↓ Archives ↓

Category → Uncategorized

Doing the elite’s bidding

Doing the elite’s bidding


It started with attacks on Tea Party members at rallies. There followed occupations of state houses, takeovers of college campuses and buildings. It morphed into assaults on Donald Trump supporters, Black Lives Matter, the blocking of highways, bridges and airport terminals. It sparked the rise of the fascist group antifa (which, ironically, is anti-fascist abbreviated) and morphed into attackers like the Portland train knife attacker and then the mass shooting at a GOP congressional baseball practice. The violent left is rising again.

It’s not a surprising turn of events. The progressive left has long held a violent streak; from the communists in Russia and China, to Hitler’s National Socialist party (Nazi), to the Weather Underground, to the Symbionese Liberation Army, to union thugs intimidating, assaulting and killing those who cross picket lines, to the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Violence of this nature does the elite’s bidding. It divides the people. It keeps them distracted. Politicians know that if the people ever united against them their jig would be up.

Violence allows the politicians to pontificate on the violence and portray themselves as compassionate, understanding and protective.

At the same time, it grants politicians cover to further denigrate one side or the other, reinforcing the false right/left paradigm of the establishment.

The left is being ginned up by the ongoing fake news that Donald Trump colluded with Russia… that he’s an illegitimate president because of it… that he’s ushering in a fascist regime. Democrat politicians call Trump and his supporters racists and white nationalists and fascists – all the while encouraging violence and encouraging fascist tactics be employed to “resist.”

Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch called on progressives to march, bleed and die in the streets and resist the Trump agenda. 2016 vice president candidate Tim Kaine said the left needs “fight in the streets.”

As the violent rhetoric continues, political resistance becomes violent resistance which becomes armed resistance.

At a rally Sunday, Senator Bernie Sanders called Trump “perhaps the worst and most dangerous president in the history of our country.” On Wednesday a Bernie campaign volunteer with a Facebook page full of posts, comments and memes supportive of Sanders and opposing Trump, Rep. Steve Scalise and other Republicans, opened fire on a group of GOP congressmen — including Scalise.

The elite use violence, confusion and chaos to their advantage. Throughout history, government operatives have covertly and overtly sown violence and used patsies and weak-minded, easily-influenced “useful idiots” to create chaos. It makes the people clamor for more laws and surrender their liberties. It covers the collapsing system.

Source: Will County News

Robert E. Lee, revolution and the question of historical memory

Robert E. Lee, revolution and the question of historical memory


Robert E. Lee
This article was originally published on The Abbeville Blog on June 5, 2017.

Two weeks ago, New Orleans removed its Robert E. Lee Monument, one of four that the city decided to take down. As well, Charlottesville, Virginia, currently finds itself in the midst of a rancorous debate over its Lee statue. All over the South and the nation, moves are afoot to take down monuments, remove flags, hide any symbols that in any way honor or remind the present generation favorably of the Confederacy and the “lost cause.”

There has been much written about what the removals mean. How should we see these attempts to radically erase, uproot and alter portions of our history?

It goes without saying that each generation interprets the past — its past — to enhance, justify and confirm its view of itself. Certainly, the politically correct, cultural Marxist Left, which spearheads the effort to “cleanse” our society of Confederate symbolism, has erected its own set of symbols, totems and myths to legitimize its present activities and its extreme revolutionary zeal. Thus, in the place of Lee, Jefferson Davis and Stonewall Jackson, we witness the rising cults of Nat Turner, Harriet Jacobs, “the Secret Six” abolitionists and the rehabilitation and virtual canonization of the bloodthirsty fanatic, John “Pottawatomie” Brown. In the America of 2017, we have a whole new set of martyrs and saints, whose message is carefully massaged and congealed and then presented as models for us and for our children. And there can be no dissent from this new imposed vision.

