Democrat Senate Candidate Caught On Tape: Wants ‘Secret Sleepers’ to Run as Republicans

JULY 6, 2022 UPDATE:

#SecretSleepers #DuffleBagBoys Takes The South Carolina Media By Storm

LEAKED AUDIO: SC Dem Senate Candidate Krystle Matthews Calls For "Secret Sleepers" to Infiltrate GOP

Dan Bongino Reacts to the Project Veritas Action #SecretSleeper bombshell

UPDATE JUNE 29, 2022:

SC Senate Candidate Krystle Matthews DOUBLES DOWN on Statements Regarding Illicit Campaign Activity


CONFIRMED: New Audio Reveals Krystle Matthews Aware of Inmate Status During Phone Call With Prisoner


Krystle Matthews Questioned for Encouraging People to Take Down Yard Signs & Infiltrate the GOP



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Project Veritas has struck again. On Sunday, the group released audio of a February phone conversation between South Carolina State Rep. Krystle Matthews, who is running for the U.S. Senate as a Democrat, and an inmate at Perry Correctional Institution in Pelzer, S.C. During this confab, Matthews casually discussed breaking numerous laws and running Democrats as Republicans, which would certainly explain a great deal if it’s already being done.

“We need some secret sleepers,” Matthews says on the call. “Like you need, we need them to run as the other side, even though they are for our side. We need people to run as Republicans in these local elections. This is the only way you’re going to change the dynamics in South Carolina.” She added that such “sleepers” could cause immense damage to her opposition: “When we get enough of us in there, we can wreak havoc for real from the inside out. Then we can flip some s**t from the inside out.”

Now, this is an interesting idea, and how likely is it that it originated with Krystle Matthews? Is it already being done? Is this how we got Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, and a host of others, including all those who voted last week to limit Second Amendment rights?

Did we just see the kind of bait and switch Matthews is talking about a few days ago? After Dr. Mehmet Oz was certified as the winner of the Republican Senate primary in Pennsylvania, he removed all mention of Donald Trump, who had endorsed him, from his campaign website, after heavily touting his connection to Trump during the primary. In any case, whether or not any of the present crop of RINOs are sleepers, Matthews would like to see more Republicans like them.

Matthews also complained about her fundraising difficulties, and appeared to indicate that she was willing to accept money that had been obtained from selling drugs: “I still got to struggle to raise money for my campaign? Where the f*** are my black people with money? I don’t care about no dope money! Give me that dope boy money! S**t, where the f**king dope? Where the duffle bag boys?”

The candidate also appeared to be fine with straw donations, that is, illegal contributions made under the names of people other than the ones who are actually doing the donating: “Get you — find me somebody from your family that don’t even know you donating to my campaign and put that s**t under they names.”

Related: Democrats Never Miss A Trick

As if all that weren’t enough, Matthews also wanted to find people who would go out at night and steal the yard signs of her opponents: “We need some folks that can wear all black at night and take their f****** yard signs down when they — when they sleeping.” This is also something we see increasingly from the Left.

Matthews also showed herself to be a straight-up racist: “Honestly, these ain’t the same type of black people that I grew up around. I don’t recognize these black people. So, I am black because I don’t understand the type of black that they are. Now, can I talk intelligently? Can I — I could be. Listen, I can move in all kinds of circles, but I’m a n**** at heart. I love black people. I feel safest around my people.”

Project Veritas notes that Matthews “has not yet responded to a request for comment on this story.” This is no surprise. What can she say? There is no spin that could cover her endorsement of dirty tricks, casual acceptance of illegal activity, and racism. If she were a Republican who said exactly what she is recorded as saying on this phone call, she would be inundated with calls to quit the race, and her political career would be over for good.

Matthews, however, is a Democrat, and a black female as well; thus she is not only a beneficiary of a legal and political culture that turns a blind eye to improprieties on the Left, but she is also a member of two of the Left’s cherished victim classes, and therefore has special privileges. The media has unsurprisingly ignored Project Veritas’ revelations, and it is virtually certain that Matthews will stay in the race. Given the state of the Left and the country at large today, she could even win and end up in the United States Senate. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-Sinister) will no doubt be thrilled to have her on his team. She’ll fit right in with that gang of crooks, hacks, and psychopaths.

