Mamdani forgot he’s just a mayor. The State Department had to remind him

Story by Anthony Maranise, Washington Examiner

Mamdani forgot he’s just a mayor. The State Department had to remind him

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s administration recently scheduled a meeting between his commissioner of international affairs and Iran’s U.N. ambassador. The meeting was only stopped after the State Department intervened and ordered it canceled.

Mamdani says he didn’t know about it. That is not a defense. It is an admission that either his office is freelancing foreign policy or he sees nothing wrong with it.

He is a city mayor. Nothing more. The fact that he leads the largest city in the country does not grant him authority to conduct diplomacy with a regime that actively works against U.S. interests. Foreign policy belongs to the federal government. Period.

Local officials exist to handle local problems: crime, transit, housing, and basic services. They do not get to insert themselves into matters of national security and international relations. When a mayor’s team attempts back-channel contact with Iran’s representative at the United Nations, it is not bold leadership. It is arrogant overreach.

This episode fits a pattern. Mamdani ran on a platform that treated the mayoralty as a platform for progressive ideology rather than competent local governance. Now, his administration has demonstrated the same confusion of roles in practice. While City Hall dabbles in foreign affairs that it has no business touching, New Yorkers continue to deal with failing infrastructure, strained public safety resources, and a city government that too often prioritizes symbolism over results.

Catherine Austin Fitts: The Nightmare of Programmable Money

The American Papacy

The American Papacy.

SINCE the year 1856, a book entitled “Our Country” has been largely circulated, and it has excited a great deal of attention throughout the United States. The book was written for the American Home Missionary Society, its object being to present “facts and arguments showing the imperative need of home missionary work for the evangelization of the land.” In a startling as well as splendid array of facts, it presents the growth, the size, the resources, and the perils of our country.

Among the perils to our country, the author rightly places Romanism, and by many excellent quotations proves that it is indeed a peril. We quote a passage or two:—

“There are many who are disposed to attribute any fear of Roman Catholicism in the United States to bigotry or childishness. Such see nothing in the character and attitude of Romanism that is hostile to our free institutions, or find nothing portentous in its growth. Let us, then, first compare some of the fundamental principles of our Government with those of the Catholic Church.

“The Constitution of the United States guarantees liberty of conscience. Nothing is clearer or more fundamental. Pope Pius IX., in his Encyclical Letter of August 15, 1854, said: ‘The absurd and erroneous doctrines or ravings in defense of liberty of conscience, are a pestilential error—a pest, of all others, most to be dreaded in a State.’ The same pope, in his Encyclical Letter of December 8, 1864, anathematizes ‘those who assert the liberty of conscience and of religious worship,’ also ‘all such as maintain that the church may not employ force.’”

Sec. Hegseth’s "Spiritual Readiness" Push Sparks Constitutional Debate

 

"Spiritual Readiness" Push Sparks Constitutional Debate

Defense Now

Department of War | Pentagon Press Secretary Drops Major Announcement | US Senate Armed Services Committee

The Story: Today's Pentagon Prayer Service Today's event—scheduled for 12:00 PM EST in the Pentagon Auditorium—is the latest in a series of monthly "Christian prayer and worship services" instituted by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. 

The Angle: The core tension surrounding today's service is the invitation list. Recent emails were sent not only to active-duty personnel but also to U.S. defense contractors. This has drawn immediate scrutiny and formal complaints from watchdog groups like the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), who argue the outreach violates the separation of church and state. Several contractors have anonymously expressed feeling caught between a "rock and a hard place," fearing they might miss out on networking or government work if they don't attend. 

In response, the Pentagon maintains that the services are 100% voluntary, attendance is not tracked, and the gatherings are constitutionally protected events meant to boost morale and "spiritual readiness."

Is Leftist Rage About to Turn as BLOODY as the French Revolution?! | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 277

 

Sunday Rest Proposal Raises Troubling Religious Liberty Concerns

A response by the North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists

January 18, 2026

Columbia, Md.



A proposal by a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy organization to legally recognize and enforce a “uniform day of rest” represents a disturbing disregard for the religious freedom of all Americans. The Heritage Foundation’s document, “Saving America by Saving the Family,” calls for states and local municipalities to restrict commercial activities on Sunday as a way to promote spiritual engagement and provide a regular day of relaxation for American workers.

