Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started

The Constitution Has Already Been Terminated – Investigative Reporter Paul Sperry Responds After ‘Twitter Files’ Revealed – ‘Any messaging you want’ Facebook to Biden

By John & Nisha Whitehead December 06, 2022

“That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary.”—Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale

If there is one point on which there should be no political parsing, no legal jockeying, and no disagreement, it is this: for anyone to advocate terminating or suspending the Constitution is tantamount to a declaration of war against the founding principles of our representative government and the rule of law.

Then again, one could well make the case that the Constitution has already been terminated after years on life support, given the extent to which the safeguards enshrined in the Bill of Rights—adopted 231 years ago as a means of protecting the people against government overreach and abuse—have been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded with the support of Congress, the White House, and the courts.

Consider for yourself.

We are in the grip of martial law. We have what the founders feared most: a “standing” or permanent army on American soil. This de facto standing army is made up of weaponized, militarized domestic police forces which look like, dress like, and act like the military; are armed with guns, ammunition and military-style equipment; are authorized to make arrests; and are trained in military tactics.

We are in the government’s crosshairs. The U.S. government continues to act as judge, jury and executioner over a populace that have been pre-judged and found guilty, stripped of their rights, and left to suffer at the hands of government agents trained to respond with the utmost degree of violence. Consequently, we are at the mercy of law enforcement officers who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.” With alarming regularity, unarmed men, women, children and even pets are being gunned down by the government’s standing army of militarized police who shoot first and ask questions later.

We are no longer safe in our homes. This present menace comes from the government’s army of bureaucratized, corporatized, militarized SWAT teams who are waging war on the last stronghold left to us as a free people: the sanctity of our homes.

We have no real freedom of speech. We are moving fast down a slippery slope to an authoritarian society in which the only opinions, ideas and speech expressed are the ones permitted by the government and its corporate cohorts. In more and more cases, the government is declaring war on what should be protected political speech whenever it challenges the government’s power, reveals the government’s corruption, exposes the government’s lies, and encourages the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices. The ramifications are so far-reaching as to render almost every American who criticizes the government an extremist in word, deed, thought or by association.

We have no real privacy. We’re being spied on by a domestic army of government snitches, spies and techno-warriors. This government of Peeping Toms is watching everything we do, reading everything we write, listening to everything we say, and monitoring everything we spend. Beware of what you say, what you read, what you write, where you go, and with whom you communicate, because it is all being recorded, stored, and catalogued, and will be used against you eventually, at a time and place of the government’s choosing.

We are losing our right to bodily privacy and integrity. The debate over bodily integrity covers broad territory, ranging from forced vaccinations, forced cavity searches, forced colonoscopies, forced blood draws and forced breath-alcohol tests to forced DNA extractions, forced eye scans, and forced inclusion in biometric databases: these are just a few ways in which Americans continue to be reminded that we have no real privacy, no real presumption of innocence, and no real control over what happens to our bodies during an encounter with government officials. The groundwork being laid with these mandates is a prologue to what will become the police state’s conquest of a new, relatively uncharted, frontier: inner space, specifically, the inner workings (genetic, biological, biometric, mental, emotional) of the human race.

We no longer have a right to private property. If government agents can invade your home, break down your doors, kill your dog, damage your furnishings and terrorize your family, your property is no longer private and secure—it belongs to the government. Hard-working Americans are having their bank accounts, homes, cars electronics and cash seized by police under the assumption that they have allegedly been associated with some criminal scheme.

We have no due process. The groundwork has been laid for a new kind of government where it won’t matter if you’re innocent or guilty, whether you’re a threat to the nation, or even if you’re a citizen. What will matter is what the government—or whoever happens to be calling the shots at the time—thinks. And if the powers-that-be think you’re a threat to the nation and should be locked up, then you’ll be locked up with no access to the protections our Constitution provides.

We are no longer presumed innocent. The burden of proof has been reversed. Now we’re presumed guilty unless we can prove our innocence beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Rarely, are we even given the opportunity to do so. The government has embarked on a diabolical campaign to create a nation of suspects predicated on a massive national DNA database. Having already used surveillance technology to render the entire American populace potential suspects, DNA technology in the hands of government coupled with artificial intelligence will complete our transition to a suspect society in which we are all merely waiting to be matched up with a crime.

We have lost the right to be anonymous and move about freely.  At every turn, we’re hemmed in by laws, fines and penalties that regulate and restrict our autonomy, and surveillance cameras that monitor our movements. Likewise, digital currency provides the government and its corporate partners with a mode of commerce that can easily be monitored, tracked, tabulated, mined for data, hacked, hijacked and confiscated when convenient.

We no longer have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. In fact, a study conducted by Princeton and Northwestern University concluded that the U.S. government does not represent the majority of American citizens. Instead, the study found that the government is ruled by the rich and powerful, or the so-called “economic elite.” Moreover, the researchers concluded that policies enacted by this governmental elite nearly always favor special interests and lobbying groups. In other words, we are being ruled by an oligarchy disguised as a democracy, and arguably on our way towards fascism—a form of government where private corporate interests rule, money calls the shots, and the people are seen as mere subjects to be controlled.

We have no guardians of justice. The courts were established to intervene and protect the people against the government and its agents when they overstep their bounds. Yet through their deference to police power, preference for security over freedom, and evisceration of our most basic rights for the sake of order and expediency, the courts have become the guardians of the American police state in which we now live. As a result, sound judgment and justice have largely taken a back seat to legalism, statism and elitism, while preserving the rights of the people has been deprioritized and made to play second fiddle to both governmental and corporate interests.

We have been saddled with a dictator for life. Secret, unchecked presidential powers—acquired through the use of executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives and legislative signing statements and which can be activated by any sitting president—now enable past, president and future presidents to operate above the law and beyond the reach of the Constitution.

Unfortunately, we have done this to ourselves.

