Daily Archives: October 16, 2020

October 16th The D. L. Moody Year Book


He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.—Psalm 91:1.

THE psalm might have been written by Moses after some terrible calamity had come upon the children of Israel. It might have been after that terrible night of death in Egypt, when the firstborn from the palace to the hovel were slain; or after that terrible plague of fiery serpents in the wilderness, when the people were full of fear and in a nervous state. Perhaps Moses called Aaron and Miriam, and Joshua and Caleb, and a few others into his tent and read this psalm to them first. How sweet it must have sounded, and how strange!

I can imagine Moses asking, “Do you think that will help them? Will that quiet them?” and they all thought that it would. And then, (it may be), on one of those hilltops of Sinai, at twilight, this psalm was read. How it must have soothed them, how it must have helped them, how it must have strengthened them![1]


[1] Moody, D. L. (1900). The D. L. Moody Year Book: A Living Daily Message from the Words of D. L. Moody. (E. M. Fitt, Ed.) (p. 183). East Northfield, MA: The Bookstore.

US Budget Deficit Triples To Record $3.1 Trillion In 2020 As US Spends 90% More Than It Collects | ZeroHedge News

Those who have been following the record surge in US public debt (excluding the roughly $100 trillion in off-balance sheet obligations), which exploded by $3 trillion in the three months following the covid shutdowns and which just hit an all time high $27.1 trillion this week, will be all too aware that the US budget deficit this year – and every year after – will be staggering.

Sure enough, in the latest just released deficit report, the Treasury announced that in September the US burned through another $124.6BN, which while modestly better than the $200.1 billion deficit reported in August, was a whopping 50% more than the $82.8 billion deficit last September.

Specifically according to the Treasury, in August, government outlays were $497.8 billion, up $74 billion from the $423.3 billion spent in August, and a whopping 71% more than the $291 billion the US spent last September…

… while receipts rebounded from the $223.2 billion received in August to $373.2 billion, and effectively identical to the $374 billion collected last September (the question of why anyone still pays taxes in a time of helicopter money, when the Fed simply purchases whatever debt the Treasury issues, remains).

The chart below shows the September 2020 breakdown between various receipts and outlays.

What all this means, is that for the full 2020 which ended on Sept 30, the US spent $6.552 trillion and collected just $3.420 trillion, which also means that outlays were a record $3.1 trillion, 91% higher than receipts, which also includes the $9.7BN received last month and $81.9BN YTD in deposits of earnings by the Fed.

And since outlays equal receipts plus the deficit, this means that for the fiscal 2020, the US budget deficit more than tripled to a record $3.1 trillion (compared to “just” $984 billion in 2019), higher than at any other time in US history and unfortunately due to “helicopter money” it is unlikely that the exploding deficit will ever shrink again until the monetary system is overhauled… or collapses.

At some point the market will realize that this insanity is simply unsustainable, something which the CBO pointed out in its latest long-term debt forecast.

Until then, however, in the immortal words of Chuck Prince, “as long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance.”

Source: US Budget Deficit Triples To Record $3.1 Trillion In 2020 As US Spends 90% More Than It Collects

October 16 Life-Changing Moments With God


Not lagging in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord.

Lord, whatever my hand finds to do, I will do it with my might; for there is no work in the grave. Whatever I do, I do it heartily, as to You, Lord God, and not to men, knowing that from You I will receive the reward of the inheritance; for I serve my Lord Christ. Whatever good I do, I will receive the same from You, Father God.

Jesus said He must work the works of You who sent Him while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work. He once asked, “Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?” Zeal for Your house, Lord, has eaten Him up.

I seek to be more diligent to make my calling and election sure, for if I do I will never stumble. I aim to show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope until the end, not become sluggish, but imitate those who through faith and patience inherit the promises. May I run in such a way that I may obtain it.

May I serve You, Lord, with all that I am—and to You be the glory!

Romans 12:11; Ecclesiastes 9:10; Colossians 3:23–24; Ephesians 6:8; John 9:4; Luke 2:49; John 2:17; 2 Peter 1:10; Hebrews 6:11–12; 1 Corinthians 9:24[1]


[1] Jeremiah, D. (2007). Life-Changing Moments With God (p. 311). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

7 traits of a narcissistic pastor — Southern Equip

Question: What hath narcissism to do with church ministry?

Answer: Absolutely. Nothing!

As far as the east is from the west, so self-seeking motives for ministry has nothing to do with genuine pastoral leadership. Yet, too often churches find in their leaders tendencies that can only be called narcissistic.

This problem is so great that Chuck DeGroat wrote an entire book about it, When Narcissism Comes to Church. What follows is not dependent on his work, but is the result of watching churches and church leaders over the last few years. It is painful to watch shepherds fleece the flock they are leading, and so what follows is written with an eye to those churches who may be suffering from the effects of a narcissistic pastor.

Seven traits of a narcissistic pastor

1. A narcissistic pastor habitually turns the conversation back to himself.

Out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks (Matt. 12:48). Such is the case for all people. It is a principle of human nature: What we talk about reveals what we love, and what we love drives our conversation. And if we love ourselves, we will habitually draw conversations back to ourselves.

In the case of the narcissistic pastor, the conversation has a magnetic pull back towards self. Because the narcissistic pastor loves himself, he loves talking about himself. If he is preaching, he becomes the hero of the sermon illustration, if not the hero of the sermon. If he is casually trading stories in the hallway, the narcissistic pastor may feel compelled to let others know he’s been to the moon. Or, if he disagrees about a church situation, he is likely to defend himself by appealing to how hard he has worked or how much he has suffered to get the church where it is. If a narcissistic pastor has a long tenure in a church, that congregation will often know more about him than about the Bible he preaches.

Beware of the pastor who constantly brings attention to himself.

2. A narcissistic pastor responds to correction with anger and self-defense.

Closely connected to self-oriented conversation is the fact that when others don’t follow the narcissistic pastor, he responds in anger. Unlike the wise man in Proverbs 10:17 who delights in the correction (“Whoever heeds instruction is on the path to life, but he who rejects reproof leads others astray.”), the narcissistic pastor will practice a policy of non-confrontation. While he has little trouble confronting, correcting, and critiquing others, he doesn’t receive the same. For him, the street runs one way, and he is deft at pointing out the traffic violations of those who approach him.

Sadly, the narcissistic pastor who is unwilling to receive correction does not simply injure himself. He injures others. Instead of modeling humility, a precious garment all Christians must wear, he models folly. As Proverbs 18:2 puts it, “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.” Anger and defensiveness are sure signs of trouble.

Beware of the pastor who refuses to consider criticism or receive correction.

3. A narcissistic pastor is more concerned with the immediate welfare of his ministry than the long-term health of God’s sheep.

When Hezekiah was informed that he would be secure in his day, but his children would be carted off to Babylon, the king took comfort (see Isaiah 39). Such a spirit of self-preservation exposed the wickedness of his heart. He cared little for the long term effects of his actions—showing the wealth of Yahweh’s temple to the Babylonians.

Instead, he thought about himself and his own personal peace.

Sadly, this is the attitude of a narcissistic pastor. While “a good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children” (Prov. 13:22), a narcissist is someone who is only thinking about his own day, his own ministry, and his own glory. Plans are not laid down which will last for generations. The plans of a narcissistic pastor are hatched so that numbers will pop this week, this month, or this year.

Such a minister might be willing to spend through church savings to make his ministry flourish. Or, he might see the budget as his own personal account. This might look like spending lavishly on office furniture, media platforms, or stage lighting—anything that would make him look good in front of others.

Or, he might be willing to use the church to advance his own reputation outside the church. For instance, he might see his ministry as a stepping stone to something else, or he might be willing to cut church membership in half to double attendance. I once heard a pastor with a big vision for his ministry say to his church, “If you call me, you will lose half of your members, but you will double its size in the process.”

Such honesty is appreciated, because many with an unconstrained vision for ministry are not as truthful. But such honesty also reveals a wicked heart that cares little for God’s sheep (Acts 20:28) and much for the size of one’s stable. Such a commitment to one’s own ministry is but another evidence of narcissism.

Beware of the pastor who is using the church to advance himself.

4. A narcissistic pastor uses church structures and sermons to support themselves.

If short term gains and self-interested use of money are a evidence of narcissism, so is the use of church structures to achieve his ends. This pastor might be quick to use church discipline to get rid of problem people. He might use leadership sabbaticals as a means displacing non-compliant elders or deacons. Or, he might make a habit of blaming others for church problems or taking credit for the good work others have done—whether those people are in the church or not.

One specific application of this relates to using the sermon material of others. While not every narcissistic pastor is guilty of this, it’s symptomatic of narcissism or some other problem.

There are many reasons why preachers plagiarize sermons, but one is that they desire to look or sound better than they are. Instead of taking personal ownership for their sermons, trusting in who God has made them to be and progressing in their handling of God’s Word through hard work (see 1 Tim. 4:11–16), those who plagiarize sermons are offering a false product, even if they speak biblical truth.

Some may justify this practice of borrowing material as a necessity of modern ministry. Busyness makes it impossible to produce a good sermon each week, they reason. And solo pastors, they might add, just don’t have enough time to prepare a good sermon.

But such a view of sermon-making comes from a misunderstanding of a pastor’s first priority—namely, to study the Scriptures (Ezra 7:10) and preach the Word (2 Tim. 4:1–2). At the same time, if narcissism presses a pastor to steal other’s sermons, in a short time this will undermine his qualifications for ministry.

Beware of the pastor who uses the work of others to bolster himself.

5. A narcissistic pastor is overly independent and unwilling to share ministry with others.

The next two traits of a Narcissistic Pastor are related, even though they may appear mutually exclusive. The first trait concerns a high degree of self-reliance and unhealthy independence.

After his baptism, Jesus began his earthly ministry by preaching the gospel and making disciples (see e.g., Mark 1:9–20). In fact, Jesus never did anything in his earthly ministry without his followers. On the night of his crucifixion, he told his disciples that he would send his Spirit and that those who followed him would do greater works than he had done (John 14:12).

What an incredible testimony—that our Lord and Savior, who alone is God and who alone is building his church, told his disciples that their works would be greater. Of course, their works and ours depend entirely on God, his Word, and prayer (see John 14:13; 15:1–11; etc.), but such a selfless way of speech models the kind of king Jesus is. In perfect humility, he did not discount the works his followers would do. Rather, he entrusted them with the world’s biggest task—to go into all the world and make disciples.

Following Jesus, we find that the healthiest ministry is one that is by nature inclusive. Just look at the end of Paul’s letters; he was like an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean, receiving sorties and sending out new missions. As we learn from Jesus and Paul, ministry should lead to friendships (3 John 15), partnerships (Phil. 1:4–6), and cooperative efforts in missions (3 John 8). Like Jesus, healthy pastors expect that those who follow them will exceed them in the work. And instead of squelching ideas, actions, and pursuits of ministry—for fear that others might have a greater ministry—they foster it.

By contrast, narcissism leads pastors to do all the work themselves. Instead of releasing others to do good works, they believe they must do it. Occasionally, they collect a few close associates who serve as their entourage (more on that below), but more often they believe what they do is best and they don’t let others use their gifts.

Beware of the pastor who doesn’t share ministry, but puts himself in the center of it all.

6. A narcissistic pastor is often unapproachable and surrounded by an entourage.

While Jesus had a select group of disciples, he also made himself available to all who came in faith. Unclean women, little children, and blind beggars were just some of the people he welcomed. Likewise, a pastor is to have a welcoming heart and a hospitable home. 1 Timothy 3:3 even assigns hospitality—i.e., the love of strangers—as part of their ministerial qualifications. For this reason, a pastor who avoids contact with the congregation is pursuing a way of ministry foreign to Jesus.

I use the word “avoid” intentionally. I am not saying that a pastor will spend equal time with all members. Scripture calls for churches to have a plurality of elders (see Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5; etc.), therefore, the “teaching elder” or “senior pastor” should be one of the pastors who cares for the flock. It is unreasonable for members to demand one pastor to be on call 24/7 for all members. Yet, this expectation has often been fostered by pastors who have tried to do everything for everyone. See Number 5 above.

Interestingly, if being the omni-present / omni-competent pastor is a sign of narcissism, so is its inverse—the pastor who hides himself behind his entourage. This is especially true in smaller churches, where a narcissistic pastor aspires to have a big church.

Beware of the pastor who hides himself behind an inner circle and dismisses the whole congregation.

7. A narcissistic pastor misuses the Bible to defend himself and glorify his ministry.

When narcissism is manifested in all of these ways, it’s not uncommon for such a pastor to defend himself and glorify his ministry with Scripture. All too often narcissistic pastors, whether from insecurity or poor hermeneutics or both, identify themselves with Old Testament figures. Likening their ministries to that of Moses, Joshua, or David, they chastise anyone wo questions what they’re doing.

The line goes like this: If God was displeased with Israel for contending with Moses or David, he will be displeased when anyone questions or confronts the pastor. This line of reasoning is exacerbated in churches where the pastor is treated as God’s special anointed servant—never mind that all members have the anointing (1 John 2:27).

Such a pedestal is dangerous for the most humble man, let alone a narcissist. In fact, I’d argue that churches that treat their pastor like a local celebrity create a context where young men look up to the pastor and desire to be like him—not for the purpose of preaching the Word and prayer, but to have such a position of honor. I’m not saying churches create narcissists; the world is overrun with them. But I’m saying certain characteristics in a church can tempt men to become pastors, because it strokes their ego and offers them an opportunity for local fame.

When such an approach to ministry occurs, one sign of danger is a pastor who uses the Bible to defend himself and glorify his ministry. This use of the pulpit, when it goes unchecked, makes it nearly impossible to correct such a pastor. Instead, it creates an entire church that looks up to and supports the pastor, regardless of his vision. And worse, if his interpretation of Scripture permits him to be the center of the sermon, instead of Christ, it won’t be long before that pastor goes astray—with or without the church. Such are the high stakes of permitting a narcissist to be pastor.

