Connect with us

News

Speaker Paul Ryan FIRED The House Chaplain And The Reason Is Absolutely Disgusting

He was told to retire or be fired

Published

on

Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. has been in a whirlwind this past week over the controversy surrounding the firing of the House Chaplain. Sources on both sides of the aisle are anonymously telling media outlets that House Chaplain Patrick Conroy was unceremoniously pushed out for unknown reasons. However, the reason may be well known after all. Rumors indicate that he was asked to leave after making political comments in his daily prayer, one in particular regarding tax reform.

The Hill reported,

“Conroy’s own resignation announcement stated that it was done at Ryan’s request. “As you have requested, I hereby offer my resignation as the 60th Chaplain of the United States House of Representatives,” the April 15 letter to Ryan, obtained by The Hill, states.

Through his office, Conroy, who has served as chaplain since 2011, declined to comment on Thursday. His resignation is effective May 24. Four different sources — two from each party — say Conroy was told that he must retire or that he would be dismissed. The message from Ryan was delivered by his chief of staff, Jonathan Burks.

Trending: First Video of Latest Trump Star Vandal Swinging Pickaxe Shows What Happened – Spread Like Wildfire

The issue has riled House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who broached the episode during the Democrats’ whip meeting in the Capitol Thursday morning.  A bipartisan group of lawmakers are planning to send a letter to Ryan requesting additional information regarding Conroy’s dismissal; the group is currently circulating the letter among colleagues to collect more signatures.

The thinking among Democrats is that Ryan pushed Conroy out “because Republicans thought he was aligned with Democrats,” according to a senior Democratic aide familiar with the discussion. House chaplains, who offer an opening prayer each day the House is in session, are supposed to be nonpartisan. It’s unclear exactly what if any political dispute, however, led to the chaplain’s dismissal. A Democratic lawmaker said that the Speaker took issue with a prayer on the House floor that could have been perceived as being critical of the GOP tax-cut bill.

On Nov. 6 — the first day of the markup on the GOP’s tax bill — Conroy in a prayer urged lawmakers to ensure the legislation did not exacerbate the nation’s gaping class disparities. “May all Members be mindful that the institutions and structures of our great Nation guarantee the opportunities that have allowed some to achieve great success, while others continue to struggle,” Conroy said at the time. “May their efforts these days guarantee that there are not winners and losers under new tax laws, but benefits balanced and shared by all Americans.”

A senior GOP aide said Conroy’s exit “was not because of any particular prayer.” Ryan’s and Pelosi’s offices agree that Pelosi was told in advance that the chaplain was leaving. AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for Ryan, said it was Ryan’s decision, but declined to offer a reason for the move. She added that Pelosi and her office “were fully read in and did not object.” “The speaker told Leader Pelosi that he would not move forward with the decision if she objected and she chose not to,” Strong said. In a separate statement to media outlets late Thursday, Strong said, “The speaker consulted with the minority leader, but the decision was his. He remains grateful for Father Conroy’s service.”

Pelosi’s office disputed that the Democrat did not object. “Leader Pelosi was given advance notice by Speaker Ryan,” said a Pelosi spokesman, but she “also made it clear to Speaker Ryan that she disagreed with this decision.” A second Democratic aide said Conroy’s ouster was “largely driven by a speech on the tax bill that the Speaker didn’t like.” But the source also offered a second reason. “Some of the more conservative evangelical Republicans didn’t like that the Father had invited a Muslim person to give the opening prayer,” the source said.

When Pelosi, who is Catholic, informed members of her whip team on Thursday morning that Conroy was pushed out against his will, it “shocked” the members, according to one lawmaker. Catholic members on both sides of the aisle were furious to learn that Conroy’s retirement was not voluntary, according to multiple sources, including one Republican lawmaker and one Democratic member.

Ryan, who is also Catholic, has appointed Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), an Air Force Reserve chaplain, as well as Reps. Mark Walker (R-N.C.) and Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), both former pastors, to lead the search effort to find a replacement. Conroy’s arrival on Capitol Hill was also marked with some controversy. The Jesuit priest was nominated by former Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in May 2011, but Pelosi urged additional vetting of the pick after learning that Conroy was then working for a Catholic religious order — the Oregon Province of the Society of Jesus — that had agreed just months earlier to pay $166 million to victims of sexual abuse going back decades. There was no evidence that Conroy was involved in the scandal, nor did Pelosi suggest that was the case. After further questioning, she endorsed his nomination.”

One of the primary problems with this controversy is that if Minority Leader Pelosi sincerely had so much of a problem with the firing and resignation than she should have objected to it instead of simply disagreeing. She has no room to talk. If she felt something was so suspicious about it she should have used her power to avoid the outcome but she didn’t. Which makes it look like now she is trying to make this a controversy for no other reason than to just be obstructionist. Especially considering she was initially wary of his nomination.