We allowed ourselves to be seduced by the false siren song of politicians promising safety in exchange for relinquished freedom. We placed our trust in political saviors and failed to ask questions to hold our representatives accountable to abiding by the Constitution. We looked the other way and made excuses while the government amassed an amazing amount of power over us, and backed up that power-grab with a terrifying amount of military might and weaponry, and got the courts to sanction their actions every step of the way. We chose to let partisan politics divide us and turn us into easy targets for the government’s oppression.

Mind you, the powers-that-be want us to be censored, silenced, muzzled, gagged, zoned out, caged in and shut down. They want our speech and activities monitored for any sign of “extremist” activity. They want us to be estranged from each other and kept at a distance from those who are supposed to represent us. They want taxation without representation. They want a government without the consent of the governed.

They want the Constitution terminated.

“We” may have contributed to our downfall through our inaction and gullibility, but we are also the only hope for a free future.

After all, the Constitution begins with those three beautiful words, “We the people.” Those three words were intended as a reminder to future generations that there is no government without us—our sheer numbers, our muscle, our economy, our physical presence in this land.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, when we forget that, when we allow the “Me” of a self-absorbed, narcissistic, politically polarizing culture to override our civic duties as citizens to collectively stand up to tyranny and make the government play by the rules of the Constitution, there can be no surprise when tyranny rises and freedom falls

Remember, there is power in numbers.

There are 332 million of us in this country. Imagine what we could accomplish if we actually worked together, presented a united front, and spoke with one voice?

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_constitution_has_already_been_terminated

Investigative Reporter Paul Sperry Responds After ‘Twitter Files’ Documents Reveal Adam Schiff Violated Constitution to Have Him Removed from Twitter

By Jim Hoft January 8, 2023

As The Gateway Pundit previously reported back in February 2021 — Twitter permanently suspended top conservative investigative reporter Paul Sperry.

Sperry was the first reporter to identify Eric Ciaramella as the CIA “whistleblower” behind the first junk impeachment trial of President Trump.
Paul Sperry also reported on Ciaramella’s plot to remove President Trump from office.

Sperry’s Twitter suspension came after Project Veritas was banned the week before and The Gateway Pundit was banned from Twitter two weeks before that.

TRENDING: BREAKING: Massive Crowd of Brazilians Descend on Brasilia, Storm Congress – SHOTS FIRED (VIDEO)

We reached out to Paul Sperry at the time and here is what he told us about his suspension.

Paul Sperry: There were no warnings. No rules were broken They just don’t like my content because of their politics. They’re trying to claim I’m a “robot” when of course they know better. Tyrants. This is the second time I’ve been harassed since Trump was banned. They are trying to push me off their platform and silence my voice through harassment. If they can harass and silence a professional journalist, they can silence anybody.

That was almost two years ago.

Fast forward to January 3rd. Elon Musk and Twitter dropped “Twitter Files” documents that included evidence that Democrat lawmaker Adam Schiff sought a ban on journalist Paul Sperry.

Twitter later suspended Paul Sperry’s account in February 2021.

On Saturday Paul Sperry responded on Twitter to the evidence that Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff had requested Twitter to silence him because he did not like Sperry’s politics.

Sperry pointed out that Adam Schiff violated US law when he targeted him.

Of course, the liberal mainstream media ignored this criminal First Amendment violation.

Adam Schiff is in BIG trouble. The popular Democrat clearly committed a criminal act.

This story is not over. Pencil-neck may want to lawyer up.

‘Any messaging you want’: Facebook asked Biden for talking points after FDA vax blood clot warning

‘It obviously has the risk of exacerbating vaccine hesitancy’

By WND News Services January 9, 2023

A 10-inch blood clot removed from a living person who was vaccinated for COVID-19 (Courtesy Twitter)

A 10-inch blood clot removed from a living person who was vaccinated for COVID-19 (Courtesy Twitter)

By John Hugh DeMastri
Daily Caller News Foundation

  • Facebook requested talking points from the Biden administration to “get ahead” of the possibility that people might be less likely to get a COVID-19 vaccine after evidence emerged that the Johnson and Johnson (J&J) single-dose vaccine might cause life-threatening blood clots in some rare cases, according to emails obtained by the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA).
  • A Facebook staffer — whose name is redacted in compliance with a court order — discussed ways to potentially modify Facebook’s algorithms or provide “context” to posts from White House-approved sources with White House Director of Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty, according to the emails.
  • “Re the J+J news, we’re keen to amplify any messaging you want us to project about what this means for people – it obviously has the risk of exacerbating vaccine hesitancy, so we’re keen to get ahead of the knock-on effect,” a Facebook staffer wrote to . “Don’t hesitate to tell me – or via your teams – how we can help you provide clarity/reassurance via Facebook.”

Facebook requested talking points from the Biden administration to “get ahead” of the possibility that people might be less likely to get a COVID-19 vaccine after evidence emerged that the Johnson and Johnson (J&J) single-dose vaccine might cause life-threatening blood clots in some rare cases, documents shared with the Daily Caller News Foundation show.

The U.S. Centers For Disease Control (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a joint statement on April 13, 2021, issuing a pause on the use of the J&J COVID-19 vaccine after they identified 6 cases where adult women — out of roughly 7 million individuals who receive the dose — developed severe blood clots. A Facebook employee wrote an email later that day asking Biden administration COVID-19 czar Andrew Slavitt for “any messaging” that the White House might want the company to promote, looping in White House Director of Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty and Director of Strategic Communications and Engagement for the COVID-19 Response Team Courtney Rowe in a follow-up email moments later, according to documents obtained by the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) and shared with the DCNF.

The NCLA is party to an ongoing lawsuit filed by the Attorneys General of Louisiana and Missouri alleging improper collusion between the federal government and social media companies, and obtained the emails via discovery.

“Re the J+J news, we’re keen to amplify any messaging you want us to project about what this means for people – it obviously has the risk of exacerbating vaccine hesitancy, so we’re keen to get ahead of the knock-on effect,” the employee wrote. “Don’t hesitate to tell me – or via your teams – how we can help you provide clarity/reassurance via Facebook.”