Beware of the pastor who uses the Bible to glorify his ministry and defend himself.

Beware of (Being) the narcissistic pastor

As with any list, these seven traits aren’t exhaustive, nor are they without some degree of personal caricature. I pray these seven traits might open the eyes of those who are currently sitting under the ministry of a narcissist.

I pray it might even embolden prayer and action if a church finds that their pastor is unfit to serve because his narcissism. And I pray that perhaps, this post might even open the eyes of a pastor who exhibits these traits to a greater or lesser degree.

I’m not immune from narcissism in myself. By seeing narcissism in others, it puts me on high alert to fight such temptations in my own heart. And thus, I take these observations to heart too and press into Christ to know more of his way of pastoral ministry.

7 traits of a narcissistic pastor — Southern Equip

October 16, 2020 Evening Verse Of The Day

Christ, the Faithful Lord

But the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me, in order that through me the proclamation might be fully accomplished, and that all the Gentiles might hear; and I was delivered out of the lion’s mouth. The Lord will deliver me from every evil deed, and will bring me safely to His heavenly kingdom; to Him be the glory forever and ever. Amen. (4:17–18)

Empire-wide persecution of the church had begun and Paul was on trial for his life. He stood before the dreadful Roman tribunal, perhaps before Nero himself. The court would have been jammed with spectators, much as in the trials of famous people in our own day, except that none of the spectators in Rome was on Paul’s side (cf. Acts 23:11).

Verses 17–18 form the apex of this passage, testifying to the faithfulness of Christ, the Lord [who] stood with [Paul] and strengthened [him]. He stood there not only or even primarily for Paul’s sake but that through the apostle the proclamation of the gospel might be fully accomplished, and that all the Gentiles might hear. Paul was the unique and divinely appointed apostle to the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13), and it was above all for their salvation and for the Lord’s glory that the apostle himself ministered (cf. Acts 9:15; 22:21; 26:17).

Paul often had been delivered out of the lion’s mouth, a common figure of mortal danger (see Ps. 22:21; 35:17). It also was the specific danger into which the Lord allowed Daniel to be placed and from which He miraculously delivered the prophet (Dan. 6:16–23). An immeasurably greater threat—for Paul and for every believer—comes from Satan himself, our “adversary, the devil, [who] prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8). Yet even the devil has no ultimate power over those who belong to Christ.

Paul did not fear physical danger. Many times he had faced death, and at least once was left for dead (see Acts 14:19). “Whatever I face,” he declared, the Lord will deliver me from every evil deed, and will bring me safely to His heavenly kingdom. He knew that the completion of his own salvation was nearer than when he first believed (cf. Rom. 13:11) and preferred “rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8). For Paul, as for every believer, “to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Phil. 1:21). And although the apostle would not give up the battle until the Lord took him home, his loneliness, pain, deprivation, and desertion made the prospect of heaven all the more appealing.

For that and for everything the Lord had done, was doing, and was yet to do, Paul exulted, To Him be the glory forever and ever. Amen.[1]

18 Although Paul was clearly hurt by the fact that no one in the Roman church stood by him at his first defense, he is convinced that the Lord (Christ, cf. vv. 8, 14; cf. Ac 23:11) will not fail him: he will “rescue [him] from every evil attack” (cf. Mt 6:13)—whether by physical deliverance or spiritual preservation—and “bring [him] safely [sōzō, GK 5393; cf. 1 Ti 2:15; 4:16] to his heavenly kingdom [basileia, GK 993; cf. v. 1].” Earthly kings may persecute him, but the apostle knows his eternal destiny in Christ’s heavenly kingdom (cf. 1 Th 4:13–18). As he waits for Timothy during the delay in legal proceedings against him, Paul reaffirms that his entire life and ministry are dedicated to the glory of Christ: “To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen” (a standard doxology: cf. Ro 9:5; Php 4:20; 1 Ti 1:17; 6:15).[2]

4:18 / In typical fashion the recent rescue from immediate peril is reflected on theologically. The Lord who rescued me will always rescue me, not from death necessarily, but from every evil attack (cf. the final petition of the Lord’s Prayer), and will bring me safely to (better, “save me for,” or “unto”) his heavenly kingdom. The phrase from every evil attack (lit., “every evil deed,” the opposite of “every good deed,” 2:21; 3:17) can scarcely mean “from the effects of every evil machination,” as the eschatological conclusion of the sentence makes clear, but “from any real power of evil to destroy me.” The reason is simple; the Lord will save me for his own heavenly kingdom. Once again the focus of the letter is on eschatology, in the form of one of Paul’s triumphant certainties: What God has already accomplished in Christ, he will see through to final consummation; the salvation he has begun he will indeed complete.

Such a note of eschatological triumph, not to mention past victories, calls for a doxology (cf. 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:15–16): To him be glory forever and ever. Amen. Both the location and the language of this doxology are reminiscent of Philippians 4:20. What a fitting note on which to conclude, given the continuing urgencies of his and Timothy’s present situation![3]

4:18. The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed and will save me into his heavenly kingdom; to him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

God’s faithfulness during his trial assures Paul that the Lord will be faithful to the end of his life. Paul has made it clear that he expects to be martyred (cf. 4:6). When he says that ‘The Lord will rescue [him] from every evil deed’, he is not talking about physical deliverance from imprisonment and death. Rather, he is referring to the spiritual evils of apostasy, denying the faith and turning from the proclamation of the truth—real temptations when one is faced with the choice of physical life or death. This interpretation is clear from the next line, where Paul employs the language that he typically uses with respect to spiritual salvation: ‘… and [the Lord] will save me into his heavenly kingdom.’ He fully expects that God will preserve him spiritually and that he will be with the Lord for ever. He certainly knows the promises of Jesus that no one will snatch his sheep from his hand. He has experienced God’s strengthening and faithfulness time and again. This faithfulness gives him confidence for the future. This latter phrase also reflects Paul’s abiding conviction that, from beginning to end, salvation is wholly the work of a sovereign God. It is not based on any merit in Paul.

This thought causes Paul to break into doxology: ‘To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.’ We have seen similar doxologies in 1 Timothy, where the thought of God’s saving work brings forth praise to God (cf. 1 Tim. 1:12–17; 6:14–16). If salvation is the work of man, then man is exalted. But if salvation is wholly the work of God, then man is humbled and God alone is glorified for all eternity. Paul’s letters consistently teach the latter of these two options: ‘For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast’ (Eph. 2:8–9).[4]

Ver. 18.—The Lord for and the Lord, A.V. and T.R.; will for shall, A.V.; save for preserve, A.V.; the glory for glory, A.V. Deliver me … save me (see preceding note). The language here is also very like that of the Lord’s Prayer: Ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸτοῦπονηποῦ σοῦ γὰρ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία … καὶἡ δόξα, εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Ἀμήν (Matt. 6:13). Every evil work. Alford goes altogether astray in his remarks on this passage. Interpreted by the Lord’s Prayer, and by its own internal evidence, the meaning clearly is, “The Lord, who stood by me at my trial, will continue to be my Saviour. He will deliver me from every evil design of mine enemies, and from all the wiles and assaults of the devil, in short, from the whole power of evil, and will bring me safe into his own kingdom of light and righteousness.” There is a strong contrast, as Bengel pithily observes, between “the evil work” and “his heavenly kingdom.” A triumphant martyrdom is as true a deliverance as escape from death. Compare our Lord’s promise, “There shall not an hair of your head perish” (Luke 21:18 compared with ver. 16). St. Paul’s confidence simply is that the Lord would, in his own good time and way, transfer him from this present evil world, sad from the powers of darkness, into his eternal kingdom of light and righteousness.[5]

18. And the Lord will deliver me from every evil work. He declares, that he hopes the same for the future; not that he will escape death, but that he will not be vanquished by Satan, or turn aside from the right course. This is what we ought chiefly to desire, not that the interests of the body may be promoted, but that we may rise superior to every temptation, and may be ready to suffer a hundred deaths rather than that it should come into our mind to pollute ourselves by any “evil work.” Yet I am well aware, that there are some who take the expression evil work in a passive sense, as denoting the violence of wicked men, as if Paul had said, “The Lord will not suffer wicked men to do me any injury.” But the other meaning is far more appropriate, that he will preserve him pure and unblemished from every wicked action; for he immediately adds, to his heavenly kingdom, by which he means that that alone is true salvation, when the Lord—either by life or by death—conducts us into his kingdom.

This is a remarkable passage for maintaining the uninterrupted communication of the grace of God, in opposition to the Papists. After having confessed that the beginning of salvation is from God, they ascribe the continuation of it to free-will; so that in this way perseverance is not a heavenly gift, but a virtue of man. And Paul, by ascribing to God this work of “preserving us to his kingdom,” openly affirms that we are guided by his hand during the whole course of our life, till, having discharged the whole of our warfare, we obtain the victory. And we have a memorable instance of this in Demas, whom he mentioned a little before, because, from being a noble champion of Christ, he had become a base deserter. All that follows has been seen by us formerly, and therefore does not need additional exposition.[6]

The forward look (4:18)

18. The key to the understanding of this verse lies in the obvious associations in thought between the aorist I was delivered of verse 17 and the future The Lord will rescue me. If these two verbs are both taken in the literal sense of deliverance in this life, there can be no doubt that Paul had a firm conviction that he would be released. But this seems contrary to the resignation to his fate in verses 6–8. The deliverance in this verse is reminiscent of the Lord’s prayer, which is clearly intended in a spiritual manner, and it seems most reasonable, therefore, to suppose that a similar meaning is attached to the words here. The past physical deliverance reminds him of constant spiritual deliverances and raises his confidence for the future.

Not only is he confident that the Lord will deliver, but that he will also bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom. The verb used is the usual word ‘to save’ (sōzō), but here in the more specific sense of ‘keeping safe’. The use of the adjective ‘heavenly’ (a characteristic Pauline word) draws attention to the emphatic contrast between God’s kingdom and the present earthly circumstances of sorrow and suffering. It is strongly reminiscent of the Lord’s teaching about the kingdom of heaven. It is no wonder that contemplation of it raises in the apostle’s mind a doxology in which he ascribes eternal glory to the Lord. His mind is clearly centred more on eternal realities than on any hopes of further release.[7]

4:18 “the Lord” In this verse (and v. 14), this could refer to YHWH, but in verse 17 (and v. 1) it refers to Jesus. Jesus is the best option for all the occurrences in chapter 4.




“rescue me from every evil deed”




“deliver me from every evil work”




“rescue me from every evil attack”




“rescue me from all evil”




“rescue me from all evil attempts on me”


Paul knew that the Lord was with him, for him and in him. He also realized that human opposition had a Satanic or demonic origin. The proclamation of the gospel is always accompanied by evil opposition!

This phrase is all the more striking and paradoxical when it occurs so close to Paul’s execution!

© “will bring me safely to His heavenly kingdom” See Special Topic: This Age and the Age to Come at 2 Tim. 3:1.

© “to Him be glory forever and ever” Paul often breaks into doxologies of praise (i.e. two good examples, Rom. 11:36; Eph. 3:14–21).

© “Amen” See Special Topic at Titus 2:12.[8]

[1] MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1995). 2 Timothy (pp. 213–214). Chicago: Moody Press.

[2] Köstenberger, A. (2006). 2 Timothy. In T. Longman III & D. E. Garland (Eds.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians–Philemon (Revised Edition) (Vol. 12, p. 599). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[3] Fee, G. D. (2011). 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (p. 298). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

[4] Barcley, W. B. (2005). A Study Commentary on 1 and 2 Timothy (pp. 301–302). Darlington, England; Webster, NY: Evangelical Press.

[5] Spence-Jones, H. D. M. (Ed.). (1909). 2 Timothy (p. 62). London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company.

[6] Calvin, J., & Pringle, W. (2010). Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (pp. 271–272). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

[7] Guthrie, D. (1990). Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 14, pp. 195–196). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

[8] Utley, R. J. (2000). Paul’s Fourth Missionary Journey: I Timothy, Titus, II Timothy (Vol. Volume 9, p. 176). Marshall, Texas: Bible Lessons International.

Good News: Tomorrow We Die | Christianity Today Magazine

I used to assume that God owed me a long life—to pursue a vocation and family with full strength, to live long enough to become a grandparent. Then, at 39, I was diagnosed with incurable cancer. The expected storyline of my life was interrupted. Now, as a cancer patient, my expectations have changed. The cancer is likely to cut decades from my life; I experience daily pain and fatigue that drain my strength. While my former expectations of God may seem reasonable, I’ve come to see how I had unwittingly embraced a form of the prosperity gospel. I believed that God owed me a long life.

This assumption is widespread. Among those in the United States who believe in God, 56 percent think that “God will grant good health and relief from sickness to believers who have enough faith,” according to a recent Pew study. In other parts of the world, the percentage of Christians who hold this view is even higher.

In some ways, this belief fits with Old Testament teachings about reaping what we sow. “Trouble pursues the sinner, but the righteous are rewarded with good things,” Proverbs 13:21 says. The prosperity gospel takes nuggets of wisdom like this and combines them with the healing ministry of Jesus in a way that explains illness in a clear axiom: Since God loves us, he doesn’t want us to be sick. So if we don’t have good health, it must be a consequence of personal sin, or at least a lack of faith on our part. One way or another, the ill person is to blame. While many evangelicals would reject this “strong” form of the prosperity gospel, many of us accept a softer version, a corollary: If I’m seeking to obey God and live in faith, I should expect a long life of earthly flourishing and relative comfort.

Recently, a friend told me about her work as a counselor with middle school youth at a Christian summer camp. On a designated day, campers participated in an activity designed to help them develop empathy in some small ways for people living with physical disabilities. Some students were blindfolded, others had their ears covered, and others sat in a wheelchair for the day’s activities.