Left-wing coastal states led by California forming “abortion alliance” to protect “right” to murder the unborn

Image: Left-wing coastal states led by California forming “abortion alliance” to protect “right” to murder the unborn



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) Leave it to the left-wing extremists who inhabit and run the Democratic Party: They have reacted to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Friday, June 24, overturning Roe v. Wade by forming an “alliance” to continue providing an “out” to irresponsible women who become pregnant by ensuring they can murder their unborn child.

The alliance was immediately announced by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who no doubt thanks his lucky stars each and every day that his own mother chose to have him.

“The Supreme Court has stripped women of their liberty and let red states replace it with mandated birth. This is an attack on American freedom. CA, OR and WA are creating the West Coast offensive. A road map for other states to stand up for women. Time to fight like hell,” he said — not seeming to realize that there is nothing left to “fight” since the Supreme Court is the highest in the land and, like Roe was the “law of the land” for more than 50 years thanks to an earlier court.

“Abortion is health care, and no matter who you are or where you come from, Oregon doesn’t turn away anyone seeking health care,” the Orwellian moron governor of Oregon, Kate Brown, tweeted. “This disgraceful Supreme Court decision will put lives at risk and strips away a constitutional right that has been settled law for most of our lifetimes.”

What happened to the Left’s call for conservatives to “respect our institutions?”

“For all the Americans today feeling scared, angry, and disappointed — for everyone who needs an abortion and does not know where they can access safe reproductive health care — please know you are not alone, and the fight is not over,” she claimed, though the fight is over. There is nothing left to fight.

“The law remains unchanged in Washington state, but the threat to patient access and privacy has never been more dangerous. Even in Washington state, Republicans have introduced about 40 bills in the past six years to roll back abortion rights and access to reproductive care,” Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, another far-left pro-abortion fanatic whose state is a member of the ‘alliance,’ added.

“The right of choice should not depend on which party holds the majority, but that’s where we find ourselves. More than half the nation’s population now lacks safe access to a medical procedure that only a patient and their doctor can and should make for themselves,” he added.

The Jesuit Transformation of the Catholic Church USING 21 NEW SOCIAL JUSTICE PROGRESSIVE CARDINALS







republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The transformation of the Catholic Church into a Church that reflects and teaches the mores of secular society is happening faster than what some doomsayers say is the melting of the polar ice caps.

Recently, Pope Francis named 21 new cardinals, the majority of whom are liberal “company men” who are unlikely to rock the Roman progressivist establishment, unlike the heroic Salvatore Cordileone, Archbishop of San Francisco, who banned Speaker Nancy Pelosi from receiving Holy Communion in any parish in the Archdiocese there.

Many of Francis’ cardinal appointees are liturgical liberals or radicals, like Blasé Cardinal Cupich, who has severely restricted the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass and promotes bizarre liturgical innovation.

In December 2021, Cupich said Mass in an Illinois high school where he blessed a Chinese lion-shaped puppet after the idol performed a dance around the altar. With an almost perverted, menacing authoritarianism, Francis appointed Cupich to head the Vatican Liturgy office. This is somewhat like making Liz Cheney the head of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Pope Francis’ most egregious “red hat” choice is Robert McElroy, bishop of San Diego, who seems to have swapped the Catholic Catechism for the Catechism of climate change, racism, and the “immorality” of placing limits on immigration from third world countries. McElroy loves to boast how the “sins” of climate change and racism (not real racism but the fake racism that describes everything as “racist”) are of far greater importance than the sin of abortion.

McElroy might be described as a mirror-image of Wilton Cardinal Gregory, the Archbishop of Washington, or the (affable) religious jester in the Court of President Biden and House Speaker Pelosi. Both McElroy and Gregory believe that Catholics who support abortion rights should not be denied communion. McElroy believes that denying pro-choice politicians communion is nothing less than a political tactic, or “the weaponization of the Eucharist."

Under Pope Francis’s direction, a growing and lethal form of progressivism has now formed irreversible tidal pools in the world of Catholicism.

Consider the case of the Nativity School of Worcester, Massachusetts, a free tuition, Jesuit boys school.

In January 2021, the students at Nativity (all boys of color) presented school president Thomas McKenney with a petition calling on the school to be “inclusive” (red flag #1). McKenney, whose career in education began with teaching Catholic school in India, and who was educated at Harvard (red flag #2), agreed with the students and began flying the Black Lives Matter and the LGBTQ flag under the United States flag on school property.

