The Clintons, Haiti, Children and The Peculiar Institution

What a wonderful, living example of the peculiar institution!

Selling chattel is the oldest form of survival, and, of course, it is always done in the name of God because you cannot audit God.

Even the White House has been found to promote the principals of the monetization of children in poverty who hail from the darker persuasion. 

The Haitian child poverty model was imported from the United States and has had many faces representing privatization of human trafficking in the name of God.

The adoptive families will secure tens of thousands in adoption tax credits as the Christian child welfare organizations can bill the Social Security Trust fund for the administration while securing hundreds of millions of dollars in grants.

Eventually, money is funneled into political campaigns to keep the political leaders in office to perpetuate the fraud scheme.

No one cares about children of the poor, even when policies, ensconced with nefarious aspirations of wealth, are designed to increase the conditions and rates of poverty in order to acquire more goods.

Papal Bull Dum Diversas18 June, 1452

“We weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso -- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit -- by having secured the said faculty, the said King Alfonso, or, by his authority, the aforesaid infante, justly and lawfully has acquired and possessed, and doth possess, these islands, lands, harbors, and seas, and they do of right belong and pertain to the said King Alfonso and his successors”.

The Evangelical Adoption Campaign

As Bill Clinton works to spring U.S. missionaries charged with kidnapping in Haiti, the case highlights a new evangelical strategy: Adopt Third World babies and convert them.

For the past week, the news from Haiti has been dominated by the story of 10 American evangelicals from Idaho who were caught at the border of the Dominican Republic attempting to take 33 Haitian children, many with living parents, out of the country without documentation. The Americans, missionaries with the recently created New Life Children’s Refuge, were arrested and charged with kidnapping and criminal conspiracy—a reprieve from the child trafficking charges they may have faced.

American evangelical churches are embracing a new orphan theology that urges Christians to see adoption and “orphan-care” as an integral part of their faith.

The details that emerged about the group’s plans and leader, Laura Silsby, were unsavory. Although Silsby, the legally embattled CEO of a personal shopping business, claimed that the group never intended to put the children up for adoption, an itinerary for New Life’s mission, published by an affiliated Southern Baptist church, bluntly described a plan to “gather 100 orphans from the streets and collapsed orphanages” onto a bus, then take them to a hotel in the Dominican Republic. There, New Life hoped to build permanent orphanage facilities, including a beachfront restaurant and “seaside villas” for prospective adoptive parents—amenities that underscore their understanding of local adoption residency requirements, even as they claimed ignorance of Haitian law. Additional planning and fundraising documents described the group’s goal to “equip each child” with the opportunity “for adoption into a loving Christian family,” and help them “find new life in Christ.”

After the arrests, Silsby and supporters explained that they’d been called by God to help orphans in Haiti, that they were “acting not only in faith but God’s faith.”

The news of an adoption organization driven by missionary zeal surprised many, but it shouldn’t. Although New Life’s illegal actions have been condemned by other religious adoption agencies, their sense of calling fits into a growing movement of American evangelical churches embracing a new orphan theology that urges Christians to see adoption and “orphan-care” as an integral part of their faith—and a means of spreading the gospel.

This January, Christianity Today declared adoption the next culture war issue, and a major theological development of 2009. Indeed, 2009 was filled with news of adoption, as Russell Moore, dean of the theological school at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, released his book Adopted for Life: The Priority of Adoption for Christian Families and Churches, exhorting Christians to “be at the forefront of the adoption of orphans close to home and around the world.”

Moore’s message came with both political and theological justifications, both positioning adoption as part of a holistic “pro-life” stance and, in a stunning admission, as a means for Christians to fulfill the Great Commission: evangelizing and making converts of the nations. In fact, adoption has become such a critical, though under-recognized, part of the evangelical agenda that in 2008, The Wall Street Journal’s “Taste” section advisedSenator John McCain to highlight his adopted daughter—once the target of an ugly smear campaign—as a means of shoring up his lukewarm evangelical appeal.

This June, Moore helped pass a Southern Baptist Convention resolution calling upon all 16 million members of the denomination to prayerfully consider whether or not God was calling them to adopt. With both domestic and international adoption described as almost “contagious” in evangelical churches, with even small congregations boasting dozens of adopted children, it’s evident that more Christians are feeling that “call”—whether from God, or from leaders like Moore.

This November, hundreds of churches participated in “Orphan Sunday,” a nationwide adoption event where churches focused their sermons on promoting adoption as a Christian duty. And in 2007, Focus on the Family estimates it reached 19 million people through its “Cry of the Orphan” campaign. A number of upcoming conferences will further the message, including the Christian Alliance for Orphans Summit this April, which will now focus on Haiti, promoting adoption as a “long-term response” to the crisis and the best way that “ordinary people can make a lasting difference for orphans.”

In the wake of the New Life fiasco, Russell Moore worried the news would “give a black eye to the orphan-care movement,” as anti-abortion vigilantes had to the pro-life movement—a lawless take on a shared agenda. But there are larger problems with the call for American Christians to adopt en masse. Among them are the widely misunderstood definitions of orphans, which lead to ever-ballooning estimates of children in need of adoption. Another is the strong taint of colonialism in casting American adopters as saviors and focusing on adoption as a solution for impoverished communities. In some countries in recent years, including Liberia and Ethiopia, religious adoption organizations have been singled out for censure by national authorities, accused of using church ties to legitimize unethical practices.

To be sure, many Christians and non-Christians involved in adoption keep these considerations in mind, and while the activist group Christian Defense Coalition is campaigning for the release of New Life missionaries, many other Christian groups have distanced themselves from a plan some denounced as “child trafficking.” But the wholesale call for Christians to adopt as a solution for poverty and disaster—often at a cost of up to $30,000 per child—and particularly for purposes of proselytization, seems destined to lead to more people jumping headlong into a perceived “calling” to care for orphans without understanding the complex ethics that surround all adoptions.For the past week, the news from Haiti has been dominated by the story of 10 American evangelicals from Idaho who were caught at the border of the Dominican Republic attempting to take 33 Haitian children, many with living parents, out of the country without documentation. The Americans, missionaries with the recently created New Life Children’s Refuge, were arrested and charged with kidnapping and criminal conspiracy—a reprieve from the child trafficking charges they may have faced.

American evangelical churches are embracing a new orphan theology that urges Christians to see adoption and “orphan-care” as an integral part of their faith.

The details that emerged about the group’s plans and leader, Laura Silsby, were unsavory. Although Silsby, the legally embattled CEO of a personal shopping business, claimed that the group never intended to put the children up for adoption, an itinerary for New Life’s mission, published by an affiliated Southern Baptist church, bluntly described a plan to “gather 100 orphans from the streets and collapsed orphanages” onto a bus, then take them to a hotel in the Dominican Republic. There, New Life hoped to build permanent orphanage facilities, including a beachfront restaurant and “seaside villas” for prospective adoptive parents—amenities that underscore their understanding of local adoption residency requirements, even as they claimed ignorance of Haitian law. Additional planning and fundraising documents described the group’s goal to “equip each child” with the opportunity “for adoption into a loving Christian family,” and help them “find new life in Christ.”

After the arrests, Silsby and supporters explained that they’d been called by God to help orphans in Haiti, that they were “acting not only in faith but God’s faith.”