Partway through the day, one girl ripped off her blindfold and refused to put it back on. “If I became blind, God would heal me,” she said. She had faith in Jesus and was trying to obey God. Like a predictable transaction, she knew that if she did her part, she could count on God to give her a life she considered to be prosperous. If she became blind, God would fix that.

The problem with this approach is not the belief that God can heal and that God loves us. The issue is that the God of Scripture never promises the type of prosperity this camper so confidently expected. Certainly, when healing comes, including through the means of medical treatment, it is a good gift from God. When we feel like we are in a dark “pit,” like the psalmist (Ps. 30:1–3), we can and should lament and petition for deliverance, including in our pain and illness. We rightly ask God for healing, just as we ask the Father for our daily bread in the Lord’s Prayer. Yet healing, like our daily bread, is ephemeral, passing away. Whether we live only a few years or several decades, Ecclesiastes reminds us that, viewed through a wide-angle lens, “Everyone comes naked from their mother’s womb, and as everyone comes, so they depart” (5:15).

Every one of us will eventually be struck down by death, a wound that no medicine can heal. Though Proverbs is right to point us to the general wisdom of reaping what we sow, it’s not a divine law of how the universe always works. Job was “blameless and upright” yet suffered great calamity with the loss of his children, his servants, his wealth, and his health
(Job 1:1, 13–19; 2:7–8). The apostle Paul served Christ and the church sacrificially in faith yet was not granted deliverance from his “thorn in the flesh” (2 Cor. 12:7–10). When it comes to mortality and the losses that come with it, none of us will be exempt. Although we tend to push away such basic human realities in our daily life, I’ve discovered something surprising: For us as Christians, embracing daily reminders of our mortal limits can refresh our parched souls.

Good News Worth Dying For

Our lifetime is “fleeting,” our days like a “handbreadth” in relation to the eternal God, Psalm 39 reminds us. Until the Lord of creation comes again to make all things new, we join the psalmist in praying:

Lord, let me know my end, and what is the measure of my days; let me know how fleeting my life is. You have made my days a few handbreadths, and my lifetime is as nothing in your sight. (vv. 4–5, NRSV)

This prayer contrasts with commonly shared cultural assumptions today. Our tendency to construct tales about ourselves on Facebook and Instagram, for example, is part of a larger cultural liturgy—a set of practices shaping our desires—that subtly leads many of us to assume that we are at the center of the universe and that our story, if not our actual number of years on earth, will never end. The COVID-19 crisis has exposed these assumptions as illusions. The fact that refrigerated trucks were required to gather the bodies of the dead in cities like New York and Detroit is jarring testimony that highly developed nations are not immune to unexpected death. Moreover, as protests about the killing of unarmed black people have disclosed, the assumption that “my storyline will never end” is a culturally privileged one. The black church and other marginalized communities are painfully aware of the fleeting nature of human life. “Steal away, steal away, steal away to Jesus,” the Negro spiritual intones. For “I ain’t got long to stay here.”

Our mortality was not so easy to avoid in earlier generations. Beyond the reality that life-threatening communicable disease was an ever-present threat, the culture of death in America was more communal. Funeral services served as consistent reminders of human mortality as whole congregations attended, including children. These services traditionally focused on how we are not our own but belong to Christ in life and in death. In contrast, it is more common now to have personal memorial services tailored to the particular life story of the deceased, with only family and friends attending. We may care about someone else’s death, but only when it’s meaningful for our own story. Our own story counts the most. Death is something that happens to other people.

Psalm 39 cuts through such illusions, yet it is charged with hope. Though we are temporal creatures, we can still find true flourishing by investing our deepest loves in the one who is everlasting, the Lord. Peter Craigie, a particularly insightful commentator on the Psalms, notes how life’s value must be understood in light of its finitude. “Life is extremely short,” Craigie once wrote. “If its meaning is to be found, it must be found in the purpose of God, the giver of all life.” Indeed, recognizing the “transitory nature” of our lives is “a starting point in achieving the sanity of a pilgrim in an otherwise mad world.” Craigie penned these words in 1983, in the first of three planned volumes on the Psalms in a prestigious scholarly commentary series. Two years later he died in a car accident, leaving his commentary series incomplete. He was 47.

Craigie’s life was taken before he and his loved ones expected, before he could accomplish his good and worthy earthly goals. Yet in his transient life, he bore witness to the breathtaking horizon of eternity. He bore witness to how embracing our mortal limits goes hand in hand with offering our mortal bodies to the Lord of life. We’re not heroes of the world, and we can’t do much. But we can love generously, and we can bear witness to the one who is the origin and end of life itself—the everlasting Lord, the Alpha and the Omega, the crucified and risen Savior who has accomplished and will bring about what we could never do ourselves.

The Antidote to Death Denial

Our faith should not be used as a buffer to shield us from the sobering reality of our own mortality. Indeed, this death-denying attitude, so common in the “soft” prosperity gospel today, is unnecessary because of our hope in God for the resurrection of the dead. In the end, a faith unable to cope with our mortal helplessness is not worth having. The apostle Paul admits this openly: “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith,” he says in his famous chapter on Christ’s resurrection. “If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied” (1 Cor. 15:14, 19). Daily admitting our impotence before death can be a way of giving ourselves over to the risen Lord rather than depending upon our own attempts to manufacture a “prosperous” earthly life.

Strangely enough, admitting our powerlessness over death in this way can free us from slavery to the fear of death. Sociologists, in a school of thought inspired by Ernest Becker’s Pulitzer Prize–winning book, The Denial of Death, have documented how cultures tend to idolize political heroes or national fortunes as a way to deny their mortal limits. When we humans deny our mortality, we become defensive, trusting only our own political tribe or own racial or cultural groups. But living in resurrection hope displaces the need to idolize flawed leaders or whitewash sinful ideological causes. We can openly admit that we cannot defeat death. Instead, we live in trust that on the final day, “when the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: ‘Death has been swallowed up in victory’ ” (1 Cor. 15:54). That day has not yet come—we long for it in the coming age, when Christ’s kingdom comes in fullness. Our hope for it, and in God’s purposes rather than our own, makes a great deal of difference in how we live each day now.

In light of resurrection hope, Paul believed that though “outwardly we are wasting away,” our bodily decay will not have the final word (2 Cor. 4:16). Moreover, even our bodily afflictions are incorporated into the reality that holds us: our union with the crucified and risen Lord. “For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that his life may also be revealed in our mortal body” (v. 11). Whether or not we have sight or mobility, whether we live 5 or 40 or 90 years, our bodies belong to the Lord, and the process of outwardly wasting away can be a testimony to the humble love of our Savior. Amazingly, the Spirit enfolds bodily failings into his work in the world. As we are witnesses to Christ, the very crumbling of our bodies makes it “clear that this extraordinary power belongs to God and does not come from us” (v. 7, NRSV). In this way, the anchor of our hope is not deliverance from the process of decay but union with the crucified and risen Christ. This union with Christ will fully blossom in the coming resurrection, sharing in “an eternal glory that far outweighs” our present troubles (v. 17).

The Gift of Mortality Reminders

According to Martin Luther, even when our bodies feel vibrant and dying seems to belong to a far country, we should make death a frequent acquaintance. “We should familiarize ourselves with death during our lifetime,” he wrote in a 1518 sermon, “inviting death into our presence when it is still at a distance and not on the move.” Why does Luther advise this? His reason is not a morbid proclivity but rather the same reason the psalmist refers to life as merely “a few handbreadths” before God: Death punctures our hubris, our sense that the world is a drama in which we are the focal point. Reminders of our death can point to the God of life—the God who put flesh on dry bones—as our only hope, both now and in the age to come. As Luther reminds us, “since everyone must depart, we must turn our eyes to God, to whom the path of death leads and directs us.”

On hard days and easier days, amid joy and pain, I’ve come to embrace mortality reminders as strange but good gifts. They can ground me as a mortal before God. We live in hope that the frailty and decay of our bodies will not be the final measure of our lives. We live in hope that the central drama of the universe is not our own life story. Instead, living as small creatures, we can rejoice in the wonder and drama of God’s love in Christ.

Our present life will end when, like Job, we as creatures are stripped of family and fortune and worldly future. But even in light of this mortal end—indeed, especially in light of it—we can join the apostle Paul in being “convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:38–39).

J. Todd Billings is the Gordon H. Girod Research Professor of Reformed Theology at Western Theological Seminary in Holland, Michigan. This article includes material adapted from his latest book, The End of the Christian Life: How Embracing Our Mortality Frees Us to Truly Live.

Source: Good News: Tomorrow We Die

October—16 The Poor Man’s Evening Portion


Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood.—Hebrews 13:12.

My soul! I would have thee, this evening, take a view of thy Jesus in his own blood, under the special and particular act in which this scripture holds him forth; sanctifying the people by the application of it, as the great object and design for which he suffered. There is somewhat uncommonly interesting in this view, though not so commonly considered. That this is the only laver for sin, is unquestionable; and that it is infinitely meritorious, and of eternal efficacy, is also equally true. But when we consider, farther, the infinite purity of it, flowing, as it did, from a holy heart, in a nature that was altogether holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; there is somewhat which, though too deeply founded in mystery to be perfectly apprehended by us, may yet serve to intimate the immense preciousness of it, and its immense importance and value. But we must not stop here. The union of the Godhead with the human nature, giving both dignity and validity to the sacrifice which Jesus once offered, that he might sanctify the people, here angels, as well as men, find their faculties unable to ascertain the extent of the wonderful subject; and, perhaps, through all eternity, none among the creation of God will fully be competent to explain it. But, my soul! though unable to explain, or unable to conceive the infinitely precious nature of thy Jesus’s blood, yet do thou gather this sweet and soul-reviving thought from the contemplation: it must be in itself so incalculable in value, and so infinitely powerful in its pardoning and cleansing properties, that no sin, no, not all the sin of finite creatures taken in the aggregate, can stand before it. O precious, precious Jesus! precious, precious blood of Jesus, which cleanseth from all sin! Oh! let me hear, and feel, and know my personal interest in that sweet promise of my God in Christ, and my happiness is made for ever: “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.” Amen! Amen! So be it.[1]


[1] Hawker, R. (1845). The Poor Man’s Evening Portion (A New Edition, pp. 297–298). Philadelphia: Thomas Wardle.

October 16 – What are we to do while we’re stuck on earth? — VCY America

October 16
Jeremiah 28:1-29:32
1 Timothy 1:1-20
Psalm 86:1-17
Proverbs 25:17

Jeremiah 28:3 – Hananiah the son of Azur was a morale booster. Today we call his work PsyOps. And while it was lauded by the king, it would be worthy of death by God (Deuteronomy 18:20-22). But Hananiah’s prophecy was two years out. The prophecy of Jeremiah was time sensitive – how would the people know who was the right prophet?

World War II Morale Boosting Posters

Jeremiah 28:16 – Jeremiah prophesied that Hananiah would be dead within the year – while Hananiah’s prophecy was peace within two years. 

Interestingly in recent times John Alexander Dowie, founder of Zion, IL entered into a prayer duel with the founder of Ahmadiyya.

A bizarre sidelight on Dowie’s later years is that he became embroiled in an acrimonious public dispute with a controversial Indian Muslim religious figure, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, founder of the Ahmadiyya movement. In 1903 they engaged in a widely publicized prayer duel, each calling upon God to punish the other to expose him as a false prophet. Ahmad and his followers proclaimed Dowie’s rapidly ensuing illness, disgrace, and death as a vindication of their religious beliefs. Ahmad died in 1908, a year later than Dowie.


Jeremiah 29:2 – It is strange that we see the eunuchs mentioned here – this is another pagan practice that had been adopted by Israel. Deuteronomy 23:1 declared castration forbade a man from the assembly of the LORD. Why would a political leader in an attempt to be like the surrounding nations, cut off his advisers from the LORD? Then again the people offered their children to Baal as burnt offerings (Jeremiah 19:5), and castrated their advisers. 

Jeremiah 29:5-7 – This is good advice for us today. We are away from our true home. Jeremiah 29:10 says they will be in captivity for 70 years. Interestingly Psalm 90:10 talks about our threescore and ten (70 years) on earth before we go to our New Jerusalem (Revelation 21)! The “United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing,” better known as Shakers, believed that Jesus was coming back so soon that they did not need to “bear sons and daughters” (Jeremiah 29:6). Even today many talk about how they can’t imagine bringing children into the world.

What are we to do ? Prepare to stay awhile thru:

  • personal comforts (build houses)
  • profits (plant gardens)
  • procreation (take wives, bear sons and daughters), 
  • politics (seek the peace of the city)

Yes God is OK with you living in a nice house, having a 401k, bringing children into this world, and with you voting, volunteering on a campaign, donating to a candidate, or even running for office yourself! BUT – 

Jeremiah 29:10 – There is something better coming (taking you to the New Jerusalem). That is the expected end. We can enjoy this present life, but remember to call upon the LORD (Jeremiah 29:12), and that someday we will be gathered in (Jeremiah 29:14).

Jeremiah 29:22 – That is a vivid image of the end of a false prophet.

1 Timothy 1:3 – Jeremiah battled false teachers in Hananiah (Jeremiah 28:15) in Jerusalem, and Ahab and Zedekiah (Jeremiah 29:21) in Babylon. Timothy is now battling false teachers in Ephesus. 

1 Timothy 1:15 – The anointed Messiah, “Jehovah is Salvation” entered the world on purpose, to save people who admit they are horrible people. The good people (those still in Jerusalem (Jeremiah 29:16-19), won’t be saved. But the bad people – those who went into captivity (Jeremiah 27:12-13) can live if they surrender! 