The historical profession, almost to a man has joined in, with the likes of Stalinist historian Eric Foner, now heralded as the nation’s “leading historian on slavery and the War.” Everything revolves around slavery and racism as the sole causes of the War and an almost unexpungeable stain that each generation must strive to overcome. Put very simply, it was historic white oppression that had to be defeated and destroyed as part of the advancing historical process, a process that is posited as inevitable and irreversible. It is represented as the latest conquest of the “Idea of Progress.” And that campaign, that ideological narrative for the Left, continues with the present efforts to banish symbols honoring anything to do with the Confederacy and its leaders, even if morally irreproachable individuals like Robert E. Lee are included in the cross hairs.

Hollywood, once 60 years ago eager to honor the heroes and paladins of the Lost Cause, now paints anything Confederate as inherently evil, perhaps rivaling the Nazis in unredeemable brutality. How many times in recent months have we heard crudely educated college students from vaunted Ivy League schools, weaned on Hollywood “blockbusters” like “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” and indoctrinated by cultural Marxist professors, parrot such slogans? Is their foul-mouthed sloganeering any different, really, from the high class academic sloganeering of Foner and others of his ilk?

What distinguishes the cultural Marxist historians’ narrative from earlier views is not just its social omnipresence, but its rigid dogmatism that brooks no disagreement, no opposing views. Certainly, 60 or 70 years ago there were superb historians who looked at the War Between the States differently. We only have to mention a few: Charles Sydnor, Francis Butler Simkins, William A. Dunning, Avery Craven, Charles Ramsdell and so on. Today they still are read, but only to illustrate how an earlier generation of historians “misread” history or, worse, attempted to cover up the “sin of slavery” and “white oppression.” Even arguably the greatest recent historian of the South, the late Eugene Genovese, comes in for his share of opprobrium and disdain from the culturally Marxist-dominated historical establishment for his profound and sympathetic probing of the thinking of antebellum Southern whites (e.g., The Mind of the Master Class).

But even back then, even if we suggest that many writers treated the South and the Confederacy with a degree of understanding, even sympathy, there did not exist the kind of extreme scholarly totalitarianism that we find in the academy and in publishing today. A Charles Beard could frame the American Founding in strongly economic terms, while others disagreed in scholarly tomes. The conflict of 1861-1865 was seen as both “repressible” and “irrepressible” (to use the title of a study by Arthur Cole, the term used first by William Seward). But there was no rigid “historical iron curtain” that dictated how historians thought and what they wrote.

And that difference distinguishes the earlier age from our own: For we are victims of a fanatical ideological zeal that increasingly knows few limits. Emerging out of this fanaticism is a type of religious commitment and conviction that dispenses with any opposing narrative as “fascist” or “racist” or “homophobic” and discards any inconvenient fact as “meaningless,” if standing in the way of the inevitable political and cultural objectives. Nothing must stand in the way of progress.

In fact, that onrushing “progress” has no end, no finality and cannot really end, for it is the revolutionary process, itself, that becomes the meaning and actual lived goal for its adherents. Theirs is a Revolution that, like a mortal illness, must continue and ceaselessly unwind, increasingly more unhinged and more unsubtle, as it goes along. But the objective of that Perfect Society where all racism, sexism, homophobia and misogyny are banished, where complete equality of status and income are obtained, where the “chains of established religion” and traditions are broken, that apocalyptic paradise on earth will not be and cannot be achieved.

Every Revolutionary movement, every “ism,” posits a final, perfected society. Whether early pre-Reformation zealots like the Cathares or Lollards, various millenarian sects, the Illuminati followers of Adam Weishaupt, or the socialists, anarchists and Communists of more recent times, a future utopian vision is held up as the final goal, the final stage in mankind’s torturous path to earthly happiness and perfection. But that chimerical objective is always an illusion, and usually a bloody one, strewn with the corpses of thousands, even millions of victims, who stood in the way of its realization.

And with that latest revolutionary impulse comes the destruction of traditions, beliefs and customs that have given society its actual foundation, its memory, those age-tested and handed-down ways of life that anneal and clothe society and protect it from decay and disintegration.