A Facebook employee, whose name is redacted, requests guidance from the Biden administration about how the company ought to respond to the FDA and CDC’s decision to pause use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine, April 13, 2021. Screenshot/New Civil Liberties Alliance

Flaherty responded to the email suggesting that the company create a context panel for information about the vaccine, suggesting that the company tell users that the clotting incidents “are very rare,” that the FDA and CDC are working on a treatment plan and that the vaccine is very different from the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines and that they were unaffected, according to the documents. The White House official would go on to say he was “happy to provide” more specifics about what the information in the context panel “should be.”

In addition, he provided Facebook with a statement from the White House, and informed the company that the CDC would be putting together a FAQ sheet on the J&J vaccine that the White House would “love to have amplified in whatever way possible,” according to the emails. Finally, Flaherty asked that Facebook commit to spreading as much positive news about the vaccine as negative, even going so far as to request that the company alter its algorithms to do so.

Flaherty believed that a “commitment from [Facebook] to make sure that a favorable review reaches as many people as the pause, either through hard product interventions or algorithmic amplification,” would be helpful to prevent “misinformation” surrounding the J&J vaccine, according to the emails.

White House Director of Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty responds to a Facebook employee requesting guidance on how to respond to the CDC and FDA's decision to pause use of the Johnson & Johnson single-dose COVID-19 vaccine, Aprtil 13, 2021. Schreenshot/New Civil Liberties Alliance

White House Director of Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty responds to a Facebook employee requesting guidance on how to respond to the CDC and FDA’s decision to pause use of the Johnson & Johnson single-dose COVID-19 vaccine, April 13, 2021. Screenshot/New Civil Liberties Alliance

The Facebook employee thanked Flaherty “very much” for suggesting a context panel and asked if he had any ideas for how to update the company’s existing COVID-19 news panel, according to the emails. The employee also thanked Flaherty for his willingness to provide the CDC messaging, before promising that the company would “love to talk” about possibly modifying its algorithm to alter how information is shared and concluding with a promise to share data relating to “misinformation.”

Flaherty would spar with the company over the next week, seemingly over its refusal to censor Tucker Carlson’s criticism of the J&J vaccine and the administration’s vaccine messaging. The FDA ultimately restricted the use of the J&J vaccine to those who refused or were ineligible to take other vaccines, citing the risks associated with blood clots, in a statement issued May 5, 2022.

Meta and the White House did not immediately respond to a Daily Caller News Foundation request for comment.

The next is a Rumble screenshot of a brain sliced in half from a person who died from blood clots


Related

https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-covid-censorship-machine-social-media-facebook-meta-executive-rob-flaherty-free-speech-google-11673203704

Biden would resume Obama’s war on Christianity: Dem memo declares white Christians country’s foremost “national security threat”

January 02, 2021 by: JD Heyes

Image: Biden plans to resume Obama’s war on Christianity: Dem memo declares white Christians country’s foremost “national security threat”

(Natural News) Democrat Joe Biden’s message of wanting to ‘unify our divided country’ suffered another credibility blow in the wake of a newly uncovered Democratic memo that warns two-thirds of our country is a bigger threat than China, Russia, Iran and North Korea combined.

A report prepared especially for the (potentially) incoming Biden administration from the Secular Democrats of America PAC provides guidance to “boldly restore a vision of constitutional secularism and respect in the land for religious and intellectual pluralism.”

And here we thought that after four years of President Donald Trump that his efforts to uphold the right of Christians — and Jews, and Muslims, and whomever else — to practice freely, as outlined in the First Amendment, was him restoring constitutionality. 

In any event, the PAC says it “represents secular Democratic individuals and organizations” while advocating for “secular governance” as well as the promotion of “respect and inclusion of nonreligious Americans,” while mobilizing “nonreligious voters.”

Again, that same First Amendment guaranteeing Americans the right to worship freely also lacks a provision that mandates a religious society or the practice of a certain religion. So — if there can be no forcing of religion on Americans, why does this group think it can force secularism on all of us?

We digress.

Just The News reports that the proposal was formally presented to the Biden team by Democratic Reps. Jamie Raskin and Jared Huffman, co-chairmen of the Congressional Freethought Caucus; it was also endorsed by Democratic Rep. Jerry McNerney.

“We’ve offered the new administration a roadmap to restore our basic constitutional values and protect science, reason and public health in American government,” Raskin and Huffman said in a joint statement. (Related: Why rioters will eventually turn their rage on Christianity if not stopped.)

The outlet notes further: 

The proposal calls for Biden’s team to work with Congress and governors to “advance a secular agenda at all levels of government, taking into account the current makeup of the federal courts and new, unfavorable precedents that your administration will have to contend with.”

In the document, the group argues that Trump has “empowered the religious right in ways no other administration has before, making significant advances in enacting their Christian nationalist agenda.”

The proposal outlines recommendations for reversing certain policies and “proactively” implementing new rules that would “restore secularism to federal governance and disentangle entrenched religious interests from federal policy.”

Again, what is inherently wrong with Trump ‘empowering’ people of faith within his administration? Understand that this proposal would not have been given to Team Biden unless these three lawmakers had a problem with the empowerment of religious persons within the Trump White House — none of whom were pushing to mandate Christianity across the country. 

Only people who do not believe in any religion are ‘suitable’ for government, according to this PAC.

But it gets worse: These bozos liken Christians with a threat to America’s “national security.”

“The rise of white Christian nationalism is a national security threat,” read the document. “We recommend you: encourage the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice to dedicate resources to de-radicalization programs aimed at hate groups, including, but not limited to, white nationalists; increase monitoring of such groups, including the online environment, and take action to address increased hate crimes toward minority faith communities; and shift rhetoric to label violent white nationalist extremists as terrorists.”

That is outrageous. If there are any threats to America’s national security that emanate from within the country, they are coming from the insane left: Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and burgeoning anarchist organizations on both the left and right.