McKenney’s Harvard connection is a red flag in the Nativity case because, as The Harvard Crimson reported in its 2022 survey of graduate students, only 6.4% of the responders considered themselves conservative after attending the school.

As for Jesuits and Jesuit-controlled institutions, they have become synonymous with the Catechism of Radical Social Change. This became apparent in the 1960s when Jesuit priests began shifting their expression of the Catholic faith away from liturgical expression and toward a social justice view of the Church. (Almost as soon as they were founded by Ignatius Loyola in 1540, the Jesuits became known for their dislike of "the established order of things" and for their submersion in politics.)

The flying of the BLM and LGBTQ rainbow flags under the U.S. flag at Nativity attracted the attention of Bishop Robert J. McManus of the Diocese of Worcester, who demanded that the school take the flags down because they "embody specific agendas or ideologies that contradict Catholic teaching.”

McKenney ignored the request, just as Nancy Pelosi ignored the directive of Archbishop Cordileone’s communion ban. (Pelosi went to communion at Washington’s Holy Trinity Catholic Church the Sunday following Cordileone’s letter, rushing up to the altar in an orange jumpsuit to receive the Host (in hand) from a lay female Eucharistic Minister).

Bishop McManus gave Nativity plenty of time to comply with his request, but when McKenney still refused, he informed Nativity that it was being stripped of its Catholic status and identity. He forbade Mass and the sacraments from being celebrated on school premises and he removed the school’s name from Diocesan records.

In an open letter, he stated:

“Despite my insistence that the school administration remove these flags because of the confusion and the properly theological scandal that they do and can promote, they refuse to do so. This leaves me no other option but to take canonical action,” Bishop McManus wrote in an open letter to the people of his diocese.”

I have little doubt that Bishop McManus’ action was inspired by the actions of Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone in the Pelosi case.

In his letter to the community of Worcester, the bishop elaborated:

If a Catholic institution had signs out front offering abortion services or family planning, I doubt anyone would be surprised when the local bishop cried “foul” and said it could no longer be identified as a Catholic institution because they performed elective abortions.

No one would question his intervening. For that matter, most people would say, correctly, that the bishop is simply doing his job. Abortion may be legal but the Catholic Church teaches consistently that it is morally wrong to deliberately take an innocent human life.

McManus said that BLM contradicts Catholic social teaching on the role of the family. “To Catholics, the Holy Family is not just a quaint image. God the Son chose to enter the world as a child and be raised by a mother and a father (the Nativity). The BLM movement in its own words is 'committed to disrupting the Western prescribed nuclear family structure requirement,' which is another clear example of an ideological principle that conflicts the BLM movement with Catholic teaching.”

The bishop reminded McKenney that the Church “stands unequivocally behind the phrase ‘black lives matter’ and strongly affirms that all lives matter.”

Social radical McKenney, feeling smug that the Jesuit institution was backing him, wrote:

Nativity will seek to appeal the decision of the Diocese to remove our Catholic identity through the appropriate channels provided by the Church in circumstances like this., Nativity will continue to display the flags in question to give visible witness to the school’s solidarity with our students, families, and their communities.

Of course, far too many liberals (and cafeteria Catholics) have deluded themselves into thinking that the BLM flag stands for "equality for people of color" and that black lives are just as valuable as white lives—or any life—and should not be considered less so. They won’t look beneath the surface in order to learn that BLM welcomes gender confusion, seeks to dismantle so-called "cis-gender privilege," the end of the nuclear family, celebrates defunding the police, an end to the arrest of black people, an end to jails, detention centers, youth facilities, and prisons.

In the early 1990s, I flew a large Rainbow flag from the window of my second-story apartment near Philadelphia’s Rittenhouse Square. The reasons for my doing so at that time had everything to do with basic human rights issues—the right to rent an apartment and not be fired from a job because of sexual orientation. It had nothing to do with the rights of so-called transgender children or trans male athletes to compete in women’s sports. It had nothing to do with the use of multiple pronouns and prefix labels like "cis" to describe a "natural" man or woman. It had nothing to do with the invention of new genders.

The "meaning" of the Rainbow flag changed after same-sex marriage was legalized in 2015. At that point, the movement joined forces with the gender and identity politics movement. The movement became all about “queer” and transgender rights, drag queen story hours, and anything else you might want to add here in the form of a plus sign or an et cetera that stretches into infinity.   

