Daily Archives: March 7, 2023

Stuart Varney: Biden trying to ‘clean up the mess he made’ ahead of 2024 election

During his latest “My Take,” “Varney & Co.” host Stuart Varney discusses Biden’s attempt to “clean up” his “disastrous policies” ahead of the 2024 presidential election, arguing no matter how the president “twists and turns” on issues, the surge of illegal migrants and rampant crime “shows no signs of slowing down.”

STUART VARNEY: Headline in The New York Times: “U.S. is said to consider reinstating detention of migrant families.”

Yes, with 2024 looming, the president is trying to clean up the mess he made when he first took office.

Detaining families was Trump’s policy, Biden reversed it and the floodgates opened.

Now, he may reverse the reversal because 200,000 illegals a month have brought on a human, financial and political disaster!

Even “considering” a policy change like this shows the desperation of a president who wants to run again, but knows the open border is a major obstacle.


Same with crime. The president is trying to reverse his soft-on-crime image. 

Last week, when Biden killed the radical D.C. crime bill, he was sending a message: hey, we can’t win in ’24 if we’re pro-criminal. 

It’s no accident that right before he killed the D.C. bill, Lori Lightfoot had been soundly defeated in Chicago.

She had presided over a crime surge. Biden’s running a mile from the “Defund the Police” movement that he supported.


I think it’s too late. The damage has been done. And besides, the surge of illegals and rampant crime shows no signs of slowing down, no matter how the president twists and turns.

And it’s too late to reverse the disastrous Afghan debacle. Or the COVID mess. Or ending America’s energy independence.

What’s done is done, and we have to live with the consequences no matter how the president tries to rewrite his disastrous policies…


Source: Stuart Varney: Biden trying to ‘clean up the mess he made’ ahead of 2024 election

Schumer Demands Murdoch Pull Fox’s Tucker Carlson Off-Air “Because Our Democracy Depends On It” | ZeroHedge News

‘…thou doth protest too much, methinks’ is about the most perfect summary of the spectacle that erupted today after Fox News’ Tucker Carlson exposed some realities (and all the falsities) of the events of January 6th.

From Mitch McConnell to Mitt Romney, and every RINO and uniparty member in between, Carlson was pilloried using the standard ‘conspiracy theory’ narrative – though oddly, not one those that spoke out actually refuted any of the never-before-seen footage.

And yet, the so-called ‘mainstream media’ – which ate up every second of the January 6th Committee’s endless charade, fell silent:

But one man stood above it all and demanded this horrific show of free speech be brought to an end – enter Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer stage left…

“I don’t think I’ve ever seen an actor treat the American people and American democracy with such disdain,” Schumer said.

“And he’s going to come back tonight with another segment. Fox News should tell him not to.”

Then with trembling voice, Schumer set forth his demands…

“These lies continue tonight, Rupert Murdoch, who has admitted they were lies and said he regretted it, has a special obligation to stop Tucker Carlson from going on tonight, now that he’s seen how he has perverted and slimed the truth, and from letting him go on again and again and again,” Schumer said.

“Not because their views deserve such opprobrium, but because our democracy depends on it.”

Enjoy his full performance below…

Schumer concluded by claiming that Carlson manipulated his audience by cherry-picking sequences.

To that we simply say – Pot meet Kettle, Chuck, old boy.

Source: Schumer Demands Murdoch Pull Fox’s Tucker Carlson Off-Air “Because Our Democracy Depends On It”

Just 4% of US adults now hold worldview based on Bible, report shows | Worthy Christian News

by Karen Faulkner, Worthy News Correspondent

(Worthy News) – A new study shows that the percentage of US adults with a worldview based on the Bible dropped to just 4% during the pandemic, Christian Headlines reports. Part of the 2023 American Worldview Inventory, the study was led by George Barna at the Cultural Research Center of Arizona Christian University.

The study shows that the percentage of self-identified Christians whose worldview is based on the Bible dropped from 9 percent before the pandemic to 6 percent now.

Especially notable, the percentage of born-again Christians (those who believe they will have eternal life in heaven because they confessed their sin and accepted Jesus as their Savior) dropped from 19 percent before the pandemic to 16 percent now, the Barna study reveals.

The study shows that a large majority of US adults are in what the researchers call “World Citizens,” such people may follow a few Biblical principles, but their lives are not determined by a worldview based on their understanding of the Bible. According to the study, this group has grown from 69 percent in 2020 to 82 percent.

“The COVID-19 lockdowns and lifestyle changes that began in early 2020 provided Americans with an opportunity to spend more time doing things their hectic, on-the-go lives precluded, such as reading the Bible,” Barna notes in the reports. “But it appears that as people’s lives were substantially altered by the virus and government policies, Americans were not spending the extra time devoting energy to spiritual matters and worldview enhancement,” he concludes.