But you can see what this is really about.

There is no bigger impediment to authoritarian rule than a belief among the populace in something higher and more divine than ‘big government.’ And what better way to destroy the fundamental right to not only believe in a higher authority but to worship that higher authority than to declare those who do to be our most dangerous threat.

The Marxist Democratic left hates America as it was founded, period. This is just another modicum of proof.

See more reporting like this at BigGovernment.news.

Sources include:

JustTheNews.com

NaturalNews.com

https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-01-02-biden-will-resume-obamas-war-christianity.html

Ben Carson to press houses of worship to help in fight against homelessness

HUD Secretary declares, ‘In God We Trust’

Ben Carson, Arnold Schwarzeneger, Gray Davis at USC homelessness forum in Los Angeles

 

By David Brody February 24, 2020

 

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson plans to call on all churches, synagogues, and mosques in America to help fight homelessness in the weeks and months to come.

“If every church would adopt one homeless person or one homeless family, with the goal of making them self-sufficient in a year, can you imagine what the impact would be?” Carson asked in an interview with Just the News for the Pod’s Honest Truth podcast.

HUD officials say this is not a new agency policy but rather a personal call by a man who is not only a cabinet secretary but also a devout Christian who wants to promote godly principles such as caring for your neighbor.

“Our money says, ‘In God We Trust,’” Carson noted. “Why don’t we act like that?”

The call for places of worship to get involved is playing out in cities like Riverside, California. Carson recently visited a group of homes there situated on the grounds of the Grove Community Church, where the homeless stay and receive rehabilitation services.

The program is a public-private partnership between local city officials, who foot the bill, and the church, which provides services. That fits Carson’s philosophy of less government and more community involvement.

“They have all the resources and the skills of the people in the church,” Carson said. “They help them, they develop relationships, they get them jobs, they get them moving.”

The number of homeless nationwide rose almost 3% to nearly 600,000 in 2019, according to HUD’s Annual Homelessness Report to Congress.

As a government official, Secretary Carson’s call for places of worship to help the homeless will no doubt raise eyebrows among those concerned about separation of church and state. But Carson believes current notions of church-state separation have grown more expansive than intended by the framers.

“There’s nothing in the Constitution that even mentions the separation of church and state,” he said. “People have taken it and distorted it and made you think that you’re not supposed to mention your faith in public.”

Faith-based organizations have been aided by new Trump-era federal rules intended to ensure they are treated the same as non-religious groups. For example, faith-based social service groups receiving federal money no longer need to disclose their religious affiliation or provide those receiving their services an option for a non-religious provider.

Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, believes that while faith-based organizations play an important role in helping the vulnerable, the new HUD rules have gone too far.

“The government should not play favorites when it comes to religion,” said Laser, “and put some people at risk of not receiving government-funded services because they don’t practice or conform to one set of religious beliefs.”

In a wide-ranging interview from the curving, honeycombed headquarters of HUD, Secretary Carson seemed to be finally growing comfortable in his job after spending months without any top lieutenants alongside him.

“It wasn’t very enjoyable in the beginning,” Carson admitted. “Every day was like drinking from a firehose.”

Persevering is nothing new for Carson, who grew up dirt poor in Detroit with only an illiterate single mother to raise him. His life story has shaped the unique perspective he brings to both racial politics and policies affecting minority communities.

Without a father figure growing up, Carson places a special emphasis on the importance of fatherhood. Roughly 25% of children in America do not have a father living at home, a leading risk factor in a range of social ills from poverty to crime.

“There is a reason I think that God created families,” Carson said. “In today’s society, there are people who are trying to say there is really no difference between a man and a woman.”

Notwithstanding a reigning progressive consensus favoring gender-neutral family roles, fathers often play a distinctive and crucial role in the family, the former pediatric neurosurgeon believes.

“They are frequently disciplinarians but more importantly, role models for how to be responsible, and how to provide for your family,” he said.

While Carson promotes responsible fatherhood at HUD, he also promotes Trump administration policies — which has its challenges, especially when trying to combat negative stereotypes fostered by the racial politics of the identity left.

“The left has a tendency to use racism as your default position,” he lamented, “particularly when they’re losing an argument.”

Carson deflects the cries of “racism” by pointing to minority-friendly HUD policies like opportunity zones (which help spur economic development and job creation in troubled areas) and broader administration victories like criminal justice reform and a record low African-American unemployment rate.

Still, the vitriol Carson has experienced as a Trump advocate has been intense. A black minister told him that President Trump is possessed by a demon. And a snub by incendiary California Rep. Maxine Waters left him incredulous.

“I ran into her in the cafeteria, and she wouldn’t even shake my hand,” says Carson. “This is such infantile behavior.”Still, Carson brushes it all off in his characteristically mellow way, staying focused on the one overarching goal guiding not just his tenure at HUD, but also his life. “My job, as Jesus has put it, is to love everybody,” he said.

https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/ben-carson-press-houses-worship-help-fight-against-homelessness

VA announces proposed rule regarding equal treatment of faith-based organizations in VA-supported social service programs

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)  proposed a rule, Jan. 16, that would implement President Trump’s, May 3, 2018, Executive Order (EO) establishing a White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative, to remove regulatory barriers allowing religious and non-religious organizations equal treatment in VA-supported social service programs.

The proposed rule ensures VA-supported social service programs are implemented in a manner consistent with the Constitution and other applicable federal law.

Under current regulations governing these programs, religious providers of social services — but not other providers of social services — must make referrals under certain circumstances and must post notices regarding this referral procedure. VA’s proposed rule would eliminate religious providers from this requirement.

The current hindrances were not required by any applicable law, and because they were imposed only on religious social service providers, they are in tension with recent Supreme Court precedent regarding nondiscrimination against religious organizations. The proposed rule will foreclose other unequal treatment of religious organizations by ensuring they are not required to provide assurances or notices that are not required of secular organizations.