1 Timothy 1:17 – The hymn “Immortal Invisible, God Only Wise” is based on this verse.

1 Timothy 1:18 – In 1 Timothy 6:12 Paul will get back to this expression – as he urges Timothy to fight the good fight!

Psalm 86:1 – The Psalmist recognizes the same truth that Paul and Jeremiah do – God hears those who admit they are needy!

Proverbs 25:17 – As we say today – “Don’t wear out your welcome.”

Share how reading thru the Bible has been a blessing to you! E-mail us at 2018bible@vcyamerica.org or call and leave a message at 414-885-5370.

October 16 – What are we to do while we’re stuck on earth? — VCY America

October 16 Thoughts for the quiet hour


The word of our God shall stand forever

Isa. 40:8

The Word of God is the water of life; the more ye lave it forth, the fresher it runneth. It is the fire of God’s glory; the more ye blow it, the clearer it burneth. It is the corn of the Lord’s field; the better ye grind it, the more it yieldeth. It is the bread of heaven; the more it is broken and given forth, the more it remaineth. It is the sword of the Spirit; the more it is scoured, the brighter it shineth.

Bishop Jewel[1]


[1] Hardman, S. G., & Moody, D. L. (1997). Thoughts for the quiet hour. Willow Grove, PA: Woodlawn Electronic Publishing.

Joe Biden’s boosters wrote ‘prodigal’ son’s entire resume | WND

Hunter Biden (screenshot)

[Editor’s note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Investigations.]

By Paul Sperry
Real Clear Investigations

Hunter Biden profited from his father’s political connections long before he struck questionable deals in countries where Joe Biden was undertaking diplomatic missions as vice president. In fact, virtually all the jobs listed on his resume going back to his first position out of college, which paid a six-figure salary, came courtesy of the former six-term senator’s donors, lobbyists and allies, a RealClearInvestigations examination has found.

One document reviewed by RCI reveals that a Biden associate admitted “finding employment” for Hunter Biden specifically as a special favor to his father, then a Senate leader running for president. He secured a $1.2 million gig on Wall Street for his young son, even though it was understood he had no experience in high finance. Many of his generous patrons, in turn, ended up with legislation and policies favorable to their businesses or investments, an RCI review of lobbying records and legislative actions taken by the elder Biden confirms.

That the 50-year-old Hunter has been trading on his Democratic father’s political influence his entire adult life raises legal questions about possible influence-peddling, government watchdogs and former federal investigators say. In addition, the more than two-decades-long pattern of nepotism casts fresh doubt on Joe Biden’s recent statements that he “never discussed” business with his son, and that his activities posed “no conflicts of interest.”

No fewer than three committees in the Republican-controlled Senate have opened probes into potential Biden family conflicts. Investigators are also poring over Treasury Department records that have flagged suspicious activities involving Hunter’s banking transactions and business deals that may be connected to his father’s political influence.

U.S. ethics rules require all government officials to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest in taking official actions. The Bidens have denied any wrongdoing.

While most of the attention on Hunter has focused on his dealings in Ukraine and China when his father was in the White House, he also cashed in on cushy jobs and sweetheart deals throughout his dad’s long Senate career, records reveal.

“Hunter Biden’s Ukraine-China connections are just one element of the Biden corruption story,” said Tom Fitton, president of the Washington-based watchdog group Judicial Watch, who contends Biden used both the Office of the Vice President and the Senate to advance his son’s personal interests.

In each case, Hunter Biden appeared under-qualified for the positions he obtained. All the while, he was a chronic abuser of alcohol and drugs, including crack cocaine, and has cycled in and out of no fewer than six drug-rehab treatment programs, according to published reports. He’s also been the subject of at least two drug-related investigations by police, one in 1988 and another in 2016,  according to federal records and reports. A third drug investigation resulted in his discharge from the U.S. Navy Reserve in 2014.

This comprehensive account of Hunter Biden’s “unique career trajectory,” as one former family friend gently put it, was pieced together through interviews with more than a dozen people, several of whom insisted on anonymity to describe private conversations, and after an in-depth examination of public records, including Securities and Exchange Commission filings, court papers, campaign filings, federal lobbying disclosures, and congressional documents.

Hunter Biden’s resume begins 24 years ago. Here is a rundown of the plum positions he has managed to land since 1996, thanks to his politically connected father and his boosters:

1996-1998: MBNA Corp.

Fresh out of college, credit-card giant MBNA put him on its payroll as “senior vice president” earning more than $100,000 a year, plus an undisclosed signing bonus. Delaware-based MBNA at the time was Biden’s largest donor and lobbying the Delaware senator for bankruptcy reforms that would make it harder for consumers to declare bankruptcy and write off credit-card debt.

Besides a job for Hunter, bank executives and employees gave generously to Joe Biden’s campaigns – $214,000 total, federal records show – and one top executive even bought Biden’s Wilmington, Del., home for more than $200,000 above the market value, real estate records show. The exec paid top dollar – $1.2 million – for the old house even though it lacked central air conditioning. MBNA also flew Biden and his wife to events and covered their travel costs, disclosure forms show.

Sen. Biden eventually came through for MBNA by sponsoring and whipping votes in the Senate to pass the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention Act.

When NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw asked Biden during the 2008 presidential campaign whether it was wrong “for someone like you in the middle of all this to have your son collecting money from this big credit-card company while you were on the (Senate) floor protecting its interests,” Biden gave an answer he would repeat many times in the future: “Absolutely not,” he snapped, arguing it was completely appropriate and that Hunter deserved the position and generous salary because he graduated from Yale.

1998-2001: Commerce Department

Hunter also capitalized on the family name in 1998 when he joined President Clinton’s agency. In spite of having no experience in the dot-com industry, he was appointed “executive director of e-commerce policy coordination,” pulling down another six-figure salary plus bonuses.

He landed the job after his father’s longtime campaign manager and lawyer William Oldaker called then-Commerce Secretary William Daley, who’d also worked on Biden’s campaigns, and put in a good word for his son, according to public records.

2001-2009: Oldaker, Biden & Belair

After Republican President George W. Bush took over the Commerce Department, Hunter left the government and joined Oldaker to open a lobbying shop in Washington, just blocks from Congress, where he gained access to exclusive business and political deals.

Federal disclosure forms show Hunter Biden and his firm billed millions of dollars while lobbying on behalf of a host of hospitals and private colleges and universities, among other clients. In a 2006 disclosure statement submitted to the Senate, Hunter said his clients were “seeking federal appropriations dollars.”

Hunter won the contract to represent St. Joseph’s University from an old Biden family friend who worked in government relations at the university and proposed he solicit earmarks for one of its programs in Philadelphia. The friend, Robert Skomorucha, remarked in a press interview that Hunter had “a very strong last name that really paid off in terms of our lobbying efforts.”

These clients, like MBNA, also favored bankruptcy reforms to make it harder for patients and students to discharge debt in bankruptcy filings. At the same time Hunter was operating as a Beltway lobbyist, he was receiving “consulting payments” from his old employer MBNA, which was still courting his father over the bankruptcy reforms.

In 2007, Hunter also dined with a private prison lobbyist who had business before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee Joe Biden chaired, according to published reports. Senate rules bar members or their staff from having contact with family members who are lobbyists seeking to influence legislation.

Hunter’s lawyer-lobbyist firm was embroiled in a conflict-of-interest controversy in 2006 when it was criticized for representing a lobbyist under investigation by the House ethics committee. The lobbyist was still taking payments from his old K street firm while working as a top aide on the House Appropriations Committee. Hunter at the time was lobbying that same committee for earmarks for his clients.

William Oldaker did not just make Hunter a rich lobbyist. Oldaker also secured a $1 million loan for him through a bank he co-founded, WashingtonFirst, that Hunter sought for an investment scheme, which later went sour.

Joe Biden deposited hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign and political action committee donations at WashingtonFirst, while funneling hundreds of thousands in campaign and PAC expenditures to Oldaker, Biden & Belair. Joe Biden’s payments to Hunter’s lobbying firm, including more than $143,000 in 2007 alone, were listed as “legal services” in Federal Election Commission filings.

Oldaker did not respond to a request for comment left at his office.

2003-2005: National Group LLP 

While serving as a partner at Oldaker, Biden & Belair, Hunter also registered as a lobbyist for National Group, a lobbying-only subsidiary which shared offices with OB&B  and specialized in targeted spending items inserted into legislation known as “earmarks.”

Hunter represented his father’s alma mater, the University of Delaware, and other Biden constituents and submitted requests to Biden’s office for earmarks benefiting these clients in appropriations bills.

2006-2007: Paradigm Companies LLC

In 2005, when Joe Biden was thinking about making another run at the White House, after a 1987 bid that ended in plagiarism charges, his lobbyist son was looking for a new line of work too.

In early 2006, Wall Street executive and Biden family friend Anthony Lotito said, Biden’s younger brother, Jim, phoned him on behalf of the senator. He said Biden wanted his youngest son – whom he still called “Honey” – to get out of the lobbying business to avoid allegations of conflicts of interest that might dog Biden’s presidential bid.

“Biden was concerned with the impact that Hunter’s lobbying activities might have on his expected campaign [and asked his brother to] seek Lotito’s assistance in finding employment for Hunter in a non-lobbying capacity,” according to a January 2007 complaint that Lotito filed in New York state court against Hunter over alleged breach of contract in a related venture. (Jim and Hunter Biden denied such a phone call took place as described.)

Lotito told the court he agreed to help Hunter as a favor to the senator, who had served on the powerful banking committee. He figured “the financial community might be a good starting place in which to seek out employment on Hunter’s behalf,” the court documents state. But he quickly found that Wall Street had “no interest” in hiring Biden.

So the Bidens hatched a scheme to buy a hedge fund, “whereby Hunter would then assume a senior executive position with the company.” And Lotito helped broker the deal. Despite having no Wall Street experience, Biden was appointed interim CEO and president of the Paradigm investment fund and given a $1.2 million salary, according to SEC filings. Lotito joined the enterprise as a partner, and agreed to shepherd Hunter, still in his mid-thirties, through his new role in high-finance.

“Given Hunter Biden’s inexperience in the securities industry,” the complaint states, it was agreed that Lotito would maintain an office at the new holding company’s New York headquarters “in order to assist Biden in discharging his duties as president.”

After the venture failed, Lotito sued the Bidens for fraud. The Bidens countersued and the two parties settled in 2008.

2006-2009: Amtrak

During this same period, Hunter was appointed vice chairman of the taxpayer-subsidized rail line, thanks to the sponsorship of powerful Democratic Sen. Harry Reid, a political ally of his father.

In a 2006 statement submitted to the Senate during his confirmation, Hunter asserted that he was qualified for the Amtrak board because “as a frequent commuter and Amtrak customer for over 30 years, I have literally logged thousands of miles on Amtrak.”

Amtrak has been a major supporter of Joe Biden, donating to both his Senate and presidential campaigns and even naming a train station after him in Wilmington. In return, Biden has supported taxpayer subsidies for the government railroad throughout his political career.

In his testimony, Hunter denied his Amtrak appointment pushed conflict-of-interest boundaries.

2009- : Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC

Hunter co-founded the investment firm five months after his father moved into the White House and incorporated it in his father’s home state of Delaware, which has strict corporate secrecy rules.

At the time, Obama had tapped Vice President Biden to oversee the recovery from the financial crisis. Three weeks after Rosemont was incorporated, Hunter and his partners set up a subsidiary called Rosemont TALF and got $24 million in loans from the federal program known as the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility. TALF was designed to help bail out banks and auto lenders hit by the crisis.

Within months, Rosemont had secured a total of $130 million from the program. Some of the government cash was then funneled into an investment fund incorporated in the Cayman Islands, SEC records show. Such offshore accounts are commonly used to evade taxes.

The move raised ethical flags with government watchdogs who suspected the bailout cash was used to benefit a well-connected insider.

Other records reveal that another subsidiary created years later – Rosemont Realty – touted to its investors that board adviser Hunter was politically connected. It highlighted in a company prospectus that he was the “son of Vice President Biden.”

2009-2012: Eudora Global

On his resume, Hunter also lists himself as “founder” of yet another investment firm. But Eudora’s articles of incorporation show it was actually set up by a major Biden donor, Jeffrey Cooper, who put Hunter on his board.after his father became vice president.

A self-described “friend of the Biden family,” Cooper also happened to run one of the largest asbestos-litigation firms in the country — SimmonsCooper LLC — and had courted Biden to make it easier to file asbestos lawsuits by defeating tort reforms. As a leader on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Biden had blocked reform of asbestos litigation every time bills reach the Senate floor.

Cooper’s law firm, which directly lobbied the Delaware senator’s office to kill such bills, donated more than $200,000 to Biden’s campaigns over the years, as well as his Unite Our States PAC, FEC records show. In fact, SimmonsCooper was one of Biden’s biggest donors during his failed 2007-2008 run for president, pumping $53,000 into his campaign.

The firm also put up $1 million in investment capital to help his son buy out the Paradigm hedge fund as part of the arrangement brokered by another Biden family friend, Lotito, to find non-lobbying work for Hunter.. Thanks in large part to Biden’s effort to kill bills reining in asbestos trial lawyers, SimmonsCooper has hauled in more than $1 billion for alleged asbestos victims.

Attempts to reach Cooper for comment were unsuccessful.

2009-2016: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP:

When Joe Biden became Vice President, Hunter landed a high-paying, no-show job at the New York-based law firm, a Democrat shop long tied to the Clintons. Another major Biden donor, the firm gave him the title “of counsel.”

Boies Schiller brought Hunter aboard in 2009 after the Bidens hired the firm to defend Hunter against charges he defrauded partners in the Paradigm investment venture. Boies Schiller managed to get the case dismissed.