Source: Just 4% of US adults now hold worldview based on Bible, report shows

Night Two of the Tucker Carlson J6 Tapes: Swamp Loses Its Collective Mind as Cop Loses Job for Wearing a MAGA Hat | The Stream

If you tuned into night two of the Tucker Carlson’s discussion of the J6 tapes expecting to see more video revelations, boy, were you disappointed. For whatever reason, Carlson didn’t really feature much new footage. Curiously enough. (Pressure from the bosses?)

Instead Carlson addressed the criticism of Monday night’s broadcast and introduced us to a former Capitol Hill police lieutenant with an interesting story to tell.

The Over-the-Top Criticism

Tucker declared the hysterical reaction from official Washington is all about “fear” and “panic,” proving two points:

First, “We’re getting close to what they care about.” Which begs the question, he said, “What are they trying to protect?”

In a similar vein, if you search “Tucker Carlson” on Twitter Monday night, and you got tweets about the report. Search Tuesday night and you get a flood of tweets insulting Tucker and Fox News. Kill the messenger. Memory hole the message.

“The second thing we learned is they are all on the same side.” Citing the criticism from Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senators Mitt Romney and Thom Tillis, Carlson said, “They’re all on the same team!”

It just ain’t about Republican vs. Democrat anymore, is it?

Please Support The Stream: Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.

Democrats, RINOS and media figures certainly had a cow. Schumer took to the Senate floor calling for censorship, demanding Fox News not air a second night of tapes, calling Monday’s revelations a “lie.” So Officer Sicknick wasn’t walking briskly in the Capitol, after supposedly receiving a fatal beating? So the QAnon Shaman wasn’t being guided around the Capitol by the cops? Tape of Josh Hawley wasn’t falsely edited by the J6 Committee? Ray Epps wasn’t caught lying?

What lie?! Schumer rejected Tucker’s offer to come on and explain. (And they called Josh Hawley a “coward’?)

Instead, Schumber blasted Tucker for “arguing the January 6 Capitol attack was NOT a violent insurrection.” What insurrection?! Boy, I’d love to see another insurrection in history where the insurrectionists show up unarmed. The whole horrible irony?  At around the same time Schumer was launching his rant, two dozen ANTIFA anarchists committed to the overthrow of the United States were brought to court for last week’s coordinated military-style attack on “Cop City” in Atlanta.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre read from the script, again calling J6 “The worst attack on Democracy since the Civil War.” J6 wasn’t even the “worst attack on Democracy” in the previous eight months … speaking of ANTIFA/BLM.

Meanwhile, over on CNN, famed documentarian Ken Burns was aghast, accusing Tucker of “rewriting history at the most dangerous level.” Worse. “It’s a huge threat to our republic.”

CNN aired selected J6 footage pushing a single narrative for two years. They also aired J6 footage from former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s daughter. You remember Nancy. The one in charge of security that day? The one who rejected pleas for extra security that day because of “optics”? The one who formed a select committee, rejecting the Republicans who would not pitch the party line? Who sat on her hands as hundreds of thousands of people were booted from social media for raising questions about the election and official J6 story? Who sat on 41,000 hours of footage that could contradict her narrative?

So let’s get what Ken Burns is saying: Let liberals cherry pick what to show, what the messaging is, to write the history and silence anyone who protests. But offering footage that challenges the message is a “huge threat to our republic. Yeah. That makes sense.

Elon Musk, who is again in the crosshairs of the Biden Administration, had a far different take.

Meet Former Capitol Hill Police Lt. Terik Johnson

Former Lt. Terik Johnson was in charge of securing the election certification. He was inside and outside the Capitol during the January 6 riot, on the House side and the Senate side. He was one of the first to radio for help. However, the 22-year-vet was not called to testify before the J6 Committee.

The J6 Committee, Johnson told Tucker, “seemed only focused on Trump.”

Seems they did not want to hear about how unprepared front line Capitol Hill police were for the events of that day, despite leadership knowing trouble was on its way. Or how when Johnson called for assistance, he got no response. Or how when he called for instruction on whether to evacuate Senators and staff, he got no response.

What Johnson did get for his trouble was suspended. Why? Because he was photographed on J6 in a MAGA hat. A cop savagely beat protester Rosanne Bertrand as she lay dying. No punishment. Cops offered Bertrand little help until it was too late. No punishment. A Capitol Hill police officer executed Ashli Babbitt. No punishment.

Johnson dons a MAGA cap for his own security, figuring it’d make it easier for him to navigate up the Capitol steps through the protest to help officers who were trapped there? Sorry, pal. You’re out.

He’s a Biden voter, BTW.

