A WordPress Blog-THE CHURCH MILITANT Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse. ALL CONTENT FROM HTTPS://RATHEREXPOSETHEM.BLOGSPOT.COM MOVED TO THIS NEW BLOG, MAY 2020
Hand it to Maxine Waters. When she sinks her teeth into something, she doesn’t let go.
Speaking to the Stonewall Young Democrats in Los Angeles on Saturday, the leftist congresswoman from California repeated her call for leftists to keep harassing President Trump’s officials and supporters in public.
Not all Democrats are happy about Waters’ rhetoric, not least her baffling insistence that she and her colleagues can impeach not only President Trump but also Vice President Mike Pence.
Make Them Feel Unwelcome
Waters’ insisted to the leftist crowd that calling for the public harassment of Trump officials and supporters wasn’t just right. It was imperative.
She opened that reiteration of earlier remarks with a shot at Sen. Dianne Feinstein because the senator apologized to Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, for the crazy protesters who disrupted his confirmation hearing.
“We’ve got get this thing straight,” the supercilious politician said. “We don’t ask permission to protest…. And so I probably will have a conversation with Dianne and we’ll talk about it.”
Waters vowed to remind Feinstein that Waters had declared the harassment of Trump officials and supporters had to continue until they can’t go out in public.
“Remember,” she’ll tell Feinstein, “there are those who said that we lacked civility when I got up and talked about the president’s cabinet, and I said if you see ’em anywhere, if you see ’em at a restaurant, if you see ’em in a department store, even at a gasoline station, just tell ’em, ‘You’re not welcome here or anywhere.’”
And so It frightened a lot of people. And of course, the lying president said that I had threatened all of his constituents. I did not threaten his constituents, his supporters. I do that all the time, but I didn’t do it that time.
The crowd laughed, and after admitting that she threatens Trump’s people “all the time,” Waters claimed that she did not advocate violence. “But what bothered me so much was they tried to frame that as violence. That’s not violence,” Waters averred.
As a matter of fact, I said the poster child for violence is the president of the United States. He’s the one who threatens. Don’t forget at his rallies what he said. “Go ahead and beat ’em up, I’ll take ’em out on a stretcher. He even said, you know, if they jail you I will bail you out on and on and on. I do not advocate violence. I do not believe you should hit, kick, shoot. I don’t think you should do that. I don’t do that. And won’t allow anybody to define out protesting that way. And we have to tell people the difference between violence and incivility and protest.
What Waters Said
Problem is, Waters’ first incitement to harass Trump’s officials and supporters didn’t include that caveat. They were much stronger. Waters clearly delighted, for instance, in seeing a leftist restaurant owner refuse to serve Trump spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and a mob of socialists harass Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen.
“God is on our side,” Waters claimed at a rally in late June.
And so let’s stay the course. Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. You push back on them. Tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere!
And “Americans should be out in the streets screaming to the top of their voice,” Waters said about a month later. “Do something. Make something happen.”
Anti-Trump Intimidation
Some Americans listened and did make “something happen.” The same day, as The New American reported, a raving nut crashed a book signing in New York for the Sanders’ predecessor, Sean Spicer, calling the author a “real piece of garbage” before security ejected the unhinged loon.
More recently, as Breitbart’s list of anti-Trump harassment and violence shows, an Hispanic woman claimed a man spit in her face for wearing a Trump, a black woman claimed a white man kicked her out of a restaurant for wearing a Trump hat, and a tattooed man dared his daughter to knock off a man’s MAGA hat for $100.
“F*** Trump,” he said. The daughter did what she was told.
CHENGDU, China —Members of a house church in China recently took the gospel to the streets after the government shut down their unregistered church, video footage reveals.
A video shared on Sunday by Christopher Gregory of the organization China Missions shows Christians gathering in the public park to sing, preach and pray. Sometimes they walk the sidewalks, playing musical instruments and happily singing praises to God, such as “Nothing But the Blood of Jesus,” and sometimes they gather around to hear the preaching of the word.
Some clips show a church leader holding his Bible in one hand and a microphone in the other, as another man holds a speaker above his head for amplification. Other clips show members praying aloud in the park, sometimes stationary, and sometimes as they walk along in the open air.
Gregory told Christian News Network that the church held both the morning and evening service outside on Sunday, and the pastor was arrested afterward, but is now free.
“The local authorities shut down a house church in Chengdu last week, so they thought that was the end of it—it wasn’t,” Gregory shared on social media. “The people took the gospel to the streets and have started church services in the parks while the authorities looked on in bewilderment not knowing what to do.”
“For the first time, people throughout China are saying ‘NO!’ to what the Communist party wants—control,” he outlined. “Control over what they can do, what they can believe, where they can go, what they can say. It’s yet another sign something is beginning to take shape here in China, the call for democracy! The call for freedom!”
