 gang activity has outraged the American public but the problem has persisted for decades and involves Latin American gangs as well as gangs from around the world.  As an INS agent,  I investigated and arrested criminals from nearly every continent.  Human nature is universal.  All humans bleed red and among all races, religions, and ethnicities we find examples of “The good, the bad and the ugly.”

I focused on this issue in my article, America’s Gang Crisis: Congressional Hearings Focus On MS-13.

The 9/11 Commission, to which I provided testimony, made it clear that multiple failures of the immigration system enabled terrorists, and not only the 19 terrorist-hijackers who attacked our nation on September 11, 2001 but a list of others, to enter the United States and embed themselves.

Thousands of innocent people have lost their lives to foreign criminals and international terrorists.  Does this not evoke strong emotions?

My family, my neighbors and I lived through the terror attack on September 11, 2001, nearly 17 years ago, and I can tell you from first-hand experience that the attacks left those who witnessed them shaken to the core and causing many to still suffer Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), forever impacting them and their well being.

On July 10, 2018, AM New York reported: PTSD linked to heart attack, stroke risk in civilian 9/11 responders, study finds.

That news report began with this excerpt:

Psychological damage has led to a higher risk for heart attack and stroke among civilian 9/11 rescuers and recovery workers, according to a study to be released Tuesday.

The American Heart Association interviewed more than 6,841 non-firefighter workers and untrained volunteers who were at Ground Zero following the attacks on Sept. 11, and found that PTSD cases were twice as prevalent than among the general population. Heart attacks and strokes among those blue collar crew members with PTSD were 2.35 times higher than the rest of the 9/11 workers, according to the study.

America has been too willing to permit foreign workers to enter the United States.  This has displaced American workers, driven down wages and caused large numbers of American families to lose their homes to foreclosure, perhaps forcing more American kids into foster care.

Will hearing these facts evoke strong emotions?

Time and again judges and mayors of Sanctuary Cities have fatuously declared the Trump administration’s immigration policies – policies to secure our nation’s borders and enforce our immigration laws – to be “unconstitutional.”

These officials should be required to read Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

“Invasion” has been defined, in part, as:

An instance of invading a country or region with an armed force: the Allied invasion of Normandy | in 1546 England had to be defended from invasion.

  • an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity: an unwelcome intrusion into another’s domain.

Facts and emotions are stubborn things.  Where the current immigration debate is concerned, facts, the U.S. Constitution, our laws, our sense of morality, common sense – and even emotions – can be used to counter the unhinged and irrational narratives of the open borders / abolish-ICE crowd.

Michael Cutler is a retired Senior Special Agent of the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) whose career spanned some 30 years. He served as an Immigration Inspector, Immigration Adjudications Officer and spent 26 years as an agent who rotated through all of the squads within the Investigations Branch. He has testified before well over a dozen congressional hearings, provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission as well as state legislative hearings around the United States and at trials where immigration is at issue.

Article

Support Articles:

Article

Article

Article

Article

Article

Article

Article

Article

Article




a

Montana Catholic Priests Believe in American Greatness

GOOD

 

vs. EVIL.

Priests’ attendance at Trump rally causes furor

By: DAVID McCUMBER and THOMAS PLANK

Jul 7, 2018

 

The attendance of four Roman Catholic priests from Montana at President Donald Trump’s political rally in Great Falls Thursday has created a social media firestorm and apparently incurred the displeasure of the priests’ superiors in the church.

The four, who were seated near the front of the rally, wore their clerical garb, carried “Make America Great Again” signs, and wore VIP badges. They clapped for Trump as he doubled down on his oft-repeated slur of Sen. Elizabeth Warren as “Pocahontas,” mocked the #MeToo movement, and questioned the meaning of former Republican President George H.W. Bush’s “Thousand Points of Light” slogan.

Two of the priests, Father Garrett Nelson and Father Ryan Erlenbush, serve in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Great Falls-Billings. The other two, Father Kevin Christofferson and Father Christopher Lebsock, serve in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Helena.

Bishop Michael William Warfel, Bishop of the Great Falls-Billings diocese, answered a query about the priests’ attendance on Facebook by saying, “I was not aware that these priests would be in attendance at the rally at which President Trump spoke. Two were from the diocese of Great Falls-Billings and two were from the Diocese of Helena. I will be contacting the two priests from this diocese.

“While they are free to support a political candidate — and I believe they were there in support of Matt Rosendale, who is running for the Senate seat from Montana — they should not have been attired in clerical garb and seated in such a prominent location. I myself had been invited to attend the rally but declined. It has been my experience that people can be manipulated and used unwittingly. I judge that it was an imprudent decision on their parts to allow themselves to be used in such a way though I suspect they had not thought of this. In Christ, Bishop Warfel.”