It is no exaggeration to see the attacks on the Lee statues and Southern symbols as part and parcel of this current assault, which aims not just at those more prominent artifacts of the Confederacy, but also takes aim at the very presence of Western and Christian civilization, itself. For, in fact, none of it can stand if the cultural Marxist narrative of irreversible and onrushing Progress, as they understand it, succeeds. It all must go, be removed, taken down, revised, re-interpreted.

The present campaign to remove Confederate symbols, then, should be viewed in this light. And it must be stoutly opposed with that full understanding.

— Boyd Cathey

Boyd D. Cathey holds a doctorate in European history from the Catholic University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain, where he was a Richard Weaver Fellow, and an MA in intellectual history from the University of Virginia (as a Jefferson Fellow). He was assistant to conservative author and philosopher the late Russell Kirk. In more recent years he served as State Registrar of the North Carolina Division of Archives and History. He has published in French, Spanish, and English, on historical subjects as well as classical music and opera. He is active in the Sons of Confederate Veterans and various historical, archival, and genealogical organizations.

Source: Will County News

Trump News June 20, 2017

President Donald J. Trump is embracing big change, bold thinking, and outsider perspectives to transform government and make it work better, and at a far less cost. This new spirit of innovation will make life better for all Americans by modernizing critical IT systems, making government more transparent, and saving the taxpayers up to $1 trillion dollars over the next 10 years.


10:30 AM: Vice President Pence participates in a bilateral meeting with President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine

11:00 AM: President Trump meets with National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster with a drop-in by Vice President Mike Pence and President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine

11:45 AM: Vice President Pence delivers remarks at the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) 2017 Manufacturing Summit

12:30 PM: President Trump has a Legislative Affairs lunch

12:45 PM: Vice President Pence participates in the Senate Republican Policy Lunch

2:00 PM: Vice President Pence participates in a series of meetings with lawmakers

7:00 PM: President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump have dinner with Vice President Pence and Mrs. Karen Pence


American Technology Council Working Session | June 19, 2017 (Official White House Photo by Stephanie K. Chasez)


Yesterday, President Trump held a roundtable with the American Technology Council as part of the administration’s sweeping transformation of the federal government’s outdated technology services.

Yesterday, President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump welcomed President Juan Carlos Varela and Mrs. Varela of Panama to the White House.

Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue hosted a trilateral meeting with Canadian Agriculture Minister Lawrence MacAulay and Mexican Secretary of Agriculture José Calzada Rovirosa in Savannah, Georgia.

The application period for the Fall 2017 White House Internship Program closes this Friday, June 23. Interested applicants can apply here.


“Trump’s modernization efforts don’t grab as many headlines as his other federal priorities — e.g., repealing Obamacare and reforming the tax code — but they are nevertheless important. These efforts will make government work more efficiently and encourage investment and job creation across the country.”Chrissy Harbin in the Washington Examiner

“One of the last insurers on Iowa’s ObamaCare exchanges announced Monday it would sell plans in 2018 but proposed an average rate increase of 43.5 percent.The Hill

President Mr. Trump has done what President Obama should have done. He made it clear that if Cuba wants normal relations with the United States, human rights violations must end, and so must the harboring of criminals, including Joanne Chesimard, a Black Panther who escaped from prison while serving a life sentence for killing a New Jersey state trooper.” The Washington Times

Source: Will County News

Maybe it’s time to investigate the investigation

Maybe it’s time to investigate the investigation


As the investigation into President Donald Trump’s alleged ties to Russia becomes increasingly confusing, it may be time to take a look at the investigation itself. Something doesn’t quite add up. Here are some things we learned over the weekend.

A report out in The Washington Post last week signaled that FBI special prosecutor Robert Mueller had expanded the investigation into whether Trump or his associates “colluded” with Russia during the 2016 presidential election to include an inquiry into whether the president may also have tried to cover his tracks when he fired former FBI head James Comey.