By compelling religious organizations, but not secular organizations, to post special notices and make referrals, the alternative-provider requirements unequally placed impediments on religious organizations and cast unwarranted suspicion on them

Additionally, the proposed rule will clarify that religious organizations may apply for awards on the same basis as any other organization and that when VA selects award recipients, VA will not discriminate based on an organization’s religious character. The proposed rule further clarifies that religious organizations participating in VA-supported social service programs retain their independence from the government and may continue to carry out their missions consistent with religious freedom protections in federal law, under the First Amendment.

The proposed rule incorporates the Attorney General’s 2017 Memorandum for All Executive Departments and Agencies, Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty.  That memorandum was issued pursuant to President Trump’s, May 4, 2017, Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty, which guides all federal administrative agencies and executive departments in complying with federal law.

“Protecting religious liberty is a key part of ensuring Veterans, families and potential partners — no matter their religious beliefs — feel welcome to work with and seek services from VA,” said VA Secretary Robert Wilkie. “These important changes will help us accomplish these important goals.”

https://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=5384

Supremes Turn Back Atheist’s Demands Again

Man has been seeking to remove mention of Almighty for decades

 

in_god_we_trust

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned back – again – a demand from an atheist who insists on removing any reference to “God” from the discourse of government.

There are references to a deity on money – the motto “In God We Trust” – and in the Pledge of Allegiance, as well as in other scenarios.

Michael Newdow, who has lost other, similar, cases at the high court already, was unsuccessful again when on Monday the justices declined to take up Newdow’s latest fight.

He was targeting the inscription “In God We Trust” on coins and currency.

The Washington Examiner reported Newdow, “an activist who filed the case on behalf of a group of atheists,” claimed that the instructions from Congress to the Treasury Department to include the words violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

That prevents Congress from setting up a national church.

The words first appeared on coins in 1864 and in 1955 Congress decided to have it on all coins and currency.

Newdow’s claim had stated that the government was turning atheists into “political outsiders” with the decision.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had similarly rejected his claim last year.

Besides “In God We Trust,” and “Under God” in the Pledge, he’s also demanded that high government officials such as Supreme Court justices and presidents be censored from stating “So help me God,” when they affirm an oath to uphold the Constitution.

WND has reported on his fight against references to “God” for nearly two decades.

When the 6th Circuit threw out his case last year, it ruled the motto doesn’t burden atheists’ free exercise, nor does it impact their free pssech.

“The court ruled that the national motto is a symbol of common national identity and did not discriminate against or suppress plaintiffs’ beliefs,” the American Center for Law and Justice said at that time.

The court had said, “Because plaintiffs do not allege that the motto is attributed to them and because the Supreme Court has reasoned that currency is not ‘readily associated with’ its temporary carrier, the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ Free Speech claim.”

Newdow’s claim was that “the mere presence of the national motto on currency violates their Free Speech and Free Exercise Clause rights. The atheists asserted that carrying currency equated to governmental compulsion to speak in support of the national motto and to bear a ‘religiously offensive’ message, in violation of the Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).”

“Every court that has considered any challenge to the national motto has rejected it. When we filed our amicus brief, we let the court know we were representing over 315,000 supporters who signed on to our Committee to Defend ‘In God We Trust’ – Our National Motto – on Our Currency,” ACLJ said.

 

https://www.wnd.com/2019/06/supremes-turn-back-atheists-demands-again/

A Forgotten Voice in the Alabama Abortion Debate

By Dr. Jerry Newcombe – May 25, 2019

The goal of the new, strict Alabama abortion law is to potentially overturn Roe v. Wade. The law would penalize abortion doctors, and it contains no exception clauses, except for the life and health of the mother.

In all of the brouhaha about the new Alabama law, there is a long-stilled voice that has been forgotten. That of the repentant Roe of Roe v. Wade.

Of course, Norma McCorvey was the Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade. After converting to Christ and the pro-life position (about 15 years after the Supreme Court decision), she proclaimed to the world that the whole case had been based on a lie (a few lies, really). Chief among the lies was that she was raped (gang-raped at that), and that was why she needed an abortion.

By the time, Roe v. Wade was decided on January 22, 1973, Norma had already had her baby (a girl), whom she gave up for adoption. Justice William Rehnquist, one of two dissenters in the decision, voted against it because it was a moot point. Roe’s baby had already been born.

The opinion of Roe of Roe v. Wade is significant for the abortion debate, including the Alabama law, because abortion was accepted on a wide scale throughout the country, only by judicial fiat. It was not something “we the people” voted on.

Look at how divided the country continues to be on the subject of abortion. Well, why not? We the people did not decide that case on that fateful Monday. Dissenting Justice Byron White, the only Justice appointed by JFK, said that Roe was an “act of raw judicial power.”

Those who live by court decisions should die by court decisions. And Roe herself, after her pro-life and Christian conversion, tried to legally overturn Roe v. Wade since it was all based on lies. Therefore, if the new Alabama law helps overturn Roe, so be it.

Yet one person called the Alabama law “a major step towards the death of democracy.” Oh brother. The Constitution shows that the courts, including the Supreme Court, were never designed to legislate or execute our laws.

There obviously was a time when Roe favored abortion. She was in opposition to Henry Wade—the pro-life attorney general of Texas, where Norma was living at the time of the lawsuit that worked its way up to the high Court.

In an interview with D. James Kennedy Ministries television, she said:

“My story began many, many years ago in 1969 when I found myself pregnant, on the streets. I was into drugs, and I really didn’t have any other alternatives in line. I did not believe in God, and I’d fallen away from the church at a very early age.”

Jumping ahead, change came about because of new neighbors moving in. Unwelcome neighbors at first. What transformed her in particular was meeting a little girl who truly loved God.

Norma continued:

“In retrospect, when I look back on those days, and I see what a sad person I was, I have to really kind of smile and think about little Emily: a little seven year old girl who came up to me at my office one day and told me that if I knew God that I wouldn’t be going to the place downstairs. She befriended me when Operation Rescue moved in next door to the abortion clinic where I worked. And at first I didn’t like them there because they reminded me of what we were doing. I worked in an abortion clinic. We killed children for a living.”