Bishop McManus has already suffered for his stand against the Nativity School. In April, when he was due to address the 173rd Commencement of the College of the Holy Cross, there were large protests—and a petition—requesting that he be disinvited.

“As a community that welcomes members of every gender, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation, we find it inappropriate to have Bishop McManus present at this year’s graduation ceremony for the Class of 2022, and thus request that he be disinvited from attendance,” the statement read.

The bishop excused himself before any action could be taken, and did not attend.

It is unknown whether Bishop McManus realized that the College of the Holy Cross, a Jesuit institution, is the home of the world’s first Digital Transgender Archive, or an online clearinghouse for transgender history. 

Thom Nickels is a Philadelphia-based journalist/columnist and the 2005 recipient of the AIA Lewis Mumford Award for Architectural Journalism. He writes for City Journal, New York, Frontpage Magazine, Broad and Liberty, and the Philadelphia Irish Edition. He is the author of fifteen books, including ”Literary Philadelphia” and ”From Mother Divine to the Corner Swami: Religious Cults in Philadelphia.” “Death in Philadelphia: The Murder of Kimberly Ernest” will be published in 2023.


SCOTUS Expands 1st Amendment Right to Religious Freedom

Strikes down the law that discriminates against religious schools.



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued several momentous decisions in the past week. One of the rulings struck down Maine's state tuition subsidy program as a violation of the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religious beliefs. Another ruling struck down New York’s law strictly limiting the carrying of concealed guns for self-defense outside of the home as a violation of the Second Amendment. On June 24th, the Supreme Court overturned the fifty-year Roe v. Wade precedent that had created a constitutional “right” to an abortion out of whole cloth.

Looking at these decisions in a broader context, they evidence a consistent strict constructionist approach to interpreting the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority looks to what is actually written in the Constitution’s text and its history, where relevant, rather than trying to impose the justices' own policy views on what they think the Constitution should say. The religious freedom and gun rights decisions are rooted in the explicit provisions of the First Amendment and the Second Amendment, respectively. Roe v. Wade, on the other hand, grafted a manufactured “right” onto the Constitution without any clear textual or relevant historical foundation.

This article will focus on the Supreme Court’s religious freedom decision in Carson v. Makin. The decision reinforced the enumerated constitutional right to the free exercise of religious beliefs, which is explicitly set forth in the text of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court ruled on June 21st that Maine’s tuition subsidy program for students in school districts that neither operate a secondary public school of their own nor contract with a particular school in another district is unconstitutional. By a 6-3 vote, the conservative majority held that the program violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The program denies parents who send their children living in these districts to private religious schools the same financial benefits that parents who send their children to private secular schools are entitled to receive.

In short, the state of Maine stacked the deck against families of faith.

“The State pays tuition for certain students at private schools—so long as the schools are not religious,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion. “That is discrimination against religion.”

Chief Justice Roberts concluded his opinion by writing that “Maine’s ‘nonsectarian’ requirement for its otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Regardless of how the benefit and restriction are described, the program operates to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise.”

The Supreme Court majority decision dismissed the notion that honoring parental school choice in the use of Maine’s tuition funding to pay the cost of sending their children to private religious schools violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote that “a neutral benefit program in which public funds flow to religious organizations through the independent choices of private benefit recipients does not offend the Establishment Clause.”

The three liberal justices - Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan – not surprisingly dissented.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Breyer disagreed with how the majority interpreted the application of the Establishment Clause to this case.

According to Justice Breyer, “state neutrality in respect to the teaching of the practice of religion lies at the heart” of the Establishment Clause. “The Establishment Clause was intended to keep the State out of this area,” he wrote.

Justice Breyer objected to the majority’s reliance on the Free Exercise Clause to strike down Maine’s decision to deny state funding to those parents who want to send their children to private religious schools, not private secular schools.

“Nothing in our Free Exercise Clause cases compels Maine to give tuition aid to private schools that will use the funds to provide a religious education,” Justice Breyer wrote.

Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion that “it is irrational for this Court to hold that the Free Exercise Clause bars Maine from giving money to parents to fund the only type of education the State may provide consistent with the Establishment Clause: a religiously neutral one.”

The dissenters have it wrong. While the Establishment Clause prohibits governments from compelling or endorsing a religious belief, preferring one religion over another, or entangling themselves unduly in religious matters, the Establishment Clause does not mandate that governments be hostile to people of faith in the public domain.