Christofferson serves parishes in Polson and Ronan with a mission in Charlo. Lebsock is assistant pastor at the Cathedral of Saint Helena.

Erlenbush and Nelson are both based in Great Falls.

As pictures of the priests at the rally circulated on social media Friday, several people posted wording from Catholic Church guidelines regarding priests’ participation in politics.

In April 2011, the Montana Catholic Conference issued the following instruction on political advocacy for use by Catholic clergy and parishioners:

“Religious leaders should avoid taking positions on candidates or participating in political party matters even while acting in their individual capacity. Although not prohibited, it may be difficult to separate their personal activity from their public role as a Church leader.”

The conference posted diocesan guidelines later in 2011 featuring the same wording. According to the conference, the “guidelines were developed using the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ 2007 Political Activity Guidelines.

The Diocese of Helena is currently without a bishop. In a statement released Saturday afternoon, Diocesan administrator Monsignor Kevin O’Neill quoted the 2011 statement as the Diocese’s policy and added that “a Diocesan Administrator may not innovate, but is expected to affirm standing policy and practice. With this in mind, I have issued a letter to all diocesan personnel requesting their thoughtful and sincere cooperation with the stated policy and practice of the diocese.”

Erlenbush, a Billings native, found himself at the center of a controversy earlier this year when he called for a boycott of Mayfair, the Billings Catholic Schools’ largest fundraiser, because a gay couple were among the fundraising leaders of the event.

Erlenbush, who is also an alumnus of Billings Catholic Schools, called for a boycott in April saying, the school had lost its way “when a prominent homosexual couple is advertised as the chairs for the annual fundraiser.”

“What does a Catholic school have to do before people say ‘enough’ and take their kids (and their money) elsewhere?” Erlenbush continued. “I am an alumnus of Billings Catholic Schools and I say ‘enough.’”

His comments drew a strong rebuke from Billings Catholic Schools, and Warfel responded to Erlenbush’s comment in part because of the outcry from Erlenbush’s Facebook post.

“The issue is not the principle, the issue is how things were communicated,” Warfel wrote at the time. “I would judge there are better ways to handle it.”

Many on social media suggested the pictures of the priests at the rally were “fake news,” had been “photoshopped,” or that they were “actors” hired to create controversy, although the identities of the priests and their attendance were confirmed by the dioceses and many others.

Mary Moe of Great Falls, a prominent Democrat and former legislator, posted on Facebook: “Our Catholic priests clapped, there in the front row allowing themselves and the Church to be exploited for political purposes, as President Trump, that exemplar of Catholic teachings, said of Hillary, ‘she got her ass kicked.’ They laughed at his jokes about immigration and laughed again when he used language that they used to beat boys for back when America was great. And Jesus wept.”

Her post generated more than 1,000 comments, predictably mixed.

Many praised the priests and defended their right to be there.

Dave Galt, a prominent Montana Republican and longtime executive director of the Montana Petroleum Association, responded to Moe on Facebook: “I was there. I talked to those priests. Hillary did get her ass kicked. Perhaps they really care about the number of babies killed in this country under our abortion laws. I saw their support for the President’s comments about late-term abortion votes. Good for them and damn good for President Trump.”

 

Article

 

Article

 

“Our brothers in Waziristan, our warrior brothers in [the] Taliban movement and national Afghan Taliban are rising up,” he said in one episode. “Inshallah, the Durand Line issue will be solved soon.”
– Seddique Mateen

Article

 

Good vs. Evil.

“Evil triumphs when good men do nothing” …Edmund Burke

 

 

Important SUA Update:

SUA has received a lengthy report from a Pashtun living in Waziristan, Pakistan. He described the intimate relationship between the Pakistani military and the Taliban. The Taliban are not only being supplied by the Pakistani military, but some members of Pakistani Army and Pakistani intelligence are dressing up as Taliban and operating with them to suppress the new Pashtun freedom movement (PTM) and any political parties in Waziristan deemed hostile to affect the election outcome at the end of this month., Pakistan announces to the international media that these operations are anti-terrorism operations, but they are not. The so-called Peace (Aman) Committees are Taliban and the Taliban are freely moving in urban areas, collecting taxes from businesses and enforcing Sharia under the very noses of of the Pakistani authorities. The Taliban are noticeably wealthier than the other inhabitants and have confiscated schools as their local headquarters.These are also the same Taliban groups that are operating in eastern Afghanistan.

a