The video, which has been viewed over 43,000 times, has served as a convicting and humbling reminder to those in the West.
“It’s truly amazing how courageous the Chinese Church is willing to defy the government and preach the gospel, knowing they could be killed for it, while the American Church is too afraid to stand up to its persecutors, and instead conforms to the world,” one viewer wrote.
“Persecution has only brought Church growth to [the] Chinese Church. Glory to God,” another marveled.
“Praise God. You cannot limit God! Close him down, He goes BIGGER outside the 4 walls!” a third exclaimed.
According to the organization China Aid, churches in China who wish to gather for worship must register with the Three-Self Patriotic Movement, the only officially authorized Protestant Church in China, and even then, they are only allowed to hold gatherings in buildings that are operated by the government.
“Because most of these churches are instructed to teach loyalty to the Communist Party and the Chinese State and often teach propaganda over the actual tenets of these faiths, many faithful religious adherents choose to meet outside of the official religious system, in groups known as house churches or underground churches,” China Aid explains.
However, it is illegal to operate a church outside of registering with the Three-Self Movement, and those that do so are often subject to detainment, arrest or imprisonment. Enforcement varies from province to province.
Many churches have also been raided by government officials and/or the crosses have been torn down from their buildings. Some have been placed under government surveillance or shut out of their buildings altogether.
“The government is trying to silence anything relating to Christianity due to the rise of those who claim Christianity as their faith. China is facing inward resistance and they see this growth of believers as a sign of losing their grip on its society,” Gregory explained.
“Pray for China,” he exhorted. “Pray for every church in China, both State-sanctioned as well as unregistered (house church). But pray for change here, pray that the gospel reaches into men’s hearts so that real change can come, then we’ll see a revival in China.”
Google poses a dire threat to democracy and online freedom, according to President Trump’s 2020 campaign manager Brad Parscale.
In a USA Todayop-ed, Parscale laid out point-by-point how Google and other tech giants operate as the “gatekeepers” of online information and as political instruments of the left.
“As the internet has become an increasingly central part of modern life, Big Tech giants such as Facebook, Twitter and Google have increasingly sought to become the gatekeepers of the internet and political discourse,” Parscale wrote Monday.
“Without any sort of democratic mandate, these companies have appointed themselves the arbiters of acceptable thought, discussion and searches online.”
“These companies’ pervasive command of the internet — and blatant desire to control how we interact with it — is a direct threat to a free society. And arguably the worst offender is Google,” he added.
He then described just how extensive and all-encompassing Google’s control is over the internet, accounting for over 90% of all online searches.
“Google’s broad and pervasive role in the lives of almost every American today cannot be overstated. More than 90 percent of all online searches are conducted through Google or YouTube. The media giant’s video-sharing site has 1 billion active users a month, many of whom go there to learn and share conservative ideas only to find their quest for knowledge subverted by faceless ideologues,” he explained.
Parscale went on to list how Google blacklists, manipulates, and outright removes content it alone deems undesirable, which is usually right-leaning.
“Google’s eager adoption of the role of censor should come as little surprise. Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google’s parent company, Alphabet Inc., has a demonstrated track record of combining the role of Democrat activist with his job,” he wrote.
“Google is clearly manipulating and controlling the political narrative in favor of Democrats and the left, and silencing conservatives and Republicans,” Parscale wrote.
“A company with such power and influence cannot simply be allowed to play the biased gatekeeper of political discourse.”
Members of Congress demanded Big Tech leaders testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee about their companies’ roles in political censorship, fighting “fake news,” and addressing foreign influencers.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg appeared for the hearing last week, but Google CEO Sundar Pichai and co-founder Larry Page both snubbed the high-profile event.
Potential executive action to address the widespread Big Tech de-platforming and censorship of prominent conservative voices is being stymied by administration insiders who are oblivious to the threat and have convinced President Trump to put the issue on the back burner.
Infowars has learned from a source close to the administration that executive action on the matter was planned as soon as this week, but that it has likely been delayed yet again.
Several people within Trump’s inner circle know the threat to the mid-terms and his re-election chances that social media censorship poses, including Donald Trump Jr. and Brad Parscale, his 2020 campaign manager.
However, older members of the administration are completely unaware of the fact that banning prominent online voices and manipulating algorithms can shift millions of votes and are oblivious to the danger.
This ignorance has placed a temporary block on Trump taking action, despite the president repeatedly referring to Big Tech censorship in tweets and speeches over the last few weeks.
A petition calling on the White House and Congress to take action to protect free speech in the digital public square has also received almost 125,000 signatures.