In 2014, a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch, who was under investigation and looking to repair his reputation to attract Western investors, started sending large payments to Boies to support Hunter for unspecified work. It’s unclear what Hunter did for the oligarch, who ran the gas giant Burisma, but $283,000 showed up at the same time his father was tapped by Obama to play a central role in overseeing U.S. energy policy in Ukraine.

The firm has pumped more than $50,000 into Biden’s campaigns.

2013-2019: BHR Partners

After Obama named Biden his point man on China policy, Rosemont Seneca set up a joint venture worth $1 billion with the Bank of China called BHR – and Hunter was named vice-chairman and director of the new concern.

Following in the shadow of his father’s political trajectory, Hunter’s new venture won the first-of-its-kind investment deal with the Chinese government at the same time Biden was jetting to Beijing to meet with top communist leaders. Secret Service records reveal Hunter flew to China on Air Force Two with his father while brokering the December 2013 deal. He arranged for one of his Chinese partners to shake hands with the vice president. BHR was registered 12 days later. Beijing OK’d a business license shortly afterward.

“No one else had such an arrangement in China,” said Peter Schweizer, president of the Government Accountability Institute.

Hunter resigned from the board of the Beijing-backed equity firm earlier this year as his father faced growing criticism on the campaign trail over what critics called a glaring conflict of interest. He did not, however, divest his 10% equity stake in the Chinese fund, which is estimated to be worth tens of millions of dollars.

Schweizer, whose books include “Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elites,” said Biden went “soft” on the Chinese communists so his son could “cash in” on China business deals. Biden insists he did not discuss the venture with his son before, during or after his official visit to Beijing. But others see obvious hypocrisy at play in the Biden family’s self-dealing in notoriously corrupt China.

“Biden was one of the most vocal champions of anti-corruption efforts in the Obama administration. So when this same Biden takes his son with him to China aboard Air Force Two, and within days Hunter joins the board of an investment advisory firm with stakes in China, it does not matter what father and son discussed,” said Sarah Chayes, author of “Thieves of State: Why Corruption Threatens National Security.” “Joe Biden has enabled this brand of practice.”

2013-2014: U.S. Navy Reserve

Hunter was selected for a direct commission as a public affairs officer in a Virginia reserve unit.

He clearly received special treatment in securing the part-time post. Officers had to issue him two waivers – one for his age and one for a previous drug offense.

His vice president father swore him in at the White House in a small, private ceremony.

Barely a year later, authorities booted Hunter from the Navy for cocaine use after he tested positive from a urine test. The reason for his discharge was withheld from the press for several months.

2014-2019: Burisma Holdings

The Ukrainian gas giant added Hunter to its board soon after Obama named his father his point man on Ukraine policy, focusing on energy. The company paid his son as much as $83,000 a month, even though he had no energy experience to bring to the table and was required to attend just one board meeting a year.

At the time, the vice president was steering U.S. aid to Kiev to help develop its gas fields, which stood to benefit Burisma as the holder of permits to develop natural gas in three of Ukraine’s most lucrative fields. Biden promised Ukrainian officials the US would pump more than $1 billion into their energy industry and economy during a visit to Kiev in late April 2014. He urged leaders to increase the country’s gas supply and to rely on Americans to help them. Less than three weeks later, Burisma appointed his son to the board, after already retaining him for undisclosed services through Boies Schiller.

Burisma was run by an oligarch, Mykola Zlochevsky, who was under investigation at the time and seeking Western protection from prosecution. In a move observers suspect was intended to send a message to prosecutors, the company sent out a news release in May 2014 claiming, falsely, that Hunter would be in charge of its “legal unit.” Burisma also trumpeted the fact that Hunter was “the son of the current U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden.”

Biden’s office was aware Burisma was under investigation. The administration had tried to partner with the gas company through U.S. aid programs, but the outreach project was blocked over corruption concerns lodged by career diplomats.

In early 2016, Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees if Ukraine did not dismiss the country’s top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Burisma. “If the prosecutor is not fired,” Biden recalled telling Ukraine’s leader, “you’re not getting the money.”

Biden’s muscling worked: Shoken was sacked in March 2016.

The former vice president says he was carrying out official U.S. policy that sought to remove an ineffective prosecutor. But Shoken had raided the home of Burisma’s owner and seized his property.

In addition, Shokin said that as part of his probe he was making plans to interview Hunter about millions of dollars in fees he and his partners had received from Burisma. He insists he was fired because he refused to close the investigation.

“The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma, and Joe Biden’s son was a member of the board,” Shokin said in a recent sworn affidavit prepared for a European court. “I assume Burisma had the support of Joe Biden because his son was on the board.” He added that the vice president himself had “significant interests” in Burisma.

The prosecutor who replaced Shokin shut down the Burisma probe within 10 months. Burisma’s founder was also taken off a U.S. government visa ban list.

Biden claims he only learned of his son joining the Burisma board from the news media. But there is evidence Biden had been consulted in advance. White House visitor logs show that Biden met with Hunter’s business partner Devon Archer on April 16, 2014. Burisma put Archer on its board shortly thereafter, followed by Hunter the next month. (Both Archer and Hunter maintain Burisma never came up during the private visit in Biden’s office, which lasted late into the night.)

The day after Joe Biden’s meeting with Hunter’s partner in the White House, Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskyi reportedly emailed Hunter to thank him for inviting him to Washington and “giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent[sic] some time together.” The Biden campaign asserts it cannot find a meeting with Pozharskyi on the former vice president’s “schedule,” though it did not deny such a meeting could have taken place. The Ukrainian official mentioned going out for coffee with Hunter on April 17, 2014, which indicated he was physically in D.C. at the time. RCI has not confirmed the authenticity of the April 17 email document, first disclosed by the New York Post after obtaining it from a hard drive allegedly copied from a laptop of Hunter Biden left at a computer repair shop in Wilmington, Del. Pozharskyi did not respond to emails seeking comment.

Hunter stepped down from Burisma’s board in April 2019, a month before his father announced his White House bid and after critics made an issue of the conflicts his sinecure posed. He has since kept a very low profile. Unlike Trump’s children, Biden’s son is not out on the trail campaigning for him.

1,850 Boxes Sealed Until After Election

“Hunter Biden had no experience in the field, but he did have a notable connection to the vice president, who publicly has bragged about making clear to the Ukrainians that he alone controlled U.S. aid to the country,” noted Jonathan Turley, a public-interest law professor at George Washington University.

Retired FBI official I.C. Smith, who led public corruption investigations in Washington and Little Rock, Ark., said both father and son should have known joining Burisma was a bad idea, adding that it gives at least the appearance he was leveraging his name for payoffs from shady clients abroad.

“Clearly he’s led a troubled life and would be the sort of person susceptible to becoming engaged in this sort of rather sordid deal,” Smith said of Hunter.

“When he said his father asked if the deal was on the up and up and was assured it was, I would think, given Hunter’s past, the father would have asked more questions,” he added.

Hunter acknowledged in an ABC News interview last year that he lacked experience in both energy and Ukraine, but maintained that Burisma was impressed by other things on his resume.

“Ironically, Hunter highlighted his work at MBNA and his work on the board of Amtrak as evidence of his qualifications for the Burisma gig,” said Fitton of Judicial Watch. “But both the MBNA and Amtrak jobs, under any sensible analysis, were obvious favors for Joe Biden.”

Fitton argued that Biden’s claim he never discussed his son’s jobs and business deals rings hollow against the lengthy record of something-for-nothing nepotism.

“That’s campaign spin,” he said. “Hunter has already admitted to having at least one conversation on the Ukraine issue with Vice President Biden.”

Biden defenders argue that many relatives of politicians are often involved in government and politics. Ivanka Trump and Don Trump Jr., for instance, have cozy relationships with, or financial stakes in, companies that may benefit from those decisions. They also point out that, while they may look bad, there’s nothing illegal about such arrangements.

Fitton isn’t so sure. He said Judicial Watch is demanding Obama administration documents related to Hunter’s Ukraine and China deals, as well as other business arrangements potentially monetizing Biden’s political power.

“We can’t be sure if the arrangements were legal,” he said. “If any payments or jobs were neither ordinary nor customary, there may be legal issues.”

It’s a federal crime to provide a government benefit or favorable change in policy in exchange for something of personal value. At a minimum, argued former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, Biden “had a conflict of interest with the position his son had” on the Burisma board, noting that at the time, Biden was pushing energy policies that favored the gas giant.

Not all of Hunter Biden’s critics are coming from the right, either.

“It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Hunter’s foreign employers and partners were seeking to leverage Hunter’s relationship with Joe, either by seeking improper influence or to project access to him,” said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, a liberal watchdog group based in Washington.

While Joe Biden insists “there’s been no indication of any conflict of interest from Ukraine or anywhere else,” Senate investigators are seeking a number of related emails and memos generated during the Obama administration, as well as his 36-year Senate career. That period, spanning from 1973 to 2009, coincides with a large chunk of his son’s resume.

However, Biden has sealed the bulk of the records at the University of Delaware Library, which refuses to release any of his papers until after the election. It maintains more than 1,850 boxes of Biden records, including his speeches, voting records, position papers and notes from confidential interviews he’s conducted with foreign leaders, among other documents. The papers the university is keeping a lid on could shed light on Biden’s thinking behind foreign policies and controversial bills he sponsored.

A spokeswoman said the library will not release any of Biden’s papers to the public until they are “properly processed and archived.” Until then, “access is only available with Vice President Biden’s express consent,” she said, while declining to answer whether the university would comply if the Senate subpoenaed documents as part of its investigation of the Bidens.

The university houses the Biden Institute, which is part of the Joseph R. Biden, Jr. School of Public Policy and Administration.

Through a lawyer, Hunter maintained he and his father dutifully avoided “conflicts of interest” — or even “the appearance of such conflicts.” In every business pursuit, he asserted, they acted “appropriately and in good faith.”

However, in a moment of candor during a recent ABC News interview, Hunter confessed: “I don’t think that there’s a lot of things that would have happened in my life if my last name wasn’t Biden,” before adding, “There’s literally nothing my father in some way hasn’t had influence over.”

Still, the elder Biden argues it’s the Trump family who has the nepotism problem. In a recent CBS “60 Minutes” interview, he slammed the president for letting his daughter and son-in-law “sit in on Cabinet meetings.”

“It’s just simply improper because you should make it clear to the American public that everything you’re doing is for them,” he intoned. “For them.”

[Editor’s note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Investigations.]

Source: Joe Biden’s boosters wrote ‘prodigal’ son’s entire resume

David Fiorazo: Big Tech, Liberal Media Controlled by Democrats | Stand Up For The Truth

Today, David covers many articles with a focus being on Christians, free speech, and censorship; an evil, biased, and corrupt national media, big tech influence in elections and political contributions to Democrats, and the Smithsonian celebrating abortion and transgenderism (murder and moral relativism).


Senators To Subpoena Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey For ‘Actively Interfering’ In Election – censorship of news reports that allege Hunter Biden corruption

Silicon Valley Opens Its Wallet for Joe Biden – 95% of contributions by employees of six big tech firms for Biden

Facebook and Twitter Contribute Over 90% to Dems

‘Digital Civil War’: Media and Big Tech Suppress Major News Story with Damaging Email on Biden

Conservatives Must Fight Big Tech or Lose – The problem isn’t simply radicalism. It’s power.

Is ‘evil’ too strong a word to describe the media?


Trump’s Character Is Not The Issue – Why I Can’t Take the Character Charge Seriously

Top Resource Links for Christian Conservatives

PRAYER: Remarks by Dr. Rick Scarborough for The Return in D.C.

The Best! Pastors and Patriots: 2020 Podcasts on God & Government – Listen to bold men and women of faith including Andy Woods, Paul Blair, Steve Smothermon, Jan Markell, Rick Scarborough, Gary Kah, Heidi St. John, Dan Fisher, Elijah Abraham, Alex Newman, John Haller, Stephen Broden, Julaine Appling, Scott Lively, Chris Quintana, Saiko Woods, JB Hixson, and Bill Cook.

Source: David Fiorazo: Big Tech, Liberal Media Controlled by Democrats

Mid-Day Snapshot · Oct. 16, 2020


“As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust.” —James Madison, Federalist No. 55 (1788)



Hunter Biden’s Trouble Grows, House GOP Questions FBI

Thomas Gallatin

The New York Post’s continuing bombshell story of emails found on a laptop presumably owned by Hunter Biden serves to confirm what everyone already knew — that Hunter was profiting from his father’s name and political position as the vice president. What we learn from the latest emails is that Joe Biden was quite aware of Hunter’s shady arrangements and likely placated to some degree the foreign companies who “hired” Hunter. In short, it’s a pay-for-play corruption scandal, as Hunter Biden was hired in order to buy influence with Joe Biden.

Exhibit A is Joe Biden’s quid pro quo pressure move to get Ukraine’s then-president to fire the country’s top prosecutor, effectively ensuring that no investigation would be leveled against Burisma, the energy company for which Hunter sat on the board. And Exhibit B may be recovered emails reported in a second New York Post story. The Post says, “Hunter Biden pursued lucrative deals involving China’s largest private energy company — including one that he said would be ‘interesting for me and my family.’” The emails include the reference “10 held by H for the big guy.” Presumably “H” is Hunter; could “the big guy” be Joe Biden?

Once again, the information and rumors surrounding the Bidens’ shady dealings with Chinese companies is not news, but the emails, if authentic, add greater weight to claims of the Bidens’ corruption.

However, what may be the bigger scandal brewing has an all-too-familiar ring to it: What did the FBI know, and when did they know it? According to the Post’s reporting, the FBI was alerted to and subsequently seized the laptop in question in December 2019 — smack in the middle of the Democrats’ impeachment charade. Should the contents of the laptop prove to be authentic, then it serves to undercut the Democrats’ sham claims against President Donald Trump. While Democrats were impeaching Trump for a phone call about the Bidens’ corruption, did the FBI sit on information about that corruption?