Trump took to Twitter shortly after the story broke, ridiculing the expanded inquiry as an unnecessary “witch hunt.”

Mainstream press analysis mostly sneered that the president’s response is a sign of nervousness of what may be about to come out of the investigation. The only problem with the MSM summation of the situation is that Trump’s tweets, though riddled with his characteristic Twitter tone, didn’t say anything that the bulk of middle America isn’t already thinking.

One of Trump’s early Friday tweets read: “After 7 months of investigations & committee hearings about my ‘collusion with the Russians,’ nobody has been able to show any proof. Sad!”

Despite the heavy drama and hype surrounding both Comey’s and Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recent appearances before the Senate to discuss the situation, Trump is completely right. Americans are on the same page today in terms of understanding what, if anything, out of the ordinary happened prior to the election to cause such a national fracas.

We know that we still have no idea what the political circus barkers on the left are talking about when they speak of collusion and meddling. A thorough analysis of the situation provides only this: The nation’s most secretive and bureaucratic law enforcement and  spying agencies– FBI, CIA, NSA– have produced vague reports declaring that the election system of the most powerful nation in the world was undermined by social media sh*t stirrers and some hacked emails that were never very secure in the first place.

We also know that, to Comey’s knowledge, the FBI wasn’t investigating Trump specifically at the time of the former director’s firing. We know that Sessions was in the same building as a Russian official prior to the election and they met. The purpose of the meeting, we don’t know. Everything is a mess of he said and she said.

Some of the things being said are getting attention– they just aren’t telling us anything about Trump or “collusion.”

For instance, we know based on Comey’s testimony that there may well have been some serious obstruction of justice ahead of the election. It’s just that, the obstruction we’re talking about now involves former Attorney General Loretta Lynch coaching Comey on how to talk about the investigation into Clinton’s emails in a way that made a serious breach of the public trust seem only like a “matter.”

We know that Comey’s decision to leak his memos to a friend, who subsequently leaked the documents to friendly press, was likely inappropriate. And if it weren’t problematic enough when he admitted to being a leaker, things got even more confusing when his own former agency refused to release the documents to the public.

Trump and his administration are right in the middle of trial by public. But the public doesn’t have any of the facts in the case– only a series of unnamed sources, shady intelligence reports and pre-mature verdicts trumpeted by the opposition and amplified by a media machine that rolled over for the Washington establishment decades ago.

Here’s another of Trump’s Friday tweets, referring to Rod Rosenstein, the current top man at the Justice Department on Trump’s case: “I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt…”

Also on Friday, this ABC report regarding Rosenstein rolled out:

The senior Justice Department official with ultimate authority over the special counsel’s probe of Russia’s alleged meddling in the 2016 election has privately acknowledged to colleagues that he may have to recuse himself from the matter, which he took charge of only after Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ own recusal, sources tell ABC News.

Those private remarks from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein are significant because they reflect the widening nature of the federal probe, which now includes a preliminary inquiry into whether President Donald Trump attempted to obstruct justice when he allegedly tried to curtail the probe and then fired James Comey as FBI director.

Rosenstein, remember, appointed Mueller to lead the Trump investigation. Now, he appears pretty likely to get the hell out of the way before the dominoes begin to fall.

Why? Well, probably because something stinks.

Mueller, it was reported late Friday, has added at least 13 lawyers to the team investigating president. According to the same report, he plans to add more.

Think about that for a moment.

Ranks of folks at the Justice Department, the FBI, CIA, NSA, and members of Congress– our protectors, leaders, best and brightest– are all looking into the Trump/Russia/collusion situation. No one has found much of anything. Media has already charged, tried and convicted Trump. Hell, half the country thinks the guy is getting weekly payroll checks from the Kremlin. All without the first firm, admissible in court, piece of evidence being shared with the public.