The news of an adoption organization driven by missionary zeal surprised many, but it shouldn’t. Although New Life’s illegal actions have been condemned by other religious adoption agencies, their sense of calling fits into a growing movement of American evangelical churches embracing a new orphan theology that urges Christians to see adoption and “orphan-care” as an integral part of their faith—and a means of spreading the gospel.

This January, Christianity Today declared adoption the next culture war issue, and a major theological development of 2009. Indeed, 2009 was filled with news of adoption, as Russell Moore, dean of the theological school at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, released his book Adopted for Life: The Priority of Adoption for Christian Families and Churches, exhorting Christians to “be at the forefront of the adoption of orphans close to home and around the world.”

Moore’s message came with both political and theological justifications, both positioning adoption as part of a holistic “pro-life” stance and, in a stunning admission, as a means for Christians to fulfill the Great Commission: evangelizing and making converts of the nations. In fact, adoption has become such a critical, though under-recognized, part of the evangelical agenda that in 2008, The Wall Street Journal’s “Taste” section advisedSenator John McCain to highlight his adopted daughter—once the target of an ugly smear campaign—as a means of shoring up his lukewarm evangelical appeal.

This June, Moore helped pass a Southern Baptist Convention resolution calling upon all 16 million members of the denomination to prayerfully consider whether or not God was calling them to adopt. With both domestic and international adoption described as almost “contagious” in evangelical churches, with even small congregations boasting dozens of adopted children, it’s evident that more Christians are feeling that “call”—whether from God, or from leaders like Moore.

This November, hundreds of churches participated in “Orphan Sunday,” a nationwide adoption event where churches focused their sermons on promoting adoption as a Christian duty. And in 2007, Focus on the Family estimates it reached 19 million people through its “Cry of the Orphan” campaign. A number of upcoming conferences will further the message, including the Christian Alliance for Orphans Summit this April, which will now focus on Haiti, promoting adoption as a “long-term response” to the crisis and the best way that “ordinary people can make a lasting difference for orphans.”

In the wake of the New Life fiasco, Russell Moore worried the news would “give a black eye to the orphan-care movement,” as anti-abortion vigilantes had to the pro-life movement—a lawless take on a shared agenda. But there are larger problems with the call for American Christians to adopt en masse. Among them are the widely misunderstood definitions of orphans, which lead to ever-ballooning estimates of children in need of adoption. Another is the strong taint of colonialism in casting American adopters as saviors and focusing on adoption as a solution for impoverished communities. In some countries in recent years, including Liberia and Ethiopia, religious adoption organizations have been singled out for censure by national authorities, accused of using church ties to legitimize unethical practices.

To be sure, many Christians and non-Christians involved in adoption keep these considerations in mind, and while the activist group Christian Defense Coalition is campaigning for the release of New Life missionaries, many other Christian groups have distanced themselves from a plan some denounced as “child trafficking.” But the wholesale call for Christians to adopt as a solution for poverty and disaster—often at a cost of up to $30,000 per child—and particularly for purposes of proselytization, seems destined to lead to more people jumping headlong into a perceived “calling” to care for orphans without understanding the complex ethics that surround all adoptions.For the past week, the news from Haiti has been dominated by the story of 10 American evangelicals from Idaho who were caught at the border of the Dominican Republic attempting to take 33 Haitian children, many with living parents, out of the country without documentation. The Americans, missionaries with the recently created New Life Children’s Refuge, were arrested and charged with kidnapping and criminal conspiracy—a reprieve from the child trafficking charges they may have faced.

American evangelical churches are embracing a new orphan theology that urges Christians to see adoption and “orphan-care” as an integral part of their faith.

The details that emerged about the group’s plans and leader, Laura Silsby, were unsavory. Although Silsby, the legally embattled CEO of a personal shopping business, claimed that the group never intended to put the children up for adoption, an itinerary for New Life’s mission, published by an affiliated Southern Baptist church, bluntly described a plan to “gather 100 orphans from the streets and collapsed orphanages” onto a bus, then take them to a hotel in the Dominican Republic. There, New Life hoped to build permanent orphanage facilities, including a beachfront restaurant and “seaside villas” for prospective adoptive parents—amenities that underscore their understanding of local adoption residency requirements, even as they claimed ignorance of Haitian law. Additional planning and fundraising documents described the group’s goal to “equip each child” with the opportunity “for adoption into a loving Christian family,” and help them “find new life in Christ.”

After the arrests, Silsby and supporters explained that they’d been called by God to help orphans in Haiti, that they were “acting not only in faith but God’s faith.”

The news of an adoption organization driven by missionary zeal surprised many, but it shouldn’t. Although New Life’s illegal actions have been condemned by other religious adoption agencies, their sense of calling fits into a growing movement of American evangelical churches embracing a new orphan theology that urges Christians to see adoption and “orphan-care” as an integral part of their faith—and a means of spreading the gospel.

This January, Christianity Today declared adoption the next culture war issue, and a major theological development of 2009. Indeed, 2009 was filled with news of adoption, as Russell Moore, dean of the theological school at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, released his book Adopted for Life: The Priority of Adoption for Christian Families and Churches, exhorting Christians to “be at the forefront of the adoption of orphans close to home and around the world.”

Moore’s message came with both political and theological justifications, both positioning adoption as part of a holistic “pro-life” stance and, in a stunning admission, as a means for Christians to fulfill the Great Commission: evangelizing and making converts of the nations. In fact, adoption has become such a critical, though under-recognized, part of the evangelical agenda that in 2008, The Wall Street Journal’s “Taste” section advisedSenator John McCain to highlight his adopted daughter—once the target of an ugly smear campaign—as a means of shoring up his lukewarm evangelical appeal.

This June, Moore helped pass a Southern Baptist Convention resolution calling upon all 16 million members of the denomination to prayerfully consider whether or not God was calling them to adopt. With both domestic and international adoption described as almost “contagious” in evangelical churches, with even small congregations boasting dozens of adopted children, it’s evident that more Christians are feeling that “call”—whether from God, or from leaders like Moore.

This November, hundreds of churches participated in “Orphan Sunday,” a nationwide adoption event where churches focused their sermons on promoting adoption as a Christian duty. And in 2007, Focus on the Family estimates it reached 19 million people through its “Cry of the Orphan” campaign. A number of upcoming conferences will further the message, including the Christian Alliance for Orphans Summit this April, which will now focus on Haiti, promoting adoption as a “long-term response” to the crisis and the best way that “ordinary people can make a lasting difference for orphans.”

In the wake of the New Life fiasco, Russell Moore worried the news would “give a black eye to the orphan-care movement,” as anti-abortion vigilantes had to the pro-life movement—a lawless take on a shared agenda. But there are larger problems with the call for American Christians to adopt en masse. Among them are the widely misunderstood definitions of orphans, which lead to ever-ballooning estimates of children in need of adoption. Another is the strong taint of colonialism in casting American adopters as saviors and focusing on adoption as a solution for impoverished communities. In some countries in recent years, including Liberia and Ethiopia, religious adoption organizations have been singled out for censure by national authorities, accused of using church ties to legitimize unethical practices.