Former Capitol Hill Police Chief Repeats How His Pleas for the National Guard Were Ignored

Tucker’s show was followed by Sean Hannity, who had on former Capitol Hill Police Chief Steven Sund. He became the fall guy for the trouble on the J6, even though he was the one who had been pleading for more security and the National Guard in advance of the riot. Sund talked about how his requests were reject by Pelosi, who did not like the “optics” of having National Guard present.

Sund shared how he remains mystified over how the intelligence assessment of the dangers were handled. “I have never seen threats handled this way before.”

Funny, Sund also was not asked to publicly testify by the J6 Committee. He was only the top cop on Capitol Hill.

Not the End … Release the Tapes Far and Wide

“The evidence should be presented to the public,” Tucker said tonight, “In free countries governments do not lie about protests as a pretext to get more power for themselves.”

The time has come for all the tapes to be released and made public. We taxpayers paid for them. With so much footage, so many angles, so many stories, we need the wisdom of the masses, the sleuths, the journalists who answer to no corporations (particularly ones in the mitts of Paul Ryan.)

Democracy dies in darkness, the Washington Post likes to say. Let us finally learn why the Schumers and McConnells and CNNs are so, so afraid of the light.


Al Perrotta is the Managing Editor of The Stream, chief barista for The Brew and co-author, with John Zmirak, of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration. You can follow him at @StreamingAl at GETTRGabParler, and now at TRUTH Social.

Source: Night Two of the Tucker Carlson J6 Tapes: Swamp Loses Its Collective Mind as Cop Loses Job for Wearing a MAGA Hat

US Only Nation That Could Have Bombed Nord Stream, Ex-Senator Says

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) – Former Virginia State Senator Richard Black told Sputnik that the United States is the only country that could have blown up the Nord Stream pipelines last year, as he commented on the latest report by the New York Times.

Source: US Only Nation That Could Have Bombed Nord Stream, Ex-Senator Says

Elon Musk: Jan. 6 prosecutions ‘legally and morally’ wrong | WND

Elon Musk (Video screenshot)

Twitter owner Elon Musk, who has faced serious headwinds from America’s Democrats and other leftists for his efforts to build up the site as a platform for free speech, on Tuesday landed hard on those in Washington, leftists and Democrats, who pursued extreme charges against those caught up in the Jan. 6, 2021, events at the U.S. Capitol.

Some people rioted there, and vandalized the building.

But others were allowed into the building by security officers, and essentially acted like tourists, taking selfies and such.

That’s confirmed in a series of video clips Tucker Carlson obtained, with the help of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, from Capitol security cameras.

His staff is reviewing some 40,000 hours of those films, and with the first release on Monday, Carlson confirmed that Democrats and others portraying the events as an “insurrection” had lied to America.

The Washington Examiner said Musk blasted Democrats for hiding evidence for “partisan political reasons.”

Musk, responding to a comment about how ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s partisan January 6 committee “lied” about numerous events, said, “Besides misleading the public, they withheld evidence for partisan political reasons that sent people to prison for far more serious crimes than they committed.”

He said, “That is deeply wrong, legally and morally.”

The Washington Examiner explained Musk was responding to statements that criticized former Reps. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., and Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., and Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., for lying.

WND is now on Trump’s Truth Social! Follow us @WNDNews

The Examiner reported “The newly released video footage comes after House Speaker Kevin McCarthy handed it over to Fox News host Tucker Carlson. Democrats had previously withheld its release, citing ‘security concerns.'”

But the evidence, concealed by Democrats from Americans for more than two years, now is coming to light.

The report said, “In the footage, Jacob Chansley, the man known as the ‘QAnon Shaman,’ is shown being escorted around the Capitol to the Senate floor by Capitol Police. Carlson suggests the footage raises questions as to the possible complicity of some officers in the riot.”:

Pelosi’s committee, in its report, focused mostly on President Trump. It is considered that Democrats repeatedly have characterized the events as an “insurrection” because tarring Trump with that label could make him ineligible to run for office in 2024.

In fact, Pelosi’s committee simply ignored several key factors in the Jan. 6 events, including Pelosi’s own culpability for having rejected Trump’s offer of additional National Guard troops to secure the Capitol that day.

Breitbart reported that Kinzinger, who now is employed by the leftist CNN, told his own network that Carlson was as “grifter.”

Kinzinger claimed, “It’s disgusting. The sad thing is you’re going to have people that have only gotten their news on Fox News that are never going to have the opportunity to hear the truth. What Tucker Carlson employs here and employed it the entire time he’s been as a grifter TV show host because he knows better than this, by the way — he takes a cut scene and creates a straw man.”

Kinzinger continued, “First off, on the opening there where he says, look, there is only like a handful of people here. I know one of those rooms, particularly Statuary Hall, was filled with people. There is tons of pictures of that. At some point leading up to or after, there are moments where there are only a few people in there. Secondarily, you look at like, okay, one of the things he said, Josh Hawley was running, and so was every other member of the Senate. Like, okay, yeah, because there was violence that day. He said Officer Sicknick didn’t die at the riots. He was walking around the end of the insurrection. Nobody ever claimed that Officer Sicknick died that moment. He died a day later.”