Moreover, even if it was not his intent to make a political comment, his prayer was perceived as taking a side on the tax reform issue. But it is not the job of the House Chaplain to take political sides, in fact, it is his job to do the exact opposite and to serve his ministry to all members. The same as the House Physician is not supposed to have any political affiliation or speak his political opinions in public. This is just the way this business works and if you cannot abide by those rules you should not be working there.

Share if you agree

Join the conversation

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

News

Dem Candidate Pushing ‘Irresponsible Breeder’ Tax On Certain Parents Because Of ‘Privilege’

Published

on

Scott Wallace is a multimillionaire running in Pennsylvania’s 1st Congressional District against current incumbent Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-R). Considered an elite, even amongst the wealthy, he boasts a net worth of between $127 million and $309 million, according to his financial disclosure statement. This would make him the third-richest member of Congress if he were elected to the House today.

From a hardline leftist pedigree, his grandfather was Henry Wallace, the “New Deal visionary” and one-time vice president under former President Franklin D. Roosevelt. His wealth is inherited, stemming from a seed company his grandfather founded that was purchased by DuPont for $10 billion in the 1990s, along with a large number of stocks with the largest being DowDuPont.

His campaign is largely self funded with Wallace claiming he is “putting a significant amount of my own assets into this because this is the most important thing I can imagine doing for America at this point in my life — this is a very expensive district to run in, but it is crucial in the Democrats’ efforts to retake the House.”

But just why this is so incredibly important to Wallace goes beyond the typical party lines of Republican and Democrat. Receiving endorsements from both Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women (NOW), Wallace is a population control zealot who believes families who choose to have more than two children are “irresponsible breeders” and should be taxed. Wallace has donated nearly $7 million dollars to various population control groups over the past 20 years, with the majority going through his own Wallace Global Fund.  In addition to its efforts towards population control, the foundation has also reportedly donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-Israel groups that support a boycott of the Jewish State.

Fox News reports:

“Zero Population Growth (ZPG) was among the organizations that received the money from the fund. According to public records, it received $420,000 between 1997 and 2003.

The group, shortly after being founded in 1968, released a brochure advocating abortion to stabilize population growth and claimed that “no responsible family should have more than two children.” To deal with larger families, it also called for families to be “taxed to the hilt” for “irresponsible breeding.”

It also blamed the overpopulation on the ‘white middle-class’ that ‘use up more than their share of resources and do more than their share of polluting‘ and urged them to ‘voluntarily limit their families to two children.’

Paul Ehrlich, who co-founded the ZPG, once called abortion “a highly effective weapon in the armory of population control.” The goal of the organization, which changed its name to Population Connection in 2002, has remained the same since its inception, arguing that the world needs to contain population growth with particular emphasis on American families.

The organization’s political arm, Population Connection Action Fund, publicly endorsed Wallace for Congress, saying his support for their cause is “exactly the kind of dedication we need in Congress.”

Wallace’s fund also gave $20,000 in 2010 to the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE), a group that sees the economic growth as undesirable and instead supports an economy with ‘stable or mildly fluctuating levels’ and a society where birth rates equal death rates.

The organization openly supports zero population growth and its executive board member, Herman Daly, advocated issuing reproduction licenses, allowing women to have only two children unless they buy the license for more children from other women. Daly called it the ‘best plan yet offered’ to limit population growth.”

The group advocates strongly for abortion and along with taxing families “to the hilt” for having more than two children, as noted in a Yale Law School publication about the “voices that shaped the abortion debate before the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court’s ruling.”

The group advocates that –

  1. That no responsible family should have more than two children. Any family wanting to care for more than two children should adopt further children. Adopting children does not increase the population.
  2. All methods of birth control, including legalized abortion, should be freely available—and at no cost in poverty cases.
  3. Irresponsible people who have more than two children should be taxed to the hilt for the privilege of irresponsible breeding.

Fox News continued:

Zoe Wilson-Meyer, communications director for Wallace’s campaign, didn’t answer Fox News’ questions on whether Wallace still supports the ideas expressed by the groups.

“The Wallace Global Fund has for decades been a leader in helping women gain access to family planning. Former Co-Chair Scott Wallace is proud of the work of grantees like Planned Parenthood in empowering women and protecting reproductive rights and will stand up for Pennsylvania women,” she said in an email.

“In Washington, Brian Fitzpatrick voted to defund Planned Parenthood and supports Donald Trump’s effort to take away a woman’s right to choose,” she added.

Largely reminiscent of Nazi Germany who exercised eugenics to its full and most horrific potential, this policy of so-called “irresponsible breeders” also resembles the one-child policy from China that saw forced abortions or other forced invasive birth control procedures. Yet eugenics practices had their roots in America as well. American newspapers frequently offered praise for eugenics just prior to WWII and The Holocaust …. that is until Adolf Hitler revealed the true horrors of what eugenics really looked like. They avoided the subject for decades thereafter.