To be sure, many Christians and non-Christians involved in adoption keep these considerations in mind, and while the activist group Christian Defense Coalition is campaigning for the release of New Life missionaries, many other Christian groups have distanced themselves from a plan some denounced as “child trafficking.” But the wholesale call for Christians to adopt as a solution for poverty and disaster—often at a cost of up to $30,000 per child—and particularly for purposes of proselytization, seems destined to lead to more people jumping headlong into a perceived “calling” to care for orphans without understanding the complex ethics that surround all adoptions.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

One Nation Under God, By Force

On Nation Under God, By Force

By David Sessions

Editorial Note: This article appears as part of a series, with contributions from varying perspectives, examining American Evangelicalism and National Idolatry.

Christian defenses of patriotism are often peculiarly prickly, as if the author is perturbed that anyone would be so bothersome as to question the compatibility of Christianity and Americanism. Or, as in the case of David Limbaugh, who argued here last week that "patriotism is not idolatry," they rebut arguments no one is making. Mr. Limbaugh, for example, hurried to reject the idea "that to be patriotic is to worship America" and to insist that revering the Constitution is "not inconsistent with Scripture." As far as I know, Christian critics of patriotism have not suggested otherwise.

When I accuse conservative evangelicals of worshipping the United States, I do not mean that they hang too many flags on their houses or get too emotional singing “The Star-Spangled Banner.” (I can hardly recall a time I heard our stately national anthem without choking up.) What I have in mind are the excessive stakes they believe to be riding on the outcomes of the American political system, such that negative political activism has been the most energetic witness for Christianity for the past several decades. The fuel for that activism has been a kind of spiritualized American patriotism that lacks a global, eternal Christian view of what it means to be a wayfaring stranger on this planet.

Religion-fueled patriotism is no historical aberration. In the ancient world, when two nations established a diplomatic relationship, their gods often merged. To mount an assault on a country was to directly affront that nation’s god, its values, its existential conception of itself. Religion and patriotism are difficult to separate even in the modern world, as we see in the current struggles between the United States and the Muslim world, or Israel and Palestine. A huge number if not a majority on both sides see these conflicts as battles over whose version of history and reality will stand.

Christianity, however, proposes an alternative vision for relationships between humans and between God and man. By coming as a failed Messiah, a sacrifice for the anawim (scum of the earth), Jesus confounded, subverted, and overturned the long-held expectations of the Jewish people. His message and example were as radical as they were unmistakable: whoever loses his life will find it, the last will be first, and whoever does not leave his old allegiances behind is unfit for the kingdom of heaven. Entering that kingdom, he made clear, required a profound surrender of human “rights,” a willingness to give up the allegiances, squabbles, jealousies, hatreds, and passions with which humankind busies itself.

Jesus’ example is a transcendent ideal no human will ever attain. Human beings will naturally be drawn into social and even international conflicts. But by definition, Christians should have an uneasy relationship with earthly powers. They will see error, cruelty, dysfunction, arrogance, and failure in themselves and in their countrymen, individual and collective. They will see the tragic flaws in their nation's domestic and foreign policies -- and likely even in some of its defining characteristics. The New Testament commands Christians to obey earthly authorities and “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s,” but nowhere does scripture recommend they pledge allegiance to a flawed temporal nation. In fact, there is no clear evidence in the Gospel that patriotism is a priority for Christians or that it should be revered as a virtue. If anything, Jesus showed a remarkable indifference to traditional human relationships and to social and ethnic delineations.

Christ's example should give his followers the most global worldview of any demographic. But that humble, self-sacrificing logic is nowhere found among the most passionate defenders of American patriotism on the Christian right. Mr. Limbaugh may call for "biblically balanced patriotism," but the evidence suggests it's the "biblically balanced" part that needs defending. Everywhere you look in therhetoric of the Christian right you find ressentiment -- demands for rights and pursuit of vengeance at home and abroad. As James Davison Hunter writes, conservative Christian political activity has displayed a shockingly Nietzschean willingness to win at all costs, even if threats, propaganda, slander, and public venom are required. At its worst, it looks a lot more like radicalism than conservatism.

I often call that radicalism “Christianism”: a politicized Christianity determined to assert its right to dominate even if doing so completely obscures the heart of the Gospel and contributes to the very cultural degradation Christians purport to oppose. Perhaps "idolatry" is a better term. When participation in a particular nation’s political structure assumes an importance so consuming that Christianity is rendered indistinguishable from any other strident interest group, the heart of the Gospel has clearly been abandoned in the pursuit of political power.

The tragedy of this idolatry is that the country desperately needs an alternative example. By aggressively politicizing their values, conservative Christians have followed in lockstep with the destructive American trend of politicizing every aspect of life. As a collective witness, they have squandered the opportunity to subvert the dominant political culture where they had the greatest ability to do so. American democracy is straining under the weight of politicization, the lack of anyone willing to reject ressentiment and affirm the dignity of those with whom they disagree. But there goes the church, behaving just like everyone else -- as usual.

To return to a balanced patriotism, Christians will have to pursue a public square outside of politics altogether, where they might find real human beings much less intimidating than the shadowy forces they imagine they oppose. If they were willing to listen, others might be willing to listen to them. Those weary of the dehumanizing din of political warfare might be able to hear what the Gospel is truly about. Maybe then Christians could play a role in making America a more decent place.

Why Christians Will Never Stop Using God To Sanctify Adoption - Just Ask The Trafficker Of Tiny Humans, Penelope Webster Of Foster2Foster

Penelope Webster
Trafficker of Tiny Humans

The following article is to capture another facet of the industry of trafficking tiny humans in the light of the international, federal and state investigations into the Catholic Church, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and all of its corporate christian partners.

Christian adoptions are blessed by the tax exempt god and funded through the U.S Department of Health and Human Services.

National Network of Adoption Advocacy Programs - One Church, One Child

Christians will never stop using God to sanctify adoption because there is too much money in selling chattel.

Here is Penelope Webster, who not only generates a sizable annual income through adoption but she also is a purveyor of online propaganda because she promulgates her own therapies in dealing with adoptive children on her website.

https://foster2forever.com/

WOW! Check out all the interesting things I've found on #Pinterest! https://t.co/a8r5Hp73oO #fostercare #adoption

— Penelope Webster (@Foster2Forever) December 5, 2018

Siblings Adopting Siblings – True Stories

5 Ways Hearing Loss Made Me a Better Parent

The Connected Child Book Summary and How It Works in Real Life

Free Video Series for Foster/Adoptive Parents

None of this is approved by any state or federal agency of Health and Human Services.

None of this was designed by any licensed individual in any formal atmosphere.

None of this will qualify for Medicaid cost reimbursement.

As a matter of fact, once a child is adopted, there is no tracking to monitor the well being, which leads to re-homing, or rather child trafficking, because many will adopt for the purposes of training them as servants, which is probably why Penelope's targeted audience to sell her wares of propaganda is christian.

I do know Penelope likes the foreign tiny humans, as they fetch a much higher price.

Christians should stop using God to sanctify adoption

This adoptive mom writes that she's frustrated by the broad evangelical Christian message that adoption is always the best outcome for a child.

By Jackie Gillard

Ashley MacInnis is an adult adoptee who lives in Halifax and grew up in a church-going family. As a child, it never struck her as odd when people made comments like, "God had a plan for you!" or "You were God's gift to your parents. " Now, however, she feels differently.

"I think statements linking God and adoption are actually quite insulting," MacInnis writes in an email. "It minimizes the emotional upheaval everyone goes through. It's not like an immaculate conception and everything is just so; there can be months of waiting, paperwork, raw emotion, legalities. Society's take on adoption is so simple when it's actually so complex."