If it’s such an open and shut deal and things are so crystal clear, why does Mueller need an army of lawyers?

This investigation needs to run its course– but not without a secondary investigation into the investigation on its heels.

Source: Will County News

GOP members not voting yes on Health Care bill

GOP House Member State AHCA Stance & DC Number. Call them and ask them to wake up!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe they want single payer like Obama and Hillary
Don Young
Andy Biggs
Darrell Issa
David Valadao
Ken Calvert
Steve Knight
Jeff Denham
Mike Coffman
Brian Mast
Carlos Curbelo
Mario Diaz-Balart
Neal Dunn
Daniel Webster
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
Adam Kinzinger
Peter Roskam
Randy Hultgren
Susan W. Brooks
Steve King
David Young
Kevin Yoder
Thomas Massie
Bruce Poliquin
Justin Amash
Erik Paulsen
Mark Amodei
Rodney Frelinghuysen
New Jersey
Christopher H. Smith
New Jersey
Frank A. LoBiondo
New Jersey
Leonard Lance
New Jersey
Claudia Tenney
New York
Elise Stefanik
New York
John J. Faso
New York
Dan Donovan
New York
John Katko
New York
Walter B. Jones
North Carolina
Michael R. Turner
Brian Fitzpatrick
Charlie Dent
Patrick Meehan
Ryan A. Costello
Rob Wittman
Tom Garrett
Barbara Comstock
Dave Reichert
Jaime Herrera Beutler
David B. McKinley
West Virginia

Source: Will County News

Bernie Sanders, religious bigot?

Bernie Sanders, religious bigot?


Democrats are enjoying throwing around the word impeachment.

They should remember that impeachment is a political process rather than legal one.

The House needs the support of its representatives, and those representatives need the support of voters in their districts to really pull it off.

Expulsion is also a political process. It’s one way to rid the House or Senate of a member whose behavior is illegal, immoral or unconstitutional.

What would qualify a U.S. Senator for expulsion?

Considering every senator swears an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, blatantly violating the Constitution in the course of performing one’s official duties would qualify, but would enough senators and their constituents support the process?

That’s for you to decide.

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution absolutely forbids a religious litmus test for public service. It is simply illegal for a senator to deny a presidential nominee a position in government because that nominee is a devout Muslim, Jew, Baha’I or adherent to any other religious order.

What Senator Bernie Sanders doesn’t understand is that this also applies to Christians.

In no uncertain terms, Sanders declared a nominee to the White House Office of Management and Budget unfit for service for the sole reason that he is a Christian.

You see, this goes back to last year when a Wheaton College professor stated that Christians and Muslims “worship the same God.”

The Christian college administration said, no, no, no, this belief completely contradicts our teachings as clearly outlined in the Wheaton College “Statement of Faith and Educational Purpose.”

Controversy, arguing and great gnashings of teeth darkened the campus.

The professor was fired and many students and graduates wrote to support the decision.

One of those writers is alumnus Richard Vought, whose opinion piece defending the college’s decision, titled, “Wheaton College and the Preservation of Theological Clarity,” includes the theological philosophy that “Muslims do not simply have a deficient (nontrinitarian) theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned…in John 3:18, Jesus says, “Whoever believes in [the Son] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

Senator Sanders was outraged at this religious belief.

In Vought’s hearing for Deputy Director of OMB, Sanders grilled Vought not on his qualifications or years of excellent service, but rather upon Vought’s personal religious belief.

With no understanding of the term, “deficient” within the theological context of “nontrinitarian,” the remarkably ignorant Sanders went on a red-faced blubber.

“In my view, the statement made by Mr. Vought is indefensible, it is hateful, it is Islamophobic, and it is an insult to over a billion Muslims throughout the world,” Sanders said. “This country, since its inception, has struggled, sometimes with great pain, to overcome discrimination of all forms … we must not go backwards.”