Source: Elon Musk: Jan. 6 prosecutions ‘legally and morally’ wrong

It Now Looks Likely That Government Created Covid-19 — and Then Tried to Hide the Truth | The Stream

More than three years after the Covid-19 outbreak, the world is still reeling from the virus and the global response to it.

Some 6.8 million people have already died from the virus, according to official statistics, including an estimated 1.1 million Americans. Each day the toll climbs higher; globally, more than 10,000 people die each week.

A bevy of government assessments now indicate that the likely source of the virus was not a wet market, but the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which for years has dabbled in the creation of chimeric coronaviruses.

Last Sunday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Department of Energy had concluded the Wuhan lab was likely the origin of the pandemic. Days later the FBI chimed in, declaring that “the Bureau has assessed that the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic likely originated from a lab incident in Wuhan, China.”

If true, it’s not hyperbole to say this would be the greatest scandal of the century.

As the Washington Post reported nearly two years ago, State Department cables had previously warned of safety issues at the WIV, where researchers were studying bat coronaviruses. The cables were sent after science diplomats made a January 2018 visit to the Wuhan lab on behalf of the U.S. embassy in Beijing. What the officials found at the lab, which in 2015 had become China’s first facility to achieve the maximum level of international bioresearch safety, shocked them.

“What the U.S. officials learned during their visits concerned them so much that they dispatched two diplomatic cables categorized as Sensitive But Unclassified back to Washington,” wrote Post journalist Josh Rogin. “The cables warned about safety and management weaknesses at the WIV lab and proposed more attention and help. The first cable, which I obtained, also warns that the lab’s work on bat coronaviruses and their potential human transmission represented a risk of a new SARS-like pandemic.”

Despite these concerns, U.S. dollars continued to flow to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

As the BBC noted in 2021, the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), an agency headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci, awarded $3.7 million in 2014 to an organization — U.S.-based EcoHealth Alliance — that funded and worked directly with the Wuhan lab to “look into possible coronaviruses from bats.” Some of these experiments appear to have involved “gain-of-function,” a risky form of research that the U.S. government had banned funding for in October 2014 that involves genetically altering an organism to enhance its biological functions.

Though Fauci repeatedly denied that gain-of-function research took place, others point to two academic papers by the Chinese institute itself — one from 2015 and one from 2017 — that detail how researchers developed new coronaviruses that did not previously exist.

“The research in both papers was gain-of-function research,” Dr. Richard Ebright of Rutgers University told the BBC.

The Other Scandal

The lab leak has the potential to be one of the biggest scandals in history. In their Frankenstein-like hubris, governments conducted dangerous research that may have inadvertently killed millions of people, and also triggered a global recession.

The scandal does not end there, however.

While the U.S. government’s involvement in the Wuhan lab leak scandal may have been inadvertent, its attempt to avoid potential responsibility and conceal the truth is now apparent.

From the beginning of the pandemic, Dr. Fauci — the same Dr. Fauci whose agency awarded a $3.7 million grant to EcoHealth Alliance, which funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan lab — became the leading voice denying the possibility that Covid-19 could have emerged from the WIV.

It was “molecularly impossible” for viruses at Wuhan to have mutated into the current viral strain, he claimed in October 2021. In April the previous year he called the lab-leak-theory “a shiny object that will go away soon,” later noting that the virus’ “mutations” were “totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.” In May 2020, he told National Geographic that “everything … strongly indicates” that the virus “evolved in nature,” calling the lab-leak theory a “circular argument.”

Scientists are of course entitled to their opinions, but there are two big problems that accompany Fauci’s public statements.

The first problem is that while these statements were being issued publicly, a different conversation was taking place privately, The New York Times noted Tuesday.

“…in 2020, many of those scientists who would become the most stalwart critics of the lab-leak theory privately acknowledged that the origins of the pandemic were very much up for debate,” writes David Wallace-Wells, “and that a laboratory leak was a perfectly plausible — perhaps even the most likely — explanation for the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan a few months earlier.”

We know this because a series of emails obtained by BuzzFeed through FOIA requests show that some of the world’s top virologists initially believed that the lab-leak hypothesis was at least as plausible as natural evolution theory. Specifically, the virologist and natural biologist Kristian Andersen described the new virus as “inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.” In another email, Jeremy Farrar, the incoming head scientist of the World Health Organization, summarized the perspectives of scientists who concluded the “accidental release theory” was the likeliest scenario — “70:30” or “60:40” in favor. (Farrar put the odds at 50-50.)

These views were not made public, however. And following a Feb. 1 conference call arranged by Fauci, scientists published a paper in Nature expressing their belief that the most likely scenario was that the virus naturally evolved on its own.

“Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus,” the scientists, including the initially skeptical Andersen, emphatically noted.

‘That’s Just a Little Too Weird’

How these scientists became so certain that the virus evolved naturally — a scenario that now appears to be highly unlikely — is unclear. But what followed is even more troubling.

By the spring of 2020, government agencies had circled the wagons. The office of the Director of National Intelligence issued statement noting that a “scientific consensus” had emerged that “the COVID-19 virus was not manmade or genetically modified.” News agencies quickly began to label the lab-leak hypothesis as “debunked bunkum.”

The news agencies needed little prodding. Indeed, even before the DNI’s statement was released, while scientists themselves were privately debating the origins of the virus in earnest, news organizations were describing the lab-leak hypothesis as “a fringe theory” and a “conspiracy theory.”

Efforts to suppress the view that the virus was manmade were ratcheted up further when social media companies began to censor users who speculated that the virus may have been manmade. In February 2021, Facebook — likely at the behest of government officials — began to flag as “misleading” claims suggesting that Covid may have been manufactured.

The notion that the virus may have emerged from the Wuhan lab was widely treated as a crackpot theory invented by tinfoil hat wearers — largely thanks to a massive propaganda campaign orchestrated by the government behind the scenes.


Yet the dots back to Wuhan were too conspicuous to ignore, and a breakthrough came in June 2021 when Jon Stewart appeared on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, expressing his belief that the pandemic “was more than likely caused by science.”

Colbert: “Do you mean there’s a chance this was created in a lab?”

Stewart: A chance? Oh my God.

Colbert: If there’s evidence I’d love to hear it.

Stewart: (mockingly) There’s a respiratory coronavirus overtaking Wuhan, China. What do we do? Oh, you know who we could ask? The Wuhan respiratory coronavirus lab. The disease is the same name as the lab! That’s just a little too weird, don’t ya think?

Stewart didn’t need to offer scientific evidence to support his theory. His point likely wasn’t to prove that the lab-leak theory was true, but to point out that the theory wasn’t crazy.

Last week on his show “The Problem With Jon Stewart,” Stewart reflected on the blowback he received following his appearance on Colbert’s show nearly two years ago, which included charges of racism and accusations that he’d joined “the alt-right.”

“It’s not about certainty,” Stewart said. “The larger problem with all of this is the inability to discuss things that are within the realm of possibility without falling into absolutes and litmus-testing each other for our political allegiances as it arose from that.”

‘An Illusion of Scientific Consensus’

We don’t yet know for certain the origins of Covid-19. Many questions remain unanswered.

Still, it’s now clear the most likely scenario is that the Covid-19 pandemic was caused by a lab leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was conducting risky experiments on chimeric coronaviruses at an insecure facility — with financial support from the U.S. government.

To make matters worse, officials in the U.S. government — chief among them Dr. Anthony Fauci — for nearly two years orchestrated a campaign to dismiss the possibility that the virus might have been hatched at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

“Fauci peddled an illusion of scientific consensus to corporate media on lab leak as conspiracy,” Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine, economics, and health policy at Stanford University, recently observed on Twitter. “They accepted his word as gospel. Why?”

It’s an important question.

Few in government or media seemed to consider that Fauci might have incentive to obfuscate the truth since his own agency had funded a health organization with direct ties to and funding for the research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that may have caused a global pandemic, killing millions.

Instead, Fauci was treated, at various turns, like a rock stara celebrity, and a god.

“I’m a Fauci groupie,” MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace gushed, speaking for many.

‘The Destroyer of a Civilization’

Wallace and many others would have been well served to heed the advice of the late historian Paul Johnson, who warned we should beware of intellectuals and avoid giving them power.

“One of the principal lessons of our tragic century, which has seen so many millions of innocent lives sacrificed in schemes to improve the lot of humanity, is — beware intellectuals,” wrote Johnson in Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky. “Not merely should they be kept away from the levers of power, they should also be objects of particular suspicion when they seek to offer collective advice.”

Johnson didn’t issue this warning about intellectuals because they are inherently bad people. What he saw was the problem identified by the Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek: that intellectuals are often empowered with vast collective decision-making rights by the state, which believes they possess a knowledge they don’t actually have.

“If man is not to do more harm than good in his efforts to improve the social order, he will have to learn that in this, as in all other fields where essential complexity of an organized kind prevails, he cannot acquire the full knowledge which would make mastery of the events possible,” wrote Hayek.

‘The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men’s fatal striving to control society — a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals.’

Americans ignored these warnings, and the results were catastrophic.

It now appears likely that the U.S. government was funding the very research that caused the global Covid-19 pandemic — and spent a year and a half trying to conceal it. If true, it would represent two of the biggest scandals in modern history.

The question is, will anyone even be held accountable? History suggests that’s unlikely.


Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News and the Star Tribune. Bylines: The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, and the Epoch Times.

Source: It Now Looks Likely That Government Created Covid-19 — and Then Tried to Hide the Truth

The J6 committee apparently added audio to silent CCTV footage, including “screams and other crowd mayhem sounds”

The New York Post is reporting that Tucker Carlson’s team has discovered, upon reviewing the footage of the January 6 Capitol ri–well, whatever you wanna call it now, that, and I quote, “the J6 committee added audio to silent CCTV footage, inserting screams and other crowd mayhem sounds, to make it seem more ominous.”

Source: The J6 committee apparently added audio to silent CCTV footage, including “screams and other crowd mayhem sounds”

Unmasking Abusive Spiritual Leadership Part II: Marks of Hypocrisy — The Aquila Report

The spiritually abusive leader creates an atmosphere of performance and law keeping that is beyond the reach of any Christian, even while publicly preaching and teaching the gospel of God’s grace.  Although he does not hold himself to the same standard (the definition of hypocrisy!), those closest to him may begin to live in a state of fear, subconsciously afraid that they are condemned by the program they are supporting. 

An elder and his wife have served faithfully for many years in a local church, but in recent years have felt a cloud of confusion and darkness. Although they hesitate to make the admission, a sense of inexplicable fear has crept into their Christian walk.  Church life has been tumultuous with conflict and departures a steady theme, but they tell themselves that the principles and actions of the leadership have been the tough-love sort of faithfulness.  Yet nagging questions arise.

This post is for those who may be on the inside of a leadership structure that has become spiritually abusive and do not recognize what they have become a part of.  They are witnesses to dynamics that are hidden to the broader congregation, but they themselves cannot presently interpret them properly, though they may sense something is wrong.  As Chuck DeGroat writes, Whole church systems and programs evolve within the waters of narcissism, and when it’s the water you swim in, it’s hard to see and even harder to confront.1

The distorting, deceiving power of a spiritually abusive leader is often underestimated.  Such a leader is usually remarkably gifted for ministry in ways which impress many and seem to confirm his calling.  To be close to such a leader and in his good graces can be a very positive environment, where individuals are made to feel that they are vital to the mission and loved deeply.  The inner circle of leadership and staff will be constantly complimented as “the best.”  And whatever events may transpire to expose the truth about underlying sin issues will be distorted and spun to maintain the narrative..

A key element of seeing through the smoke and mirrors is the issue of hypocrisy.  Jesus said, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy” (Luke 12:1).  This alarm is sounded because leaven starts small and unobtrusively but it is deadly.  There are brands of hypocrisy which are quite subtle, but nonetheless the hypocrisy eventually leavens the whole lump of the church.  Every Christian in spiritual leadership must be on the lookout, knowing the deceptiveness of sin.  In an abusive leadership structure, hypocrisy will unfailingly manifest itself.  What follows are some key areas to watch carefully and important questions to ask.


Is a pastor or leader treated with greater deference and charity than others?  Are reports about the harshness, anger, or bullying from the leader quickly rationalized, discredited, or ignored, regardless of the fact that there is a steady stream over time of such reports?  When partiality is at work, these reports will be pre-judged as slanderous.   They will be explained as a convenient way for unrepentant sinners to shift blame.  If such reports come second hand, they will quickly be labeled “hearsay” and therefore dismissed without further investigation.   Those in Christian leadership need to understand that in cases of alleged abuse, victims often cannot and should not directly confront the abusive leader.  This does not mean that an impartial investigation cannot be conducted.

When a leader makes allegations or insinuations about others (and an abusive leader will do so repeatedly), are these accepted without questioning?  Are other individuals instantly blacklisted if he criticizes them?  Is his testimony elevated above that of others?  While elders and pastors need to talk amongst themselves in the course of shepherding, the swift and extreme denouncements an abusive leader will make on the thinnest of grounds are far outside the pale of shepherding.  The willingness of others in leadership allow this behavior and accept his judgments is an indicator of partiality. Giving such latitude to the leader while immediately bringing the hammer down on those who allege abuse is hypocrisy.


Are discussions of potential weaknesses or missteps of the leadership viewed as slanderous?  Is asking questions suppressed and discouraged?  If individuals feel they have been mistreated, are they punished for seeking other counsel?  The ethical demand for confidentiality is first and foremost upon leaders entrusted with the care of souls.   They are handling the information of people who are vulnerable as they open up their lives and talk about their sins.  When leadership reverses this and demands that individuals under its authority remain silent about possible failings and abuses, or even demand that individuals remain silent about discussion of public actions, the leadership has hypocritically turned the principle of confidentiality on its head.