If tech monopolies are not stopped in their effort to purge conservatives from social media, the next step is that the left will lobby to have their political adversaries blocked from being able to engage in commerce and use payment processing systems, which already happened in the case of Islam critic Robert Spencer when Mastercard lobbied to have Spencer removed from Patreon and GoFundMe.
Infowars has been banned by Facebook. Please help by sharing this article on your own Facebook page.
Amazon has officially entered dystopian territory by banning an entire range of dating advice books because they violate unspecified “content guidelines.”
Controversial author Roosh Valizadeh revealed the ban last night, tweeting, “Amazon has removed 9 of my books from sale, including my newest book Game, which was ranking in the top 1000. They won’t tell me the specific reason. Many of the books were on sale for 5+ years.”
Amazon has removed 9 of my books from sale, including my newest book Game, which was ranking in the top 1000. They won’t tell me the specific reason. Many of the books were on sale for 5+ years. @CreateSpace & @AmazonKDP: can you tell me why the books have been removed?
I just got a new email from Amazon. They absolutely refuse to tell me which “content guidelines” were broken, but they encourage me to randomly guess what is wrong and start from scratch. I feel like I’m in a Franz Kafka novel. pic.twitter.com/Y9e0GvpMOK
According to Amazon’s guidelines, illegal content and porn are banned (none of which appear in Valizadeh’s books), so the only guideline he could be in violation of is “offensive content”.
“What we deem offensive is probably about what you would expect,” states the guideline, a completely vague description which could literally be anything that one person deems offensive.
“I believe the bannings began because the launch of Game was extremely successful. I sold 2,000 books in the first two days and hit the top 700 on Amazon paperback on the first day. Even before Friday’s launch, Game was already in Amazon’s top 10,000. As far as I know, Amazon didn’t receive a single complaint about the content, but they removed it anyway,” wrote Valizadeh, adding that Amazon sells all kinds of books which contain details of violent rape and sexual abuse.
“None of my books contain child rape scenes, physical abuse, pornography, or sexual violence, and yet they were banned. Were they banned because they were effective at helping men? Was it because executives at Amazon disagree with my political opinions? Was it an action from a rogue employee? They won’t tell me,” said Valizadeh.
The author also noted that a 2015 petition lobbying Amazon to ban his books received over 250,000 signatures at the time, suggesting that a similar effort may have been successful this time around given the intense climate of censorship against conservatives that has accelerated over the last month.
In 2015, a petition with over *250,000* signatures tried to get my books banned. Multiple media articles went out, urging Amazon to do so, but they took no action. What has changed since then?
The move has brought comparisons to Nazi book burning or dystopian classics like Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, where the state had a unit of firemen dedicated to burning books.
Back in 2009, Amazon made headlines after it erased digital copies of 1984 from Kindle devices, although that was over a copyright issue. This is much worse.
“Did anyone reasonably foresee that Amazon of all places would ban books? It’s going to get so bad that you can’t imagine how bad it’s going to get,” tweeted Mike Cernovich.
Apparently though according to many conservatives, so long as it’s giant corporations and not governments banning everything and removing everyone’s ability to have a platform or engage in commerce, everything’s just fine.
Valizadeh also posted a YouTube video talking about the ban, which can be viewed below.
The purge is now being accelerated to the next level – sabotage of commerce. This will begin with the brigading of payment processors, making it impossible for conservatives and free thinkers to sell products, and will end with people being banned from having credit cards and bank accounts altogether, as is already happening.
Now the Washington Post is lobbying to have Infowars’ ability to engage in basic business shut down. This is not the end, it’s just the beginning.
Infowars has been banned by Facebook. Please help by sharing this article on your own Facebook page.
New York Times best-selling author Dinesh D’Souza explains the truth that Democrats hide and lie about: It it is their party that has been anti-black.
In an explosive new film that Rotten Tomatoes’ critics gave a “zero percent” rating, but audiences gave a “90 percent” score, conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza exposes the Democratic Party’s “big lie” that President Donald Trump, Republicans, and conservatives are racists and fascists.
In the film Death of a Nation: Can We Save America a Second Time? the New York Times best-selling author argues that Democrats and progressives are the intellectual heirs of the slavery of African-Americans and genocide of Native Americans, and that their policies helped inspire the Nazis and the Holocaust.
The film, which is igniting a national debate about the largely unknown and long-hidden history of the Democratic Party, compares the political environment Trump faces today with the one that America’s first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, experienced during the Civil War.
“I think the response [to the film] has been fantastic,” D’Souza says:
The audiences love the movie, and it’s very revealing, if you go on Rotten Tomatoes — which is sort of the official movie review site — the professional critics, who are almost entirely on the left, like the movie zero percent.