Seventh-day Adventists believe all people have been created in God’s image with the freedom to worship according to the dictates of their conscience. For more than 160 years, the Church has forcefully advocated against any form of Sunday law. Adventists have always understood these laws — whether at a local, state, or federal level — as attempts to compel conscience, even when they are defended on pretextual secular grounds such as promoting the health of communities and families.

This new proposal for a “uniform day of rest” is irreconcilable with America’s rich heritage of protecting the religious freedom of all its citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs or nonbelief. It represents a dangerous desire to use state power to advance religious objectives. Restricting commercial activities on Sunday also raises serious practical concerns for members of those faiths that do not worship on Sunday, including Seventh-day Adventists and Orthodox Jews.

Sunday laws run counter to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which preserves religious freedom for all Americans by requiring the government to remain neutral between different religious faiths. Our church leaders in the North American Division and the union conferences will continue to uphold the banner of truth and religious liberty, firmly opposing this proposal and any similar measures.

Source

Attempted coup d'état in Benin: Foreign minister says situation under co...

How The New York Times article "The Constitution is Sacred. Is it also Dangerous?" is a prime example of left leaning media bias

Ethan Justice
Sep 2, 2024

The New York Times article titled "The Constitution is Sacred. Is it also Dangerous?" can be seen as an example of left-leaning media bias due to its framing, selection of sources, and overall narrative. The article critiques the U.S. Constitution by suggesting that it has become a barrier to true democratic governance and even implies that it might be dangerous in the modern context. This perspective aligns with a broader progressive argument that some constitutional mechanisms, like the Electoral College and the lifetime appointment of Supreme Court justices, are outdated and undemocratic.

Critics of the article argue that it reflects a left-leaning bias because it predominantly highlights viewpoints that question or criticize the Constitution, often linking its perceived flaws to current right-wing political successes. The article also references scholars and authors who propose radical changes to the Constitution or even suggest its abolition, which aligns with progressive critiques of the Constitution as a tool that reinforces minority rule and systemic inequities. Furthermore, the article’s focus on issues like the role of white men in drafting the Constitution and its connections to slavery can be seen as reinforcing a narrative that the Constitution is inherently flawed, a viewpoint more commonly associated with progressive or left-leaning ideologies.

These elements contribute to the perception that the article is biased, as it gives significant weight to critiques of the Constitution without equally presenting counterarguments that defend its relevance and adaptability in modern times. This kind of framing is often cited as evidence of the New York Times' left-leaning bias in its coverage of foundational American institutions​.

To offer a more balanced view of the Constitution's relevance today, it's essential to include counterarguments that defend its enduring value and adaptability.

SCOTUS silently preserves church-state boundary in Catholic charter school case, but won’t say how justices voted

Elura Nanos May 22nd, 2025, 12:34 pm



Members of the Supreme Court sit for a new group portrait following the addition of Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, at the Supreme Court building in Washington, Friday, Oct. 7, 2022. Bottom row, from left, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, Associate Justice Samuel Alito, and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. Top row, from left, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

As some court watchers predicted, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 4-4 ruling Thursday that preserves the distinction between church and state — for the time being. Despite the eight participating justices having been vocal during oral arguments just three weeks ago, however, the Court issued its ruling without a single word of opinion, guidance, or information as to the lineup of votes.

“A robust Catholic education”

The case, stylized as Oklahoma Charter School Board v. Drummond, was a contentious one in which the justices heard several hours of exhaustive oral arguments over whether a virtual Catholic charter school has a right to operate despite Oklahoma’s requirement that its charter schools be nonreligious. The St. Isidore of Seville school — named for an unofficial patron saint of the internet — aims to provide a “robust Catholic education,” and is open to both Catholic and non-Catholic students. The school, which would operate entirely online, projected an initial enrollment of 500 students with the expectation of reaching 1,500 students by 2028, half from lower-income families.

Although Oklahoma’s charter school board initially approved St. Isidore’s application for the 2024-25 school year, Oklahoma’s Republican attorney general and current gubernatorial candidate, Gentner Drummond, opposed the school’s participation in the charter program on the grounds that under both Oklahoma law and the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution, all public schools in the state are required to be nonsectarian.

