A WordPress Blog-THE CHURCH MILITANT Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse. ALL CONTENT FROM HTTPS://RATHEREXPOSETHEM.BLOGSPOT.COM MOVED TO THIS NEW BLOG, MAY 2020
First Lady Michelle Obama’s one night stay in Morocco cost taxpayers over $600,000 in hotel and car rental costs alone.
Mrs. Obama traveled to the North African country with her daughters Sasha and Malia and mother Marian Robinson to promote her education initiative “Let Girls Learn.” She arrived in Morocco wearing a $1,750 designer dress and ended the night with a “lavish dinner” with Princess Lalla Salma and actress Meryl Streep.
Rooms were booked at three five-star hotels for the 24-hour visit, according to contracts signed off by the State Department.
Two contracts were signed for rooms at the Royal Mansour worth $50,000 and $10,073. The five-star hotel has a mother-daughter spa suite, promises its guests “wonder, luxury and unparalleled services,” and offers a “spiritual spa journey.”
The Hotel Sofitel Marrakech Lounge and Spa was also booked for Mrs. Obama’s trip, including contracts worth $200,000, $31,968, and $28,039. The Secret Service also stayed at the Sofitel for$133,493. A pre-advance visit cost $4,676.
Additional rooms were booked at the Pearl Marrakech Hotel, costing $24,934.
Renting a car and driver for Mrs. Obama’s visit cost $6,966, and other car service for Secret Service, the White House Military Office, and the White House Communications Agency totaled $122,173. In all, the contracts totaled $612,322.
Aside from hotel and motorcade costs, the Daily Mail estimates that flights for the trip totaled $300,000.
Morocco was the second stop on Mrs. Obama’s three-country visit. Obama first traveled to Liberia, and headed to Madrid on Wednesday to promote girls’ education.
People.com noted, “The exciting trip closely follows Malia’s graduation from Washington, D.C.’s private Sidwell Friends School.”
Michelle Obama ropes Moroccan girls into her ‘Let Girl Learn’ campaign with $100 million
Published on Jun 29, 2016
The United States on Tuesday announced the injection of more than $100 million to support programmes for the education of girls in Morocco on the sidelines of a visit of its First Lady, Michelle Obama to Marrakech.
The First Lady is on a tour to promote her “Let Girls Learn” initiative which was launched in March 2015.
The initiative brings together amongst others the Department of State, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Peace Corps.
Entertainment is the devil’s substitute for joy. The more joy you have in the Lord the less entertainment you need. – Leonard Ravenhill
There is no denying that our culture is centered around entertainment. But the church is designed not to immerse itself in the culture, but to be set apart from it. Church should be an escape from culture, not an alternative form of it.
The trend now is not only to be entertained, but to bathe yourself in the entertainment itself. The experience that many youth are drawn to in today’s culture is the techno music rave scene. Techno music comes in many forms, from House and Trance, to Jungle to Break-beats. But they all have one design in common–to induce a diabolically transformed state of mind through repetitive, beats and mantras. Much of today’s electronic music styles can trace their origins back to Goa, India, where the psychedelic bass lines and trance-inducing beats found their home in Hindu culture in the early 80’s.
In the video below, we can see Bellevue Baptist Church, a Southern Baptist church pastored by Steve Gaines, transforming what should be a week of intense study of Scriptures at Vacation Bible School, into a worldly concert that mimics that of ancient and modern Hindu culture.
Really, can you see much of a difference between Bellevue’s VBS 2016 performance, and that of the Hindu-inspired rave parties in the other videos? You might say, “well, the object of worship is different.” Is it? Really? While the song’s lyrics are nearly completely void of anything resembling Christianity, one can rest assured that regardless of the lyrics, the music in and of itself is designed to invoke worship, and it isn’t to Jesus Christ. At least one good difference is that most of the people gazing upon this travesty sat quietly and observed, rather than immerse themselves into it. In fact, at one point, in the original video, you can see a young kid get up and start to dance, while a parent quickly stands up and grabs him to sit him back down.
But there is no doubt that Bellevue has long been an icon of Laodicea. While seemingly completely apathetic to the drastic need to take the true Gospel message to the lost, they regularly indulge in pragmatic, number-building, money-raising forms of entertainment that, ultimately, line the pockets of those involved in this religion-industrial complex.
Below is commentary from John MacArthur at the Strange Fire conference, in which he was responding to the invasiveness of this kind of hypnotic music in the Church. He refers to it as “Pagan,” “this is what Hindus do,” and this is “the Kundalini Spirit. He also says that this has nothing to do with Christ or Christianity.
1 TIMOTHY 2:9-15-“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”
INSTEAD: “Wagner issued a sweet-toned appeal for tolerance, unity, and the oft-misunderstood notion of “Christian love,” a form of love that demands zero Biblical discernment. Regardless of the oozingly sweet “let’s just love on one another” appeal, though, the pursuit of unbridled ecumenical unity emphasizing doctrinal disregard is bonafide disobedience to Scripture.”
The Southern Baptist Convention’s favorite maven of false teaching and one of LifeWay’s cash cows of illicit doctrine has just wrapped up yet another conference in which the zealous worship of the false god of “unity” was portrayed. Adding credence, via intentional lack of discernment, to the “HER” in heresy, femme fatale of the faithless Beth Moore was in attendance, aligning with newer, fresher forms of female-flung falsehoods.
This was Moore’s first involvement with this particular festival of falseness, the “She Rises!”conference. We know right off the bat that it was such a festival as it was hosted by pastrix Holly Wagner. Wagner is the “co-pastor” – alongside her obviously Biblically-obtuse husband Philip – of Oasis Church in Los Angeles. When you see “pastor” plastered under the photo of a woman, it’s sign number one that Biblical obedience will not be forthcoming.
The conference also included other completely off-the-orthodox-rails luminaries. Louis Giglio, Lisa Bevere, Sarah Jakes Roberts were noted, if not ignoble, speakers joining the SBC’s own revelation receiver Moore.