On Thursday, House Republicans sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray demanding answers. The “most concerning” part of the Post’s report, say these Republicans, was that the FBI “was in possession of this computer and hard drive back in December 2019” and a “large portion of the President’s legal defense case revolved around strong evidence that former Vice President Biden’s son, Hunter, was peddling his influence to his father to land lucrative jobs overseas that he might not have otherwise been qualified for.”

The strange and questionable manner surrounding the laptop’s discovery cautions against jumping all-in on this scandal before more digging is done. That said, should the information prove to be credible and the FBI sat on it, then heads need to roll.

A Tale of Two Town Halls

Douglas Andrews

There were two presidential town halls last night, and each adhered to the Leftmedia’s script. On ABC, Joe Biden enjoyed one cupcake after another from fraudulent news anchor and former Clinton-era flack George Stephanopoulos, while on NBC, Donald Trump was waterboarded by a fake-smiling Savannah Guthrie.

The Wall Street Journal’s James Freeman teed up the ABC event yesterday afternoon when he wondered whether Stephanopoulos would “invite the Democrat to opine on the New York Post — or demand that he come clean about his family’s influence business.”

Yeah, right.

As if Stephanopoulos and his fellow ABC News lickspittles had that kind of integrity. Sure enough, the Clinton Foundation megadonor failed to ask a single question about the New York Post’s bombshell story from just a day prior. Nor did he present a single query into the Obama-era enrichment activities of Joe Biden’s crack-smoking, influence-peddling deadbeat dad of a son.

Instead, the 90-minute softball session featured 10 or so questions from audience members, both “Republicans” and Democrats, about Biden’s COVID-19 response and vaccine positions, his views on racial injustice, and fracking. Biden did admit that his 1994 crime bill, which disproportionately affected blacks, was a mistake, and one questioner did ask him whether President Trump deserved credit for the relatively peaceful state of the world. His answer: “A little, but not a lot. America first has made America alone.”

What kind of questions might an honest journalist have asked? Oh, some of these for starters, including one about his chumminess with segregationists, and one about his uncanny ability to have been “wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades,” as Barack Obama’s former defense secretary put it. Instead, bupkis.

As for President Trump’s town hall on Trump-hating NBC, what were we to expect? “Moderator” Guthrie behaved with hostility and bias throughout, and her toothy smile seemed at all times forced.

The president was on his game though, despite Guthrie’s obvious animus. He appeared comfortable and in command.

As the Washington Examiner’s James Antle reports, “In a testy exchange, Guthrie peppered Trump with questions about white supremacy and QAnon. He replied that he did denounce white supremacy, that he knew nothing about QAnon, and he demanded to know why no one asked Biden to denounce antifa.”

Antle continued, “Trump’s event still frequently had the tone of a debate and was at times heated. ‘I know you, I knew you’d do this,’ Trump said to Guthrie at one point. Guthrie asked Trump to take 30 seconds to justify why he deserved a ‘second chance. He replied, ‘Because I’ve done a great job.’” Classic Trump.

Perhaps the most interesting news to come out of these dueling town halls, though, will have nothing to do with the events themselves but everything to do with the relative support and intensity of each candidate’s voters: namely, the ratings game. Biden and Trump were on air at the same time last night, but which candidate do we suppose drew the larger audience share?

That’s a rhetorical question.

ACB Hearings: Wrap-Up and a Looming Scheme

Nate Jackson

It’s all over but the crying. Democrats have little recourse to prevent the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. That doesn’t mean they won’t try.

In 2013, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid nuked the filibuster for judicial nominees, though Democrats retained it for the Supreme Court. “You’ll regret this,” then Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned, “and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think.”

That “sooner than you think” came in 2017, when Democrats chose to filibuster Neil Gorsuch because they were bitter that Republicans had refused to even hold hearings for Merrick Garland the previous year. Sure enough, Majority Leader McConnell gave Democrats a dose of their own medicine, eliminating the filibuster even for SCOTUS nominees.

The move left Democrats unable to obstruct Gorsuch, and it later ensured they were unsuccessful in their attempt to character assassinate Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. Similarly, they’re without much hope for stopping Barrett now. “This goose is pretty much cooked,” lamented Cory Booker.

Politics ain’t bean bag, and both parties have escalated the fight over the Supreme Court. Then again, we say “both parties,” but the fault clearly lies with Democrats. Not only have they treated GOP nominees with grotesque contempt ever since defeating Robert Bork in 1987, but they have politicized the Court’s decisions and filled the federal bench with activist judges to do what Democrats cannot do at the ballot box or the halls of Congress.

During four days of hearings, Barrett displayed her stellar qualifications and amiable temperament — even eliciting mild praise from Democrats like Dianne Feinstein (her dogmatically anti-religious hot-mic moment notwithstanding). Yet Democrats have to be able to tell their radical base they did something to stop Barrett.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has just the thing: Democrats might once again break precedent and trash basic decency in the Senate by refusing to supply a quorum for a vote. Why? Barrett’s nomination, he says, is “illegitimate, dangerous, and unpopular.” Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

But will the scheme work? Power Line’s Paul Mirengoff doesn’t think so. “A quorum in the full Senate is 51 members,” he explains. “In the Judiciary Committee it’s nine members including two from the minority party.” Even so, “Republicans could work around this pretty easily.”

The GOP can either approve a discharge resolution relieving the Judiciary Committee of its authority on moving the nomination forward, or the committee itself can change its quorum rules. Schumer likely hopes to accomplish two things: First, push Republicans to make hardball moves that he can whine about to the Democrats’ Leftmedia super PAC to generate sympathy. Second, lay the groundwork for justifying packing the court next year by insisting that Republicans have unfairly “stolen two Supreme Court seats.”

That may work with Schumer’s base, but again, Barrett has proven herself thoroughly likable, and the spectacle of Democrats taking their ball and going home in order to prevent the Judiciary Committee from even voting on a qualified woman would be tough to spin, even with the might of the mainstream media behind them.

Finally, we’ll leave you with a quote from Barrett herself on the first day of hearings: “I interpret the Constitution as a law. That I interpret its text as text. And I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn’t change over time, and it isn’t up to me to update or infuse my own policy views into it.” That, plain and simple, is a justice’s job. We look forward to seeing her do it.

Judge Barrett and the Second Amendment

Michael Swartz

We’ve been beating this drum for quite a while now, but the just-completed Senate testimony of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett reminds us that the High Court has let a fair number of Second Amendment cases go by the boards since the Heller decision 12 years ago.

Having testified before the Senate that she would stick to the “original meaning” of the Second Amendment and that “its original public meaning, not the intent of any particular drafter” is what’s important, Barrett saw the Left zero in on one particular case she heard as part of the Seventh Circuit.

In Kanter v. Barr, Barrett was the lone dissenter in a case where the plaintiff, convicted in a nonviolent felony fraud case, sued to regain the right to bear arms he’d lost due to that conviction. To open her dissent, Barrett explained, “History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous. Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons. Nor have the parties introduced any evidence that founding-era legislatures imposed virtue-based restrictions on the right; such restrictions applied to civic rights like voting and jury service, not to individual rights like the right to possess a gun. In 1791 — and for well more than a century afterward — legislatures disqualified categories of people from the right to bear arms only when they judged that doing so was necessary to protect the public safety.”

Because Rickey Kanter was previously convicted of a felony — even one as far removed from violence as mail fraud — it was enough for the state of Wisconsin to revoke his rights, according to the two judges who upheld the district court decision (both Ronald Reagan appointees, interestingly enough).

In light of Barrett’s well-argued and thoughtful opinion, gun-control advocates are working hard to stop her confirmation. “The [Kanter] opinion is very revelatory,” explained UCLA law professor and author Adam Winkler. “It really shows that she has a very expansive view of gun rights, likely one even broader than Justice Antonin Scalia.” Taking the next illogical, emotion-based, slippery-slope step, Winkler whined, “Does that mean that there’s a constitutional right to have machine guns because there’s no strong historical precedent for banning those weapons?”

Reporting on these “grave concerns” of the gun-grabbers, NPR’s Carrie Johnson agreed, adding, “Scores of federal judges have upheld that blanket ban for people convicted of felonies after balancing the Second Amendment against public safety.”

Here, we’d note that throughout our nation’s history, scores of federal judges have also misinterpreted the common-sense language of the Constitution.

A more clear-headed analyst might argue, as The Heritage Foundation’s Amy Swearer did, “If Barrett is ‘extreme’ with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, it’s only because the Constitution itself offers an ‘extreme’ protection of that right.” Swearer continued, “As an originalist, she would not change the meaning or extent of that protection just because gun control activists — or any other activists — wish it to be so.”

The language within our Second Amendment is very plain: “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. “We the People” can be the “well-regulated militia” if we’re so inclined, but it’s not required that we be one for the Second Amendment to remain in effect.

Perhaps Justice Clarence Thomas will get his wish — the one he (most recently expressed in the case of Rogers v. Grewal) — and we’ll begin hearing Second Amendment cases at the Supreme Court again after a long hiatus. With a plethora of new restrictions such as accessory bans and “red flag” laws having been introduced, clarification is long overdue.

Judge Barrett and ObamaCare

Brian Mark Weber

When President Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, we knew Democrats would frame the pick as an assault on everything they hold dear. But while some on the Left are worried about the fate of Roe v. Wade, the real focus during the confirmation hearings has been Barrett’s alleged threat to ObamaCare. And how we got to this point is worth noting.

As Michael Brendan Dougherty notes at National Review, Chief Justice John Roberts in 2012 “wrote the opinion that vindicated the law, one that everyone else on the Court (and many outside) seemed to disdain. He rewrote the penalty as a tax.” Dougherty adds that Roberts thus “dramatically incentivized Democrats to writhe around like an Italian soccer player when given slightest brushback and threaten the judiciary like FDR.”

Then came the Fifth Circuit Court’s ruling in 2019, which not only effectively ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional, but essentially called the law itself into question as a result. Nonetheless, ObamaCare survives even with the mandate reduced to zero.

Now, Supreme Court oral arguments in California v. Texas are set for November, just after Election Day. That makes the Barrett confirmation even more interesting. If Barrett isn’t confirmed, a 4-4 ruling would confirm the Fifth Circuit’s decision against the law.

No wonder Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are trying to make Americans think a Justice Barrett would single-handedly wipe out every progressive program since FDR. In reality, the progressive agenda is probably safe.

Barrett was critical of the individual mandate in 2012, just as any thoughtful justice would be. And that’s why Democrats keep pushing her to recuse herself from any ruling on ObamaCare.

But the case coming up this November deals with different issues than Barrett questioned back in 2012. This time around, the Court will determine whether the individual mandate with a penalty/tax of zero dollars can still fall under Congress’s power to tax, and whether the mandate can be struck down without dismantling ObamaCare altogether.

This week, Barrett didn’t commit to scrapping ObamaCare. Instead, she indicated her preference to maintain established law through the concept of severability — i.e., if a particular provision of a law is struck down, the court should make every effort to retain the rest of the law if possible. This certainly gives pause to some conservatives who’d hoped that making the tax provision of ObamaCare moot would dismantle the law completely.

Meanwhile, the Democrats’ fervent embrace of ObamaCare might make sense if the law actually worked for the American people. Nearly 10 years later, it’s plain to see it’s much worse than we feared. For one, Americans didn’t get to keep their doctors, the lie Barack Obama repeatedly promised. And a Gallup poll last year revealed that 33% of Americans say they or another member of their family had put off medical treatment due to the high costs of ObamaCare.

As Monica Showalter explains, “It’s a system whose costs never go down and instead every year go up, it’s ultimately unsustainable as millions of people have no choice but to drop out.”

And where does President Trump come down on the issue? We know that he’s been an outspoken critic of ObamaCare, but now he’s promising to retain coverage for pre-existing conditions even if his predecessor’s signature “achievement” is overturned. In a strange way, he’s given the law more credence than it deserves, and he’s at odds with Republicans who want the law repealed root and branch.

ObamaCare is hanging on by a thread, but that doesn’t mean a Justice Barrett will pull the plug on it completely. If we learned anything this week, it’s that Barrett has a mind of her own. And if Republicans actually put forth a solid alternative to ObamaCare, all this huffing and puffing would be even sillier than it is already.

Amazon Censors a Black Conservative

Douglas Andrews

Amazon is known as “The Everything Store,” and for good reason: There just aren’t a lot of things we can’t buy from the online retail colossus. A box of bacon-strip bandages, a mini jail cell for our mobile phones, even a harness and leash for our beloved pet chicken.

Yep, the online retail juggernaut will sell us just about anything. Anything, that is, except a new documentary by esteemed scholar, author, and Hoover Institution senior fellow Shelby Steele. Apparently, Steele’s film, “What Killed Michael Brown?” falls short of Amazon’s “quality expectations.”

Quality expectations? Right. This from a company that sells toilet paper with President Donald Trump’s face on it, and, even worse, sells the autobiography of Hanoi Jane Fonda. But a film that thoughtfully explores the truth behind one of the most racially charged and consequential news stories of the decade? A story that began the fictitious “hands up, don’t shoot” narrative that even Barack Obama’s Justice Department debunked? A story that was the catalyst for starting Black Lives Matter? That’s a bridge too far.

Steele’s film, which he wrote and narrated, and which his son Eli directed, “doesn’t fit the dominant narrative of white police officers killing young black men because of systemic racism,” writes the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board. “As a result, says the younger Mr. Steele, Amazon rejected it for its streaming service. ‘We were canceled, plain and simple.’”

The film speaks “plain truths,” as reviewer Jason Riley writes, but it isn’t one-sided. Al Sharpton has his say, as does the NAACP. That’s not good enough for the cowardly censors at Amazon, though, who informed the Steeles via email “that their film is ‘not eligible for publishing’ because it ‘doesn’t meet Prime Video’s content quality expectations.’ Amazon went on to say it ‘will not be accepting resubmission of this title and this decision may not be appealed.’”