Carter Ledyard’s Latin America Practice Will Present To ITESO, Universidad Jesuita De Guadalajara

PRESS RELEASE
20 February 2025

Carter Ledyard’s Latin America Practice Will Present To ITESO, Universidad Jesuita De Guadalajara

CL
Carter Ledyard & MilburnMore
Bryan J. Hall, Alexander G. Malyshev, and Edmundo Elias-Loyola of Carter Ledyard’s Latin America Cross-Border practice will speak...

United States


Bryan J. Hall, Alexander G. Malyshev, and Edmundo Elias-Loyola of Carter Ledyard's Latin America Cross-Border practice will speak at ITESO, with a presentation entitled "Balance of Power in the U.S. Government: The U.S. Constitution, Federalism and Executive Orders" on February 25th, 2025.

For more information, please contact Jennifer Topper (topper@clm.com)




Source

----

P.S.

AI Overview

In February 2025, Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP's Latin America practice presented at the Universidad Jesuita de Guadalajara (ITESO). The presentation was titled "Balance of Power in the U.S. Government: The U.S. Constitution, Federalism and Executive Orders".

Explanation
Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP is a law firm that offers a variety of legal services, including trusts and estates, litigation, and Native American law. The firm's partners provide legal and business advice to clients.


Carter Ledyard's Latin America practice

Carter Ledyard's Latin America practice presented at ITESO as part of its Cross-Border practice.
The presentation was given by Bryan J. Hall, Alexander G. Malyshev, and Edmundo Elias-Loyola.

Carter Ledyard's practice areas
Trusts and estates
The firm helps clients develop estate plans to ensure their assets benefit their intended beneficiaries.

Litigation
The firm handles a variety of litigations, including those involving trusts and estates, unfair competition, and antitrust.

Native American law
The firm's Native American Law practice focuses on corporate finance for Native American tribes.

The Truth About Birthright Citizenship

Voters Approve State Constitutional Amendments to Enshrine Abortion Rights

11.06.2024

Measures to protect abortion access approved in Colorado, Arizona, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, and New York.

©Eric Kayne/AP Images for the Center for Reproductive Rights


Yesterday, millions of people voted to enshrine the right to abortion in their state constitutions, approving amendments in seven of 10 states where measures were on the ballot.

In the states with abortion bans and severe restrictions, the amendments will provide a basis for challenging those limitations. In other states, where abortion is legal, amendments will prevent the threat of future interference by state and local governments.

Win in Missouri Could Provide Access Point in the Midwest, While the Southeast’s Abortion Desert Remains

An especially critical amendment approval came in Missouri, where abortion is banned—marking the first time voters in a state with a total abortion ban have successfully amended their constitution to protect reproductive freedom. “This is an especially historic win for Missouri. . . Voters have demanded the return of the essential human rights and freedoms they lost after Roe was overturned,” said Nancy Northup, President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

In Florida, which bans abortion as early as six weeks into pregnancy, the measure received 57% of the vote, just short of the 60% threshold needed to pass. As a result, Floridians “must continue to live with the fear, uncertainty, and denial of care caused by the reversal of Roe,” said Northup. “So too will countless women in the southeastern U.S., which will remain for now a virtual abortion desert.”

Collectivism poses a threat to America's constitutional and unalienable rights

April 2024 

Thesis 

Collectivism poses a threat to America's constitutional and unalienable rights 

The global shift towards collectivism and political consensus will limit America's freedom of speech by restricting dissent and discouraging individualism. The rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence are inherent and not granted by the government. 

The signers and framers of the Declaration of Independence believed in natural law, but their interpretation was not based on Catholic Social Doctrine, but rather on the Protestant tradition of individual ethics. The founders of the emerging American identity established a form of government that valued the principle that "all men are created equal," which allows individuals to follow their conscience instead of a nation governed by the Common Good, which can be seen as communitarian and tyrannical. 

There is a growing trend towards limiting speech by left-leaning, politically correct progressives. The only rights progressives believe in are the ones they make up to suit their agenda of social justice. All other rights, especially natural ones, are to be trampled into the dust. Human beings are not all "atoms" or individuals with equally intrinsic rights, but unequal cogs in a hierarchy of social-justice groupings, to be managed by the state. (Holmes 2022). Modern progressive ideology aligns with cultural Marxism, deconstructionism, and race theory. The intellectual forerunners of the contemporary progressive ideology are Nietzche, Gramsci, and other Marxists. 

Protesters Clash With Police After Storming Mexico’s Senate Over ...