Of course, no conference is complete, either in heterodoxy or savvy millennial marketing appeal, unless some element of heretical Hillsong is involved. So Hillsong Young & Free provided presumably repetitive lyrical accompaniment to the goings-on in an event that lauds a decidedly different “Jesus” than one familiar to Scripture imbibing believers. Pastrix Wagner, by the way, is also a contributor for Hillsong.
In a “She Rises” conference blog, published in May, Wagner issued a sweet-toned appeal for tolerance, unity, and the oft-misunderstood notion of “Christian love,” a form of love that demands zero Biblical discernment. Regardless of the oozingly sweet “let’s just love on one another” appeal, though, the pursuit of unbridled ecumenical unity emphasizing doctrinal disregard is bonafide disobedience to Scripture.
The blog, penned by Pastrix Wagner, begins with the affirmation of a false premise. “We all know that unity is essential. “ The premise is false because it erroneously presumes that Christian unity is something we achieve by our undiscerning efforts, rather than something ensured by the Father as Christ prayed to Him in John 17.
Unity is not established by blindly joining hands with someone just because they claim to be a Christian. Just because they may laud the name of Jesus, we cannot, must not, and ought not automatically assume their “Jesus” is THE “Jesus” of the Christian Scriptures. The real Jesus warned us about this:
For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. Matthew 24:24
The greatest asset which the Christian, individually and corporately, possesses is the Gospel. It is the crux of the “faith once for all delivered to the saints” as Jude wrote. (Jude 1:3) We must contend for it.
But for Beth Moore, joining Wagner’s discernment-free festival, contending is simply not a task with which she’ll be bothered. Moore is much too eager to join with anyone and everyone that will buy her a plane ticket, write a nice honorarium check, and give her a spotlight on the stage. Oh, yeah, it’d be nice to set up a Beth Moore book sales booth outside the conference hall doors, too.
The anything for the sake of unity tenor of She Rises! is further explicit in Wagner’s blog.
A symphony is beautiful, not because all are playing the same instrument, but because each musician is playing the same song. If each musician played his or her favorite song, it would just be a cacophony of noise. Each is bringing a sound that contributes to the harmony which makes the song amazing.
Same in church.
We all want God’s blessings on our lives and our churches, and that comes when we walk in unity. Unity comes when we lay down our ego and our way and prefer the other.
That just sounds so pretty doesn’t it? It sounds even spiritual. And, perhaps it would be if everyone being orchestrated submitted to the same proper maestro – the actual Jesus of the Bible. If He were directing all these folks that seek faux unity, then faux unity would not be something we’d even be seeking – we’d all know it’s a function of His will, not our effort.
But Wagner doesn’t grant to Jesus – the real Jesus – the authority of orchestra maestro. That’s a job for every leader who must lead boldly, if not lovingly, by … wait for it … vision casting.
At a leadership gathering recently, I was asked this question: How do we create unity in our leadership teams, especially in teams of very strong people, when you have a lot of strong opinions?
As a senior leader, it is up to you to cast a compelling and clear vision. You tell everyone the ‘song’. It is your responsibility to give the big picture and the time line to reach it. When a vision is clear, it makes it easier for those who serve with you to follow.
The “senior leader,” a title self-clutched by Wagner, is not the only person responsible for the vision. The little people … err, the “team member” is also responsible. If you’re one of these folks, “you need to make sure you understand the vision” or, “the song” that the vision caster has queued up for performance.
But, understand, vision casting and vision obedience isn’t merely something in a team driven atmosphere, say, like putting together a conference of false teachers. Oh, no. Vision is for everyone.
And for all of us: God commands his blessing when unity is present. That means between our churches as well. We will all do things differently. If we waste time arguing over where we are different — the enemy wins.
There you go. This vision of unity is an across-churches, doctrine-less diabolical goal. While the Scripturally-astute reader will recognize in this the false idol of ecumenism, the thousands of Biblically-inept women who attended this conference were fed the false manna of ecumenism by scripture twisting “senior leaders.” And among them for her gala debut was the SBC’s own debutante of Biblical disregard, Beth Moore. (Makes you proud to be in the SBC, huh? Sarcasm font obviously implied.)
Much digital ink has been spilled across the discerning web-world in attempts to warn folks about the deleterious risk posed by Beth Moore. Her undiscerning participation in such a conference should not result is a shoulder-shrugging “so what?” response by anyone concerned about Scriptural obedience. Moore’s participation is evidence that she does not care about doctrinal distinctions, Biblical obedience, or reflecting responsible alliances to her followers.
Moore’s participation in this festival gave explicit approval to a full-steam ahead disregard for Scripture. Why? Because here’s what else the blogged prelude spelled out for the conference.
I heard someone say one time about our church…and they said it in a disparaging way “there are other ways to do church” well…duh! There are thousands — as many ways as there are churches.
Some sing hymns -some don’t.
Some speak in tongues -some don’t.
Some say dancing is bad -some dance with passion.
Some say no drinking alcohol -some don’t care.
Some say women shouldn’t teach -some have women pastors.
Some are mellow — some are energetic
Some say there shouldn’t be instruments in church -some have full bands.
Some are full of Republicans -some are full of Democrats.
I could keep going, but why would we let these issues divide us? Wouldn’t the fact that we love Jesus and believe that He is the way to God be what unites us? We will never solve the big challenges on the earth as long as we let issues like these divide us! (Emphasis added)
Umm. Well. Gee. The Bible – particularly the New Testament “Jesus” part of it – is replete with Gospel-driven divisiveness. Christ Himself said He didn’t come to unite, but to divide. We’re given apostolic warnings about protecting His Gospel, standing firm on Truth, and not tarnishing the church with intentional alliances with evil influences. Paul told the Corinthians to do what he himself had done with certain blasphemers in the church – turn them over to Satan. (1 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Timothy 1:20) Pretty harsh apostolic words that don’t speak well for the kum-ba-yah-ism of this conference, huh?