She added:

“I was a child-killer. I was an executioner.…There’s a fellow in the Bible; his name was Baal. He was into child sacrificing, and that’s basically what you’re doing out there today—you are sacrificing your child for a career, or high school or college.”

Norma found forgiveness through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, who died for sinners, paying the penalty for our sins, for those who believe:

“And I think once you’re forgiven by God, you should forgive yourself. But then you really should not put yourself in that kind of situation either.”

Norma warns against what happens in an abortion:

“You are totally different after you’ve had an abortion. Abortion kind of sucks your soul dry; it makes you a very angry person inside, from what I’ve seen.”

This is why for the last several years of her life until her death in 2017, Norma McCorvey fought against abortion on demand. She would have welcomed Alabama’s new law as a way to try to undo the damage of Roe.

She said:

“We want the child-killing to stop….There are other alternatives, other than abortion; there’s adoption….We don’t want to see Roe v. Wade to be the law of the land anymore. We want our children back.”

###

Jerry Newcombe, D.Min., is an on-air host/senior producer for D. James Kennedy Ministries. He has written/co-written 31 books, e.g., The Unstoppable Jesus Christ, American Amnesia: Is American Paying the Price for Forgetting God?, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? (w/ D. James Kennedy) & the bestseller, George Washington’s Sacred Fire (w/ Peter Lillback)   djkm.org  @newcombejerry      www.jerrynewcombe.com

 

Original here

VIDEO A Tale of Two Revolutions

May 10, 2019 by Dr Jerry Newcombe

Could a contrast between the American Revolution and the French Revolution be relevant to today’s conflicts? I think so. The attempt to demote historic icons, like George Washington, is a case in point.

George Washington grew up as a gentleman farmer in Virginia and was a fourth generation slave-owner. But by the end of his life, he had decided slavery was immoral and so at his death, he freed his slaves and made provision for them.

But in our day—where the alleged “right to not be offended” often seems to trump the constitutional right to free speech—some are calling for images of George Washington to be torn down, like statues of Confederates.

The dailywire.com (5/2/19) reports on how “George Washington High School” in Northern California is contemplating tearing down two 1930’s panels featuring George Washington because the pair of murals allegedly “traumatizes students and community members.”

This is in San Francisco, so the outcome seems likely.

How long will our historical iconoclasm last? The cultural Marxists are working overtime to cut Americans off from our history.

I believe that despite his flaws, including being a slave-owner, there are many heroic aspects of our first president. Dr. Peter Lillback and I wrote, George Washington’s Sacred Fire, which puts all this in context. Recently we discussed Washington and slavery.

Our founders fought the American Revolution, led by Washington, so that we could enjoy our God-given rights. Though slow in coming, recognition of those God-given rights eventually gave the slaves their freedom. What is happening in the culture wars today is a revival of the French Revolution, which waged war against God.

France in 1789 fought against injustice, even in the church; but their godless “cure” ended up being worse than the disease. The French Revolution was anti-God and pro-tyranny—leading to death in the streets. The American Revolution was pro-God and pro-freedom.

America’s founders mentioned God four times in the Declaration of Independence. They identified King George III’s tyranny as illegitimate—because he was violating our God-given rights. The founders, with a firm reliance on the Lord, laid down “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor” in support for their declaration as a new nation.

When George Washington first read the Declaration to his troops, one of his first acts was to hire Christian chaplains—systematically, throughout the army. He felt that if we were to win this war, it would only be with God’s help.

And he and the other colonists felt that God did help. To paraphrase Washington in his First Inaugural Address, no people should be more grateful to the Lord than we Americans because God aided us at every step to become an independent nation.

Consider a few further contrasts between the American Revolution and the French Revolution.

Our framers signed the Constitution in “the year of our Lord” 1787. The French Revolutionaries got rid of the Christian calendar; and so they declared 1791 as Year 1 of their new non-Christian calendar.

The French Revolutionaries desecrated Notre Dame Cathedral, disallowing Christian worship there and placed a half-naked woman on the altar, calling her “Reason,” whom they worshiped.

In contrast, our founders hired Christian chaplains for the military and also for the House and Senate. Since there weren’t enough church buildings in Washington, D. C., they held Christian worship services in the Capitol building. Presidents Jefferson and Madison attended those services.

The French Revolution eventually consumed its own. Since then, France has had 17 different governments, while the U.S. still lives under one—the Constitution.

I predict that today’s social justice warriors, who are consuming our past heroes, will one day be consumed themselves by future revolutionaries. Future generations could look back at us and say things like:

“You had 4D sonograms documenting the humanity of the unborn and yet you allowed millions of abortions on demand?”

or

“Science has documented genuine differences between men and women, yet you allowed boys who claimed to be girls to compete and dominate in sports, winning valuable scholarships?”

Every generation has its flaws and blind spots. Our generation has yet to recognize its own.

Slavery was evil. Thank God for those strong Christians who defeated it. Thank God for William Wilberforce’s Christian anti-slavery crusade, which took him about five decades to complete. That crusade inspired abolition here in America. Interestingly, in his day, Wilberforce was sometimes called “the George Washington of Humanity.” Both men worked hard to liberate others.

Slavery has plagued humanity from the beginning of time and can even be found in some places today, places where the gospel of Christ has no sway.

Too bad the children of the French Revolution are rising up today to cut us off from our past heroes. There is a reason Washington continues to be a hero to millions. Enough with the historical revisionism.

###

Jerry Newcombe, D.Min., is an on-air host/senior producer for D. James Kennedy Ministries. He has written/co-written 31 books, e.g., The Unstoppable Jesus Christ, American Amnesia: Is American Paying the Price for Forgetting God?, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? (w/ D. James Kennedy) & the bestseller, George Washington’s Sacred Fire (w/ Peter Lillback)   djkm.org  @newcombejerry      www.jerrynewcombe.com

 

Original here


Bringing Back The Black Robed Regiment (Full Movie)

VIDEO Is Christianity the Religion of American?