If parents can choose whether to send their children to a public school in their own school district or to a private school, the parents should bear the financial consequences of choosing a private school. That would be true whether the private school provides religious instruction or not.

This case is different, however. Maine’s government officials have deprived parents of the opportunity to send their children to public schools in certain districts where they live because, as a result of governmental decisions, there are no suitable public schools in those districts. Maine tried to solve this problem with a workaround – a tuition taxpayer-funded subsidy program that pays the tuition of the private school chosen by the parents for their children.

The constitutional problem with Maine’s tuition program is that it was not neutral either in its design or implementation. Not all parents needing financial help to send their children to private schools as a result of the failure of Maine’s government officials to build any age-appropriate public schools in the children’s districts have been treated the same. Maine’s tuition program discriminated against parents of faith by precluding them from receiving any public subsidies altogether if they chose a private religious school for their children’s education instead of a private secular school.

As Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “there is nothing neutral about Maine’s program.” Quoting from a prior Supreme Court opinion, he explained that “a state need not subsidize private education” but “once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”

With her usual hyperbole, Justice Sotomayor wrote that the Court’s majority “continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build.”

President Thomas Jefferson is often quoted by those who want to build an impenetrable wall between church and state. He wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptists dated January 1, 1802, in which he said, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

The expression “building a wall of separation between Church & State” appears nowhere in the Constitution itself. To use it for the purpose of interpreting the Establishment Clause, the expression needs to be examined in its historical context to understand what President Jefferson was talking about.

The Danbury Baptists had written to President Jefferson expressing their concern that “religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights.”

The Congregational Church was the established church in Connecticut at the time. Other denominations, including the Baptists, could only set up their own churches with the approval of a justice of the peace. The Congregational Church basically ran Connecticut’s educational system.

President Jefferson sought to assure the Danbury Baptists that he would not do anything as president to impose his will on how the Danbury Baptists or any other religious sect decided to practice their religious beliefs. That was the purpose of his letter.

In an earlier draft of the letter, President Jefferson was even more explicit as to his intentions. He first wrote that "confining myself therefore to the duties of my station, which are merely temporal, be assured that your religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine.” After reflection, he wrote in the final version of the letter simply that he would adhere to the “expression of the supreme will of the nation on behalf of the rights of conscience…”

In short, Thomas Jefferson’s wall of separation between church and state was meant to prevent government control of religious beliefs or religious control of governments' decisions and actions. It was not meant to be used as a pretext for governmental hostility to all religions and people of faith in administering what are supposed to be generally available government benefit programs.

The Constitution’s text and historical underpinnings are what matters when interpreting the Constitution, not what a justice would like it to say based on the justice’s own personal value preferences and desired public policy outcomes. Today’s Supreme Court majority is adhering to this fundamental principle.

CALL FOR CIVIL WAR? Pelosi Calls on Abortion Supporters to ‘RISE UP,’ Make Republicans ‘REGRET what they’ve done’

CALL FOR CIVIL WAR? Pelosi Calls on Abortion Supporters to 'RISE UP,' Make Republicans 'REGRET what they’ve done'

“Or we can RISE UP, meet this ONCE-IN-A-GENERATION moment, and marshal a response so HISTORIC that we make every last anti-choice Republican REGRET what they’ve done.”


Jun 26, 2022 'The Big Sunday Show' panelists weigh in on the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and discuss the impact it has on the pro-choice and pro-life movements.

AOC calls for impeachment of SCOTUS justices over Roe v Wade decision



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The Dobbs v. Jackson decision doesn’t make abortion illegal; it just sends the decision as to whether or not to outlaw it back to the states. But that isn’t good enough for the totalitarian Left, which has to be able to sacrifice children to Moloch everywhere, without any hindrance, or all the fun goes out of the whole thing. And so Leftists are reacting to the decision with their predictable rage and hysteria; Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-Space Cadet) demanded that pro-abortionists go “into the streets,” and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Rage) declared, “The hell with the Supreme Court. We will defy them!” And now House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Stolichnaya) has, with all of the Left’s characteristic unapologetic gaucherie, used the decision as the basis for a fundraising appeal, during which she called upon her followers to “rise up.” Insurrection? Count on it.