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Matthew 10:34-38
“Why would we let these issues divide us?” It’s rather simple. Because the real Jesus tells us to as we proclaim and defend His Gospel. His apostles tell us to. But commands to contend for the faith are insufficient for Wagner, and for Beth Moore, who eagerly united with others in lauding a generic “Jesus” who merely seems to ooze love and unity despite His “I have come not to bring peace” warnings.
This whole ecumenical movement is based on blurring the distinct lines of doctrine while preaching a false message of God loves everybody with no corresponding concept of divine justice. There is no faith without the Gospel. There is no Gospel without doctrine. And there just is no regard for “sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1) in these diabolical waves of ecumenism.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. G.K. Chesterton
There are many in the church today, standing in pulpits, as Moore & Wagner wrongly do, sitting in pews, and leading whole denominations who, by their blatant associations with falsehood, are screaming at us that they simply have no convictions.
But if you are a Bible-believing Christian following the authentic Jesus of Scripture, the very gift of your faith lies on the convictions He has given you.
“Sanctify them in truth; your word is truth.” John 17:17
“Holly and her husband, Philip, co-pastor the Oasis Church – a growing, relevant, multi-cultural, multi-generational church located in Los Angeles. She is the founder of GodChicks. Holly and Philip have taught many relationship seminars around the world and are committed to healthy marriages, especially their own! She has written several books, include: “GodChicks”, “Daily Steps for GodChicks”, “WarriorChicks”, “Love Works” and releasing this summer “Find Your Brave”.” __________________________________________________ 1 Peter 3:1-22 – Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; (Read More…)
Colossians 3:18 – Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
1 Peter 3:7 – Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
Ephesians 5:25 – Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Ephesians 5:21 – Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
Ephesians 5:22 – Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Colossians 3:19 – Husbands, love [your] wives, and be not bitter against them.
1 Peter 3:5 – For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
1 Timothy 2:12 – But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Ephesians 5:33 – Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife [see] that she reverence [her] husband.
Galatians 3:28 – There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
1 Peter 3:1-7 – Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; (Read More…)
Ephesians 5:21-33 – Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
It recently came about that Donald Trump had finally given his life to Christ. In the words of James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family,
I don’t know when it was, but it has not been long, and I believe [Donald Trump] really made a commitment, but he’s a baby Christian.
Now, Dobson is offering some “clarification” on Trump’s conversion to whichever Christianity it is he has converted to. Apparently, it was the Prosperity Gospel heretic, Paula White, who led him in this fruitless conversion. The megachurch pastrix told attendees at a recent Trump rally that Billy Graham had “prophesied over” Trump, declaring that he “loves God.”
“Only the Lord knows the condition of a person’s heart. I can only tell you what I’ve heard. First, Trump appears to be tender to things of the Spirit. I also hear that Paula White has known Trump for years and that she personally led him to Christ.
“Do I know that for sure? No. Do I know the details of that alleged conversion? I can’t say that I do.
“But there are many Christian leaders who are serving on a faith advisory committee for Trump in the future. I am among them. There are about 45 of us that includes Franklin Graham, Robert Jeffress, Jack Graham, Ben Carson, James Robison, Jerry Johnson, and many others whom you would probably know.
“We’ve all agreed to serve. How will that play out if Trump becomes president? I don’t know. It is a good start, I would think.
“If anything, this man is a baby Christian who doesn’t have a clue about how believers think, talk and act. All I can tell you is that we have only two choices, Hillary or Donald. Hillary scares me to death.
“And, if Christians stay home because he isn’t a better candidate, Hillary will run the world for perhaps eight years. The very thought of that haunts my nights and days. One thing is sure: we need to be in prayer for our nation at this time of crisis.”
(On) This conversion President of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Russell Moore, offered the following commentary on this revelation:
This “faith advisory board” that Dobson speaks of in his statement is the same “faith advisory board” that former SBC president, Ronnie Floyd, is currently serving on. The divide among Southern Baptists is growing at a ferocious rate. On the one hand, you have the center-left leaning New-Calvinists and Moore-ites, who ruthlessly oppose anything and everything Donald Trump, at the expense of anything–and on the other hand, you have the Falwell tribe, who have more than compromised the name of Jesus Christ and the Gospel for the sake of political gain, including promoting false teachers, and false converts, because they’re “afraid of Hillary.”
“And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.” – Mark 3:25
This ridiculous claim that Donald Trump has been led to Christ by someone who has no idea who Christ is, while posing for pictures in front of Playboy Magazines with Liberty University President, Jerry Falwell, misquoting and twisting Scripture for self-gain, and speaking of speaking new-age false teachers as his primary spiritual mentors, is a prime example of why the professing Church, and our nation, is under the judgment of God.