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, who owns The Washington Post and whose net worth is now just over $200 billion, may think he has a license not only to print money, but also to gag renowned scholars and social commentators like Shelby Steele. He should think better. Censorship is cowardice, Jeff. If you’re afraid of a physical fight, you run. If you’re afraid of an intellectual fight, you censor.

Longtime civil rights activist and community development champion Robert Woodson tweeted out a novel idea: “Amazon refused to stream Shelby Steele’s documentary, ‘What Killed Michael Brown?,’ b/c they say it ‘doesn’t meet Prime Video’s content quality expectations.’ Why not let Americans decide for themselves if the film has merit?”

Indeed, we’re adults. Why not let us decide?

“It’s sadly telling about elite political conformity,” the Journal’s editors continue, “that an intelligent film that gives voice to a variety of people, almost all black, who would otherwise not be heard is somehow deemed unfit for polite company. As Eli Steele puts it, ‘When Amazon rejected us they also silenced these voices and that is the great sin of a company that professes to be diverse and inclusive.’”

Perhaps there’s something more insidious at work here, something that Amazon’s speech stiflers have yet to think through. Their claim about the inferior quality of Steele’s work is ridiculous; he’s an award-winning author and filmmaker. So their refusal to allow him into their marketplace of ideas is about something else entirely.

Steele isn’t a bomb-thrower, but he is a black conservative. As such, he’s what former Democrat President and “Great Society” architect Lyndon Johnson might’ve called “uppity.” And Amazon’s efforts to silence him sounds awfully intolerant, even Jim Crow-ish. This here streamin’ service is for members only … boy.

Shelby Steele’s ideas pose a mortal threat to the Left’s most loyal voting constituency. And he’s being denied access to Amazon’s marketplace either because of the color of his skin or the content of his character.

Neither reason is legitimate, but both are bigoted.

SCOTUS Ends Left’s Attempt to Delay Census

Thomas Gallatin

Leftists have milked the coronavirus excuse for all their worth, including taking advantage of a novel event to further tilt the electoral map in Democrats’ favor. Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has at least slowed the effort to drag out the 2020 Census until a Joe Biden administration takes power.

On Tuesday, the justices ruled that the Census Bureau had the authority to end its data collection on October 31. The Court’s ruling overturned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in favor of leftist groups that have dubiously contended the Census Bureau’s ending date would jeopardize producing an accurate population count. As noted above, the real goal for Democrats and the Left was to push back the census completion date in order to secure greater redistricting power.

However, as noted by Ninth Circuit dissenting Judge Patrick Bumatay — with whom the justices agreed — the constitutional mandate for administration of the census does not mention “accuracy” in the count. The Census Bureau must “balance the need for accuracy against the statute’s hard deadline,” Bumatay observed. “Determining what level of accuracy is sufficient is simply not something that the judicial branch is equipped to do.”

Furthermore, as The Wall Street Journal reported, “The Supreme Court’s unsigned order Tuesday stays the lower-court injunction and allows the bureau to immediately wrap up its data collection. The stay might not have a large practical effect since the bureau has already enumerated 99.9% of the population in 47 states with the exceptions of Louisiana (98.3%), Mississippi (99.4%) and South Dakota (99.8%).”

In short, SCOTUS stepped in to prevent another instance of the judicial branch acting as the legislative. And it stepped in to stop just one more avenue leftists are using to stack the deck in their favor. Whether it be the Census, the Electoral College, adding DC and Puerto Rico as states (to pack the Senate), or packing the Supreme Court, today’s Democrat Party is all about “fundamentally transforming” American institutions with the end result of giving Democrats unassailable power.


Top of the Fold

  • Judiciary Committee sets vote on Barrett confirmation for October 22 (CBS News)
  • Chuck Schumer: Dems will deny GOP a quorum to advance Barrett (Power Line)
  • House Republicans ask FBI if it had Hunter Biden’s alleged laptop during Trump’s impeachment (Fox News)

The Twittersphere

  • Senators to subpoena Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey for “actively interfering” in election (The Daily Wire)
  • Twitter changes hacked material policy after backlash over blocking NYPost story about Biden’s son (CNBC)
  • 11 hacks, leaks, and hoaxes that Twitter and Facebook didn’t throttle — because they hurt Trump (The Federalist)
  • FCC Chairman plans to amend Section 230 legal protections for media platforms (Washington Examiner)

Political Money

Elsewhere in Politics

  • C-SPAN’s would-be debate moderator Steve Scully suspended indefinitely after admitting he lied about being hacked to cover for anti-Trump collusion (The Federalist)
  • Democrat Mark Kelly disciplines campaign spokesman for calling cops “worthless f—ing pigs” (AZ Central)
  • Bruce Ohr leaves DOJ after being rebuked for contact with Christopher Steele during Russia investigation (USA Today)

Annals of the “Social Justice” Caliphate

Closing Arguments

  • Policy: Paused trial shows that fearmongering over ‘Trump vaccine’ was both dumb and harmful (Washington Examiner)
  • Policy: Will Joe Biden’s America remain a democracy or become a monarchy? (The Hill)
  • Humor — except it’s not: Big Tech fights election interference by interfering in election (The Babylon Bee)

For more of today’s editors’ choice headlines, visit Headline Report.

The Patriot Post is a certified ad-free news service, unlike third-party commercial news sites linked on this page, which may also require a paid subscription.


Video: Big Tech Must Be Destroyed — Michael Knowles makes the case for breaking up Big Tech over its abusive practices.

Video: Polling Masks Reality — Trump enthusiasm is contagious, and voters are social distancing from Biden.


For more of today’s columns, visit Right Opinion.


Political futures: “The Democrats were never going to get all the way to Election Day while keeping their quavering and wobbly candidate in his basement, ostensibly for health reasons. And they are not going to get all the way there without a substantial number of thoughtful voters reflecting upon the fact that there is no Democratic campaign except frenzied denigration of the president.” —Conrad Black

For the record: “This is election interference, and we are 19 days out from an election.” —Senator Ted Cruz on a pending subpoena for Twitter blocking the latest Hunter Biden story

For the record II: “Even though the commission canceled the in-person debate that could have happened tonight, one occurred anyway, and President Trump soundly defeated NBC’s Savannah Guthrie in her role as debate opponent and Joe Biden surrogate. President Trump masterfully handled Guthrie’s attacks and interacted warmly and effectively with the voters in the room.” —Trump’s campaign

Re: The Leftmedia: “If Guthrie had been half as civilized and professional as the questioners — for example, asking a question and then politely listening to the answer without having a temper tantrum — that would’ve been a really illuminating debate. Instead, she went Full Clown and Trump stomped her.” —Sean Davis

Good question: “Why is Savannah Guthrie debating President Trump? I thought this was a town hall. The media is garbage these days.” —Lisa Boothe

“Journalism”: “For several weeks, I was subjected to relentless criticism on social media and in conservative news outlets regarding my role as moderator for the second presidential debate, including attacks aimed directly at my family. This culminated on Thursday, October 8th, when I heard President Trump go on national television twice and falsely attack me by name. Out of frustration, I sent a brief tweet addressed to Anthony Scaramucci. The next morning when I saw that this tweet had created a new controversy, I falsely claimed that my Twitter account had been hacked. These were both errors in judgment for which I am totally responsible. I apologize.” —former Biden intern and CSPAN would-be debate moderator Steve Scully, who’s been suspended indefinitely

Dogma: “[Amy Coney Barrett has] been pro-life for a long time. So I suspect with her, it is deeply personal and comes with her religion.” —Senator Dianne Feinstein caught on a hot mic

LGBT pandering: “The idea that an eight-year-old child or a 10-year-old child decides, ‘You know, I decided I want to be transgender, that’s what I think I’d like to be, it [would] make my life a lot easier,’ there should be zero discrimination. And what’s happening is, too many transgender women of color are being murdered. They’re being murdered.” —Joe Biden (Wait, we thought it wasn’t a decision. We’re so confused.

Upright: “Joe Biden tonight said 7 and 8 year olds should be given the authority to be ‘transgender,’ despite data proving that the vast majority of kids with gender confusion outgrow it by puberty. We’re talking life-altering, body-harming decisions made by 1st graders.” —Allie Beth Stuckey

And last: “I’m already looking forward to 2024 when the press corps is upset the GOP nominee isn’t as reasonable as Trump. Because you know whoever the nominee is, the media will claim they’re worse than Trump.” —Erick Erickson


For more of today’s memes, visit the Memesters Union.


For more of today’s cartoons, visit the Cartoons archive.

“The Patriot Post” (https://patriotpost.us)

Read Online

Japan expected to dump over 1 MILLION TONS of radioactive Fukushima water into Pacific, fishermen fear ‘catastrophic impact’ | RT – Daily news

Japan expected to dump over 1 MILLION TONS of radioactive Fukushima water into Pacific, fishermen fear ‘catastrophic impact’

The Japanese government is planning to release more than one million tons of contaminated radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean, angering fishermen, local media have reported.

Japan has debated what to do with the rapidly increasing store of radioactive wastewater for years, and now the decision to release it into the ocean could be confirmed by the end of the month.

Currently, Japan houses the water in more than 1,000 tanks, but with 170 additional tons of the radioactive by-product being produced every day, storage space is quickly running out.

It is estimated that all tanks will have reached maximum capacity by the summer of 2022 and Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Katsunobu Kato said on Friday that the decision was one they could “not keep delaying,” Kyodo News reported.

The water is used to cool the Fukushima nuclear reactor core, which went into meltdown after the catastrophic 2011 earthquake and tsunami that struck the plant.

Read more

Stricken Fukushima plant’s dangerous atomic fuel being pulled from site after 8 years

The government previously considered building more tanks to house the additional water, or attempting to evaporate the water into the atmosphere, but an advisory panel recommended releasing it into the ocean as the most efficient solution. However, the release process is not expected to begin until 2022 and is likely to take 30 years to complete.

The prospect of an ocean release has reignited concerns among local fishermen who fear it could destroy their industry.

“We are terrified that if even one fish is found to have exceeded the [radiation] safety standards after the treated water is released, people’s trust in us will plummet,” Kyodo News quoted a local fisherman as saying.

Hiroshi Kishi, who heads a confederation of Japanese fishing cooperatives told officials last week that the release could have a “catastrophic impact” on the industry.

READ MORE: Japan reopens city abandoned after 2011 Fukushima nuclear meltdown

Fishing was completely halted following the 2011 disaster, and despite a recent recovery, fishermen in the region continue to face international trade restrictions. South Korea, which still bans all fish imports from the region, has described the proposal as a “grave threat.” 

The initial meltdown in 2011 forced the evacuation of 150,000 people from within 20km of the plant as well as from outside areas that experienced high levels of fallout. The clean-up process is expected to take many more years to complete.

Source: Japan expected to dump over 1 MILLION TONS of radioactive Fukushima water into Pacific, fishermen fear ‘catastrophic impact’

Why Are the Social Engineers Obsessed With Transgenderism?

Article Image
https://www.thedailybell.com By Ben Bartee

The concept of gender fluidity, the ideology that promotes it, and the mob that enforces its normalization are the reasons that biologists (and J.K. Rowling) aren’t allowed anymore to say that men have penises and women have vaginas.

The current deification in academia and corporate press of transgenderism activists as some sort of heroes thwarting the patriarchy has been a long time coming. From 2005-2010, I attended Valdosta State University, a mid-size regional institute of higher learning of the University System of Georgia. While an undergraduate, I decided to enroll in a few sociology classes out of genuine interest in the subject.

This was the pre-SJW (Social Justice Warrior) era– the term hadn’t achieved household status yet. My political awareness at that time had been born out of the disaster of the Bush administration; I considered myself aligned with the American left. My experiences with Dr. Tracy Woodard-Meyers of the VSU Women’s and Gender Studies Program, though, in her class titled “Race, Class, and Gender Inequality,” cured me of social leftism forever.

New Biden Email Obliterates Burisma ‘Debunking’ Over Fired Prosecutor; Giuliani Teases More Devastating Releases | ZeroHedge News

After footage emerged of Joe Biden bragging about withholding $1 billion in US loan guarantees unless the country’s chief prosecutor Victor Shokin was fired, the MSM scrambled to cover for the former Vice President – ‘debunking’ claims that Biden’s quid-pro-quo had anything to do with the fact that Shokin was investigating Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company which hired Hunter Biden to sit on its board.

“The firing of Shokin was universally urged by Ukraine’s benefactors,” writes the Washington Post, citing former Ukrainian foreign minister, Pavlo Klimkin. Yet, beyond hearsay, there’s zero evidence Shokin was corrupt.

Except that Shokin’s successor, Yiuri Lutsenko, said in a January 2019 deposition that Shokin is ‘honest,’ while Shokin says that Burisma founder Nikolay Zlochevsky hired Hunter Biden and his associate Devon Archer ‘to protect himself,’ according to the depositions which were released by the US State Department.

Now, a new email has emerged from Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskyi to Hunter Biden and Devon Archer laying out a series of “deliverables” he sought for the company, according to Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson.

Devon Archer (left) with Joe and Hunter Biden

In the Nov. 2, 2015 email, which has not been independently verified (though the Biden camp did not dispute their authenticity), Pozharskyi told Biden and Archer that he wanted “high-ranking U.S. officials to express their ‘positive opinion of Burisma.'”

“The scope of work should also include organization of a visit of a number of widely recognized and influential current and/or former US policy-makers to Ukraine in November,” wrote Pozharskyi, adding that the goal was to “bring positive signal/message and support on Nikolay’s issue to the Ukrainian top officials above with the ultimate purpose to close down for any cases/pursuits against Nikolay in Ukraine.


More via the Daily Caller:

Pozharskyi was critiquing a consulting proposal from Blue Star Strategies, a Democratic public relations firm that eventually worked for Burisma.