Pelosi’s crass fundraising email stated: “Trump’s Supreme Court just ruled to rip reproductive rights away from every single woman in this country.” The choice of words here was unfortunate, to put it mildly, in light of the fact that Pelosi was raising money for the cause of maintaining the legality of ripping children limb from limb in their mother’s womb, but the message only got worse from there. “I don’t say this lightly,” Pelosi’s fundraising writer continued with all the portentous solemnity he or she could muster: “How we act TODAY will decide the future of reproductive rights.”

Yeah, sure. Pelosi has earned millions upon millions while acting as a servant of the people, but she still has the lack of self-awareness and no-holds-barred gall to ask her Leftist followers, who are no doubt struggling to make ends meet on their latest welfare check or government subsidy, to kick in a few bucks to help her ensure that no one, but no one, is prevented from killing a baby should he or she or xe choose to do so. It all depends on the Leftist little guy. Pelosi’s email warns, “We can either sit back and admit defeat to these far-right extremists…,” and then comes the red type in bold and underlined:

“Or we can RISE UP, meet this ONCE-IN-A-GENERATION moment, and marshal a response so HISTORIC that we make every last anti-choice Republican REGRET what they’ve done.”

What an interesting choice of words, Madame Speaker! What exactly do you mean by making pro-lifers “regret” what they’ve done? To be sure, Pelosi’s fundraising wonk could simply mean that the Republicans should be made to suffer a defeat at the ballot box that is so resounding and catastrophic that their miserable, beaten remnant will never dare to oppose abortion again. Or the email could mean that Republicans should be brutalized and subjected to violence until they are too frightened to oppose abortion.

Related: Pelosi Encourages Protesters’ ‘Righteous Anger’ in Marching Illegally in Front of Justices’ Homes

Pelosi couldn’t possibly mean that, could she? The door is definitely left open to that idea in the email, which continues: “Please, [name], I’ve never needed your support more than today. Can you chip in $15 so we can WIN these midterms and finally codify reproductive rights into law?” Ah, so it is all about the elections, and working peacefully and legally for change. But read on: “[Name], this isn’t a normal fundraising email. And a normal response won’t suffice.”

Now, wait a minute. A normal response won’t suffice? If Pelosi’s hapless mark duly kicks in fifteen bucks for the murder of children, wouldn’t that be a normal response to a fundraising email? But a normal response won’t suffice. Pelosi’s email here, with its “RISE UP” and “REGRET what they’ve done” and “a normal response won’t suffice,” definitely leaves the door open to being read as a call for violence. Although the boss frequently appears to be alcohol-addled, Pelosi’s office isn’t stupid and likely meant it to be capable of being read in this way. Even if they didn’t, imagine if a conservative Republican representative sent out the identical email: there would be furious calls for his or her resignation and dark warnings about elected officials encouraging “white supremacist violence.”

What’s more, it’s not in the least farfetched that Pelosi would be calling for violence. In 2018, speaking about the separation of migrant children from their putative parents at the Southern border, Pelosi said, “I just don’t even know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country. And maybe there will be when people realize that this is a policy that they defend.”

Maybe she’ll get her uprisings now. But Pelosi, because she is part of the Leftist elite that is above the law in America today, will face no consequences for this email. Consequences, my friend, are for conservatives.

ISLAMIC CAIR Takes Aim at Virginia Governor

Brigitte Gabriel is coming to Twin Falls, Idaho

Winsome Sears wins Republican lieutenant governor race




republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

In a June 14, 2022 op-ed in the Washington Post, Corey Saylor, the Director of Research and Advocacy at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), issued a demand to the administration of newly-elected Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin and Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears. CAIR, which was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terror funding trial, wants the Youngkin administration to “reject [Brigitte] Gabriel and ACT for America.” A May 20, 2022 photo posted on @ACTBrigitte’s Twitter page showed Lieutenant Governor Sears posing with Gabriel. Displaying that photo, CAIR issued a May 27, 2022 press release calling Gabriel  a “[n]otorious racist and anti-Muslim bigot” and calling on Sears to “repudiate her alleged ties with a notorious anti-Muslim hate group leader.” CAIR’s more recent Washington Post article then made reference to that photo of Gabriel with Sears and claimed that ACT for America is an “anti-Islam extremist group” whose leadership should be ostracized and rejected.