 

 ---------------------------------

   

Sovereignty Coalition Holds Summit on ‘Global Governance’ Treaties...

All of Us Are in Danger: When Anti-Government Speech Becomes Sedition

By John Whitehead, 06 October, 2022


Anti-government speech has become a four-letter word.

In more and more cases, the government is declaring war on what should be protected political speech whenever it challenges the government’s power, reveals the government’s corruption, exposes the government’s lies, and encourages the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.

Indeed, there is a long and growing list of the kinds of speech that the government considers dangerous enough to red flag and subject to censorship, surveillance, investigation and prosecution: hate speech, conspiratorial speech, treasonous speech, threatening speech, inflammatory speech, radical speech, anti-government speech, extremist speech, etc.

Things are about to get even dicier for those who believe in fully exercising their right to political expression.

Indeed, the government’s seditious conspiracy charges against Stewart Rhodes, the founder of Oath Keepers, and several of his associates for their alleged involvement in the January 6 Capitol riots puts the entire concept of anti-government political expression on trial.

Enacted during the Civil War to prosecute secessionists, seditious conspiracy makes it a crime for two or more individuals to conspire to “‘overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force’ the U.S. government, or to levy war against it, or to oppose by force and try to prevent the execution of any law.”

It’s a hard charge to prove, and the government’s track record hasn’t been the greatest.

It’s been almost a decade since the government tried to make a seditious conspiracy charge stick—against a small Christian militia accused of plotting to kill a police officer and attack attendees at his funeral in order to start a civil war—and it lost the case.

Although the government was able to show that the Hutaree had strong anti-government views, the judge ruled in U.S. v. Stone that “[O]ffensive speech and a conspiracy to do something other than forcibly resist a positive show of authority by the Federal Government is not enough to sustain a charge of seditious conspiracy.”

Whether or not prosecutors are able to prove their case that Rhodes and his followers intended to actually overthrow the government, the blowback will be felt far and wide by anyone whose political views can be labeled “anti-government.”

The No Religious Test Clause (ARTICLE VI of the U.S. Constitution)

COMMON INTERPRETATION

The No Religious Test Clause

by Alan E. Brownstein

Professor of Law & the Boochever and Bird Chair for the Study and Teaching of Freedom and Equality at the University of California - Davis School of Law

by Jud Campbell

Associate Professor of Law at the University of Richmond School of Law


After requiring all federal and state legislators and officers to swear or affirm to support the federal Constitution, Article VI specifies that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” This prohibition, commonly known as the No Religious Test Clause, banned a longstanding form of religious discrimination practiced both in England and in the United States. In doing so, it provided a limited but enduring textual constitutional commitment to religious liberty and equality that has influenced the way Americans have understood the relationship between government and religion over the last two centuries.

In England, religious tests were used to “establish” the Church of England as an official national church. The Test Acts, in force from the 1660s until the 1820s, required all government officials to take an oath disclaiming the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation and affirming the Church of England’s teachings about receiving the sacrament. These laws effectively excluded Catholics and members of dissenting Protestant sects from exercising political power. Religious tests were needed, William Blackstone explained, to protect the established church and the government “against perils from non-conformists of all denominations, infidels, turks, jews, heretics, papists, and sectaries.”

At the time the United States Constitution was adopted, religious qualifications for holding office also were pervasive throughout the states. Delaware’s constitution, for example, required government officials to “profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost.” North Carolina barred anyone “who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion” from serving in the government. Unlike the rule in England, however, American religious tests did not limit office-holding to members of a particular established church. Every state allowed Protestants of all varieties to serve in government. Still, religious tests were designed to exclude certain people—often Catholics or non-Christians—from holding office based on their faith.

Today, nondiscrimination is an essential part of religious freedom, and it therefore may seem odd that the state laws and constitutions simultaneously imposed religious tests while also professing to protect religious liberty. Indeed, some critics, such as Thomas Jefferson, condemned religious tests as repugnant to freedom of conscience. But many Americans in the late 1700s and early 1800s apparently did not view religious tests and religious freedom as inherently contradictory. Some argued that religious tests did not violate freedom of religious conscience because no one had an obligation or entitlement to hold public office. Office-holding, in other words, was a privilege, not a right. Americans thus allowed minority religions to practice their faith while insisting that government power must be reserved for and could only be trusted to Protestants.