Nine out of ten eugenicists in the 20th Century were also Progressives or Socialists, and the most central component to the eugenic creed is the desire to engineer and centrally plan human reproduction, weeding out the unwanted or undesirable, according to a report on eugenics by PBS.

Yet where does that end? Who determines who is undesirable? Is it the unborn child conceived at an inconvenient time? The elderly mother? The child with cerebral palsy? Those with PTSD? Autism? Blue eyes? White skin? You cannot get to genocide without first visiting identity politics and they say the propagandist’s job is to effectively make the people forget his “enemy” is, in fact, a human being just as he is. It seems we never really do learn from history, do we?

Continue Reading

News

Trump Issued Major Warning: ‘We Will Look Into Discriminatory and Illegal Practice’ – It’s On!

Huge problems and everyone needs to know!

Published

on

President Donald Trump voiced his concerns over “discriminatory and illegal practice” when he posted about the alleged controversy going on with Republicans being censored on Twitter. The tactic is sometimes referred to as “shadow banning” and it seems to be a strategy that social media platforms use to limit the visibility of some people. For example, ever wonder why someone who is genuinely popular might have tons of followers but their posts don’t seem to get many responses? It could be one of several reasons. Either they have fake followers, the post is no good, or they are being censored. In many cases, it’s a form of censorship that’s the obvious result. When a social media user goes from getting a lot of replies and views on their posts, then all of a sudden there’s very little replies and it seems like no one has seen the post – then they were hit with that form of censorship or suppression.

Social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have been called out for suppressing the content of certain Republican voices or those who support President Donald Trump. Well-known stars like Diamond and Silk have made it very public that they feel targeted for the views and opinions on their pages. That’s just the tip of the iceberg because the problem spans from targeting well-known mainstream people all the way down to the independent publishers. Censorship like this is affecting people’s careers and causing an unbalanced platform in which people with certain views are being limited. It might not be listed as a “ban” but it’s certainly limiting the viewership of certain people. The content that would once appear in people’s feed or timeline now requires a fine-tooth comb to find and it seems like people are realizing this more often and being upset with it.

Trump spoke about it on Twitter and Vice News completed a report on it.

Vice News reported: “Twitter is limiting the visibility of prominent Republicans in search results — a technique known as “shadow banning” — in what it says is a side effect of its attempts to improve the quality of discourse on the platform.

The Republican Party chair Ronna McDaniel, several conservative Republican congressmen, and Donald Trump Jr.’s spokesman no longer appear in the auto-populated drop-down search box on Twitter, VICE News has learned. It’s a shift that diminishes their reach on the platform — and it’s the same one being deployed against prominent racists to limit their visibility. The profiles continue to appear when conducting a full search, but not in the more convenient and visible drop-down bar. (The accounts appear to also populate if you already follow the person.)

Democrats are not being “shadow banned” in the same way, according to a VICE News review. McDaniel’s counterpart, Democratic Party chair Tom Perez, and liberal members of Congress — including Reps. Maxine Waters, Joe Kennedy III, Keith Ellison, and Mark Pocan — all continue to appear in drop-down search results. Not a single member of the 78-person Progressive Caucus faces the same situation in Twitter’s search.

“The notion that social media companies would suppress certain political points of view should concern every American,” McDaniel told VICE News in a statement. “Twitter owes the public answers to what’s really going on.”

Presented with screenshots of the searches, a Twitter spokesperson told VICE News: “We are aware that some accounts are not automatically populating in our search box and shipping a change to address this.” Asked why only conservative Republicans appear to be affected and not liberal Democrats, the spokesperson wrote: “I’d emphasize that our technology is based on account *behavior* not the content of Tweets.”

Twitter directed VICE News to a May 15 blog post that explained the company’s new approach to combating “troll-like behaviors.” After making changes to its platform, the company said that “[t]he result is that people contributing to the healthy conversation will be more visible in conversations and search.”

Twitter did not respond to a follow-up question.

Twitter’s troll hunt, however, has ensnared some of the most prominent Republicans in the country. Type in the names of McDaniel, conservative members of Congress like Reps. Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, and Matt Gaetz, and Trump Jr.’s spokesman Andrew Surabian, for example, and Twitter’s drop-down search bar does not show their profiles. The search menu also does not display the verified profile of Rep. Devin Nunes of California, only his unverified one that he seldom uses to post.

That limits their visibility and the ease of finding their profiles compared to their liberal counterparts.

UPDATE: July 26, 10:00 AM: Twitter appears to have adjusted its platform overnight to no longer limit the visibility of some prominent Republicans in its search results.”

At what point do social media platforms give the control back to the people? Users should not have to worry about their views being censored by the machine.

Censoring any content that is not illegal should not be tolerated by the users.

Continue Reading

Like Us on Facebook

Recent

Trending