The audience ranked it at (90 percent on August 11). I’ve never seen such a wide discrepancy between the critics’ assessment and the audience’s assessment. Normally, there is about a 10-20 percent gap because the critics are a subset of the larger audience, and not a representative one. What the zero percent really tells me is these are people who despise the movie, and the reason they despise the movie is because the movie is a 90 percent refutation of everything they believe. Now, they are not smart enough to refute it, so the best that they can do is let out a primal yell, and their primal yell, is a zero percent rating.
In an exclusive interview with The New American, D’Souza discussed the film, what his research and interviews with prominent experts revealed, and the impact the movie is having on America.
The New American: In your controversial new film that’s igniting a political firestorm — Death of a Nation: Can We Save America a Second Time? — you note that not since 1860 have the Democrats so adamantly refused to accept the results of a presidential election. In those days, their target was Abraham Lincoln. In the film, you make the case that there is an eerie similarity between the situations faced by Trump now and President Lincoln then. Why did you make this comparison and what do you see as the similarities?
Dinesh D’Souza: Well, here are the main similarities. In 1860, an outsider was a favorite and was elected. That outside candidate happened to be a Republican, in fact, the first Republican president.
Lincoln won in a very narrow race that he wasn’t expected to win. The only reason he won is that the Democrats fielded two candidates and split the Democratic vote. The moment Lincoln was elected all hell broke loose. There were calls by the northern Democrats and some southern Democrats for Lincoln to be assassinated, which actually happened later.
The southern Democrats were so unwilling to abide by the results of the election that they were willing to break up the country.
Now, look at how similar that is to what we’ve been facing in this country for two years. When Trump was first elected I thought that much of the craziness was reflected in the immediate disappointment that inevitably follows a very close election, but that the disappointment, and even rage, would soon subside as people accepted, however reluctantly, the results of the democratic process.
But, no, we have seen for two years now uninterrupted efforts to either establish the illegitimacy of Trump’s presidency — he’s a racist, he’s a fascist — and use this as a pretext for ejecting him from office. So in an 1860 moment in America, the similarities in politics are not deniable. There is nothing going on now that resembles the Reagan era. You have to go all the way back to Lincoln to make sense of our current situation.
TNA:This comparison between President Lincoln and President Trump is generating an outcry on the left. President Lincoln is often named in polls as among America’s best presidents, and yet about half the country seems to loathe President Trump. What many people may be unaware of is that Lincoln was the first Republican elected president. What kind of reaction are you getting to this?
D’Souza: Well, remember that Lincoln, like Trump, was extremely controversial in his own time. The secular sainthood that is conferred on Lincoln only came after his assassination. He wasn’t perceived that way in his time. Number one, he was considered an extremist, and number two, he was considered a tyrant. Notice the close similarities between what people said about Lincoln then and what people say about Trump now.
TNA:One of the most surprising things revealed in the film is that the Democratic Party was behind slavery, was historically linked to the Ku Klux Klan, and has a long history of racism, yet Democrats and progressives today have accused Republicans of racism. What is going on here?
D’Souza: Most of the horrific crimes that we associate with racism from slave plantations through segregation/Jim Crow, racial terrorism, the Ku Klux Klan — all of this was done by Democrats, largely with the encouragement of the Democratic Party.
Now the Democratic Party has never acknowledged its role in any of this. Democrats and progressives today try to foist the blame onto the American Founders, and onto the South, and onto their own country itself, but never onto the one place where it truly belongs, namely themselves.
And so what we are seeing today is a big lie, an intellectual and political scam, which is blaming the very Republicans who fought against the Democrats all the way. Republicans are, in fact, the party of emancipation, opposing and shutting down the Ku Klux Klan, opposing segregation, and providing more support for the civil rights movement of the 1960s than Democrats did.
TNA: It seems from watching the movie that the cause of the Civil War was limited to slavery. Was there no more involved in the Civil War than the North and South lining up to settle the issue of slavery?
D’Souza: The Civil War was mainly, though not exclusively, about the issue of whether slavery should be permitted to spread into the new federal territories. Other issues like tariffs also played a role, but they were subordinate to the slavery issue. Secession, when it came, was over slavery, as Alexander Stephens, a Democrat and vice president of the Confederacy, admitted in his Cornerstone Speech.
TNA:While the film explores the Democratic Party’s historical support of slavery, the Left has made the argument in recent decades that Republicans and Democrats essentially switched positions over the years, especially during the battle for civil rights in the 1960s. You addressed this in the film. What is your response to this claim?
D’Souza: There is no basis for it. The truth of it is that when you list the Dixiecrats — a group that numbered between 100 and 200 — we are talking about senators, congressmen, and in some case governors, these are either people who joined the racist Dixiecrat party or voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. You can ask how many of these Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, and the answer is there are two.