In a spiritually abusive system, when individuals do criticize the leadership, confidential issues in their lives will be brought forth to discredit them.  Insinuations will be made about them from the pulpit and in conversations.  The narcissistic leader will know no boundaries of confidentiality in order to neutralize the “threat.”  This demand for confidentiality with respect to the failings of the leadership while at the same time breaching confidentiality when it comes to others is hypocrisy.

The Best Staff, the Worst Staff

What is the track record of staff relationships?  Chuck DeGroat writes about how the narcissistic characteristics will manifest in a pastor’s relationship with his staff.  His need to be special and grandiose is affirmed by his “talented” staff, who stay if they live in service of his ego and leave, often messily, if they do not.  Is there a long line of staff departures with little explanation?

The hypocrisy is detectable in the fact that staff members will receive the highest praise, appear to be protected from outside criticisms, and be seemingly unable to do wrong in the leader’s eyes.  But what will seem most of the time like a very positive relationship with the staff actually is understood by his drive for grandiosity and need for people around him to enable him.  For staff, this can feel like working amid a hurricane.  The dizzying array of ideas and visions may be explained away by the pastor as “creativity” or “passion,” but a pastor who doesn’t see the impact… on a staff will quickly find a tired, overwhelmed team…One reason for this phenomenon is that the narcissistic pastor must live in a constant state of ego inflation.2

The flattery of the leader clashes with his unreasonable demands; requests made at all hours; changes to major programming at the last minute; new initiatives to organize and launch when already plates are overflowing.  But most revealingly is the steady stream of staff members over time who once received highest praise but were ultimately discredited or discarded due to the narcissistic patterns of broken relationships.  This hypocrisy will take place time and again.


In some church settings, hierarchy is built into church government.  But in many churches, particularly those functioning in a Presbyterian manner or similarly, governance is explicitly to be conducted with the parity (equality) of elders.  The senior minister may be described as the “first among equals,” but the emphasis is on the “equals.”  Each man around the table has one vote, and none are to set themselves above the others.  If such is the expectation and standard of government, the question should be asked if that is actually taking place or has it become a hierarchy.  Unfailingly, the abusive pastor will work to take full functional control of the leadership.  This leads in the direction of not only hierarchy, but tyranny, hypocritically contradicting the church’s standards and the command of Christ (Matt 10:43).

This hierarchy will be evident in the near total deference to one man’s judgments on issues of significance.  Other intelligent, godly men who once were able to think for themselves will essentially function like yes-men; sycophants. Is there a leader at the table that everyone knows is above criticism?  Whoever holds such a position is controlling that body.  Are there gradations on the elder board: unspoken tiers or influence and authority, with those closest to the narcissistic leader being at the highest level?  Is there a pastor or leader who is highly critical of other leaders behind their backs, discrediting them – particularly those he perceives as a threat on some level?  Perhaps he quietly tells others that certain elders who raise questions are just not mature enough to see issues clearly.  Perhaps he makes quiet statements like, “that elder has utterly failed as a husband and father.”  This is to strategically put other leaders on a lower spiritual tier, functionally undermining the parity of elders.

Another question to consider is whether there is tolerance of behaviors from a leader that would be unacceptable in others.  Specifically, is a leader given freedom to express anger to a level that would be shocking if seen in others?  All of these marks are symptoms that the leadership has become hierarchical, and at the top is a tyrant.  This hypocrisy will be present in a spiritually abusive ministry.

Demonize with Standards for Them, but not for Me

A final form of hypocrisy takes place in the process of discrediting or demonizing people, which will be a theme for a spiritually abusive pastor who is constantly viewing critics as adversaries and pushing them out.  Is there a steady stream of criticism coming from a leader toward congregants and other leaders?  As Michael Kruger puts it, “A key characteristic of an abusive leader is that they lead through fault-finding.”3   In order to demonize a perceived opponent, actual sins or suspected sins in people’s lives will be brought forth and embellished.  At times they may be fabricated altogether, as the leader manipulates others to maintain his control.  As he does this, however, he is creating an untenable ethical atmosphere.  Sins that are common to all Christians such as lust, overeating, insecurity, worldliness, and many more, will be used to bring people’s integrity into question and discredit them to others.  “I am so disappointed that this elder bought a Mercedes. He is so worldly.” “She asked for prayer about the weather for the wedding; how incredibly immature, and evidence of her husband’s poor spiritual leadership.” “He admitted to having a momentary mental fantasy about a woman in the church – he is not safe around anyone.” “Did you see the political posts she made on Facebook? I am ashamed to be in the same church as such a woman.” This tactic works: it is effective at discrediting and neutralizing the perceived “threat” since the leader carries the weight of his spiritual authority behind such accusations.  But it also distorts the gospel and the grace of God.