“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” – Mark 1:15
On August 23, 2007, RANDY AND PAULA WHITE, co-pastors of Without Walls International, a charismatic megachurch based in Tampa, Florida, announced that they were divorcing after 17 years of marriage. The couple blamed the two different directions their lives were going (“Interruption during Megapastors’ Divorce Announcement,” Tampa Tribune, Aug. 23, 2007). That is not a biblical reason for divorce. Christ gave only one legitimate cause, and that is fornication, yet the two said “the split involves no third party on either side.” If they are going in two different directions, that is sin on both their parts. God says the wife is the husband’s help-meet and she is to be the keeper of the home (Titus 2:4-5), and the husband is to “dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life” (1 Peter 3:7). Randy has spent months commuting to Malibu, California, where he has a beachfront home. Paula, a preacher and motivational speaker, makes many speaking trips to San Antonio, where she recently purchased a home and is “oversight pastor” to the Family Praise Center. She also travels frequently to New York City where she has a Trump Tower condo and leads monthly services at New Life by Design Empowerment Center. This is open disobedience to God’s Word, which forbids her to be a preacher or a pastor (1 Timothy 2:12). And this is not the first divorce for the two charismatic preachers. They have four children from previous marriages. In reality they are sinning against God’s Word while pretending to be undergoing a “trial” and to be victims of circumstance, and this, sadly, is typical for charismatics today. When Paula appeared on Carman’s show on Trinity Broadcasting Network on September 12 and 13, 2007, she was greeted with loud applause. She told the enthusiastic crowd, “Some of the greatest development in the men and women of God … were those in adverse situation, those in opposition. … You can either gravitate and put your hand to the plow and say, ‘Okay, God, I don’t get this one; I don’t even like this one. But still what do You have to say to me? I will not be moved.’” Joseph and Job could say things like that and take a stand on simply trusting God in undeserved adversity, but when you are suffering for your own sin and rebellion to the Scriptures that is an entirely different story! “For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently?” (1 Peter 2:20). An article in the Tampa Tribune in May included statements by former Without Walls staff members who testified that the Whites have shifted their focus to money and fame. They preach a charismatic prosperity message and live lavishly. Their home in Tampa is valued at $2.22 million and the condo in New York, at $3.5 million. By 2011 Without Walls International was truly “without walls” as the huge property in Lakeland was under foreclosure for non-payment. In 2012 Paula White was appointed senior pastor of New Destiny Christian Center in Apopka, Florida, following the death of Zachery Tims, who was found dead in a hotel room in New York City under suspicious circumstances. In July 2012, Randy White returned as “bishop” of Without Walls in Tampa after “overcoming drug addiction and a suicide attempt” (Charisma, July 9, 2012).
JACKSON, Miss. — A federal judge who was appointed to the bench by Barack Obama has struck down part of Mississippi’s Freedom of Conscience Act, requiring clerks within the state to issue “gay marriage” licenses despite their religious convictions.
As previously reported, in April, Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant signed into law H.B. 1523, also known as the Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act. It was sharply criticized homosexual and transgender advocates.
“The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction that: marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman; sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth,” the legislation, authored by House Speaker Phillip Gunn, reads.
The bill prohibits the government from punishing those who decline to officiate same-sex ceremonies or provide services or accommodations for the celebrations, as well as those whose policies require use of locker and restrooms consistent with their biological gender.
It does not permit persons to refuse service in general, but only to decline forms of personal participation in events that conflict with their faith.
But the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a legal challenge over the matter, representing two homosexual men—Nykolas Alford and Stephen Thomas—who called the law a “slap in the face” to their plans to tie the knot.
“H.B. 1523 has no rightful place in Mississippi or in our history books, and we’re hopeful this lawsuit can stop as much of it as possible before it goes into effect,” ACLU attorney Josh Block said in a statement.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves struck down part of H.B. 1523, while leaving the rest of the law intact. He issued an order stating that all 82 county clerks must issue same-sex “marriage” licenses to homosexuals despite their religious beliefs, opining that an opt-out would run contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges.
“Having reviewed the relevant section of HB 1523, the parties’ arguments, and the scope of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell, the Court finds that (Section) 3(8)(a) may in fact amend Mississippi’s marriage licensing regime in such a way as to conflict with Obergefell,” Reeves wrote.
“Mississippi’s elected officials may disagree with Obergefell, of course, and may express that disagreement as they see fit—by advocating for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision, for example,” he said. “But the marriage license issue will not be adjudicated anew after every legislative session.”
The rest of H.B. 1523 will go into effect on July 1.
“If this opinion by the federal court denies even one Mississippian of their fundamental right to practice their religion, then all Mississippians are denied their 1st Amendment rights,” Mississippi Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves remarked in a statement following the court ruling. “I hope the state’s attorneys will quickly appeal this decision to the 5th Circuit to protect the deeply held religious beliefs of all Mississippians.”
NOT PRESIDENTIAL; TEMPERAMENT MAKES HER ILL SUITED TO BE PRESIDENT Former Secret Service officer calls Clinton a ‘dictator’
Published on Jun 27, 2016
On ‘Hannity,’ Gary Byrne says he wrote ‘Crisis of Character’ because he wants Americans to know what the real Clinton administration is like
SHE THREW A VASE ON THE FLOOR
Secret Service Agent Says Clinton Becoming Dictator
Hillary Is Working For the Chinese Government
Published on Jun 29, 2016
Donald Trump has exposed Hillary Clinton for what she truly is, nothing more than an agent for foreign interests, willing to sell out America for the right price.
On April 22, at the Urth Caffé in Laguna Beach, California, seated at one of the most desirable tables – that is, those on the outside patio, in the very front, with the unobstructed view of the beach — seven Muslim women, all wearing hijabs, talked and dallied. On their table, as on all the tables at the café, was a placard on which, prominently displayed, was the announcement that at peak times, patrons might be required to vacate the highest-in-demand tables after 45 minutes. At 8 p.m., 45 minutes after the women had had their order taken (and somewhat longer since they had entered), the manager, seeing they were giving no signs of leaving, and having other patrons waiting for those desirable tables – it was a very busy Friday night – came over to remind the women of the 45-minute rule. He also suggested that they might, if they wished, in lieu of leaving the café, simply move to another (but less desirable) table. The women balked at the suggestion. He went away, but returned at 8:15 to repeat his request and remind them of the café’s policy. They continued to refuse to move, and finally the management found it necessary to call the police, who arrived at 8:40, and escorted the women out.
The seven Muslim women were quick to get a lawyer, and to bring suit against the café for what they described as anti-Muslim “discrimination” against them. Their argument was that they were singled out for being asked to leave because they were Muslims wearing hijabs. The café’s owners pointed out that much of the café’s clientele consisted of Muslims; that among those patrons were women in hijabs who were routinely served, and, indeed, that very night, other hijab-wearing women were in the café and served without incident; that far from having an anti-Muslim policy, the café welcomed Muslim patrons, who were particularly attracted to the Urth Caffé by its ban on alcohol; that up to 90% of the patrons on Friday nights were Muslims, and it would have made no sense for the café’s owners to enforce an “anti-Muslim” policy which would be devastating to their business; and finally, that one of the café’s co-owners, Jilla Berkman, was herself a Muslim. The 45-minute policy for high-demand tables was hardly applied precipitously or unfairly, for they were allowed to stay after the 45-minute time limit was up — but when they still refused to move after the second warning, Berkman finally found it necessary to call the police.