In the Senate, one guy: Strom Thurmond. In the House, one guy: Albert Watson. All the other racist Dixiecrats remained in the Democratic Party. They died as Democrats. They were lionized at their deaths. There are buildings named after them in Washington, D.C.
In the case of one of them, Robert Byrd, Hillary [Clinton] called him her mentor and [President Barack] Obama eulogized him at his funeral. So the actual Dixiecrats all stayed in the Democratic Party, and the notion that they came over to the Republican camp is simply a fiction, but a fiction that is widely taught, and therefore, widely believed.
TNA:Beyond these revelations about the Democrats, the film also explores the impact that the party’s policies — including those that resulted in the decimation of Native Americans in the 1800s — had on Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party’s rampage, which led to the Holocaust and the deaths of millions of Jews and others during World War II. Some of the film’s critics have called this argument into question, saying it goes too far. What would you say in response to them?
D’Souza: Well, I just read an article in the Washington Post, an attack on the movie. The headline said, “Dinesh D’Souza claims Hitler was a liberal.” Now, this calls for a qualification of what I said.
No reasonable person who saw my movie would conclude that I think Hitler was a liberal. Here is what I do say, that Hitler and the Nazis got some of their most hideous and even murderous schemes from American progressives and from the American Democratic Party. Now, this is an indisputable fact.
Not only do I dramatize it in the movie, I extensively discuss it in my book with citations, chapter and verse. A case in point, there is a scene in the movie where the Nazis were drafting the Nuremberg laws, the laws that made Jews into second-class citizens. They were sitting around a table and they had in their hands the Democratic laws of the Jim Crow South.
Now someone watching the movie might say, ‘Dinesh, where are you getting this?’ And the answer is I’m getting it from Yale [Law School] legal scholar James Whitman and his book Hitler’s American Model.
Now, interestingly Whitman puts the blame on America, not the Democrats, even though all the segregation laws of the Democratic South were passed by Democratic legislatures and signed by Democratic governors.
This isn’t something America did. This is something the Democrats did. Well, the Nazis knew about it, and so they have these laws in their hands and essentially what they are doing is making the laws, the Democratic laws, the model for the Nuremberg laws. They are crossing out the word “black” and writing the word “Jew.”
The Germans are getting this from their Democratic counterparts. This is unquestionable in the historical record. No one can challenge it. If the Washington Post accused me of that [falsely claiming that Germans based anti-Jewish laws on Democrat laws] they would have no reputation. They would have to admit I was right, so they don’t do that. They pretend like I’m saying Hitler is a liberal, so prima facie they make it seem like I’m a kook, but that’s not what I’m saying and in fact, my arguments are very well documented. They have no answer, and that’s why they have to lie about it.
TNA:A key theme running through the film is what Hitler described as the “big lie.” What is the “big lie,” and how have Democrats and progressives employed this political strategy to their advantage in the battle for hearts and minds, and votes, in America?
D’Souza: Well, when Hitler talked about the “big lie,” he was not saying that he, Hitler, was telling big lies. He was blaming the “big lie” on Jews, but nevertheless, he had something insightful to say about lies in general.
Hitler says that if you have a small lie it’s easy to check out. For example, if someone were to say something to you like, “Your wife is cheating on you.” Well, you would say, “How do you know? Who told you that? Did you take any photographs? Show me.” In other words, you’re able to verify whether this lie is true, whether you are being lied to. You can check it out.
But Hitler’s point is if someone makes a big lie it’s difficult to get your head around it and, therefore, difficult to refute it. Let’s take something like: Fascism is right-wing. It’s a right-wing phenomenon. If you tell that to the ordinary guy, or even the educated guy, he wouldn’t know how to go about making sense of that or refuting it.
In fact, how do people get to know such things? I’ll run into educated people and they go, “Everybody knows that fascism is right-wing.” And I’m like, how do you know? And they will say something like this: “Well, you know, I was at Barnes & Noble and I saw a book about it. I turned on NPR, and I heard something about it. I was watching this thing on the History Channel, and there it was: Fascism is right-wing. So, I’ve been hearing it from here and hearing it from there, so it’s got to be true.”
Now, the important thing to realize is that all these sources have been shaped by progressive historiography. In other words, a professor somewhere wrote a book about how fascism is right-wing, and his colleagues, who are also on the left, said, “Great book.” And then The New York Review of Books reviewed it and said it’s an “Excellent book.” And then NPR came and interviewed the guy and featured him on their program All Things Considered. And then the History Channel interviewed him for their account of World War II.