The spiritually abusive leader creates an atmosphere of performance and law keeping that is beyond the reach of any Christian, even while publicly preaching and teaching the gospel of God’s grace.  Although he does not hold himself to the same standard (the definition of hypocrisy!), those closest to him may begin to live in a state of fear, subconsciously afraid that they are condemned by the program they are supporting.  This weakens the Christian in many ways and is an indicator that something is very wrong.  The leaven of the Pharisees has been sown into the dough.

A Warning to Leaders

For Christian leaders connected to such leadership, complicity is the grave danger.  Narcissistic leaders specialize in pushing out perceived adversaries and gathering loyal supporters to leadership.  These supporters will be trained and deployed to carry out the program of the leader.  Failing to recognize hypocrisy and call it what it is leads inevitably to enablement of the behaviors and participation.  As Michael Kruger points out, the biblical record of God’s judgment on Eli for enabling the abusive behavior of his sons in the temple reveals “a critically important principle: God will hold accountable not only the bad shepherd but also those who protect and enable them.  This is a weighty warning to all churches and the elder boards that lead them.”3

Participation in this sort of hypocrisy results in confusion, burden, and fear.  Are such fruits present in the heart and mind?  This is no fruit of the Spirit.  Indeed, it is a bellwether indicating something is diabolically wrong.  The deeper someone goes with such a leader, the more likely he or she will experience the rising sense of condemnation and fear as hypocrisy and legalism poison the well of grace found in the gospel alone. Confusion will enter as nothing and no one will be spared from being demonized and reality will be distorted.  The soul will be burdened tremendously, for this person is serving a man and not Christ (Gal. 1:10).

If these marks and signs are present in the church, seek help and have nothing to do with such “leaven” of hypocrisy.  “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery” (Gal. 5:1).

Steven Light is a member of a Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) congregation in Jacksonville, Fla.

1DeGroat, Chuck & Mouw, Richard, When Narcissism Comes to Church: Healing Your Community From Emotional and Spiritual Abuse,. Intervarsity Press, 2020, Introduction.

2Ibid., ch 4.

3Kruger, Michael J., Bully Pulpit: confronting the problem of spiritual abuse in the church, Grand Rapids : Zondervan, 2022, p 28.

4Ibid, p 48.

Unmasking Abusive Spiritual Leadership Part II: Marks of Hypocrisy — The Aquila Report

‘Israel Has Every Right to Defend Itself’: Netanyahu Rips Atomic Energy Director’s Comments on Iran

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sharply criticized remarks by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who suggested Saturday that a potential Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be “illegal.”

CBN’s Julie Stahl has the story. Read the FULL version here: https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/israel/2023/march/netanyahu-compares-israel-defense-against-iran-to-book-of-esther-slams-iaea-chiefs-comments-that-a-strike-would-be-illegal

Source: ‘Israel Has Every Right to Defend Itself’: Netanyahu Rips Atomic Energy Director’s Comments on Iran

Netanyahu Cites Book of Esther in Face of More ‘Wipe Israel Off Map’ Threats From Iran

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sharply criticized remarks by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who suggested Saturday that a potential Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be “illegal.”

CBN’s Julie Stahl has the story. Read the FULL version here: https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/israel/2023/march/netanyahu-compares-israel-defense-against-iran-to-book-of-esther-slams-iaea-chiefs-comments-that-a-strike-would-be-illegal

Source: Netanyahu Cites Book of Esther in Face of More ‘Wipe Israel Off Map’ Threats From Iran

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep531

In this episode, Dinesh examines the newly-released footage of January 6 to show what really happened on that fateful day.  Dinesh reveals how Antifa is trashing Atlanta, while the media stays largely silent.  Dinesh argues that AOC’s behavior at the Met Gala, for which she is being investigated, is a window into the psychology of the Left. Entrepreneur and podcaster Robert C. Smith joins Dinesh to explain why a Virginia Law School needs to return his family’s large donation.

Source: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep531

Jan. 6th video is exculpatory, kept from public: Bernard Kerik and Vernon Jones | John Bachman Now

On Tuesday’s “John Bachman Now,” former NYC Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik and former Georgia Rep. Vernon Jones react to the bombshell January 6th video footage.

Source: Jan. 6th video is exculpatory, kept from public: Bernard Kerik and Vernon Jones | John Bachman Now

Chris Salcedo: Jan. 6th EXPOSED, narrative over truth

Chris Salcedo reacts to the new footage of what exactly occurred inside the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 & why the January 6th commission has been exposed for their lies & narrative they created – via. The Chris Salcedo Show on NEWSMAX.

Source: Chris Salcedo: Jan. 6th EXPOSED, narrative over truth

Vivek Ramaswamy: Jan. 6 defendants had their rights broken

Vivek Ramaswamy, who is running for President in 2024, says January 6th defendants had their rights broken after new footage came out from the day & calls out the ‘woke’ race narrative – via. The Chris Salcedo Show on NEWSMAX.

Source: Vivek Ramaswamy: Jan. 6 defendants had their rights broken