Threatened with a lawsuit, the café’s owners contacted David Yerushalmi of the American Freedom Law Center, who has specialized in defending victims of the legal jihad being waged through suits, or threats of suits, by Muslims in this country who have shown themselves determined to press even the flimsiest of claims of “discrimination” by non-Muslims. Yerushalmi said the plaintiffs had been asked “only to abide by the cafe’s policy to give up their high-demand outside patio table after 45 minutes to allow other customers, including those wearing hijabs, to enjoy the experience.” He said the cafe’s security video showed long lines outside the restaurant door the night of the alleged incident. And in a move that must have filled the Muslim plaintiffs with chagrin and alarm, Yerushalmi – as he had promised he would – countersued: “This lawsuit claiming religious discrimination is a fraud and a hoax on the courts and the media,” Yerushalmi told LawNewz in a statement. “It is nothing short of an abuse of process to extort public apologies and other accommodations from my client, Urth Caffé.”
Judging by all of these facts, in attempting to claim “discrimination” against Muslims where there was none, it is likely that these women will come to regret that they made such a Muslim mountain out of a molehill, that they had started flinging the charge of “discrimination” without investigating the application of the 45-minute rule for those tables most in demand, that they hadn’t realized a co-owner of the café was herself Muslim, that they overlooked all the other Muslim patrons, including hijabbed women, ready to testify that they had never had problems at the Urth Caffé where, on Friday nights, up to 90% of the clientele is Muslim. They will live to regret it because they are bound to lose not only their own suit, but the countersuit as well. Yerushalmi is not going to let them get away with what he has correctly called “civilizational jihad.” He noted in a court document filed on June 22, 2016 that there was “an underlying agenda for this litigation that has nothing to do with justice,” LawNewz reported, adding that Yerushalmi characterized Sara Farsakh (the ringleader and spokesman of the Muslim women, and a pro-Palestinian activist) as a college-aged agitator for this “civilizational jihad.”
What is “civilizational jihad”? It’s an attempt, effective in its stillicidal and quiet way, to promote changes to even minor aspects of Western life to fit Islamic requirements. Little by little, sometimes less and sometimes more, non-Muslims in the West find themselves changing their ways in order to meet Muslim demands. “Civilizational jihad” is not the jihad of suicide bombers or traditional combat (qitaal). It is, rather, the sum of all the attempts by Muslims in the West to turn every perceived slight, real or imaginary, which Muslims claim to suffer, and every refusal by non-Muslims to modify their own laws, customs, and mores, as an attack on Muslims, or on Islam.
“Civilizational jihad” is often, but not always, conducted through the courts, where Muslims (or CAIR, as their self-appointed representative) press every possible point of legal advantage by raising every conceivable charge of discrimination. It’s designed to keep non-Muslims off balance, to make them afraid not to exempt Muslims from rules that are meant to apply to all, and to suggest that “religious discrimination” is involved even in the most implausible situations, and to do so knowing that even if the charge is unlikely to stick, merely making it can scare many non-Muslims, who don’t want the bad publicity (of being described as “Islamophobic” or “racist”), and who then would rather yield to Muslim demands. In the case of the Urth Caffé, what these seven Muslim women were seeking was a public apology from the café’s owners – an admission of “discrimination” against Muslims — and possibly more, including whatever sum of money might compensate them for their feelings (as their ringleader Sara Farsakh put it) of “embarrassment and humiliation.”
And that is how, little by little, non-Muslims in the West, in order to avoid the headaches of bad publicity, or lawsuits, so often give in to Muslim demands. It’s Jihad at the capillary level. For example, there are the changes in institutional food offerings, such as the banning of pork products in federal prisons, which elicited a comment from a satisfied Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR: “In general we welcome the change because it’s facilitating the accommodation of Muslim inmates.” The Obama Administration seems determined to back up, through threats of a loss of federal funding, Muslim dietary requirements imposed on Muslim and non-Muslim alike: “In another publicized case [in Kent, Washington], when all pork products were banned from a school’s menu, an angry parent, Tom Brabo, spoke with that school’s Director of Nutritional Services, who informed him that “he was well aware of the issues (and the slippery slope) with the changes to menu options due to Muslim religious beliefs, but he said lots of Muslims had complained and threatened the school by reporting them to the U.S. Department of Education.” Mr. Brabo was told that if the school system doesn’t “accommodate the Muslim dietary needs that their federal and state funding would be cut or pulled.”
Still another example is the attempt by CAIR and Muslim parents to have Islam introduced as part of the required curriculum in public schools. School administrators and teachers may monitor the faculty and textbooks for statements deemed anti-Muslim, with the faculty warned to watch what they say, and the textbook publishers reminded of the need to cover Islamic civilization in all its “splendor,” as in Islamic Spain, with all the bad parts left out. Some of these efforts have failed, some succeeded, but the attempts keep coming and will not stop. Of course when Islam is introduced into the school curriculum, Muslims want to make sure that their guidance as to what will be taught is taken, and they monitor both teachers and textbooks for the content they convey. Anything upsetting in Islam, such as the more than one hundred “jihad verses” of the Qur’an, will be left out. The goal is to introduce non-Muslim students to a sanitized and soothing version of Islam. No mention of little Aisha, the Khaybar Oasis, the Battle of the Trench, Asma bint Marwan, Abu Afak. But plenty about Qur’an 2:256 and 5:32, and the folkloristic-and-family aspects of Ramadan. Students are to be made comfortable with, accepting of, even entranced by the exoticism of, Muslim practices.