Notwithstanding this almost unanimous state consensus, the Framers of the federal Constitution prohibited religious tests for federal office-holding. It is not clear why they did so. There is little record of debate about this provision or discussion as to its merits at the constitutional convention. We do know that the ban on religious tests was controversial during the ratification debates, sometimes evoking passionate criticism of its inclusion in the Constitution. It was elementary to some opponents of the ban that “a person could not be a good man without being a good Christian.” Even as prominent a proponent of ratification as John Jay had demonstrated strong support for the use of religious tests within his own state.

Supporters of the Constitution defended the prohibition against test oaths as advancing religious freedom and protecting less politically powerful faiths against discrimination. They also argued that laws requiring religious tests were futile. Men without principles would easily evade the laws’ purpose through sham compliance while honest men who followed the dictates of their conscience would be barred from office. The difficult question was how these arguments could be reconciled with the widespread acceptance of religious tests throughout the states.

There is very little case law interpreting the No Religious Test Clause. The foundational ideas of religious liberty and equality, which are intrinsic to the rejection of religious tests, have been developed far more fully in cases interpreting the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Thus, the Supreme Court has never held that the Clause applies to state as well as federal office-holding. In other words, unlike most parts of the Bill of Rights, the ban on religious tests has not been formally applied against the states (or “incorporated”) under the Fourteenth Amendment. But in Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), the Supreme Court unanimously held that religious tests for state office-holding violate the religion clauses of the First Amendment. “[N]either a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person ‘to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion,’” the Court declared. “[N]either can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.”

In a related case, McDaniel v. Paty (1978), the Supreme Court invoked the First Amendment to strike down state laws prohibiting clergy from holding office. Such a disqualification from holding office, the Court explained, unacceptably abridged religious liberty. Here again, the fact that these religion-related exclusions were adopted by many states both before and after the Constitution’s ratification did not persuade the Justices that such burdens on religious liberty were permissible.

As is true of virtually all constitutional provisions, the No Religious Test Clause in Article VI only restricts governmental action. Private citizens do not violate the Constitution if they vote against a political candidate because of his or her religion. A harder question, which has provoked considerable contemporary debate, is whether the Clause extends beyond a ban against oaths and prohibits government officials from taking the religious views of an individual into account in selecting or confirming that individual for a federal position—such as an appointment to the Supreme Court.

Source

Why a former minister is challenging churches' tax privileges in US

values & ideals

This month, a federal judge in Wisconsin ruled that tax-free housing for clergy is unconstitutional, while in Texas, a federal judge ruled that the governor infringed on an atheist group's constitutional rights when he removed their 'winter solstice' nativity. Dan Barker is the former Evangelical behind both cases.

Pastor Mark Harris of First Baptist Church gives his sermon during the fifth and largest 'Pulpit Freedom Sunday' in Charlotte, N.C., in October 2012. More than 1,300 pastors across the country climbed to the lectern and endorsed a candidate for public office, in defiance of the Johnson Amendment prohibiting tax-exempt churches from endorsing politicians.
John Adkisson/Reuters/File




Harry Bruinius
Staff writer | @HarryBruinius


October 20, 2017 NEW YORK—When Dan Barker was a Pentecostal minister in California, he knew he could exclude his clergy housing allowance from his income tax returns, taking advantage of an IRS benefit that the federal government grants to “ministers of the Gospel” – though not to anyone else.

Back then, he didn’t give much thought to this special social benefit, which today gives American ministers a tax break worth some $800 million a year. Today, his efforts stand behind the ruling of a federal judge in Wisconsin who declared this benefit a violation of the separation of church and state.

In the 1970s, Mr. Barker was never that concerned about the nitty gritty of social policy. And he felt many of his fellow religious conservatives, who were getting involved in the emerging “religious right,” were too caught up with worldly concerns.


“I was a pure soul-winner,” Mr. Barker says. “I never preached about homosexuality or abortion or birth control or race or anything relevant to the so-called culture wars.”

By age 16, he was working for the televangelist Kathryn Kuhlman – a forerunner of what today is known as “the prosperity gospel.”

Are you smarter than an atheist? A religious quiz

“I was the true believer, a Bible-believing fundamentalist,” says Barker, who went on to be an evangelist himself for nearly 20 years, both as a Christian musician and preacher. “I was a person praying for miracles and faith healings – all of that,” he says. “I believed it.”