Ontario resident and adoptee Alexandria Thom agrees. "I don't think God has much to do with anything in adoption,” she writes in a text message. "It's weird to me to think that because my mom couldn't have biological babies, God had me nice and ready for her."

I’m a mother via trans-racial, international adoption, but I've come to understand that what I thought I knew about adoption when I started the process is inaccurate and many of the beliefs I held and phrases I used as a liberal Christian can be offensive and even harmful. As November’s Adoption Awareness Month draws to a close, I want to reflect on societal misconceptions about adoption, particularly within Christianity, where God and adoption are often considered linked pillars of the faith.

Adoption Awareness Month originated in the U.S. as a way to boost public knowledge and interest in the growing number of children in foster care who needed permanent homes. However, over the last few years, adult adoptees have rightfully tried to reframe that awareness. For too long, adoption has been presented by the media and reflected in society primarily from the adoptive parents' point of view or, on behalf of adoptees too young to speak for themselves, in videos or news segments showing adoption day celebrations, happy photo shoots and images of newly-adopted children holding up signs of joy and gratitude.

While many adoptees feel happy and appreciate about their adoption and adoptive families, many others are also bitter about the experience and the immeasurable losses that came with it. Adoptees are now opening up about the negative aspects in public forums, but their efforts to have their true feelings acknowledged are not always well-received.

In many Christian communities, James 1:27, "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress..." is held up as a directive from God to adopt, without considering alternate meanings of how to "help."

Moses is also often paraded as the adoption poster boy, but details of his story are often conveniently ignored. Moses' mother set him adrift in a basket on the river to save his life, but the Pharaoh's daughter who found him invited his birth mother to be his wet nurse and nanny, allowing her to maintain close contact and some participation in her child's life. While Moses' mother was obviously not the parenting decision-maker, even current "open adoptions" don't facilitate such a close familial relationship.

Author and journalist Kathryn Joyce has spent considerable time researching adoption and the supposed God-anointed connection evangelical Christians have with it. Her fascinating book, "The Child Catchers: Rescue, Trafficking, and the New Gospel of Adoption" explores her extensive look at the subject.

"In my discussions with adult adoptees, who were primarily the first generation of Korean adoptees brought to America, there is general consensus that Christian, mission-led adoptions are taking too literally the concept of saviourism — that adoptive parents are 'rescuing' children from a life of destitution," says Joyce.

She said that at best, there is a sense of entitlement by many Christians seeking to both do good and receive Godly favour for doing so. At worst, God is presented as the master planner who, along with often-sanctimonious adoptive families, judges birth mothers and birth families as "unfit" and instead of helping them with finances, medical issues, addictions or other issues, arranges for children to be moved into homes with better, more-deserving Christian parents.

2 Corinthians 6:18 says, "I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty." This verse and numerous others talk about God adopting faithful servants into His loving spiritual family, so many have interpreted them to mean that adopting children is good Christian behaviour and that Christians may receive rewards for doing so.

However, being adopted into God's family doesn't require the loss of your own biological ties, family and medical history, culture, birth language or a parent who matches your racial appearance within your home.

Adoption is also often touted as an answer to prayers, but for whom? Prospective parents may be praying to start or expand their family, birth parents may be praying the child they surrender finds a family, or non-infant children not residing with a permanent family may be instructed to pray for adoption into a "forever" home. But there is still loss and heartbreak involved for a large number of adoptees and their families of origin in the fulfillment of those prayers. A 2001 study in Pediatrics found adopted children were four percent more likely than non-adoptees to attempt suicide.

Paula Fitzgibbons, a mother via trans-racial adoption, writes in a blog post that "humans, not God, have made the world unbalanced when it comes to power and economy. Adoption is not the solution God supposedly provides for that unbalance."

She thinks that it’s damaging to tell a child that God called you to adopt her. "If your child comes from poverty or oppression, the message that God called you, an outsider, to adopt her, says that God didn’t care enough about her family or country to solve its problems so that families could stay alive and stay together," she writes. "Instead, God played favourites and called you to swoop in and get her out of there, leaving her family and people to suffer while God figures out who to call for the next adoption."

While some adult adoptees who have met their birth families do believe God intervened to keep them away from toxic circumstances and relationships, one still has to wonder how God could have also intervened on behalf of the birth families to guide Christians to be more understanding and willing to help them.

Misinterpretations of scripture have helped lead to an overwhelming evangelical Christian stance that adoption is a viable substitution for abortion, and adoption is the only help available to birth mothers or families, when all Christians could advocate for change to social systems that could provide better medical, emotional and social support for birth moms who want to raise their children but need assistance.

Instead, pregnant women can be pressured to view adopting out their baby to infertile couples as a "Christian" act of both mercy and goodwill, and sometimes even repentance for their "sin" of unmarried pregnancy.

Linda Cvetanovic, an Ontario woman adopted domestically as a baby, resents the involvement of God in women's rights. "God may have played a role in my birth mother's choice to give me up for adoption, but to me, that is very different than God having a plan for me," she wrote in a conversation over Facebook.

As with many issues in today's society, money is also factor. In his 2009 critical document about international adoption, "The Lie We Love", E.J. Graff writes, "In 2006, UNICEF reported an estimated 132 million orphans in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean. But the organization’s definition of 'orphan' includes children who have lost just one parent, either to desertion or death. Just 10 percent of the total — 13 million children — have lost both parents, and most of these live with extended family."

UNICEF has estimated that 95 percent of the "orphans" are older than five, Graff wrote.

"In other words, UNICEF’s 'millions of orphans' are not healthy babies doomed to institutional misery unless Westerners adopt and save them. Rather, they are mostly older children living with extended families who need financial support."

Graff repeatedly confirms the world of international adoption in particular has been a booming business. Surely this can't be what God intended.

Christians across the political and theological spectrum need to realize that children are often put up for adoption because of existing racial bias. Black and Indigenous children have an astronomically higher chance of being taken into care in Canada (and later declared available for adoption) than white children do, despite similar or even better living conditions.

"We have a poverty crisis; not an orphan crisis," said Joyce. "The Western world needs to change their misunderstandings of poverty."

If Christians want to evoke the power of God in helping widows (including single women, especially those in need or crisis) and orphans, they should prioritize working together to do everything possible to keep children with their mothers or birth families who want to raise these kids. Will adoption one day become completely unnecessary? Of course not. But keeping God and adoption separate ensures we develop clear parameters for the practice to make sure it's ethical, legal and clearly needed.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Privatization Is The New Colonization

A Goldman Sachs Imperialistic Global Investment Initiative

Trump has issued the Presidential Memorandum on Fiduciary Duty Rule.

In short, it instructs Department of Labor to examine "conflicts of interests" in pension investments.

Sounds innocuous enough, but is it?

Then I sniffed.  I knew that smell, far too well.

In light of the recent nomination and appointment of Michigan's own child chattel rancher, Betsy DeVos, I realized what I was witnessing.

It took less than 30 seconds to verify the malodorously fetid stench of social impact bonds in child welfare programs.

It seems that the pension structure for the public sector, is having a challenging time staying afloat.

Of course, when I say, "public sector", I include public schools, government, the 501c3 and other groupings under the IRS tax exempt status, like "The Christians", like good ole Betsy, our new
Education Secretary.