The “Wear A Hijab Day” is one such effort. Another is the attempt to make sure that the social studies textbooks do not dwell, ideally do not even mention, the ideology of Jihad – unless Jihad is defined as “an inner spiritual struggle.” The students, young, gullible, and uncritical, come out believing the propaganda to which they have been subjected, but now they consider themselves enlightened as to the “real nature of Islam.” We all know the absurdity of those charges — “Islamophobia” and “racism”– but they continue to have a potent effect in inhibiting criticism of Islam in the classroom; even the few teachers who may know something about Islam will have no desire to share it with the students, or to take issue with texts that have received CAIR’s sinister imprimatur. Why make trouble for themselves? Is it worth it? Who will back them up? The local politicians? The Obama Administration? And what about relying on disinterested scholarship? Should that student go to buy a book on Islam so as to “find out for himself” what it’s all about, the “authoritative” book most likely to be recommended by a store clerk will surely be a farrago of Islamic apologetics by — you guessed it – the omnipresent Karen Armstrong.
Municipal pools start setting aside hours for Muslim women only. At Ramadan this year, some high schools held their graduation parties late, so that Muslim students would not be troubled by any interference with the Ramadan fast. Then there are the changes made in medical services because of the Muslim husbands who insist that their wives can be seen only by female doctors (a demand that, of course, cannot always be met), or who demand to be present for all examinations of their womenfolk, or sometimes even demand to serve as the interpreter and interface between the Muslim female patient and Western medical personnel.
This can wreak havoc with a hospital’s schedule for medical personnel, but instead of simply but firmly explaining that Western hospitals will not change their ways given the burden such changes impose, great attempts are made to satisfy Muslim needs as to segregation by sex. Giving in to these demands is to replace Western views of the relationship of women to men with the Muslim view. And it need not be the result of a specific request. It is enough for officials to know that such requests have somewhere been made, to anticipate trouble and head it off by proleptically yielding to a Muslim demand that has not yet been made and is merely a plausible possibility, and sometimes when it is even less than that.
This is what constitutes “civilizational jihad” by Muslims: to push, to prod, to seek every weak spot where non-Muslims can be bullied or scared into changing their rules so as to meet perceived Muslim requirements, or to yield to demands for special treatment. Nor is this craven surrender limited to one state or one country. In Germany, cafes and schools have been banning pork products, including bratwurst sausages that, protesters rightly noted, are “intrinsic to German culture.” Nonetheless, an increasing number of public canteens, child daycare centers and schools have stopped serving sausages, bacon and ham over religious considerations. And so Muslim dietary laws are essentially made mandatory for everyone.
There is some fighting back:
Now members of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU party are fighting to keep pork on the menu, insisting the consumption of pork is part of German culture.
Daniel Günther, party representative, claimed that pork products were being taken off the menu in schools, nurseries and canteens across the country.
He said: “The protection of minorities – including for religious reasons – must not mean that the majority is overruled in their free decision by ill-conceived consideration.’
But whether or not pork products are brought back where they’ve been banned, isn’t it already a fantastic situation when pork products of all kinds have been banned in some German schools and prisons, in that country whose cuisine’s alpha and omega is pork? Note that in some cases, the banning of pork products came not in response to a Muslim demand, but was imposed in anticipation of such a demand being made: that is, non-Muslims are now yielding to what they think Muslims will want, or to what they assume must be done to “make Muslims feel comfortable” even if it limits the freedoms of the native non-Muslims. It is this craven surrender in advance to the “civilizational jihad” that most disturbs. Even a country like Sweden, that has long prided itself on gender equality, has now instituted women-only swimming hours. And many cities and towns all over the Western world have done the same, and for the same reasons: to enforce Muslim demands for segregation by sex, whatever the harm done to non-Muslims and their ideal of gender equality.
Another example of “civilizational jihad” is the attempt to offer nunc-pro-tunc backdating of Islam, as part of Western – and American – history. Consider the fabulous claims made that Christopher Columbus included Muslims in his crew. Not only is there not a shred of evidence to support this, but Columbus was a deeply devout Christian; he wanted to discover an alternate route for Europeans to the East precisely because Muslims had, with the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, managed to seal off entirely from Christian Europe the old route to the East. Columbus would never have taken on members of the enemy – Islamic – camp for his crew. But so effective has this Muslim rewriting of history been that, in 2004, a State Department employee put out a claim about Columbus’s Muslim crew members: in a press release entitled “Islamic Influence Runs Deep in American Culture,” Phyllis McIntosh of the State Department’s Washington File claimed: “Islamic influences may date back to the very beginning of American history. It is likely that Christopher Columbus, who discovered America in 1492, charted his way across the Atlantic Ocean with the help of an Arab navigator.”
There is no evidence for this, so why did McIntosh make this absurd claim that was surely authorized by higher-ups (even though “may date back” and “it is likely that” are weasel words providing deniability)? She, and her Department, either felt there was no harm in trying to curry favor with Muslims (history is silly putty to some; they shape it as they will), or were under pressure to rewrite history as part of a feelgood-outreach campaign to American Muslims. Whichever it was, the rewriting of history in such fashion can certainly be considered part of a “civilizational jihad.” And the same could be said for Barack Obama’s repeated never-ceases-to-amaze mantra of “Islam has always been part of America,” and for his attempt to suggest that the fact that Jefferson owned a Qur’an signified sympathy for Islam (all it did is signify his interest, as a curious and cultivated man, in finding out something about Islam), or claiming that he held an “Iftar” dinner for a Muslim envoy when all Jefferson did was move forward by a few hours a state dinner, when requested by that envoy, because for him – but not for Jefferson – it was Ramadan.
These offensive rewritings of history, these diminishments to our institutional cuisine, these careful censorings of our textbooks and course syllabi, these changes to medical services, are all different aspects of the steadfast many-pronged campaign of “civilizational jihad.” And those seven hijabbed women refusing to vacate the most in-demand table at a café, in direct violation of clearly-displayed rules about the need to do so during peak hours, and claiming that being subject to that general rule constituted “discrimination,” can be understood, as David Yerushalmi observed, as part of that “civilizational jihad.” Yerushalmi has taken the right approach, to be just as aggressive as the Muslim practitioners of lawfare, and to counter sue those seven women, in order to teach a lesson that will not be forgotten. But there is a need for hundreds of others, akin to David Yerushalmi, who are aggressive litigators, well-versed in American civil rights law and in the Sharia, and are determined defenders of a West that has been under stealthy assault but which is now giving signs, both here and in Europe, of shaking its locks and rousing itself to this hydra-headed Muslim threat. At long last, and not a moment too soon.