Last week, we discussed the first Muslim representative elected to the Pennsylvania legislature who demanded an apology from another member because they began their session with a prayer to Jesus Christ, calling it ‘highly offensive.’

I received a message from a reader, who I believe to be sincere, stating:

“The Founders NEVER intended to favor Christianity over any other religion… None of the founders were explicitly Christian except the couple who were ministers. These arguments that the founders favored Christianity are historically incorrect, divisive, and anti-American. Your intent is only to rile up fear for political purposes.”

Let’s take a look at what a majority of our Founders believed.

George Mason, the ‘Father of the Bill of Rights,’ had suggested the wording of the First Amendment be:

“All men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.”

The fact is there were numerous Christian denominations in the various colonies.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who was appointed by President James Madison, explained in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833:

“In some of the States, Episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others, Presbyterians; in others, Congregationalists; in others, Quakers … The whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the State governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice and the State Constitutions.”

We have to remember that the States created and ratified this Federal Constitution, so the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, particularly regarding religion, did not override individual State Constitutions. The original 13 states all declared similar statements as Maryland, who declared:

“No other test … ought to be required, on admission to any office … than such oath of support and fidelity to this State … and a declaration of a belief in the CHRISTIAN religion.” (emphasis added)

Delaware stated:

“Every person … appointed to any office … shall … subscribe … ‘I … profess faith in GOD THE FATHER, and in JESUS CHRIST His only Son, and in the HOLY GHOST, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.’” (emphasis added)

Pennsylvania was operating under its 1776 Constitution, signed by Ben Franklin, which stated:

“Each member, before he takes his seat, shall … subscribe … ‘I do believe in one GOD, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the Rewarder of the good and the Punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration.’”

In 1840, Justice Joseph Story wrote in A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States:

“We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity (which none could hold in more reverence than the framers of the Constitution) …

Story continued:

“The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.”

Written in many documents, here we have, not fear-based opinions and arguments, but your actual Christian history, Americans.

Schedule an event or learn more about your Constitution with Jake MacAulay and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

Original here

 

It’s Not The Equality Act, It’s The Homosexual Supremacy Act

Don’t let the left and the Talking Snake Media lie to you. They lie to us all by the words they hope will drive and dominate the narrative.

One of those words is “equality.” They have deceived more people by this one word than perhaps by any other. After all, who could be against equality? If they can create a linguistic narrative driven by the notion of “equality,” then if we oppose it they tag us as people who are against fairness and equal rights for all and as people who are nothing more than blackguards and bigots.

But the reality is that not all behaviors are equal in moral value and should not be treated the same. The behavior of a man who robs a bank is not morally equivalent to the behavior of a man who withdraws money from his own account at the same bank. Even though the behaviors have a superficial similarity – they both involve a man walking out of a bank with money in his pocket – we leave the one alone and throw the other one in prison.

The behavior of a man engaged in the act of sodomy with a homosexual partner is not morally equivalent to the behavior of a man who is engaged in loving and conjugal union with the wife of his youth. It is moral blindness and even stupidity to pretend otherwise.

We discriminate all the time against behaviors that are contrary to public policy and the social good. That’s what public policy is all about, identifying behaviors, such as violence and theft, that are harmful to society and social tranquility, and deciding what sanctions are appropriate for socially destructive conduct. The law is, should be, and should only be, about behavior, not ideas or thoughts.

As Thomas Jefferson said (emphasis mine):

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.”

So, we do not punish citizens for their thoughts, but for their actions only, actions that hurt others. We punish them for what they do, but not for what they want to do. They may want to do some pretty terrible things, but as long as they never take action on those impulses, the law and public policy are not concerned.

That’s what is slippery and dangerous about the left’s concentrated effort in the last couple of decades to switch the conversation from “sex” to “gender.” “Sex” is a biological and genetic term. It’s objective, determined by an individual’s DNA. “Gender,”  however, is entirely subjective and non-quantifiable. Gender is a matter of something that is entirely in someone’s mind and the way in which he views himself.

That’s why “gender identity” is a term that is particularly dangerous for legal purposes, since someone’s gender identity can change from day to day and even from hour to hour, without anyone being the wiser. We are all compelled to accept their entirely subjective view of their sexual identity and accept their inner sense of themselves as objectively binding on us. This is obviously irrational and cannot possibly provide a stable basis for public policy.

The first line of the bill (“The “Equality Act”) sounds innocent enough:

“To prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and for other purposes.”

Leftists in Congress are attempting right now to sell a lethal piece of legislation under this term in the so-called “Equality Act,” which is proposed as a revision and an improvement over Title IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

But there is no equality in this bill for anyone who believes that homosexuality is non-normative sexual behavior and something that should not be promoted, subsidized, and celebrated, especially in our schools.

That’s why I call this bill “The Homosexual Supremacy Act,” since it elevates homosexuality and gender confusion above anything and everything else in the moral universe. Everyone will be required to bow the knee before the Baal of Sodom or face punishment.

If religious liberty and heterosexual normativity come in conflict with the LGBT agenda, liberty and normalcy is guaranteed to lose every time. It’s worth the reminder that every advance of the LGBT agenda comes at the expense of religious liberty. This bill is no exception.

In fact, this law would specifically prohibit even a challenge to any of its provisions. The Religious Liberty Restoration Act of 1993 (signed into law by a Democrat president, Bill Clinton) is specifically overwritten in this bill:

“The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993…shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title.”

Read at face value, no one would even be allowed to go to court to challenge any part of this tyrannical bill.

There is no religious exemption in this bill. None. You might as well take the First Amendment and its guarantee of the free exercise of religion and tear it right out of your copy of the Constitution.