The plan is to play the stock market with public tax dollars and share the profits with their investors.

"The Poors" are a profitable commodity to be used to their fullest potential.

Here it is, in a nutshell:  Privatization.

Private Financing of Social Services 

Privatization of Social Welfare Hits Wall Street

Privatization of Child Welfare Show Big Investment Losses for Christians and Children

Privatization of Chattel and Services In A Global Economy

See, privatization all began in child welfare, because, as the story goes, no one cares about the child; just ask an elected official.

These people have been plotting and scheming to get their hands on the Social Security Trust Fund, for quite some time, and now they have a way in through the examination the Rule.

This is how social impact bonds work.  Private equity invests in social programs.

The Christians call it "compassionate investments" and some even call it "A Better Way".

In this instance, it is education which will hit multiple funding streams of Social Security, including and most importantly Medicaid.

Here is just one educational model for privatizing "The Poors".

The fund takes over public education and any other social welfare program, then replaces it with some form of cut and paste programming where the data will be lumped, dumped and skewed in various ways as anything dealing with children is exempt and excluded from public scrutiny.

The kids do not really benefit, but the numbers generated at the end of the day will print a really pretty picture for alternative education, hence, generating a profitable return for their churches and local governments.

Unfortunately, even when students do complete one of these "alternative education" programs pitched by the investors, poverty continues to increase while the social safety net unravels, allowing the new form of colonization to take effect.

Then, there is a sector that I did not take the time, until now, to examine and that is what is called "developing impact investments".

These are simply overseas social impact investments, like all the wonderful homes and schools that were never built in Haiti which were funded through the USAID.

Leveraging human capital is the new way of selling chattel, the oldest form of survival.

Privatization is the new colonization, so let us sit back and watch Betsy DeVos' friends and family create diverse opportunities to get even richer off the ills of "The Poors".

SEO is Proud and Honored to have Grosvenor Capital Management LP as our Presenting Sponsor for SEO’s Fourth... by Beverly Tran on Scribd
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Idaho, Christians, Adoption, Propaganda & Missing Tiny Humans - What Could Go Wrong?

Well, what do we have here?

We have a situation of christians, doing the work of the tax exempt god by adopting children, while running a christian congregation, with a christian book publishing network, with a christian podcast, and a christian online presence, saving the souls of the savages.

I wonder if the children were re-homed.

They like to re-home, alot, and still gets the adoption tax credit, and billing, if they have any wonderful child welfare Medicaid cost reimbursement programs, which is how thy get mortgages.

I wonder when the election fraud is going to float up from the depths of this Third Christian Children's Crusade to take over the U.S.

Are these parents naturalized citizenship?

Just asking.

You know how those illegal aliens like to come into the U.S. and vote in elections.

Idaho Cops Blast Doomsday Parents of Missing Kids

‘DO THE RIGHT THING’

This is going to go dark, and very deep.

We are in Idaho.

https://culteducation.com/

International cult expert believes parents of missing Rexburg children are dangerous

REXBURG, Idaho —One of the country’s leading experts studying cult behavior is now weighing in on the search for two missing children in Rexburg, Idaho.

The FBI and police agencies across the country are continuing to search for 17-year-old Tylee Ryan and her autistic brother, seven-year-old Joshua Vallow. The two children have been missing since September.

Officers with the Rexburg Police Department said the children’s newlywed parents Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow did not report the children missing, fled from Idaho, and refuse to cooperate with the investigation.

RELATED: Attorney: This is why police haven’t arrested parents who lied about missing children in Rexburg

Lori Vallow’s husband, Charles Vallow, was shot and killed by her brother Alex Cox in July. Cox told officers the shooting was in self-defense, and the case is under investigation by the Chandler Police Department.

Alex Cox later died in December. The circumstances of his death are not being released. The case is under investigation by the Gilbert Police Department.

RELATED: Family members say mother of missing children in Rexburg joined a dangerous cult with new husband

Medical examiners initially believed Chad Daybell’s wife, Tammy Daybell, died of natural causes in October.

Within two weeks, Chad Daybell married Lori Vallow.

Tammy Daybell’s remains, which were buried in Springville, Utah, have since been exhumed for further testing due to potentially suspicious circumstances. The case is under investigation by the Fremont County Sheriff’s Office.

TIMELINE: Attorneys I've spoken to say, based on this timeline and the facts investigators have been able to gather so far, police have enough evidence to arrest Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow today for obstruction... but they might be strategically choosing not to do so.@fox13 pic.twitter.com/wzcnP15bYE

— Adam Herbets (@AdamHerbets) January 2, 2020

Rick Alan Ross, the executive director of the Cult Education Institute, said he agrees with family members who are deeply concerned with the newlywed couple’s religious beliefs.

“(Lori Vallow’s) husband dies. Her brother dies, and the children disappear,” Ross said. “Something is going on. It’s very dark. It’s very sinister, and in my opinion, very cult-like.”

Ross said he believes Chad Daybell’s books – focused on the end of the world – are a major red flag.

“It seems to me that Chad Daybell is the leader, and he’s the defining element of this group. He is the one who has created this whole belief system around his revelation,” Ross said. “I mean, he wrote 25 books… He seems to use his LDS background as a recruitment tool… It seems to me, according to the family, that Lori Daybell became increasingly dependent on Chad Daybell and was his ardent follower and supporter.”

Julie Rowe, a friend of Chad Daybell, told FOX 13 in December that she has not maintained contact with Chad Daybell but believes he would never hurt his wife or stepchildren. She confirmed Chad Daybell received visions that his wife would die.

“I did ask him, ‘Chad? Do you still see Tammy dying?’” Rowe said. “He said, ‘Yes I do.’”

Ross said he sees similarities between Chad Daybell and Jeffrey Lundgren, a prominent cult leader who recruited members from the FLDS Church and was executed in 2006.

“(Lundgren) also saw himself as a prophet. He grew a group of people away from the church and isolated them, manipulated them, and it ended with the deaths of five people. A mother, a father, and their three children,” Ross said. “It (also) reminds me of a group in Denver years ago that was called Concerned Christians. They also were defined by doomsday beliefs of their leader, and they just disappeared. To this day, the leader and many of his followers have never reappeared.”

Although Chad Daybell has marketed himself as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a spokesperson for the Church has not confirmed or denied whether Chad Daybell has been excommunicated or is still a member.

“All of the major religions, be it Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, all have splinter groups,” Ross said. “Children have no choice when it comes to cults. They are brought in by their parents… I hope this has a happy ending.”

If you have any information about this case, please call the FBI or the Rexburg Police Department.

BEHOLD! The christian foreign invasion of the U.S. featuring, "The Preppers".

Praise the lord.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Prelude To Detroit: Bill "Boo Boo" Barr Speaks Upon Stuff

Bill "Boo Boo" Barr

Bill "Boo Boo" Barr speaks upon stuff.

Yup.

Stuff.

An allegoric masterpiece, Barb!

It’s like appointing a psychiatrist to perform surgery. Impressive credentials, but not the right ones for the job. 