Asked a question about his personal beliefs, Vought stated quite calmly, “As a Christian, I believe that all individuals are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect, regardless of their religious beliefs. I believe that as a Christian, that’s how I should treat all individuals.”

Sanders continued to listen with his mouth, not his ears.

“And do you think your statement that you put in that publication, ‘They do not know God because they rejected Jesus Christ the Son, and they stand condemned,’ do you think that’s respectful of other religions?”

Notably, Sanders did endorse Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison, whose religion makes some rather harsh claims about nonbelievers. So clearly, he just doesn’t like Vought’s particular religion.

“I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who is what this country is supposed to be about,” Sanders said. “I will vote no.”

Under Article VI, the Constitution states, “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Sanders did just that.

Perhaps it is time to invoke Article I, Section 5, clause 2, the “expulsion” clause.

— Rick Jensen

Source: Will County News

The Christian’s relationship to U.S. government

The Christian’s relationship to U.S. government

American flag and Bible

“We must obey God rather than men…”

And thus spoke the Peter the apostle to the council, (Luke 5:29 NASB) in response to the high priest’s questioning about why he and the apostles were teaching Christ in the temple in defiance of the council’s instruction the day after an angel of the Lord released them from their prison.

And that’s the example the Christian must follow.

But in Romans 13, Paul tells us that we must be in subjection to the governing authorities.

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. Romans 13:1-7 (NASB)

Some of our more conservative brethren would tell us that there is little we can or should do or say in response to an abusive government because it is “established by God.” In fact, I know many of our conservative brothers and sisters who don’t even bother to follow politics at all or even vote, preferring instead to be content with being “in subjection.”

I have even seen some claim that if we so much as question the authority of our “leaders” or point out the corruptions of the politicians and government institutions that we are engaging in a spirit of rebellion; and not just rebellion against earthly authorities but against God. But is it? If we write or speak about corrupt government institutions, politicians or bureaucrats, are we acting contrary to God’s word in Romans 13?

To be a Christian, we are to be like Christ. In Matthew 23, Christ told His disciples that the scribes and Pharisees had seated themselves in Moses’ chair (had taken for themselves Moses’ authority) and they (the disciples) were to do what the rulers told them to do, but not do as the scribes and Pharisees did, because they were hypocrites. The scribes and Pharisees claimed to follow the law and held the people to the law but did not follow it themselves.

That sounds very much like the political class of today who walking the halls of power in the District of Criminal and in most state capitols.

Then Jesus called out the scribes and Pharisees as hypocrites in the eight “woes” he uttered as recorded in verses 13 through 29, pointing out their wrongdoing.

The Apostle Paul was imprisoned, stoned, beaten and left for dead for obeying God rather than man. In Acts 22 we read that after Paul was seized in Jerusalem because he “preaches to all men everywhere against our people and the Law and this place; and besides he has even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place (Acts 21:28 NASB),” he was taken away by Roman guards at the direction of the Jews and stretched out with thongs so as to be scourged. The text reads:

But when they stretched him out with thongs, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman and uncondemned?” When the centurion heard this, he went to the commander and told him, saying, “What are you about to do? For this man is a Roman.” The commander came and said to him, “Tell me, are you a Roman?” And he said, “Yes.” The commander answered, “I acquired this citizenship with a large sum of money.” And Paul said, “But I was actually born a citizen.” Therefore those who were about to examine him immediately let go of him; and the commander also was afraid when he found out that he was a Roman, and because he had put him in chains. Acts 22:25-29 (NASB)

What Paul did here was to invoke his rights as a citizen. He did so again in Acts 25:11 when he appealed to Caesar over his imprisonment, defying the Jewish ruling authorities, who he believed he had not wronged.

So clearly our example in Scripture is we can use the legal rights available to us under the laws.

Now back to Romans 13. America’s is designed as a citizen-oriented representative government, not a monarchy or dictatorship. The Constitution was created as chains to bind men’s powers. Every politician in America swears an oath to abide by it. The powers they  have they get from the Constitution.