CLAIMS OF “ETHNIC CLEANSING” TO KEEP LAGUNA BEACH ALL WHITE Women say restaurant booted them because they’re Muslim, owner’s wife is Muslim
Published on May 6, 2016
After seven Muslim women filed a civil rights lawsuit against Urth Caffe, saying they were targeted and humiliated by management at the Laguna Beach location, the restaurant chain announced its intention to counter-sue, claiming the lawsuit is fraudulent.
The women, represented by three attorneys, discussed their grievances against Los Angeles-based Urth Caffe in a press conference Tuesday at the Plaza of Flags at the Santa Ana Civic Center.
“The women were singled out and targeted because they appeared to be Muslim,” said attorney Mohammad Tajsar. “Urth Caffe targeted these women as a way of cleansing their location of women that appeared to be Muslim to appease the Islamaphobia in a predominantly white Laguna Beach community.”
Shallom Berkman, owner of Urth Caffe, disputed the claims. His wife, Jilla, who is Muslim, was the one who advised management to call police after the women became rude toward restaurant staff, he said.
Urth Caffe announced Wednesday that it is being represented by the American Freedom Law Center, a firm that specializes in faith-based lawsuits.
“Urth Caffe did not discriminate against the women who have filed this fraudulent lawsuit,” said David Yerushalmi, co-founder and senior counsel for the center. “The lead plaintiff (Sara Farsakh) in the frivolous lawsuit is … a college-age activist for Palestinian causes. We intend to sue Farsakh and her co-conspirators for trespass and to seek damages.”
Yerushalmi said he will file a counter-complaint quickly.
I am completely appalled by the racist and Islamophobic treatment some friends and I were subjected to by staff at Urth Caffé in Laguna Beach last night. What began as a night out with some friends ended as a painful and embarrassing reminder of what it is like to be visibly Muslim—even in liberal California. By visibly Muslim, I mean women who wear the hijab, or headscarf.
We arrived at Urth Caffe and placed our order at about 7:15 pm. We found some empty seats and waited for dinner to be served. About 20 or 30 minutes later our food arrived. After dinner some of us decided to order dessert and coffee. They got up to place their orders and then waited for their food to arrive. Similar to everyone else at the cafe, we were just talking and having a good time catching up with each other.
At about 8:00 pm, an employee, Tino, came to our table and told us that we needed to leave the restaurant within the next ten minutes. Tino explained that they were anticipating a busy evening and needed to clear tables and that per their policy anyone that had been there for over 45 minutes was required to share or give up their table to other customers.
At that time at least a third of the seats in the cafe were vacant. The line to place an order was short. I’ve been to Urth Caffe before at much busier times and have stayed well over 45 minutes without ever being told to leave.
We told Tino that our orders had just arrived and that we couldn’t reasonably finish and leave within 10 minutes. He said it didn’t matter and we had to leave.
We asked Tino if he had asked any other parties to hurry up and leave. He replied that he was instructing anyone that had been there for over 45 minutes. The party on the table next to us (a group of white women) overheard our conversation and were shocked. They told us they had been sitting far longer than we had but had never been told to prepare to leave.
The policy the employee was referring to was printed and placed on a placard on each table (see the picture below). It reads:
“During our busy rush times, if you have already been at a table for 45 minutes or longer, please share or give your table to someone who is waiting. If tables are available, you are certainly welcome to enjoy Urth for as long as you desire.”
We pointed out to Tino that according to the policy, so long as there are tables available we could remain for as long as we wished. We also pointed out that, just within our vicinity there were a number of empty tables (see the video below).
Tino simply ignored our responses and again insisted we had 10 minutes to leave or he would call the police to escort us out. We tried talking to multiple staff members to understand why we were being asked to leave and how it was in compliance with the policies stated on the tables. None of the staff could give us a clear answer, nor did they themselves seem to understand why we had been asked to leave.
I asked a different staff member for copies of our receipts and for the owner’s contact information. She replied saying that the owner was aware of the situation. I asked her if the owner was aware that some of us had just ordered moments before and barely received our order when we were told to leave, and that there were many tables throughout the restaurant completely empty. And when I asked why we were told to leave when we weren’t breaking any policy, she simply said we can ask anyone to leave, and if you don’t want to come back that’s completely fine.
A security guard approached us and said he just had to follow what management told him to do. He also added that he had never been asked to enforce this policy when tables were available and understood why we found it to be absurd. At all times, the staff was rude, disrespectful and demeaning towards us.
Within moments the police were called. We explained to them what had happened and that we had done nothing wrong. They agreed that according to the policy stated on the table we weren’t breaking any policy but simply said that the restaurant, rightly or wrongly, had a right to refuse service to anyone.
I truly believe that because I was sitting with visibly Muslim women, we were singled out when we were asked to leave. I can’t even begin to express the feelings of embarrassment and humiliation as police officers were called to escort out a group of Muslim women from a restaurant. Shame on you Urth Caffe for your disgusting and racist treatment of paying customers. _______________________________________________________
Congressman Brat: We Are In A Culture War With Islam
http://undergroundworldnews.com Gov. David Ige is signing a bill that makes the state the first to enter gun owners into an FBI database that will automatically notify police if an island resident is arrested anywhere else in the country.
Ige said in a statement today the legislation is about community safety and responsible gun ownership. He says it will help law enforcement agencies protect Hawaii residents and visitors.
“This is about our community’s safety and responsible gun ownership. This system will better enable our law enforcement agencies to ensure the security of all Hawaii residents and visitors to our islands,” argued Hawaii Governor David Ige as he signed SB 2954. The legislation authorizes county police departments in Hawaii to enroll firearms applicants and individuals registering their firearms, in a criminal record monitoring service.