Barr’s spin on replacement for SDNY US Atty makes no sense. Jay Clayton is a mergers and acquisitions lawyer with no litigation experience. It’s like appointing a psychiatrist to perform surgery. Impressive credentials, but not the right ones for the job. https://t.co/GChVjcPjxG

— Barb McQuade (@BarbMcQuade) June 26, 2020

Transcript: NPR's Full Interview With Attorney General William Barr

Attorney General William Barr poses for a portrait at the Department of Justice in Washington D.C.
Eman Mohammed for NPR

In an interview with Morning Edition's Steve Inskeep, Attorney General William Barr denied that the Justice Department is continually upholding the interest of the president, dismissed concerns about the firing of federal prosecutor Geoffrey Berman and said he does not believe an election conducted mainly by mail can be secure.

Steve Inskeep: Thank you again for taking the time. I'm appreciative to have this opportunity.

Attorney General William Barr: Thank you.

I want to note that in the last few days, there have been three acts of yours that have made the news, sometimes not for the first time. The dismissal of the case against Michael Flynn, which, of course, an appeals court upheld; the Roger Stone case in which a whistleblower questioned the way that you changed the sentencing recommendation; and then the removal of Geoffrey Berman in New York. I want to ask about your underlying authority as you see it in cases like this. Does the president, acting through you, have the power, complete power, to use his authority in cases where he has an interest?

Well, this wasn't a case of the president acting. It was, these were cases of me acting [crosstalk].

Although you say your act as the president's hand. I mean, it's the president acting [crosstalk].

Well, the president ultimately has the authority as chief executive to, quote, see that the laws are faithfully executed against the attorney general who performs that function under the law. And so I will take them in any order you want.

Well, I see here in each case, you have someone who is the president's national security adviser and he'd spoken up publicly in defense of him. Someone who's a close personal friend of the president, who the president said was being unfairly treated. And Geoffrey Berman, a U.S. attorney, who is believed to be investigating cases involving friends of the president, among other matters of interest to the president. In every case, was it appropriate to intervene at the highest levels in what was being done and what personnel did it?

OK well, all cases in the Department of Justice are subject to the supervision of the attorney general. In fact, all the powers carried out by the department are vested in the attorney general and it's appropriate for the attorney general to exercise supervisory authority over cases. So starting with the Flynn case, Flynn was entered into a plea agreement before I arrived that had been there for a long time. And because of legal squabbling, the sentencing didn't come up until after I was attorney general. And he had a new lawyer and she raised a lot of claims. And, you know, we, number one, he was subject to the sentencing process. But before that occurred, the judge started taking up some orders. And we filed a motion to dismiss the indictment based on information we had obtained from another U.S. attorney who I had asked to review the case. There were a lot of issues about that case and it was taking a lot of time to resolve them because the defendant had raised those issues, including misconduct by the government. So I brought in somebody who had been a former FBI agent for 10 years and a prosecutor for 10 years. And I asked him to take a look at it and he recommended that the charges be dismissed.

What I'm driving at is the underlying power here. There's nothing inappropriate about you getting so involved in a case involving a friend of the president. Is that your view of the law?

Well, what I'm saying is, well, Flynn was an appointee in the administration. I don't know whether I would refer to him as [crosstalk] a friend of any administration. But unless there's some conflict of interest that I have, it is appropriate for me to deal with it. And I've said publicly that in those cases, it's very important that the attorney general make sure that there's no political influence at stake involved in that, and there wasn't.

Is there no limit to what the president can do in exercising what you've described as a supervisory authority when it comes to law enforcement cases, even when he has an interest?

So, I testified about this a lot. I think at some point in certain circumstances, presidential action could amount to an abuse of his power. Yes.

Let's take a case that, according to a witness before Congress yesterday, sounded like an abuse of power. Prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky, who said he was a whistleblower, said that in the Roger Stone case, he received pressure to change the sentencing recommendation in a way that he considered inappropriate. And he said he was told by his supervisor that was because of political pressure, because of a fear that the president would be displeased if another course was taken.

Right. Well, the supervisors have said that much of what he said simply false. So, [crosstalk] and the statements he made, he said were, he admitted were double hearsay. He had no direct information. He had never talked to anyone involved in the decision, whereas I actually made the decision. I was the decision maker in that case because there was a dispute. And usually what happens is, disputes, especially in high profile cases, come up to the attorney general. It's not unusual for there to be a dispute in a high-profile case and for it to be resolved by the attorney general. And what actually happened in that case is that the four prosecutors who had prosecuted the case, the first line, they wanted to recommend a seven to nine year sentence on Stone, and the U.S. attorney felt that was too severe and was not justified under the circumstances. And what I said was set forth all the relevant information and leave it to the judge's discretion to select the right decision, which is also not uncommon in the department. And that judge actually gave the sentence that I thought was correct, which was half of what the line prosecutors were recommending. They could not point to any case even remotely close to the seven to nine year sentence. The cases were essentially centered on about two and a half to three years. The judge gave him three years and four months, which I thought was a fair sentence under the circumstances. And it was essentially what I was proposing, or thought was fair. And so the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I made that decision based on what I was felt was fair to that person. Never discussed sentencing with the president. And that decision was made well before the president's tweet about that case.

Now, [crosstalk] regardless of his relationship with the president, he doesn't he doesn't deserve a break, but he certainly doesn't deserve to be treated, and singled out, and treated more harshly than everyone else.

You have indicated that the appropriate limit on a president's power is the people, is the next election. That the president has supervisory authority over law enforcement, that he can involve himself in a case, even if he has an interest in the case, and the appropriate remedy is the people can vote him out or keep him. What do you say to voters thinking about how to vote this year, who see these cases and see a pattern of a president who continually wants to interfere and actually does appear to interfere in cases where he has an interest?

Well, I would say taking them one at a time. There was a lot of hinky stuff in the Flynn case. Everyone knew that. Everyone was wondering why was this case ever brought? We actually went back and found documents that showed that there were a lot of irregularities in what the FBI did. And in fact, when this case was being argued in the appellate court, the appeals panel pointed out, 'Hey, if there were irregularities here, it isn't what Justice Department is doing now, it's what they did when they indicted Flynn.' So I would say that justice was, is being done in that case. I would also say that the same is true in the other case you mentioned, the Stone case. He got the sentence that everyone else would have gotten for that conduct. That's justice. That's the rule of law, treating like people alike.

And just to go to the third case what was the reason for removing Geoffrey Berman?

[crosstalk] That's personnel action, which of course is different. You know, in the criminal justice process, as I've made clear, it's very important that politics be kept out of that. Now, in this other matter, which is a personnel appointment, obviously all U.S. attorneys are appointed by the president and can be removed by the president. And, you know, that's been for as long as there have been U.S. attorneys. And New York is one of the preeminent offices in the Justice Department. The president had never made an appointment to that office. Geoffrey Berman was interim. He was appointed by the court as a temporary U.S. attorney holding the fort. He was living on borrowed time from the beginning. And when a really strong, powerful candidate raised his hand, that is Jay Clayton, currently the chairman of the S.E.C., a prominent New York lawyer from Sullivan and Cromwell, very well-known and highly regarded, an independent, and he said that he was prepared to leave the government, was going back up, wanted to go back up to New York but very much would desire this job, I view that as an opportunity to put in a very strong person as a presidential appointment to that office.

And there was no consideration, or let me ask it a different way. Did you consider the possibility that some might find that inappropriate, given the matters that Mr. Berman was investigating and the president's interest in those matters?