So, here is my point, the person who thinks he is getting seven independent sources of knowledge is not actually getting seven independent sources of knowledge. It’s the same bullet ricocheting from one wall to another, and since it’s coming at you from all these different directions, you think, “Oh, wow, it’s being confirmed from one source to the other and therefore it must be true.”
So coming back to Hitler, what Hitler is basically saying is it’s easier to sell a big lie than it is a small lie, and I think that the progressives recognizing this had sort of taken a page from that handbook and realized that: “You know what, even though there was close collaboration between the left and fascists prior to World War II, not a whole lot of people know that, and if we don’t put it in the textbooks, if we don’t talk about it in our classrooms, and we don’t make any movies about it, and we don’t write any Broadway plays about it, no one is going to find out. In fact, no one is even going to think that this occurred because we have essentially not left any footprints for people to know this,” and so that’s how I think these big lies become consolidated. It’s easy to sell big lies when you are dominant in academia, the media, and the entertainment industry — all three.
TNA:The midterm elections are coming up, and then in 2020, Trump will run for reelection. In your films, you’ve explored the danger America faces if progressives and Democrats retake the White House and Congress. In this latest film, you’re essentially warning that Democrats and progressives helped inspire the Nazis and all kinds of terrible things in history. What are your concerns about these upcoming elections and the dangers that Democrats pose to America?
D’Souza: I think the greatest danger has been averted, and that is, had Hillary won the presidential election, a lot of this disruption, a lot of this mobilization of the Left and the state against opponents, all of this would have been swept under the rug. We wouldn’t even know about it.
So with Trump’s election alone, a change is underway. Now Trump, of course, has been startlingly effective in achieving his agenda. Some people thought at the beginning that he was just a blowhard who might write pungent tweets, but not know how to get things done. Trump is getting a lot of things done.
Now, the Democrats want to stop him and, certainly, if they take either branch of Congress, they will be able to slow him down. If they don’t get the Senate, which I don’t think they will, they won’t be able to stop him from tilting the balance of the Supreme Court and certainly he remains completely in charge of foreign policy, so they will not be able to stop him on that either.
So the Democrats are a long way from taking the country, possibly for a decade or more. And they would have to be considered the underdogs in being able to defeat Trump the second time around so that I’m not, when I use the title Death of a Nation, by no means am I suggesting that America is finished; it’s time to give up. Nonsense.
It’s the opposite. Look, by us being aware and knowing what is going on and deconstructing these false narratives and big lies, we become really powerful and dangerous Americans — dangerous in the good sense of being dangerous to tyrannical forces that want to sort of control and run our lives. And so, I’m trying to motivate people, educate them, inspire them, fire them up, and get them to be more active and more involved in restoring America rather than seeing America go down.
TNA:Ultimately, the film asks whether President Trump and this nation’s citizens can come together and save America for a second time. Considering the reaction that you’ve gotten so far to the film, what do you think?
D’Souza: I think the jury is out on that one. I think that Trump continues to be a massively divisive figure, as Lincoln was. The country was only unified in 1865 when one side was defeated.
There was not a meeting in the middle, but a complete annihilation of one side by the other, leading to unification of the country on Northern Republican principles, rather than Southern Democratic principles.
I think that Trump’s approach is not to ask (for compromise), but to strike back when he’s attacked. I think this is actually the correct approach. There are Republicans who are squeamish about it. They want to live in the Reagan era of gentlemanly politics. I want to live in that era also.
But that is not the America we have now. If we let groups like Antifa keep acting out, they are going to do what they keep doing. And if we allow the Democrats to use the weapons of the state — the IRS, the DOJ, the FBI — against their political opponents with impunity, they will keep doing it.
That’s why I support a more aggressive approach to stopping them because the only way to prevent them from doing it to us is to show a willingness to do it to them, to show a willingness to fight back and uphold the rule of law, and to hold people accountable.
I think the way we get to a more unified, stable, law-abiding, and civil environment in this country is, paradoxically, for Republicans not to hide under their desks or run for the exit, but rather to resist the Democrats by patiently but firmly recognizing that ultimately only a taste of their own medicine will bring them to their senses.
Photo: deathofanationmovie.com
Interviewer Troy Anderson is a Pulitzer Prize-nominated journalist, bestselling FaithWords/Hachette author of The Babylon Code and Trumpocalypse, former executive editor of Charisma magazine and Charisma Media, and Los Angeles Daily News reporter.
This article originally appeared in the September 17, 2018 print edition of The New American. The New American publishes a print magazine twice a month, covering issues such as politics, money, foreign policy, environment, culture, and technology. To subscribe, click here.