It would seem a bit rich that an organization such as CAIR, which itself has been named specifically in the legal documents of a terror-financing trial, should be providing advice on professional associations to anyone, much less the government of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Ronald Weich, Assistant Attorney General of the United States Department of Justice, wrote a letter to then-U.S. Congresswoman Sue Myrick dated February 12, 2010, in which he responded to her about how CAIR came to be named an unindicted co-conspirator of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development in the United States v. Holy Land Foundation et al. (CR. No. 3:04-240-P N.D.TX.) case. In that letter, Assistant Attorney General Weich provided official trial testimony and other evidence introduced in that trial “which demonstrated a relationship among CAIR, individual CAIR founders, and the Palestine Committee. Evidence was also introduced that demonstrated a relationship between the Palestine Committee and HAMAS, which was designated as a terrorist organization in 1995.”

To be clear, this was not mere guilt by association, a scenario that Saylor attempts to portray for Gabriel and ACT for America in his Washington Post piece, in which he cites alleged statements of various individuals who may have been present at an ACT event sometime in the past. Citing the Southern Poverty Law Center doesn’t help his case, either.

It may be noted that this would not be the first time that CAIR has attempted to insert itself into the associations, businesses, and presentations of others it accuses of “anti-Muslim bigotry.” In 2015, Brandeis University withdrew plans to bestow an honorary degree on Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a Somali-born apostate from Islam), just a day after protests from groups that included CAIR. In August 2019, the Norwich Bulletin attacked E. Miles Prentice, the owner of the Connecticut Tigers (farm team of the Detroit Tigers Major League Baseball team), citing criticism of the Center for Security Policy (CSP), a Washington, DC think tank by Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s communications director. At the time, Prentice served as CSP’s Board Chairman. Prentice reportedly wound up losing the team. The Pentagon itself has been intimidated by CAIR regarding anti-terror training reportedly termed “anti-Islamic.” And in 2020, a student at Scottsdale Community College was joined by CAIR’s Arizona chapter in filing suit against Professor Nicholas Damask over some quiz questions they alleged condemned Islam for justifying terrorism. Initially, the college chastised Professor Damask, but later apologized to him and cleared him of any wrongdoing. The lawsuit itself was thrown out of court, and the Scottsdale Community College agreed to pay a $155,000 settlement to Professor Damask.

This list could go on, but you get the idea. As for CAIR, though, asked to condemn Hamas by name, well, not so much.

At its official website, ACT for America – which is a non-profit grassroots movement – declares that its mission is “to educate, engage, train, and mobilize citizens to ensure the safety and security of Americans against all threats foreign and domestic while preserving civil liberties guaranteed by the US Constitution.” ACT for America works especially in the public policy arena to provide informative input for bills introduced at the state and federal levels, with an emphasis on preserving civil liberties protected by the U.S. Constitution.

For their part, during the 2020 campaign as well as in the months since taking office, both Governor Youngkin and Lieutenant Governor Sears have made a point of emphasizing their commitment to championing the civil rights and welfare of all Virginians, in policy areas including antisemitism, criminal justice, the economy and job creation, education, and health.

CAIR, on the other hand, apparently would rather forget all about the Holy Land Foundation trial and focus instead on disparaging a 20-year friendship with mean-spirited barbs about the Virginia Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and an American citizen of immigrant background who leads one of the largest and most patriotic-minded organizations in the country. Expect Governor Youngkin, Lieutenant Governor Sears, and most Virginians to see straight through that.

Clare M. Lopez is the Founder/President of Lopez Liberty LLC.

You Subsidize Abortion When You Patronize These Companies

From Airbnb to Zillow, You Subsidize Abortion When You Patronize These Companies



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

At the end of last summer, as the Texas heartbeat bill took effect, corporations began to assure their affected employees that travel expenses incurred while procuring abortions would be covered. This trend accelerated after the May leak of the draft SCOTUS opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson. Now, you get to pay an abortion subsidy “tax” every time you shop for many goods and services.

I’ve been irked since the ’90s, when Big PR decided consumers preferred to spend their money at companies that undertook “social responsibility.” Not me — I’d rather pay five bucks less for that dress than bask in the virtuous glow of knowing I’d been coerced into funding the purchase and planting of a sapling or the rehabilitation of a gimpy sea turtle, or whatever. When I want to shop, I want to shop; when I want to donate to charity, I want to donate to a charity that I choose. Why should corporations force me to subsidize their favorite woke causes every time I do business with them?

But after the Dobbs decision, companies are in a lather to promote abortion — and consequently, there’s an employee abortion-travel premium built into their pricing.