He didn’t stop believing all at once, but over the years Barker experienced what can only be called a dramatic conversion.

It was as if he had been born again, his life turned inside out. He married a third-generation atheist activist, Annie Laurie Gaylor, eventually joining her as the co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation in Madison, Wis.

Now Barker and his wife are on the vanguard of the so-called culture wars, in particular the push and pull in the legal battles that draw the lines between church and state, and as caught up with worldly concerns as his former Evangelical peers.


And the legal push and pull has become more volatile over the past few years. In some ways, the Supreme Court’s epoch-changing 2015 decision making same-sex marriage a constitutional right has galvanized religious conservatives to work to strengthen the country’s robust traditions of religious freedom – and even carve out new spaces for conscience, especially for those with religious objections to same-sex marriage.



Members of the clergy arrive for the annual Red Mass for Supreme Court justices, judges, and government officials, at Cathedral of St. Matthew in Washington on Oct. 1.
Mike Theiler/Reuters

The Path to Total Dictatorship: America’s Shadow Government & Its Silent Coup

JOHN W WHITEHEAD | OCTOBER 26, 2016

If there is anything the Deep State requires it is silent!



“Today the path to total dictatorship in the U.S. can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by Congress, the President, or the people. Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system … a well-organized political-action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state.... The important point to remember about this group is not its ideology but its organization… It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government.... This group ... is answerable neither to the President, the Congress, nor the courts. It is practically irremovable.”— Senator William Jenner, 1954 speech

Unaffected by elections. Unaltered by populist movements. Beyond the reach of the law.

Say hello to America’s shadow government.

A corporatized, militarized, entrenched bureaucracy that is fully operational and staffed by unelected officials who are, in essence, running the country, this shadow government represents the hidden face of a government that has no respect for the freedom of its citizenry.

No matter which candidate wins the presidential election, this shadow government is here to stay. Indeed, as recent documents by the FBI reveal, this shadow government—also referred to as “The 7th Floor Group”—may well have played a part in who will win the White House this year.

To be precise, however, the future president will actually inherit not one but two shadow governments.

The first shadow government, referred to as COG or Continuity of Government, is made up of unelected individuals who have been appointed to run the government in the event of a “catastrophe.” COG is a phantom menace waiting for the right circumstances—a terrorist attack, a natural disaster, an economic meltdown—to bring it out of the shadows, where it operates even now. When and if COG takes over, the police state will transition to martial law.

Yet it is the second shadow government—also referred to as the Deep State—that poses the greater threat to freedom right now. Comprised of unelected government bureaucrats, corporations, contractors, paper-pushers, and button-pushers who are actually calling the shots behind the scenes, this government within a government is the real reason “we the people” have no real control over our government.

The Deep State, which “operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power,” makes a mockery of elections and the entire concept of a representative government.

So who or what is the Deep State?

It’s the militarized police, which have joined forces with state and federal law enforcement agencies in order to establish themselves as a standing army. It’s the fusion centers and spy agencies that have created a surveillance state and turned all of us into suspects. It’s the courthouses and prisons that have allowed corporate profits to take precedence over due process and justice. It’s the military empire with its private contractors and defense industry that is bankrupting the nation. It’s the private sector with its 854,000 contract personnel with top-secret clearances, “a number greater than that of top-secret-cleared civilian employees of the government.” It’s what former congressional staffer Mike Lofgren refers to as “a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies”: the Department of Defense, the State Department, Homeland Security, the CIA, the Justice Department, the Treasury, the Executive Office of the President via the National Security Council, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a handful of vital federal trial courts, and members of the defense and intelligence committees.

It’s every facet of a government that is no longer friendly to freedom and is working overtime to trample the Constitution underfoot and render the citizenry powerless in the face of the government’s power grabs, corruption and abusive tactics.

These are the key players that drive the shadow government.

This is the hidden face of the American police state that will continue long past Election Day.

Just consider some of the key programs and policies advanced by the shadow government that will continue no matter who occupies the Oval Office.

Domestic surveillance. No matter who wins the presidential popularity contest, the National Security Agency (NSA), with its $10.8 billion black ops annual budget, will continue to spy on every person in the United States who uses a computer or phone. Thus, on any given day, whether you’re walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency, whether the NSA or some other entity, is listening in and tracking your behavior. Local police have been outfitted with a litany of surveillance gear, from license plate readers and cell phone tracking devices to biometric data recorders. Technology now makes it possible for the police to scan passersby in order to detect the contents of their pockets, purses, briefcases, etc. Full-body scanners, which perform virtual strip-searches of Americans traveling by plane, have gone mobile, with roving police vans that peer into vehicles and buildings alike—including homes. Coupled with the nation’s growing network of real-time surveillance cameras and facial recognition software, soon there really will be nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.

Global spying. The NSA’s massive surveillance network, what the Washington Post refers to as a $500 billion “espionage empire,” will continue to span the globe and target every single person on the planet who uses a phone or a computer. The NSA’s Echelon program intercepts and analyzes virtually every phone call, fax and email message sent anywhere in the world. In addition to carrying out domestic surveillance on peaceful political groups such as Amnesty International, Greenpeace and several religious groups, Echelon has also been a keystone in the government’s attempts at political and corporate espionage.

Roving TSA searches. The American taxpayer will continue to get ripped off by government agencies in the dubious name of national security. One of the greatest culprits when it comes to swindling taxpayers has been the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), with its questionable deployment of and complete mismanagement of millions of dollars’ worth of airport full-body X-ray scanners, punitive patdowns by TSA agents and thefts of travelers’ valuables. Considered essential to national security, TSA programs will continue in airports and at transportation hubs around the country.

USA Patriot Act, NDAA. America’s so-called war on terror, which it has relentlessly pursued since 9/11, will continue to chip away at our freedoms, unravel our Constitution and transform our nation into a battlefield, thanks in large part to such subversive legislation as the USA Patriot Act and National Defense Authorization Act. These laws completely circumvent the rule of law and the rights of American citizens. In so doing, they re-orient our legal landscape in such a way as to ensure that martial law, rather than the U.S. Constitution, is the map by which we navigate life in the United States. These laws will continue to be enforced no matter who gets elected.

Militarized police state. Thanks to federal grant programs allowing the Pentagon to transfer surplus military supplies and weapons to local law enforcement agencies without charge, police forces will continue to be transformed from peace officers into heavily armed extensions of the military, complete with jackboots, helmets, shields, batons, pepper-spray, stun guns, assault rifles, body armor, miniature tanks and weaponized drones. Having been given the green light to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts, America’s law enforcement officials, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, will continue to keep the masses corralled, controlled, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens.

SWAT team raids. With more than 80,000 SWAT team raids carried out every year on unsuspecting Americans by local police for relatively routine police matters and federal agencies laying claim to their own law enforcement divisions, the incidence of botched raids and related casualties will continue to rise. Nationwide, SWAT teams will continue to be employed to address an astonishingly trivial array of criminal activity or mere community nuisances including angry dogs, domestic disputes, improper paperwork filed by an orchid farmer, and misdemeanor marijuana possession.

Domestic drones. The domestic use of drones will continue unabated. As mandated by Congress, there will be 30,000 drones crisscrossing the skies of America by 2020, all part of an industry that could be worth as much as $30 billion per year. These machines, which will be equipped with weapons, will be able to record all activities, using video feeds, heat sensors and radar. An Inspector General report revealed that the Dept. of Justice has already spent nearly $4 million on drones domestically, largely for use by the FBI, with grants for another $1.26 million so police departments and nonprofits can acquire their own drones.

School-to-prison pipeline. The paradigm of abject compliance to the state will continue to be taught by example in the schools, through school lockdowns where police and drug-sniffing dogs enter the classroom, and zero tolerance policies that punish all offenses equally and result in young people being expelled for childish behavior. School districts will continue to team up with law enforcement to create a “schoolhouse to jailhouse track” by imposing a “double dose” of punishment: suspension or expulsion from school, accompanied by an arrest by the police and a trip to juvenile court.

Overcriminalization. The government bureaucracy will continue to churn out laws, statutes, codes and regulations that reinforce its powers and value systems and those of the police state and its corporate allies, rendering the rest of us petty criminals. The average American now unknowingly commits three felonies a day, thanks to this overabundance of vague laws that render otherwise innocent activity illegal. Consequently, small farmers who dare to make unpasteurized goat cheese and share it with members of their community will continue to have their farms raided.

Privatized Prisons. States will continue to outsource prisons to private corporations, resulting in a cash cow whereby mega-corporations imprison Americans in private prisons in order to make a profit. In exchange for corporations buying and managing public prisons across the country at a supposed savings to the states, the states have to agree to maintain a 90% occupancy rate in the privately run prisons for at least 20 years.

Endless wars. America’s expanding military empire will continue to bleed the country dry at a rate of more than $15 billion a month (or $20 million an hour). The Pentagon spends more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety. Yet what most Americans fail to recognize is that these ongoing wars have little to do with keeping the country safe and everything to do with enriching the military industrial complex at taxpayer expense.

Are you getting the message yet?

The next president, much like the current president and his predecessors, will be little more than a figurehead, a puppet to entertain and distract the populace from what’s really going on.

As Lofgren reveals, this state within a state, “concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue,” is a “hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose.”

The Deep State not only holds the nation’s capital in thrall, but it also controls Wall Street (“which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and operating as a diversionary marionette theater”) and Silicon Valley.

This is fascism in its most covert form, hiding behind public agencies and private companies to carry out its dirty deeds.

It is a marriage between government bureaucrats and corporate fat cats.

As Lofgren concludes:

[T]he Deep State is so heavily entrenched, so well protected by surveillance, firepower, money and its ability to co-opt resistance that it is almost impervious to change… If there is anything the Deep State requires it is silent, uninterrupted cash flow and the confidence that things will go on as they have in the past. It is even willing to tolerate a degree of gridlock: Partisan mud wrestling over cultural issues may be a useful distraction from its agenda.

In other words, as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, as long as government officials—elected and unelected alike—are allowed to operate beyond the reach of the Constitution, the courts and the citizenry, the threat to our freedoms remains undiminished.

So the next time you find yourselves despondent over the 2016 presidential candidates, remember that it’s just a puppet show intended to distract you from the silent coup being carried out by America's shadow government.

# # # #



John W. Whitehead, Newsbud Contributing Analyst & Author, is an attorney and author who has written, debated and practiced widely in the area of constitutional law and human rights. He is the president and spokesperson of the Rutherford Institute. Mr. Whitehead is the author of numerous books on a variety of legal and social issues, including A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. He has a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Arkansas and a Juris Doctorate degree from the University of Arkansas School of Law, and served as an officer in the United States Army from 1969 to 1971.

Source

USA: A Nation In Turmoil And Distress!

Volume XXXV Issue VIII August 2016
Last Trumpet Ministries, PO Box 806, Beaver Dam, WI 53916
Phone: 920-887-2626 Internet: http://www.lasttrumpetministries.org

"And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the king's business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it."

Daniel 8:27


"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."

Matthew 5:43-45


"Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another."

Matthew 24:9-10


"For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

Titus 3:3-7


In this issue of the Last Trumpet Newsletter, we will once again scrutinize the current events of our day. At the very outset of this newsletter, I will say that many of the things we see happening today are very distressing. When we consider the violence and the hatred that is now so common in the United States, it can be troubling to the point that to ponder our country's condition leaves one feeling ill. In this regard, I can relate to Daniel the prophet, who after being given a vision of the future reported in Daniel 8:27, "And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the king's business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it." What Daniel saw in his vision was so distressing that it made him physically ill for days.

In Matthew 24 our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ gives us many details regarding the condition of the world in the latter days of the earth just before His second coming. One of the predominant characteristics of that time period is prevalent hatred. This is a hatred not only for God's people, but also a hatred that wicked men have for each other as they turn on each other and betray one another. Matthew 24:9-10 tells us, "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another."

As it happens, one of the characteristics of the people now manifesting in these turbulent times is widespread hatred. This hatred often leads to violence, and this violence has caused great turmoil in the United States. Sadly, this tension runs along racial lines, and there is especially great animosity between black Americans and American police forces. In fact, a pair of officer-involved shootings in early July 2016 have led to unrest all over the country. The first incident occurred on July 5, 2016, when a 37 year-old black man, known as Alton Sterling, was shot in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. (1) The second shooting occurred the very next day on July 6, 2016, when a 32 year-old black man by the name of Philando Castile was shot by a police officer during a routine traffic stop in a suburb of St. Paul, Minnesota. (2) Video evidence suggests that both shootings were likely unwarranted and involved excessive force by the officers involved in the incidents. In the case of Castile, it has been reported that the individual was shot while reaching for his wallet to retrieve his identification, an act which the officer misinterpreted as an attempt to reach for a firearm. (3)