So understanding Romans 13 in context of American government we should read Romans 13 this way, as Chuck Baldwin has pointed out:

Every person is to be in subjection to the [U.S. Constitution]. For there is no [Constitution] except from God, and [it is] established by God. Therefore whoever resists [the Constitution] has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed [the Constitution] will receive condemnation upon themselves. For [the Constitution is] not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of [the Constitution]? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for [the Constitution] is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore [the Constitution] is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for [the Constitution is a servant] of God, devoting [itself] to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. Romans 13:1-7 (NASB)

The 1st Amendment protects (to some extent) our freedom to engage in speech and to petition government for redress of grievances. When we point out in speech or writing the corrupt nature of politicians and government institutions, and how they have exceeded the authority granted them under the Constitution, we are doing no more than Christ did when he called out the scribes and Pharisees, and no more than Paul did when he invoked his rights as a Roman citizen under Roman law.

So we can be politically active and not be in violation of God’s law. Telling our friends and neighbors that our institutions and politicians are corrupt is not a violation of God’s law. Guaranteeing our ability to inform others of the government’s transgressions so they can petition their representatives intelligently is precisely one of the 1st Amendment’s purposes. Engaging in political discourse or pointing out corruption is neither a violation of man’s law nor God’s. And we are to obey the law whether the “leaders” do so or not, as Christ told his disciples.

But we should also remember Paul’s admonition in Titus 3:2-5.

“…to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men. For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us…”

Source: Will County News

Trump News June 19, 2017

Today, President Donald J. Trump will host a working session with technology leaders in the private sector to develop creative solutions that will streamline government services. Modernizing government is an enormous undertaking and requires the best minds working in concert toward providing services that are effective and cost-efficient.


10:30 AM: President Trump receives his daily intelligence briefing

11:30 AM: President Trump and the First Lady welcome President Juan Carlos Varela and Mrs. Varela of Panama

11:35 AM: President Trump meets with President Varela

11:50 AM: President Trump has a working luncheon with President Varela

1:30 PM: Press Gaggle with Press Secretary Sean Spicer

5:00 PM: President Trump participates in an American Technology Council roundtable

6:00 PM: President Trump participates in an American Technology Council reception


President Donald J. Trump signs the National Security Presidential Memorandum on Strengthening the Policy of the United States’ Toward Cuba | June 16, 2017 (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)


On Friday, President Trump visited Miami where he announced changes to United States’ policy toward Cuba.

On Friday, President Trump approved a Kansas disaster declaration and ordered Federal assistance to supplement State and local recovery efforts.

President Trump issued a statement on the passing of former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl.

Last week, U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry announced that the Department of Energy awarded six research contracts to accelerate U.S. supercomputing technology.

The application period for the Fall 2017 White House Internship Program closes this Friday, June 23. Interested applicants can apply here.


“Trump’s new measures are designed to exert more pressure on Havana to reform itself. … Trump is right to recalibrate this policy without jettisoning it wholesale.”Miami Herald

Let’s support the president and send the message to Havana that if the military regime wants millions from America, its anti-American foreign policy and repression at home must change.” Frank Calzon, Executive Director of the Center for a Free Cuba, in USA Today

***Editor’s note: In the June 15th edition of 1600 Daily, the attribution for The Des Moines Register op-ed should have been “Secretary Acosta in The Des Moines Register.”

Source: Will County News

WikiLeaks: CIA has hacked Americans’ WiFi for years “Cherry Blossom”

WikiLeaks: CIA has hacked Americans’ WiFi for years


internet concept

The CIA developed implants “for roughly 25 different devices from 10 different manufacturers” to allow for clandestine surveillance on home, business and public wireless internet networks. The spying has occurred for years.

That’s according to newly-uncovered WikiLeaks documents detailing the agency’s “Cherry Blossom” surveillance initiatives, which CIA spies developed with the help of the nonprofit Stanford Research Institute.