Here at PJ Media, we offer quality reporting that you can use. If you are averse to subsidizing abortion tourism (and sometimes other gnarly things as well, such as “transgender” quackery for employees or their dependent children), scroll through this alphabetical list before you decide where to spend your hard-earned money!

Airbnb first offered explicit support to abortion-minded employees last September. It also took the extra step of offering to help Airbnb “hosts” fight legal problems from breaking the Texas heartbeat law, and it offers up to 20 days of paid bereavement leave for pregnancy loss — even if it was elective.

Amazon will cover up to $4,000 of employees’ travel expenses for abortion or any other medical procedure only available 100 miles or more away.

Amalgamated Bank
Amalgamated will pay for airfare, gasoline, hotel, and meals, as well as childcare, for employees and dependents to get “reproductive health care.” The bank also launched an abortion-travel fundraiser called Critical Reproductive Access Fund (CRAF).

Reliably liberal Apple will pay for employees’ abortions as well as related travel expenses.
Same as Apple (above).

“Bumble is women-founded and women-led, and from day one we’ve stood up for the most vulnerable,” said Bumble, in a breath-taking failure of self-awareness. The dating company set up an employee abortion expenses fund in response to Texas’s heartbeat bill. Nothing says “romance” like consequence-free animalistic rutting!

Covers travel, hotel, and childcare as well as the procedure.

Citigroup provides travel expenses for employees seeking abortions.

Comcast-NBC Universal
Reimburses up to $4,000 per trip, up to three per year, with an annual cap of $10,000. (Note: this covers all medical procedures, not just abortions. If someone is having three a year, then pray as hard as you can for her.)

Condé Nast
The media company covers travel expenses for abortion and gender “care.”

Dick’s Sporting Goods
Dicks will pay up to $4,000 in travel expenses for any employee or covered family member along with one support person.

In its quest to become the Least Wholesome Place on Earth, the Walt Disney Company provides a travel benefit for employees seeking “care” not available in their own state.

DooDash will cover some travel expenses for employees or family members.

Goldman Sachs
Goldman Sachs will reimburse travel expenses to “include all medical procedures, treatments, and evaluations, including abortion services and gender-affirming care” beginning July 1.

Hims & Hers
When it’s not selling birth control and boner pills, the internet health company will reimburse up to $6,000 in travel expenses and pay for two weeks of leave for employees and their partners.

Interpublic Group, Publicis Groupe, and WPP
These three parent groups comprise a massive number of ad agencies and PR companies, and will pay employees’ abortion travel expenses.

JPMorgan Chase
Covers travel of over 50 miles to obtain healthcare.

The supermarket company will cover up to $4,000 in abortion travel expenses.

Levi Strauss & Co.
Reimburses healthcare-related travel expenses for both full-time and part-time employees.

Covers travel over 100 miles.

Pays out-of-state travel expenses.

Match Group
Dating app Match set up a fund to assist employees affected by Texas law.

Meta will reimburse out-of-state travel “to the extent permitted by law.”

In May, Microsoft confirmed it would cover travel expenses for abortion and “gender-affirming care.”

Reimburses travel for healthcare, including abortion and gender flimflammery, up to $10,000 lifetime total per employee.

Nike covers expenses for employees who must travel to abort.

Pays all abortion-related travel expenses; Patagonia also posts bail for employees who get arrested while protesting. Do not subsidize.

Power Home Remodeling
Lifetime reimbursement of expenses up to $5,000 per employee or $10,000 per family for travel over 100 miles.

Reddit pays a travel stipend and grants unlimited PTO (paid time off) for abortion jaunts.

This software company offered to relocate workers and their families who wished to emigrate from Texas or any state that gave them “concerns about access to reproductive healthcare.”

After the leaked Dobbs opinion, Starbucks offered to reimburse expenses for travel over 100 miles to get an abortion or gender-swap treatment.

Tesla pays for employees to travel out of state for procedures not available where they live. We know what that means.

Uber will pay employee travel expenses for abortion trips and also reimburse the legal fees of drivers who get sued under state laws for providing transportation to clinics.

United Talent Agency
Who’s surprised that a Hollywood talent agency pays for starlets to discard the fruits of the casting couch? The last thing they want to do is ruin their figure — and their chances at making it big.

Yelp pays for abortions and travel, and it is doubling employee donations to pro-abortion orgs throughout this month.

The real estate shopping site reimburses employees up to $7,500 for travel to get an abortion or gender-bender treatments.