Dinesh D’Souza exposes the Left’s “big lie” about Charlottesville, Antifa, & Black Lives Matter
Dinesh D’Souza joined “The Glazov Gang” with Jamie Glazov to discuss what progressives and their friends in the media are covering up about the unrest in Charlottesville and around the country this week. What is the Left’s “bie lie?”
Why are Democrats still nuts 2 years after Trump’s win?
AWESOME: D’Souza spoils leftist picnic with hard facts
WWII-era Nazis weren’t merely street thugs—they intimidated people using the power of the state and cultural institutions like the media and academia. Sound familiar?
Dinesh D’Souza joined Carlos Amezcua on KUSI News in San Diego to reveal the Left’s long and intimate history with Nazism.
President Trump held a press spray in the Oval Office in order to insist that the administration is prepared to deal with Hurricane Florence if it ends up making landfall this week.
“The safety of American people is my absolute highest priority. We are sparing no expense. We are totally prepared, ready. We’re as ready as anybody has ever been,” Trump said. “They haven’t seen anything like what’s coming at us in 25, 30 years. Maybe ever.”
“It is tremendously big, tremendously wet,” Trump continued. “Tremendous amounts of water. So I have spoken with the governors of South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia. They’re prepared, we are prepared.”
President Trump said Tuesday that one of his administration’s “best jobs” was the response to the hurricanes in PR.
Trump was asked what lessons the government could take from 2017 as the federal government prepares for Hurricane Florence to barrel into the mid-Atlantic coast later this week.
“I think probably the hardest one we had by far was PR because of the island nature, and I actually think it was one of the best jobs that’s ever been done with respect to what this is all about,” Trump told reporters during an Oval Office briefing on the path of Florence.
Hurricane Florence Is Fast Approaching – A Message from President Donald J. Trump
Pirro to Obama: ‘Your Lies, Your Policies and Your Divisiveness’ Are Why Trump Is President
As seen on “Justice With Judge Jeanine”: In her Opening Statement, Judge Jeanine Pirro blasted former President Barack Obama for criticizing President Trump and the Republican Party during a speech on Friday.
Comparison of Two Presidents: President Trump versus President Obama – Their First 600 Days
On Friday former President Barack Obama gave a speech in Illinois where he was critical of the current President while never referring to President Trump as “President”. Obama then took credit for President Trump’s economy.
Sean Hannity on FOX News shared parts of Obama’s speech and compared it to events from the Obama era –
As we approach President Trump’s first 600 days in office, we decided to compare his economic results to those of Obama for the exact same time period. We start with the stock market results.
After President Obama was elected President the already low stock market crashed. When Trump was elected the stock market skyrocketed. The markets are a gauge of the economy and include expectations of the future.
The day President Obama was elected President, November 4th, 2008, the DOW stood at 9,625. Immediately however, the DOW began to tank and by March 9, 2009, the DOW could go down no further as it landed at 6,547 for a decrease of more than 30%.
After President Trump was elected the DOW exploded. On November 8th, 2016, the DOW stood at 18,332. Since that date the DOW has soared and it never looked back.
Not only has the DOW skyrocketed since Donald Trump was elected President, the market’s rise is record breaking. Since the 2016 election, the DOW has closed at new record all-time highs 99 times! (President Obama never saw a new all-time high in the DOW his entire first term and only saw 105 all-time closing highs from his first election win until Trump’s.)
President Trump’s first year in office (2017) saw the most all-time stock market closing highs (71) as well as the largest increase in DOW history (4,956 points). Prior to 2017, no year in the DOW’s more than 100-year history ever saw the DOW increase by more than 3,500 points, let alone 4,900. The most all-time highs in a year prior to 2017 was 69 in 1995.
Since President Trump was elected President the DOW tied the record for the most all-time closing highs in a row. In January of 1987 President Reagan saw the DOW increase to new all-time highs a record 12 days in a row. In February of 2017, President Trump matched Reagan’s record.
The DOW reached its fastest 500 point increase between major milestones under President Trump. In January of this year the DOW surpassed 26,000 and six days later the DOW surpassed 26,500. Under President Trump the DOW has seen the fastest 1,000; 2,000; 3,000; 4,000; 5,000; 6,000 and 7,000 point increases in DOW history. No similar records occurred during the Obama years.
Also, President Trump didn’t ride an Obama wave, the DOW under Obama went down in 2015 and stayed relatively flat until the 2016 election.
Russell 2000
The Russell 2000 is a major index of US small cap stocks recognized throughout the financial industry. The 2000 companies in the Russell 2000 are the bottom 2000 companies in the Russell 3000. These companies have seen incredible results as well since President Trump was elected President. The Russell 2000 reached 31 new highs in 2017 and this year already has reached 30 new all-time highs.