Here’s how WikiLeaks describes the program:

CherryBlossom provides a means of monitoring the Internet activity of and performing software exploits on Targets of interest. In particular, CherryBlossom is focused on compromising wireless networking devices, such as wireless routers and access points (APs), to achieve these goals. Such Wi-Fi devices are commonly used as part of the Internet infrastructure in private homes, public spaces (bars, hotels or airports), small and medium sized companies as well as enterprise offices. Therefore these devices are the ideal spot for “Man-In-The-Middle” attacks, as they can easily monitor, control and manipulate the Internet traffic of connected users. By altering the data stream between the user and Internet services, the infected device can inject malicious content into the stream to exploit vulnerabilities in applications or the operating system on the computer of the targeted user.

The wireless device itself is compromized by implanting a customized CherryBlossom firmware on it; some devices allow upgrading their firmware over a wireless link, so no physical access to the device is necessary for a successful infection. Once the new firmware on the device is flashed, the router or access point will become a so-called FlyTrap. A FlyTrap will beacon over the Internet to a Command & Control server referred to as the CherryTree. The beaconed information contains device status and security information that the CherryTree logs to a database. In response to this information, the CherryTree sends a Mission with operator-defined tasking. An operator can use CherryWeb, a browser-based user interface to view Flytrap status and security info, plan Mission tasking, view Mission-related data, and perform system administration tasks.

In other words, the agency has the capability to essentially turn a home WiFi router into a powerful surveillance device capable of infecting all manner of internet-connected devices with spyware. Popular affected Wifi devices include those manufactured by Asus, Belkin, D-Link, Linksys, Motorola, Dell and Netgear.

According to one document, the program may have been in place since as far back as 2006.

Source: Will County News

Lawmaker urges gun reciprocity for Congress following shooting

Lawmaker urges gun reciprocity for Congress following shooting


No Guns sign

Washington D.C.’s tough gun laws are putting lawmakers who want to carry personal firearms for self-defense at risk, a GOP lawmaker argued on the heels of the Alexandria Va., shooting that shocked the nation Wednesday.

Georgia Rep. Barry Loudermilk was on the field when gunman James Hodgkinson opened fire on Republican lawmakers practicing for the congressional baseball game early Wednesday morning.

In an interview after the shooting that left House Majority Whip Steve Scalise in critical condition, Loudermilk lamented that lawmakers are deprived of their right to self-defense when in D.C.

“Most of us are here in D.C., so how do you just have the gun here and just transport it to Virginia?” the congressman said regarding the strict D.C. gun restrictions. “I think we need to look at some kind of reciprocity for members here.”

The lawmaker said that, had the shooting happened in Georgia, one of his staff members would have had a shot on Hodgkinson even before Capitol Police had time to react.

“If this had happened in Georgia, he wouldn’t have gotten too far. I had a staff member who was in his car maybe 20 yards behind the shooter, who was pinned in his car, who back in Georgia carries a 9-millimeter in his car… He had a clear shot at him. But here, we’re not allowed to carry any weapons here,” he said in an interview with The Washington Post.

While Virginia’s gun laws allow resident’s to obtain concealed carry permits or carry openly, gun laws just across the Potomic in Washington make self-defense carry nearly impossible.

Currently, concealed carry permits are handled differently in every U.S. state, creating confusion for all Americans traveling with their self defense firearms.

Because of the confusing legal landscape, many Americans have found themselves in serious trouble with authorities for mistakenly believing their home state’s concealed carry permit would legally allow them to carry in states with more restrictive firearm regulations.

Lawmakers introduced legislation in both legislative chambers, Rep. Richard Hudson’s (R-NC) Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, and Senate, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, earlier this year in an effort to eliminate confusion.

Both bills would require states to honor outside concealed carry permits, protecting the right of law abiding Americans to concealed carry self-defense firearms across state lines without fear of politically motivated prosecution.

Source: Will County News