I certainly was aware that given the current environment, anytime you make a personnel move, you know, conspiracy theorists will suggest that there's something, there's some ulterior motive involved. But I felt this was actually a good time to do it because I was not aware of anything that should in reality, give rise to that.

And let me circle back to that big question. How do you answer a voter who sees a pattern here of continually upholding the personal interests of the president?

Well, I'd say that there is no such pattern. I would say that that is a media narrative that has been adhered to, where things that happen all the time in the Department of Justice are misrepresented to the public and cast is somehow suspicious. I mean, do you think someone, do you think a 68-year-old man, with no prior criminal history record, should have gone to prison for a decade for what happened? You know, for misleading Congress? Show me a case where that's even remotely close. As I've said, the judge herself said that the case closest was the Scooter Libby case, who got about three years, and she gave three years and four months. So that's justice. That's what we call justice. And there was a Democratic senator who said that, you know, part of the job of the attorney general or being the attorney general is like being a sheriff standing in front of the jail. There's always the mob. And these days, the media is very prominent among the mob, who either want someone hung or they want him sprung. And part of what the Department of Justice is about and the attorney general is about, is ignoring the mob and the calls and the false narratives, and doing in each case what they think is right. Right and just for the individual, that's what I'm doing and that's why I'll continue to do.

Because you mentioned equal justice. Can you name a case or two where you have intervened so dramatically where the person involved was not connected to the president?

Off the top of my head, I'm sure there were a number of cases since I've been here that I've done that

You can't think of one but...

Well, frequently, cases, you know, we don't go discussing who's under investigation at any given time.

OK, but you're saying there are other cases where you have personally involved yourself in...

Yes. When cases come up, who do you think they come to? And why do you think we have one attorney general? We have 93 United States attorney's offices and we have 50 states. We don't run a department to have 50 different rules of law. We run a department that looks across the whole country to make sure people are treated equally. You can only do that if you have one office that's responsible for that. And that's me.

I read with interest, Attorney General, a speech you gave at Notre Dame, some time ago, came to my home state and did that. Thank you very much. And you promoted the idea of religious education. You also offered a particular idea of the founders who wrote the Constitution. You said that by and large, the founding generation were Christians and they were imbued with those values, which you'd like to continue today.

That's not exactly true [crosstalk]. I was talking about religion generally. Now, they were Christians and so if you're talking about them, they were Christians. But I was talking about the role of religion.

You're talking about the role of religion today.And speaking of Christians, then. Christianity has a particular view of human nature. What does it teach you that [the] president would do with completely unchecked power, with absolute power?

The president doesn't have unchecked power. All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. As Lord [John Dalberg-] Acton famously said. So that's why we have a Constitution. And that's why, as I've given speeches about the presidency, I've pointed out that the real miracle of our, in Philadelphia was actually Article 2 of the Constitution, because many people sort of that the Cliff Notes version of our founding was that we fought against a king, and therefore we have to be very suspicious of presidential power. But actually, what happened was, after the Articles of Confederation and almost losing the Revolutionary War, the framers decided to frame a limited office of president.

That was, what most experts on the Constitution would say, is that they, what was unusual is they actually created a very strong office, but they hedged it in with a lot of limitations. It's not a king. It's four years. It's the only office elected by all the people of the United States, not just by a congressional district, but by all the people. It has inherently limited powers. Congress has most of the powers in the federal government. The president can't raise money or anything like that. So all the limitations that the Whigs, the English Whigs, wanted to put on the king have been put on the office of [the] president, it's a limited office. But in emergencies such as war, it has broad powers. And I have to say, Steve, one of the things that perplexes me about all these people who challenged me on the idea of executive power and its nature, they seem perfectly content to sit back and let governors, who are executives and have constitutions, make the most sweeping decisions about people's livelihood. Basically, putting the entire population in home detention and telling people that they have to shut down their livelihood and their business. And they leave that to the discretionary decision of governors. And I haven't heard the media at all saying, 'Hmm this is a pretty broad use of power. Where does it say in the Constitution they have that power?'

I have heard you, or your department, raise that question, specifically involving the governor of Hawaii who has imposed certain limitations for people to quarantine themselves when coming to Hawaii from out of state. The Justice Department has weighed in on a lawsuit against that restriction. Is this something that is of personal interest to you? Did you take part in that decision?

Yes, I've taken part in a lot of those decisions, but actually, that particular decision did not go to the whether or not the governor had the power, whether that was part of the executive power. What that went to is whether or not that was permissible to put those kinds of limits on interstate travel, because that is a constitutional right. And whether that was a reasonable restriction on interstate travel. So we raised that question.

The governor of Florida at one point had restrictions on people coming from out of state. Now, as the cases have shifted, and Florida's gone up and New York has gone down in numbers of cases, New York is imposing restrictions on people coming from out of state. Would you oppose those restrictions as well?

There are different kinds of restrictions, and the question is whether they're reasonable under the circumstances. For example, requiring someone to stay in 14 days of quarantine versus having a test where the results come back quickly. There are different ways of doing it.

I want to ask, Attorney General, about the Durham investigation while we have a few moments. There is a longstanding practice in the Department of Justice against releasing politically sensitive information close to an election. We're getting closer and closer to an election. Is there still time before the election for the Durham report to be known?

All right. Well, as I've said a few times, no one under investigation in the Durham matter is running for president. And I've said publicly that neither President Obama or Vice President Biden are under investigation. And I've also said I'm committed to having the American people have a free choice in this election between the candidates and I don't want the Department of Justice to be interfering in that.

The Durham investigation is another matter where the president has expressed very strong opinions. Does the president have the power under the Constitution to tell you how the Durham investigation needs to come out?

No.

He has supervisory authority [crosstalk].

To tell us how the investigation comes out? [crosstalk] An investigation of facts is an investigation of facts. I mean, even the president can't change facts.

He can't tell you to have the report come out a certain way? Regardless of the facts?

No, I don't think he can. I mean, I think Durham is going to report the facts.

So there is a limit on the president's interference in law enforcement then [crosstalk]. Underlying facts is what the limit is.

Yeah, I have said that, for example, if the president directed an attorney general to indict somebody where there was no predicate, no probable cause and no basis for the indictment, that would be a grave abuse of presidential power. And no attorney general would carry that out and be worth their salt. And I've said this in my confirmation. The president tells you to do something that has no legal basis like that, can't be justified under the law, then the attorney general shouldn't do it. The attorney general's responsibility is to make sure that the laws are faithfully executed.

What instruction, if any, has the president given you about assuring a secure election in 2020?

About what?

About assuring a secure election in 2020?

Well, our main focus has been obviously trying to ensure against foreign influence. And so we have a very strong program, interagency program, trying to monitor efforts by foreign countries to influence the election. And, you know, we're committed to trying to prevent that or if we can't prevent it, at least alert the American people as to what's going on. Other than that, the Department of Justice always is concerned about election fraud. And on every election, we're very attentive to whether there's election fraud.

Some people noticed when you raised concerns about the security of mail-in ballots, as the president also has very loudly and said without evidence that there is a lot of fraud or can be a lot of fraud, you raised a specific concern about foreign entities counterfeiting ballots and mailing them in.

Well, I think there's a range of concerns about mail-in ballots. And let me just clarify here. I'm not talking about a mail-in ballot for a limited number of cases where somebody, you know, is going to be traveling around the world, and the way that the state has provided for that is, you mail in your ballot. I'm talking about a comprehensive rule where all the ballots are essentially mail-in, and there's so many occasions for fraud there that cannot be policed. I think it would be very bad. But one of the things I mentioned was the possibility of counterfeiting.