The Russell 2000 never reached a new high in Obama’s first 600 days and only reached 3 new all-time highs in his entire first term! The other major indices are all the same, recording massive gains since President Trump was elected into office with dismal results in Obama’s first 600 days in office.
GDP and Debt
According Rex Sinquefield at Forbes in October of 2016 –
The Obama recovery of the last seven years remains the worst in postwar American history. Average gross domestic product (GDP) growth since the bottom of the recession in 2009 was barely above 2.1% per year. The average since 1949 is well above 4% per year during the previous 10 expansions.
This result is not just bad, it is catastrophic. The average American should not be wondering if his or her income is a bit above or below 2007 levels. Just by historical averages, the average American should be 20% better off than in 2007. And this slow growth is settling in as a permanent new-abnormal.
I believe the root cause of abysmal growth is the huge tax increases imposed by Obama and the Democrats in Congress since 2008. The most harmful were the increase in the capital gains tax from 15 to 20 percent, the increase in top bracket income from 35 to 39.6 percent, and the new tax of 3.8 percent on investment income in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The massive increase in regulatory burden through the ACA and Dodd-Frank bills are also crushing, but unfortunately are harder to measure.
President Trump however last quarter reached a GDP of 4.2%.
“Kamala Harris, who doesn’t want you to have a firearm, (of course, she doesn’t want you anywhere near a firearm) has spent a total of $42,000, taking armed L.A. police officers with her outside of Los Angeles… I have no problem whatsoever with Kamala Harris receiving armed security. As a matter of fact, Ms. Harris, it’s a great idea… What I have a beef with is you being a hypocrite and, again, throwing obstacles in front of all of us—the people you allegedly govern—about allowing us to protect ourselves and our families.” —Dan Bongino
Armed Police Protection for Kamala Harris, the Height of Elitist Hypocrisy
If it were up to Harris and her useful idiot followers, they’d all be illegal except for the guns carried by state enforcers. (KamalaHarris/Facebook)
USA – –(Ammoland.com)- “Armed, plain-clothes LAPD officers were dispatched to California cities outside of Los Angeles at least a dozen times to provide security for U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris at public events, media appearances, and a party,” NBC Los Angeles reports. “The LAPD routinely provides security for dignitaries and officials visiting LA, but a senior retired department official said the courtesy extended to Sen. Harris for her travels to other cities was unprecedented.”
What’s not unprecedented are gun-grabbing politicians who would deny you the right to protect yourself and your family while using tax plunder to make sure their safety is taken care of. Their security detachments can even go armed in so-called “gun-free zones.” At least they have that in common with private criminals.
And Harris is such a hypocrite. And a lying one at that.
“This cannot be a political issue,” she tweeted disingenuously after Parkland, not bothering to explain why she insists on making it one. “We have to have smart gun safety laws – our babies are being slaughtered.”
And what gun safety laws does she consider “smart”?
First of all, forget allowing teachers to make the choice to arm and protect themselves. Harris tried to shoot that plan down by pointing out “trained law enforcement officials, they only hit of their intended target approximately 20 percent of the time,” making it fair to ask if that means her armed security detail poses an 80% danger to the public.
Harris supports “further restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.” She’s trying to “export California gun control to the nation.” She used “dirty tactics” in the Peruta case to fight the right of all Americans (except for enforcers) to bear arms. And naturally she doesn’t want you to be able to possess “common defense” firearms consistent with the intent of the Second Amendment.
But the guys you pay for who are protecting her, the “Only Ones,” can have it all. And more.
But no fair, some will argue. She’s an important politician. That makes her more of a target than “ordinary” people.
Let’s forget the congressmen killed in duels. It’s been half a century since Robert F. Kennedy, the last U.S. Senator was assassinated, and the one before him, Huey Long, was shot to death in 1935, presumably by his own bodyguards.
As far as the most dangerous jobs in America, “politician” doesn’t make it anywhere near the top 25, all of whom, aside from law enforcement officers, Harris demands be disarmed.
Here’s the thing – reasonable people can agree that some politicians, especially high-profile ones, can require extraordinary protection for situations regular constituents are not likely to encounter—the crazy, violent Bernie supporter who shot up Republican congressmen at the baseball practice, or the nutjob “progressive” #MarchForOurLives supporter arrested for trying to stab a congressman the other day come to mind.
By the same token, Kamala Harris is unlikely to be subjected to the myriad dangers ordinary citizens face. It’s doubtful she’ll ever have some reptile stick a gun in her face at a convenience store, or live in a dangerous neighborhood overrun by gangs, or be the victim of a home invasion, or be raped and slaughtered just because some animal feels like doing it to her. Yet she would prevent every one of those potential victims from protecting themselves.
She would prevent you if you let her.
About David Codrea: David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