Hunter Biden served on the board of directors of the Truman National Security Project with Blue Star Strategies co-owner Sally Painter.

The documents are purportedly from Hunter Biden’s computer.


Giuliani teases more to come

Meanwhile, in a Friday interview with Fox & Friends, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani – whose hands the Biden emails fell into after a Delaware computer shop owner said a man he believes to be Hunter Biden dropped off the laptop for repair in April, 2019 but never picked it up – teased much more to come.


In addition to devastating emails which reveal Hunter offering to introduce his father to a Burisma adviser, and that he made millions of dollars to make ‘introductions’ in China, the laptop contains several pictures of Biden smoking crack, as well as a purported sex tape. According to OANN‘s Chanel Rion, there are ‘underage obsessions’ which ‘makes Anthony Weiner’s down under selfie addiction look normal.’

More from American Thinkers Mark Anderson:

If just a quarter of what Rudy Giuliani alleges is true, the evidence contained on the laptop is, finally, the true smoking gun.  This isn’t some salacious accusations bundled by a hired spy relying on Russian disinformation and gossip.  It’s Hunter’s own laptop.  That fact alone could be an enormous blow to the Biden campaign.

Giuliani released bombshell after bombshell in a video released Wednesday evening after the media did their best to censor the N.Y. Post article — making the social media censorship even more damning to those who tried to hide it from the public.  Since receiving the copy of the hard drive, Giuliani has been poring through it, carefully documenting and preparing his prosecution.  What he says he found is the actual evidence of payments, the money-laundering scheme they used, “illegal money for bribes,” and how “some of that money from Ukraine … went to Joe Biden.”

Like a prosecutor laying out the case, Giuliani leads off the video with this: “In future days, you will see texts, emails, and photos that demonstrate crimes committed by the Biden crime family — in China (probably most of all), Russia, and several other countries.”

The use of “the Biden crime family” is no mere hyperbole.  Before Rudy Giuliani was “America’s Mayor,” he was one of America’s top prosecutors, which included bringing down mafia crime families.  And he has evidence — from Hunter — that implicates not only Hunter and Joe Biden, but also James (Joe’s brother) and Sara (James’s wife).  One set of payments from China went to a triad of Bidens: James, Hunter, and Sara.  Don’t worry, Giuliani says — you’re going to see it in the texts, not making it up.

The fact he was one of America’s top prosecutors makes the ending of the video even more damning: “I’ve been in this business a long time.  This is the biggest cover-up I have ever seen.  And it is the biggest government scandal, I’ve ever heard of.”

Getting back to the beginning, Giuliani continued his introduction, saying, “China has all of the photos that we have — which means [Hunter] is, really, a massive national security threat to the United States.  Since his father lies — about all of this — it’s an easy area of extortion.

Believe it or not, it gets worse from there for Joe Biden.

Laying out the case further, Giuliani points right at the defendant, accusing Joe of “certainly [committing] a crime.  Because some of that money from Ukraine, illegal money for bribes, went to Joe Biden.”

Remember: these are all accusations after Giuliani has read through the emails, the texts, and the contents of the hard drive.  Unlike the Facebook/Twitter “fact-checker” minions, Giuliani has seen the evidence.

In one of the more damning statements, he says, “China has so many different transactions, it’s going to take a couple of days, if not a week, for us to sort all through them.  But we have them.  … And, basically, this is money that goes to Hunter Biden, James Biden, Sara Biden…and the Biden family.”

He also has evidence of how the money flowed — thanks to a text from Hunter Biden to his daughter, Naomi, that was found on the hard drive.  Giuliani says the text was discussing money, “but in it, [Hunter] makes a very big mistake.  He explains the distribution scheme that the Biden crime family has used for years.”

The text reads, “I love you all, but I don’t receive any respect.  And that’s fine, I guess.  Works for you apparently.  I hope you all can do what I did and pay for everything for this entire family for 30 years.”

Giuliani interrupts his reading of the text to wonder why Hunter was paying for everything for the family.  Because, Giuliani speculates, Hunter was getting the money, and they were keeping it, from Joe, so he wouldn’t have to report it.  But he paid, for example, for his half-sister’s entire college education.

Giuliani then returns to the text for the coup de grâce: “It’s really hard.  But don’t worry unlike Pop, I won’t make you give me half your salary.”

“Pop” is Hunter’s name for his dad, Joe Biden.

All of this is really just Rudy’s opening statement.  If the evidence about to be rolled out is even remotely on par with his opening statement, it will be beyond explosive, given the source: Hunter’s own laptop.

Source: New Biden Email Obliterates Burisma ‘Debunking’ Over Fired Prosecutor; Giuliani Teases More Devastating Releases

61% of Black Protestant Pastors Voting for Biden — Protestia

(Lifeway Research) Almost all Protestant pastors plan to participate in the 2020 election, but around a quarter still haven’t decided who will get their presidential vote.

In the latest election survey, Nashville-based LifeWay Research found 98% of Protestant pastors in the U.S. say they plan to vote in the presidential election.

When they cast their ballot, 53% of pastors likely to vote say they plan to do so for Donald Trump. Around 1 in 5 (21%) say they are voting for Joe Biden. A similar percentage (22%) say they are still undecided. About 4% say they are voting for a different candidate.

“Pastors vote like any other American,” said Scott McConnell, executive director of LifeWay Research. “The large number of pastors who are still undecided may reflect difficulty in finding a candidate who aligns with their overall beliefs. Also, some pastors are intensely private about their political preferences and may prefer to respond ‘undecided’ than to even confidentially share their voting intentions.”

To continue reading, click here

61% of Black Protestant Pastors Voting for Biden — Protestia

Top Liberal Tech Operative Comes Out of the Shadows: My Family Is Behind Most of the “Fake Liberal News” You See on Facebook — The Gateway Pundit

Last month top liberal tech operative John Gouldman posted an article on his personal website.

This amazing report was ignored by the media — until today.

We are republishing this article on The Gateway Pundit with full permission from the author.

We hope to have more to share from John Gouldman in the coming days.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

My family is behind most of the ‘fake liberal news’ you see on Facebook

President Donald Trump isn’t lying when he says fake news is the “Enemy of the People.” He’s also not lying when he says Democrats are in a “partnership with the media.”

For several years, I’ve been one of the biggest liberal ghost bloggers in the United States. Even more important than that, my family has been behind most of the ‘fake liberal news’ you see on Facebook, with my brother Daniel Gouldman encouraging our mother and father to invest in some of his media ventures.

This isn’t an all-inclusive list, either.

Some background information: Resist Create used to be called US Uncut. The name was re-branded in 2017. This was one of the most well-known liberal pages on Facebook for awhile until activist Ryan Clayton teamed up with my family’s network. If you want to read more about this, Buzzfeed did a relatively informative report about three years ago. The page’s engagement and mission has fallen off completely since changing hands, so it’s really not impressive anymore. Clayton has worked with my brother on a number of political projects.

Ryan Clayton is the guy who threw Russian flags at President Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Watch HERE). He also claims he was assaulted by Project Veritas’ James O’Keefe (Watch HERE).

Bipartisan Report is a venture my brother has with Justin Brotman, the son of recently deceased Costco co-founder Jeff Brotman.

My brother (known as Icarus Verum – his online identity) was also the money man behind the Occupy Democrats operation, personally owning 20% of the business. My brother setup all the business checking accounts at Bank of America, and made sure everyone got paid, including the Rivero brothers who founded it. If there was ever any administrative issue with Facebook, with Occupy Democrats writers or otherwise, my brother would handle it.

The New York Times recently did an article about how they are “beating Trump’s team on Facebook.”

He still takes credit for making them successful. I don’t think that sentiment is entirely accurate, though. He’s more like the Ray Kroc of McDonald’s, but in this alternate universe the McDonald brothers held onto their creation.

The Occupy Democrat brothers operate an extensive network that generates untold millions of video/page views everyday, much more than I can ever lay claim to personally. This has already been reported on to some degree actually (two of the articles I linked to above mention court feuds) – it’s just not talked about a lot in detail. What hasn’t been discussed as much is just how big their network really is, what was really going on behind the scenes, and how they game the Facebook system.

While my brother did settle his business disagreements in court with the two Rivero brothers at OD, they’ve still been paying him his dues behind the scenes.

My brother also started one of the largest pro-Palestine pages on Facebook called “I Acknowledge Apartheid Exists.” I was made an editor of this page but removed myself from it several years ago.

In 2016, my brother hosted and paid for the official Netroots Nation party under his Addicting Info LLC. If you’re not aware, Netroots is the “largest annual conference for progressives.” Top Democratic politicians routinely speak at their meetups every year.

YouTube (and many others) are sponsoring Netroots this year.

Here’s video I took on my smartphone at the time.

The New York Times neglected to do a much bigger story

Noticeably missing from my list is the Reverb Press page with over 816,000 followers. The New York Times wrote a story about Facebook taking down that page in 2018, but neglected to do simple research. If they had, they would have discovered that the real brains behind it had many more liberal pages left untouched (all the ones I’m mentioning in this article). Yes, my brother was also the money man behind the Reverb Press operation (Realy Media, LLC).

Of note: Why Facebook chose not to remove the rest of this liberal network is unknown to me, but what’s interesting is that I primarily was the one benefiting from the Reverb page at the time. When it was taken down, I was posting on it at least 7-8 times a day (and a score of other pages) with much success. I (and the rest of this network) would have been easy to spot, but Facebook didn’t pay any attention to me. I think I know of at least one reason why (read further).

While the New York Times did concede that there were actors on both the left and the right in that story, the focal point of their reporting was on the Republican pages that Facebook took down and how it was “a real-time spreading of disinformation started by Americans, for Americans.”

One key point I want to make: They compare these actions to “Russian schemes.” That’s in the title of the article even: Facebook Tackles Rising Threat: Americans Aping Russian Schemes to Deceive.

“What is different this time is how domestic sites are emulating the Russian strategy of 2016 by aggressively creating networks of Facebook pages and accounts — many of them fake — that make it appear as if the ideas they are promoting enjoy widespread popularity, researchers said.”

If that’s the case, then the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is guilty of Russian schemes.

Now, that’s a narrative you don’t see everyday in the mainstream media.

I will back this statement up in my next blog post entitled:

There is a ‘special list’ at Facebook and Team Pelosi put me on it.

Here’s a preview of what I will discuss:

The “Aaron” in the above screenshot of that chat conversation concerning Occupy Democrats is Aaron Black. Project Veritas did a good job bringing some of his work to light in THIS VIDEO. There’s a chance you’ve already seen it – it has amassed nearly 7 million views over the last couple of years. If you haven’t, I highly encourage you watch it before reading my next article.

Aaron works at Democracy Partners and Amplify Social Media, LLC, alongside my brother, who has been behind this vast network of Facebook pages. They’re both considered “partners.”

I’ve worked firsthand with Aaron, talked to him directly too many times to count, and his latest gig is no longer helping the Hillary Clinton campaign, it’s doing Nancy Pelosi’s work behind the scenes. Aaron routinely sends out correspondence on matters telling people to either get in touch with him or Jorge Aguilar, the Executive Director for Nancy Pelosi for Congress.

Democracy Partners lists Pelosi as one of their many clients in the Democratic Party. Their public client list boasts of having 76 current Democrats in the House, as well as 11 current Democratic U.S. Senators, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren. They’re also working with the Biden campaign but they haven’t updated their website yet (at the time of this writing) to reflect this.

Aaron and my brother were tasked with promoting Pelosi’s agenda and I helped them make sure they had a happy client at times.

My next article will focus much more in-depth on this topic.

Top Liberal Tech Operative Comes Out of the Shadows: My Family Is Behind Most of the “Fake Liberal News” You See on Facebook — The Gateway Pundit

October 16 What’s Your Name?


And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.
(Genesis 32:27)

Don’t be surprised if God asks you the same question He asked Jacob. God forced Jacob to look at his identity! He wrestled him into a revelation of who he was—not who others said he was. His answer was pitiful! “I’m Jacob” (which means “Deceiver”). His parents gave it to him, others called him by it, so he believed that’s who he was, and that’s who he’d always be. Child of God don’t buy it! You’re not who others say you are! Why should they name you? Determine who you are before God; let Him set the limits of your success!

Why should others be allowed to live at their highest potential—but not you? If you can hear me behind that protective shell, then listen: You’re more than your childhood! More than your past! More than the color of your skin! More than your bank account! More than your circumstances! Tell them “You’re confusing me with somebody else. God says my name is “Israel,” a prince with God. If I’m a prince, then I have the right to be treated like one!” The Word says, “You’re a royal priesthood” (l Peter 2:9). “You’re an overcomer” (1 John 2:13–14). “You’re the head and not the tail; you’re above and not beneath” (Deuteronomy 28:13,14).


Lift your head, square your shoulders, dry your tears; God says you are “somebody special,” and it’s time you started believing and acting on it![1]


[1] Gass, B. (1998). A Fresh Word For Today : 365 Insights For Daily Living (p. 289). Alachua, FL: Bridge-Logos Publishers.

October 16 Love’s Attitude


Romans 1:1

Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God.

When we meet people for the first time, frequently in addition to stating our name we will identify our occupation or profession. Our identity is closely linked to what we do.

Paul introduced himself in the Book of Romans by stating, “Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God.”

Paul saw everything in his life through the lens of his slavery to Christ. Outwardly, he wrote as a slave of Caesar, but inwardly he considered himself a bondslave to Jesus Christ. To Paul the term servant was a title of dignity and humility. There was no greater position than to be a servant of Jehovah God.

We all would do well to remember that God did not save us to become sensations, but rather to become servants.[1]


[1] Jeremiah, D. (2002). Sanctuary: finding moments of refuge in the presence of God (p. 303). Nashville, TN: Integrity Publishers.