Did you have evidence to raise that specific concern?

No, it's obvious.

It's obvious that it can be done.

Of course, we got to a lot of, why do you think we go to the problems we do in crafting single dollar bills?

Sure.

Because, make it hard to counterfeit. Now--

Do they not also go through procedures like that with mail-in ballots?

You've seen them. They're pretty primitive.

Kim Wyman, the attorney general of Washington State, was on NPR and was told about your concern, and said, I wish Attorney General Barr would come out and see the security measures that we do have. She's a Republican.Would you take up that offer?

Well, I'm not sure I'm going to go out to Washington state [crosstalk] right now. Glad to call her up [crosstalk]. But, you know, I don't think Washington state has much experience dealing with our adversaries' intelligence services.

Are you able to share any evidence that intelligence agencies have gathered that any foreign entities have targeted this area?

I think foreign entities are — I have specific reason to believe that there are a number of foreign countries that do want to sow discord in the United States by undermining confidence in the results of the election. And I think if we do adopt programs of mail-in, that will be an area which they will exploit. And I think you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

Do you believe that an election conducted mainly by mail can be secure?

Personally, no. I mean, we just mailed out checks under this program. And what is it? I heard something like 20 percent or something were misdirected.

You think the same thing could happen with millions of mail-in ballots?

I know things can happen like that. Because I know people move, a very high percentage in the United States, people move all the time. And I also know that you can easily take things out of mailboxes.

One other thing, Attorney General, regarding the recent protests. You made statements raising concerns about left-wing extremists in the protests and your named Antifa, specifically. One of our correspondents looked earlier this month. I believe it was June 9. And while a number of people have been arrested in connection with the protests, and a good number of crimes were committed, as a matter of fact, there was no record of someone connected with any Antifa organization, and it's not really an organization, who had been named up to that point in prosecutions. You did say around that time that there had been not public information regarding Antifa. Are you able to say now, a couple of weeks later, that anyone has been arrested in connection with that activity you named?

Yes, but...[crosstalk]

Someone with Antifa? Someone with some antifascist organization?

Yes, but when we arrest people and charge them at this stage anyway, we don't charge them for being a member of Antifa. We charge them for throwing a Molotov cocktail, or we charge them for possession of a gun, or possession of gasoline and things to make bombs with. Those are the kinds of charges that are filed. Even less sensational charges, such as battery. But we are building, we are obtaining information and intelligence about the operations of these people. Do you really? I mean, do watch the videotapes of these demonstrations?

I've watched the videotapes [crosstalk].

You don't see agitators in hoodies with earpieces, you know, distributing things to throw and things like that? You don't see that? You don't see people walking through districts with high-end stores, methodically breaking out the windows with sledgehammers or skateboards? Who are they?

Saw lots of break ins. Absolutely.

Not break-ins and looting. This was not looting. No, no. You obviously haven't been watching these videos as we have been watching them. [crosstalk]

I've been out on the streets. And there have been specific crimes that seem to have been committed under the cover of the protests, as well as any kind of engineered violence. But wouldn't you have, if you had somebody who was a member of an extremist group, wouldn't you have mentioned that, and your prosecutors would have mentioned that, in the bail hearing? Like there'd be a public record, that you had evidence of extremists?

Well, at this stage, being a member of a group, and Antifa is really sort of an umbrella term [crosstalk] used for a number of groups. There are a number of groups that have specific names that we're aware of that are Anti-- that's why I've said Antifa-type groups, that some of the people that have been arrested and some of the people that have been charged and some of the people that are under investigation, we have approximately 300 investigations right now, nationwide, do identify as Antifa. So I'm not sure, you know.

OK. Can I ask about one more thing that's on my mind? You were asked about systemic racism the other day in law enforcement, and you said, if I may summarize briefly, it's not really there. It was at one time. It was on the books. It was part of the law. The laws have been removed and there are still problems, but law enforcement is working on that. And I wonder...

I was talking about police departments.

Police departments are working on that. And I want to acknowledge that police departments and a lot of parts of the country do work on that. And yet, statistically, just to pick one statistic, a black man in the United States, statistically, is far more likely to be shot by a police officer than someone of a different race. Why do you think that is?

Well, there are 8,000 Blacks who are killed every year. Eighty-five percent of them are killed by gunshots. Virtually all of those are Blacks on Blacks. I think that there are a number of the statistics on police shootings of unarmed, unarmed individuals are not skewed toward the African American. There are many whites who are shot unarmed by police. Now, those numbers, as I said, have been going down in the past. Five years ago it was 38 African-Americans who were unarmed were shot by police. Thirty-eight in a year. This past year it was 10. Of those six were physically attacking the police when they were shot. So these are not events that happen every day. I know that the media is very interested them, as everyone is interested in them [crosstalk]. Well, everyone's interested in it. But I think the media is ignoring the fact that 8,000 African Americans are killed by crime in high-crime areas, and 10 were killed last year by police, six of whom were under attack when they shot. So you have to put it in perspective. And that's why, you know, I think it is wrong to demonize all the police and all the police departments, as you know, systemically racist and going out looking to shoot unarmed black men. I've seen some cases where it appeared gratuitous, and obviously, those are serious cases and are pursued by the Department of Justice's civil rights violations, which is the statute we have to address those issues. But some of them, while use of excessive force, you know ... during struggles and other things. So I think you have to put these in perspective.

I keep saying final question and it keeps not being true because I keep getting more I want to ask you. You have raised concerns about the direction of the country and the direction the government, the direction of presidential power over the last several decades. Now we're in this period of conflict and chaos, which can be fairly said, regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, this is a, this is a disturbing time for many people. Do you look out at the country and see a country that is moving toward a better place in the right direction, now that some of these issues have been joined from your perspective?

Some of which issues?

Well, the issues that have been fought over in the last several years regarding race, regarding the economy, regarding presidential power, regarding everything else. Do you feel the conflicts of this time are working us toward a better country or not so?

I think, you know, I think America was making a lot of progress on race. I mean, we elected Barack Obama as president. I think the economy was becoming more inclusive. And I think Blacks were participating more in the economy and at record numbers. But I do think that there are some impediments to the advancement of African Americans in society. The principal, one of the principal ones, not the principal one, is that they are being deprived of equal opportunity to attend good schools. And that's, I think that's one of the civil rights issues of our time. I think that they should we should essentially give these inner-city families the buying power to send their kids wherever they want to send them.

I was thinking larger even than race, though. You've raised a question of a society that is in some kind of moral trouble, that is losing its bearings. Do you think that in the conflicts of these last few years, the society is beginning to regain its bearings as you would like them to be?

Yeah, I think I think under President Trump's leadership, with the growing opportunity and some of the stands that he's taken, have put us on a better track. Now, I think what's happened in the last few weeks is a combination of things. I think the people out committing the destruction and the chaos, as you say, they're actually a fairly small group. And I don't think they're representative of what America wants, what they think. I think it's a small group that's deliberately trying to create chaos. And I also think the morale of the country right now has been affected by the pandemic. And that's another factor there. But I do think that as we come out of the pandemic and our economy rebounds, that we do have a promising future.

Attorney General, thank you so much. Thank you.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©