The reality is that in any circumstance covered by this bill, somebody is going to be discriminated against, either a Christian vendor or a member of the LGBT community. Either the Christian baker will be discriminated against by being forced to bake the cake, or the lesbian couple will be discriminated against by not getting their cake from their vendor of choice.

There is no middle ground. It’s not possible for there to be no discrimination. Discrimination will occur. The only choice is who will be discriminated against. In this bill, the only ones who could even possibly be discriminated against are people of Christian faith.

Either sexually confused teens will be discriminated against by being required to use the shower that corresponds to their biological sex, or sexually normal teens will be discriminated against by being forced to put up with that nonsense or get punished.

“Shelters” are included. Christian-run shelters (like the Salvation Army) will be forced to allow males who think they are females to bunk down with female residents. Adoption agencies are in there as well. Christian adoption agencies will be compelled to place vulnerable young children into same-sex households, despite the known harms associated with same-sex parenting.

“Conversion therapy” will be outlawed. No parent will be allowed to seek professional help for a sexually confused son or daughter to reconcile their mental identity with their biological identity. Their child will be condemned to the psychological torment of this dissonance until the day they commit suicide, which 41% of transgenders do.

Employment is covered. Christian bookstore owners will be required to hire tattooed transgenders or face the wrath of the United States government. Housing is included. Christian landlords will be required to rent to flamboyant same-sex couples or face punishment.

We have often predicted that the left will not be content until they have confined the church to the space inside the four walls of their buildings. Well, this law will do it. But it’s even worse than that. Since there are no religious exemptions in this bill, churches will be ordered to allow transvestites and transgenders to use whatever bathroom and shower facilities they want regardless of the age or sex of who else might be in there.

If this bill is passed into law, overnight we will become more like China than the land of the free and the home of the brave. It would be impossible to find a law that represents a greater threat to religious liberty than this one.

If we value the Constitution crafted by the Founders, and the religious liberty which is an inalienable right from our Creator, we’d better get busy stopping this bill as soon as humanly possible.

As Ronald Reagan famously said:

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

It’s freedom or slavery. And it’s time to choose between them.

Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at “Focal Point”

Host of “Focal Point” on American Family Radio, 1:05 pm CT, M-F  www.afr.net

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)

https://barbwire.com/its-not-the-equality-act-its-the-homosexual-supremacy-act/

VIDEO Chick-fil-A Derangement Syndrome

April 1, 2019

By Reverend Paul N. Papas II

The disease has been spreading across the country with the latest outbreak being found in the San Antonio Airport area. The symptoms include HIGHsteria over false impressions and false reports of certain beliefs attributed to Chick-fil-a owners and workers.

In today’s society there is a noisy group that has lost or never learned the art of debate, instead they bully those who disagree with them. For some unknown illogical reason the noisy group mistakenly believes noise, assaults, and violence will change someone’s point of view, this is known as Chick-fil-A Derangement Syndrome.

If the Founding Fathers had Chick-fil-A Derangement Syndrome we would not have our Constitution and we would be subjects of the Queen. If the Founding Fathers had Chick-fil-A Derangement Syndrome there would not have been a War of 1812. If the Founding Fathers had Chick-fil-A Derangement Syndrome members of the military could commandeer any housing it wished without recourse by or compensation to the property owner. If the Founding Fathers had Chick-fil-A Derangement Syndrome police would not need a warrant to search your property. If the Founding Fathers had Chick-fil-A Derangement Syndrome cruel and unusual punishment would be legal.  If the Founding Fathers had Chick-fil-A Derangement Syndrome there would be no civil rights acts or equal rights.

Chick-fil-A Derangement Syndrome was on display in the Decline and Fall of the SPLC Empire (One Conservative Group Fought Back).

Chick-fil-A Derangement Syndrome was on display in the Jussie Smollett case.

Chick-fil-A Derangement Syndrome was on display after the Pennsylvania State Rep opened the House in Prayer: “At The Name of Jesus Every Knee Will Bow”

I think you get the idea.

Chick-fil-A Derangement Syndrome is not helpful to enjoying our Rights “endowed by [our] Creator … certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

It is good to keep Chick-fil-A.

It is time to eradicate the Chick-fil-A Derangement Syndrome.

It is time to practice the age old art of debate where we discuss a question by considering opposing arguments.

Here is one example of a popular debate format called “traditional” in an academic debate setting:

Stock Issues Case:
• Demonstrate that there are serious problems with the status quo
• Show that these problems are inherent to the system
• Present a specific plan (implementing the resolution)
• Show that this plan will help solve the problems without creating serious new ones

Longtime readers may remember I served on a Charter Commission for a town. The voter registration for the town was 3 to 1 Democrat. The Charter Commission make up was five Democrats and four Republicans The membership age range was from the early twenties to late sixties.  The GOP Party town chairman and Democrat Party town vice chair were members of the Commission. All members ran town wide. The Chairman of the Charter Commission sold caskets, the rest of us worked in various fields.

The Charter Commission was authorized by voters and the membership was elected at the same election. We had one year to work together to write a Charter which is akin to a Constitution. The charter needed to resolve conflicts in town laws, bylaws and state laws as they affected the town specifically, as well as provide for town boards and commissions structure and function.

The Charter Commission held weekly open meeting and several public hearings where sections of the proposed new charter were debated by the voters and commission members.

One year after the Charter was authorized and the members elected the finished product of the printed new proposed town charter was in hands of every voter to be voted up or down as a whole.  The voters approved and accepted the new charter by a comfortable margin.

The point is we volunteered to serve one year on the town Charter Commission to write from scratch the document which outlined the operation of the town and we succeeded. We succeeded because we worked together, debated, and came to agreement in full view of the public and press.

The Charter Commission is but one example of how this country of ours became great. We can do it again.

Let’s keep Chick-fil-A.

Let’s eradicate the Chick-fil-A Derangement Syndrome.

https://preacher01704.wordpress.com/2019/04/05/chick-fil-a-derangement-syndrome/

%d bloggers like this: