In a new documentary that premiered this week, Pope Francis made a controversial endorsement of civil unions laws for homosexual couples.
“Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family,” Francis said in the documentary. “They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or made miserable because of it.”
“What we have to create is a civil union law,” he continued. That way they are legally covered.”
His comments have made waves in religious circles, and there is much disagreement about whether or not Francis’ comments undermine the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality. While they do not change the Catholic doctrine that marriage is strictly defined as the union between one man and one woman, many are saying they mark a shift in the Vatican’s language.
Reverend James Martin, a Catholic priest who has been at the forefront of reconciliation between the Church and the LGBTQ community, called Francis’s comments “a major step forward in the church’s support for LGBT people.”
Similarly, in an interview with NPR, Father Bryan Massingale, an openly gay Catholic priest, celebrated the pope’s comments about “family rights”: “I was actually very excited and even jubilant I have to say. I was very, very pleased to hear the Pope make this kind of endorsement of civil unions for gay and lesbian persons.”
The Catholic News Agency, on the other hand, called the remarks “a shift from the perspectives of his predecessors”, namely Popes Benedict XVI and John Paul II, who guided the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith that states:
“…respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society.”
Matt Frad, an Australian Catholic author whose podcast “Pints with Aquinas” receives hundreds of thousands of downloads every month, spoke on behalf of traditional Catholics in a Youtube video addressing the Pope’s comments:
“We think he says things that are massively unhelpful and then doesn’t clarify them,” Frad said. “When you get ambiguous claims at best, which then are never clarified, it’s frustrating, especially as we seek to make Christ’s last commandment our first priority.”
“Maybe a libertarian case can be made for civil unions among homosexuals,” Frad continued, “but when you say stuff like this, the way the world hears you is, ‘Homosexual acts are not disordered and the Catholic Church has changed its opinion on this.'”
“Francesco” is a documentary showcasing the life of Pope Francis and the global political and social issues that the Vatican has faced under his leadership. The director, Evgeny Afineevsky, secured exclusive interviews with Pope Francis for the production of the film.
It premiered at the Rome Film Festival on Wednesday and was awarded the “Kineo Movie for Humanity Award” on Thursday in the Vatican Gardens.
“Francesco” is scheduled to premiere in the United States on October 25th at the Savannah Film Festival.
During the debate, President Trump made the claaim that Biden’s brother James made millions of dollars in Iraq. Biden did not comment.
As it turns out, James was made executive vice president of HillStone International. Shortly thereafter Hillstone got a $1.5 billion dollar contract in Iraq to build 100,000 homes.
The thing is that neither James Biden or Hillstone had a lick of experience in building homes. How could a company with no experience get such a large contract with no experience. The same way that Hunter became a board member of Burisma. Joe.
I’ll give you three guesses who was in charge of humanitarian aid in Iraq. Joe Biden.
He detailed all of the conflicts of interest that made the Bidens rich. Kevin Justice, founder, and president of Hillstone International was summoned to the White House where he spoke to Michele Smith, a top aide to then-Vice President Joe Biden.
Smith was the liaison to “global government officials and business executives.”
And why did HillStone hire James Biden when there are tens of thousands of candidates with actual experience in building? My guess is because none of them had experience in being the brother of the vice president. You have to have your priorities.
[James Biden] landed a very lucrative job in the construction business. Essentially what happened is, a guy named Kevin Justice — a longtime Biden family friend — in November of 2010, went and visited the white House and met with Joe Biden’s people in Joe Biden’s office. He started a company called HillStone International, a construction company. Three weeks after that meeting in the White House, he announced that James Biden, Joe Biden’s brother, was going to join as an executive vice president.
What stands out in this, of course, is that James Biden has no background in construction, and in a bio the company released on him, all they noted was the fact that he was comfortable in the corridors of power and his brother was vice president of the United States. A few months after he joins the firm, lo and behold, this new company lands a contract to build 100,000 homes in Iraq from the federal government. They get a bunch of other contracts, as well.
If Joe loses the presidency, will his family starve? Because no one in their right mind would hire any of them. Without Joe in power, the spigot to millions of dollars will be closed off.
A family restaurant in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania is celebrating this week after the county judge ruled that their business was not guilty of criminal charges brought against them by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture for re-opening their doors under the governor’s COVID mandates.
Taste of Sicily – an Italian restaurant owned and operated by Silvana Drill and her children Michael Mangano and Christine Wartluft – closed down like all other businesses when governors across the country enacted emergency orders to shut down most business activities in March in response to COVID-19.
After two months, Taste of Sicily opened their doors at full capacity. Like many other businesses, their finances were suffering under severe state orders. Businesses have suffered heavily under COVID restrictions, with recent data reporting that 60% of businesses on Yelp that closed their doors between March 1st and August 31st will not be reopening.
Taste of Sicily’s lawyer, Eric Winter, said that “the business needed it. The family needed it, and they needed to do things to survive. They went ahead and reopened. And at that point, they had great support from the local level elected officials.”
One of those local elected officials is Lebanon County District Attorney Pier Hess Graf. Graf has been strong in her stance that her office will not investigate or prosecute any business in defiance of the Governor’s COVID orders. The day before Taste of Sicily’s hearing, she posted to Facebook in their support, clarifying to the community that it was the Department of Agriculture, not her office, that was bringing these charges against the restaurant.
“We stand with Taste of Sicily and behind the businesses which make up the life-blood of our community,” she wrote.
Lebanon County has found itself at odds with Democrat Governor Tom Wolf. In July, Governor Wolf withheld $13 million in federal relief funds from the county due to their decision to re-open early, stating that “there are consequences” to not following the rules.
When they re-opened, Taste of Sicily did not enforce social distancing, did not use plexiglass, and allowed patrons to make their own decisions on whether or not they would wear masks while dining.
The restaurant soon began receiving notices from the Department of Agriculture that they were in violation of law and would be fined.
In the face of these fines, Mangano said, “There’s absolutely no fear here. We’re going to continue to come to work, and the governor ain’t going to do anything about it.” In July, Mangano told PennLive, “We ain’t paying crap.”
Fines soon amounted to nearly $10,000.
The hearing was held last Friday, October 16th. The Department of Agriculture brought criminal charges against Taste of Sicily, but Winter argued that criminal penalties could not be imposed for these violations, and that only the attorney general or local district attorney had the authority to prosecute citations.
Lebanon County Judge Carl Garver ruled in favor of Taste of Sicily, declaring the restaurant not guilty.
“The mask mandate, the plexiglass, the social distancing, all of those things that the governor and Levine were implementing are not an enforceable citation,” Mangano told The Daily Caller. “In other words, they can’t legally enforce that. This says that any fine that you get from the state is legally non-enforceable.”
Mangano is encouraging other business owners to follow their lead. “When you get these fines from these agents do not pay them,” he said. “Plead not guilty, and take them to court. As you can see we won because they had no legal right to fine us for those mandates and guidelines the governor and Levine implemented.”
When asked about the ruling, Governor Wolf responded that he had not had a chance to review it. He pointed to restaurants and bars as a reason for “upsurges” in COVID rates, and said that “how we deal with those restaurants is an important policy tool” in addressing COVID.
On Wednesday, the Department of Health released a statement:
“The verdict has no impact upon the legal validity of the current mitigation orders. It does not impact any other case brought against any other defendant, nor does it deter the administration from taking action against violators who jeopardize public health by violating common sense mitigation measures.”
Having been a criminal case, the Governor cannot appeal the court’s decision. Nevertheless, the Taste of Sicily family is ready for whatever might come next:
The recently much-cited 2017 email from a top official with a Chinese energy firm (remember, all businesses in China are controlled by the communist Chinese government in some form or fashion), was given up by a whistleblower to US Senate investigators, exposes the terms of an agreement and included officials in said company giving a $5 million forgivable loan that was non-secured, to the Biden “family.” “Forgivable” meaning there’s no real intention to pay it back, so it looks like a legitimate loan on the books, but is allegedly a bribe.
Didn’t Joe say in the final debate Thursday night that he’s never taken any money from foreign sources?
SinoHawk Holdings CEO Tony Bobulinski, received the email that reveals how an official from CEFC Energy, which went bankrupt and nonexistent energy company based in China, offered to wire $10 million into an account , with $5 million of it being a non-secured forgivable loan to the “BD Family,” which means the Biden family. I call them the Biden crime family.
New York Times bestselling author Peter Schweizer spent 4 and a half hours with Bobulinski before he went public, and discussed these communications in particular regarding this loan during that meeting. In line with Schweizer, the Chinese language power firm officers had been going to place $10 million into an account, $5 million of which was designated as a non-secured forgivable mortgage to the Biden household. Schweizer stated this might represent important leverage the Chinese language power firm officers would have over the Biden household.
In other words, Joe Biden is compromised, and should never be in the Oval Office. He can be blackmailed by the Chinese communist government, and it could explain why he not only doesn’t talk about China as the serious adversary they are to the United States, but he has defended them in the past. He’s in their back pocket, which makes Joe Biden an active national security threat to the United States.
The email additionally says that $5 million loan is “interest free” and asks how that $5 million would be used, and if used up, whether CEFC ought to lend more money to the Biden family.
I wonder if you or I could get a $5 million non-secured loan that was forgivable with zero interest rate? Gee, I wonder why they did that?
This email further gives details surrounding the controversial arrangement first uncovered by US Senate investigators in a latest Homeland Security Committee report, and also uncovered by a bombshell New York Post story on emails retrieved from Hunter Biden’s laptop.
Bobulinski’s new emails add to the story by together with terms of the financial arrangement behind the wire transfer that CEFC officials made into a firm aligned with the Bidens that then made significant payments to Hunter Biden’s firm, a wire transfer and financial payments that had been first uncovered by Senate investigators. The New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop emails added extra information to this questionable arrangement by revealing emails that confirmed how Biden associates intended to divvy up the money from the Chinese investors.
Folks, if these emails are real, and so far they seem to be legitimate, this really happened. Joe Biden and his crime family were taking money from China. That means Joe Biden lied in the final debate.
These new emails from Bobulinski add more to the picture by showing that the agreement was that this payment would act as a non-secured forgivable loan, and that the CEFC side of the arrangement understood that the then-forthcoming payment, that Senate investigators confirmed was made just two weeks after these discussions, would function a loan to the Biden “family,” not just to Hunter Biden. That’s how crime families work, and it’s the pattern we see with the Chinese government, instead of directly paying off the influential politician, they shower family members with the money, in this case Hunter Biden, in hopes that the bribes aren’t linked to the candidate.
President Donald Trump last night asked Biden about his multiple homes, which leads us to wonder just how Joe and Jill Biden can afford such beautiful homes on a politician’s salary. I bet if it were ever investigated it would be discovered that Hunter Biden provided the money.
This email is part of a much bigger collection of documents that Bobulinski provided to Senate investigators with the Homeland Security and Finance Committees, and also to media outlets.
Written in the Senate Homeland Security Committee’s recent report, $5 million was wired straight into that account only two weeks later, and then Hunter Biden’s firm spent the next year wiring $4.8 million from there into his own firm’s account:about:blankTwitter URLPaste a link to the content you want to display on your site.EmbedLearn more about embeds(opens in a new tab)Sorry, this content could not be embedded.Try again Convert to link
In his statement, Bobulinski affirmed the validity of that email and further explained its meeting and that “the big guy” was a reference to former Vice President Joe Biden himself.
“What I am outlining is fact. I know it is fact because I lived it. I am the CEO of Sinohawk Holdings which was a partnership between the Chinese operating through CEFC/Chairman Ye and the Biden family,” Bobulinski said. “I was brought into the company to be the CEO by James Gilliar and Hunter Biden. The reference to ‘the big guy’ in the much-publicized May 13, 2017 email is in fact a reference to Joe Biden. The other ‘JB’ referenced in that email is Jim Biden, Joe’s brother. Hunter Biden called his dad ‘the Big Guy’ or ‘my Chairman,’ and frequently referenced asking him for his sign-off or advice on various potential deals that we were discussing. I’ve seen Vice President Biden saying he never talked to Hunter about his business. I’ve seen firsthand that that’s not true, because it wasn’t just Hunter’s business, they said they were putting the Biden family name and its legacy on the line.”
Joe Biden may have ended his campaign last night. Although he started out by saying he would not end fracking, he immediately said that he would transition from oil products, which is exactly what fracking does produce. If people were paying attention, Biden lost at least Ohio and Pennsylvania, and possibly Minnesota on that comment.
A huge part of the economy in Ohio and Pennsylvania comes from fracking and the high paying jobs associated with it. In Minnesota, Democrats have tried to shut down their mining operations. That would kill many jobs that people depend on to feed their families. Those are also good-paying jobs. When you tell people they are going to do away with your job, they tend to believe it.
Here is the exchange between Trump and Biden:
“Would he close down the oil industry?” Trump asked. “Would you close down the oil industry?”
“I would transition from the oil industry, yes,” Biden responded.
“That’s a big statement,” Trump shot back.
“It is a big statement, because … the oil industry pollutes significantly,” Biden emphasized, later adding: “It has to be replaced by renewable energy over time, over time. And I’d stop giving to the oil industry — I’d stop giving them federal subsidies. [Trump] won’t give federal subsidies to solar and wind. Why are we giving it to the oil industry?
“We actually do give it to solar and wind, and that’s maybe the biggest statement in terms of business … because basically what he’s saying is he is going to destroy the oil industry. Will you remember that, Texas? Will you remember that, Pennsylvania? Oklahoma?” Trump concluded.
“Trump campaign is gonna roll out a massive ad buy in Pennsylvania with that idiotic Biden answer about oil. Unless someone shows me a map with a path to victory for Biden when he loses Florida (which he will) and Pennsylvania, that might have sealed the deal tonight.”
Robby Starbuck:
“Joe Biden just said he would transition from the oil industry. That means kill the oil industry. The moderator’s response ‘why would you do that?’ was hilarious. She sounded confused why he would do this to his campaign. His far left plan slipped out. Massive error by Joe.”
Mollie Hemingway:
“Biden defense team (the media) working overtime to say that Biden‘s biggest error — saying he wants to end the oil industry — is no big deal and isn’t that what we all say in our hearts anyway? Oil industry one of the largest in country and particularly in some key states.”
Joe Biden did not do so well in the debate Thursday night. He seemed to have difficulty with the truth. He said that he would not end fracking and then said he would have us transition from all fossil fuels. That almost guarantees he will lose Pennsylvania and Ohio.
He said Hunter made no money in China. He also claimed that no one lost their insurance coverage over Obamacare.
The truth is millions of people lost their insurance coverage they loved under Obamacare. Remember, in 2013, the lie of the year was “If you like your insurance, you can keep it.” If you are a member of a major union, you might want to think about not voting for Biden.
They have Cadillac healthcare, but under Biden they could lose it and have to take a public option.
Boiling down the complicated health care law to a soundbite proved treacherous, even for its promoter-in-chief. Obama and his team made matters worse, suggesting they had been misunderstood all along. The stunning political uproar led to this: a rare presidential apology.
For all of these reasons, PolitiFact has named “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,” the Lie of the Year for 2013.
Biden lied:
“I support private insurance; that’s why not one single person with private insurance would lose their insurance under my plan, nor did they under Obamacare. They did not lose their insurance unless they chose they wanted to go to something else.”
Even though he claimed no one lost their insurance coverage because of Obamacare, 1.5 million lost their coverage in 2013 alone. The main problem seemed to be the coverage that Obamacare mandated. Besides that, Obamacare came with huge deductibles and copays. The premiums were very unmanageable for many people.
During the presidential debate, Biden said he supports Americans’ access to private health insurance, asserting his public option plan would and Obamacare never forced Americans to lose their health insurance.
Further, healthcare experts contend that Biden’s public option plan would “crush” the private insurance market, which would make it nearly impossible for private insurance to compete alongside a public option insurance plan.
That’s not even the worst of it. If the Democrats sweep in November, the public option will cover illegal aliens at your expense.
They will pile on all of their liberal and socialist wish lists. It would be an unholy mess.
President Donald J. Trump and his Democrat Challenger faced off Thursday night after 90 mins, and talked about a number of issues. Trump outlasted Biden easily, as Biden slowed down, was slurring his speech and was getting very confused. He referred to the “Poor Boys” and was mixing up numbers and names of things. He did manage to tell voters that he would end oil and gas industries.
“With about 15 minutes left in the debate, Biden glanced down at his watch as if to say, Gawd, I gotta get back to my basement bunker before I turn into a pumpkin,” Paul Sperry said.
The New York Times reported, highly in favor of the moderator and Joe Biden:
She began with a plea for civility. “Please,” Kristen Welker instructed the men standing before her, “speak one at a time.”
For the most part on Thursday night, Ms. Welker got what she wanted.
In a high-stakes debut overseeing a presidential debate — taking charge of a candidate matchup that proved a bucking bronco for the previous moderator, Chris Wallace of Fox News — Ms. Welker, an NBC anchor and correspondent, managed to restore order to a quadrennial institution that some believed could not be tamed.
No doubt, she benefited from Trump 2.0: A calmer president arrived onstage Thursday, a contrast with the candidate who derailed the proceedings in Cleveland last month. And she had a technological assist in the form of muted microphones, a novelty installed to keep the exchanges between Mr. Trump and his Democratic opponent, Joseph R. Biden Jr., from going from civics to chaos.
But in a poised and crisp performance, Ms. Welker, 44, succeeded where Mr. Wallace was walloped. Battle tested by years of covering the Trump White House, she parried with the president and cut him off as needed; Mr. Trump, eager to shed voters’ memories of his unruly performance last month, mostly acquiesced.”
This was really ironic because the moderator interrupted Trump about 40 times according to different sources, and did not allow him to answer his questions, and she allowed Biden to interrupted Trump between 20-30 times. The moderator was combative, but because that is to be expected, most supporters of Trump’s had a positive view of the event.
Even Fox News noticed the interruptions:
“The moderator jumped in and cut off President Trump many more times than Joe Biden: 24 times to two is the unofficial count” — @marthamaccallumpic.twitter.com/SmItmtbD40
Three major highlights for Trump were on the topics of Cages, on the border to hold children, Biden’s flip flop on banning fracking and Biden’s use of the term “super predator”.
On Cages:
TRUMP: "Who built the cages, Joe? Who built the cages, Joe?"
Joe Biden called young African-Americans super predators. He said he didn’t want his kids going to school in a racial jungle regarding school integration he tried to cancel busing programs and he was buddies with every segregationist to ever walk the halls of Congress.
Joe Biden might have completely lost the large upper Midwest fracking areas tonight (Western PA, Eastern OH, Michigan) by finally telling the truth about his extreme anti-Energy agenda.
President Trump is the first American leader since Reagan not to start a war. Instead, he’s rebuilt our military, restored American sovereignty, & renewed the “peace through strength” foreign policy that helped our country win the Cold War.
The following a Press Release from the White House:
It’s hard to believe that just five years ago, Americans watched in horror as ISIS gained power and territory in the Middle East and radical Islamist terrorists killed 14 Americans on U.S. soil in San Bernardino, California.
Today, the ISIS caliphate is destroyed. Terrorist leaders Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Qasem Soleimani are dead. And instead of sending American troops to fight in endless wars or giving cash to terrorist sponsors in Iran, the United States is securing peace deals with our real allies across the Middle East, including Israel.
“The facts speak for themselves,” foreign policy expert Harry Kazianis writes. “Trump has successfully aligned U.S. national security strategy with our national interests.”
President Trump is the first American leader since Ronald Reagan not to start a war. Instead, he has rebuilt our military, restored American sovereignty, and renewed the “peace through strength” foreign policy that helped our country win the Cold War.
On issue after issue, President Trump has reversed the disastrous foreign policy of the Obama Administration and put the American people FIRST:
Under President Obama, budget cuts and “sequestration” gutted our U.S. military. President Trump increasedfunding for national defense and secured the largest pay raise for our troops in a decade.
The disastrous Obama Iran nuclear deal gave the world’s number 1 state sponsor of terrorism over $100 billion to fund violence. President Trump withdrew from the one-sided deal and reinstated tough sanctions on Tehran.
Instead of funding our adversaries and breaking promises to our allies, President Trump has kept his word, including moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem after past presidents of both parties broke their pledges to do so.
For years, Washington allowed other countries to take advantage of American taxpayers. Under President Trump, between 2016 and 2019, Canada and our European allies added $130 billion to defense budgets to support NATO.
President Trump has stood up for the people of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua against corrupt, socialist regimes. The Castro dictatorship, for example, will no longer be funded by U.S. dollars like it was under President Obama.
Those changes are just the tip of the iceberg. Before this summer, only two Israel peace deals with its Arab neighbors had been secured over the past 72 years. This year, with support from the Trump Administration, two such historic agreements were announced within one month of each other.
Here in our own hemisphere, the Trump Administration imposed tough sanctions to pressure the illegitimate “regime” of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro. President Trump has recognized Juan Guaido as the Interim President of Venezuela, rallying an international coalition of 58 countries in his support.
On trade, President Trump’s United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement replaced the outdated NAFTA, which sent American jobs and manufacturing power overseas.
Perhaps most important among his accomplishments, President Trump reversed Washington’s decades-long, bipartisan refusal to confront China. He successfully used tariffs to persuade China to sign an improved Phase One Trade Agreement, took action to protect Americans from unfair competition and intellectual property theft, and prevented malign actors from gaining access to crucial U.S. information networks.
After the Coronavirus spread from China across the globe, President Trump took quick action to reshore critical supply chains, including those for key medicines.
With a stronger America, our adversaries know their options are limited. In North Korea, President Trump’s maximum-pressure campaign brought Chairman Kim Jong Un to the table. In Russia, the Trump Administration’s sanctions punished oligarchs who profited from destabilizing and malicious activities.
President Trump is protecting American sovereignty and standing up for our Constitutional rights, as well. This June, he authorized economic sanctions against International Criminal Court officials directly engaged with any effort to prosecute U.S. soldiers or other personnel without the consent of the United States.
The American people see these results. According to a Gallup poll conducted this February, Americans are more satisfied with our country’s position in the world today than they have been at any time since 2003. Similarly, a large majority of Americans today think their government is doing a good job keeping them safe from terrorism.
Across the world, terrorists are losing and peace is breaking out. When America is strong, secure, and free, our nation’s future—and our children’s—is that much brighter.
Joe Biden says he will revive the ban on gun ownership for certain Social Security recipients. If someone cannot handle their finances, they are not entitled to defend themselves. This policy was put in place under the Obama/Biden administration and it was repealed by President Trump and now Joe Biden is promising to reinstate the unfair president.
This is not the only thing Biden plans to do to circumvent the Second Amendment. He wants to ban ammo purchases online and tax you for guns you already own. Can gun confiscation be far away? Biden claims that he is a supporter of the Second Amendment.
But don’t believe it. His candidacy is a two-story house. You hear one story when you buy the house. There is a totally different story once you have bought it.
(The following is purely satire)
In order to prove they did not oppose gun owners, Obama and Biden decided to go hunting together. Before they left, they were told if they got lost to fire in the air three times and someone would come and rescue them.
Sure enough, they got lost, so Joe fired three times in the air but no one came. Later he fired in the air three more times and still, no one came. This went on all afternoon. Obama said that he was beginning to worry. Biden said, “You’re worried? I’m almost out of arrows.”
Breitbart News reported that the policy was finalized by the Obama Social Security Administration on December 19, 2016, weeks after Donald Trump won the presidential election, and just over a month before he was to be sworn into office.
Republicans focused on repealing the ban early in the Trump presidency. On February 12, 2017, Breitbart News reported that Duke University psychiatry and behavioral science professor Jeffrey Swanson believed Congress was right to repeal Barack Obama’s Social Security gun ban. Swanson suggested the ban targeted the “vulnerable” rather than the dangerous.
Swanson used a Washington Postcolumn to explain the ban, saying, “Social Security beneficiaries with psychiatric disabilities who are assigned a money manager for their disability benefits would be reported to the FBI’s background check database as people ineligible to purchase firearms.” He noted that “the mental health conditions in question might range from moderate intellectual disabilities to depression, bipolar disorder or schizophrenia,” and then pointed to academic work showing that “the vast majority of mentally ill individuals” are not violent or suicidal.
If you like your guns, do not vote for Joe Biden or any other Democrat for that matter. The First Amendment may be the most important Amendment but the Second Amendment that makes the first possible. All dictatorships have one thing in common. They all attack religion and guns.