The system, known as “Rap Back,” is a service of the FBI that provides criminal record monitoring for authorized government agencies such as law enforcement. According to the Star-Advertiser, the bill “makes the state the first to enter gun owners into an FBI database that will automatically notify police if an island resident is arrested anywhere else in the country.”
This illustrates vividly what “gun control” laws are all about. They are not so much about controlling guns as controlling “applicants” and “individuals” who register their firearms.
According to a press release issued by Governor Ige’s office, the new legislation will allow county police departments to determine whether firearms owners will be allowed to keep their guns.
In other words, the gun owners’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms can be revoked, not through a judicial proceeding with constitutional due process, but at the discretion of law-enforcement agencies. The governor’s office argues that it is all legal, because, “This bill has undergone a rigorous legal review process by our Attorney General’s office and we have determined that it is our responsibility to approve this measure for the sake of our children and families.” So the AG has replaced due process in Hawaii?
Hawaii is the first state to take such an action — placing its own residents in a federal criminal record database even if they have not yet committed any crime — and monitoring them for possible wrongdoing anywhere in the country.
Previously, the use of the database was limited to monitoring possible criminal activities by individuals already under investigation, or people in positions of trust, such as school teachers and daycare workers.
Amy Hunter, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislation Action, declared, “As you can imagine, the NRA finds this one of the most extreme bills we’ve ever seen.”
Even visitors from other states to the popular tourist destination will find themselves added to the database. Any individual carrying a gun into Hawaii will be required to register, and will be added to the “Rap Back” list. No provision exists for them to be removed from that list.
The author of the bill, Democrat State Senator Will Espero, argued that it was “common sense legislation that does not hurt anyone.” He said the bill “doesn’t even say your gun will automatically be taken away; it just means local police will be notified.”
The law also allows the Hawaii Criminal Justice Data Center to access firearms registration data.
Governor Ige has also signed two other gun control bills. HB 625 states that harassment by stalking and sexual assault are among the offenses that disqualify a person from owning, possessing, or controlling any firearm or ammunition.
HB 2632 is even more onerous. It will require that gun owners surrender their firearms and ammunition to the chief of police if they have been disqualified from owning a firearm and ammunition after a diagnosis of significant behavioral, emotional, or mental disorder, or emergency or involuntary hospitalization in a psychiatric facility. This measure will actually allow the chief of police to seize the firearms and ammunition of all disqualified gun owners who do not surrender their weapons after receiving a written notice.
HB 2632 raises some serious issues. If a physician notifies the chief of police that someone is emotionally disturbed, and the gun owner is given a written notice by the chief of police, no due process is required before a person’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is suspended. After all, under due process of law, this person would only have been accused of being emotionally disturbed. What is the legal standard of proof?
Additionally, the person does not even have to have been formally charged with having a committed a crime before his or her constitutional rights are infringed. Where is the check on an abuse of this power by the chief of police?
While in the Heller case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment was designed to protect the right of an individualto keep and bear arms, and was not simply connected to active service in a state militia or national guard, this law demonstrates that enemies of the Constitution are prepared to do what they can to restrict that right. In the near term, it is not likely that the Congress or a state legislature will attempt to confiscate all firearms. But we can expect more laws of this nature, which are intended to make it increasingly difficult for an individual to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.
It would be comparable to saying one has the right to petition the government, but only if the legislature permits it: clearly an absurdity.
As for more laws on the horizon, expected Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton favors a law that will allow gun manufacturers to be sued if one of the guns they have manufactured is used in the commission of a crime. The practical effect would be to drive gun manufacturers out of business. After all, if someone could sue General Motors every time a Chevrolet Impala was involved in a crime, automobile manufacturing would come to a halt. If someone used a baseball bat to murder someone, could the company that made that bat be sued? That would certainly lead to difficulty in playing a baseball game!
The end result of such a law, allowing lawsuits against gun manufacturers if one of their guns is used in a crime, would be the termination of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. After all, even if citizens were “allowed” to keep their firearms, no more bullets would be manufactured for civilian use. And a firearm without ammunition would be as useless as an automobile without an engine. Perhaps a gun owner could confront a burglar with an empty gun.
Unless, of course, a police chief in Honolulu had already taken the gun away, using his “discretion.”
“On Monday the Supreme Court handed down a ruling, 6-2, that people convicted of domestic abuse can lose their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. The only justice who even seemed to care about that was Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented. Sonia Sotomayor also dissented, for different reasons.”
“In a 6-2 opinion issued today, the U.S. Supreme Court extended a federal statute which bans firearm possession by any person convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” to cover those individuals who have “misdemeanor assault convictions for reckless (as contrasted to knowing or intentional) conduct.”” ___________________________________________________
Second Amendment Rights Are Only For The Chosen Few Elite
The Obama administration’s immigration policies continue to be the subject of controversy, as documents reveal that it is not only illegal immigrants who have been able to circumvent immigration requirements, but legal ones as well. What’s worse, changes to the process were made without congressional approval or intervention.
In a column for Breitbart News, former Congressman Tom Tancredo writes, “Under the Obama administration’s expansive interpretation of executive authority, legal immigrants seeking citizenship through the nation’s naturalization process are now exempt from a key part of the Oath of Allegiance.”
That provision is the pledge to “bear arms on behalf of the United States” and “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States.”
The modification, which the Obama administration is calling a clarification of the requirements, allows immigrants to get an exemption to the oath to bear arms or perform noncombat service,
based on a “conscientious objection.The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) website announced the changes last year:
Reciting the Oath is part of the naturalization process. Candidates for citizenship normally declare that they will ‘bear arms on behalf of the United States’ and ‘perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States’ when required by the law.
The International Business Times explains that a candidate
• May be eligible for modifications based on religious training and belief, or conscientious objection arising from a deeply held moral or ethical code.
• Is not required to belong to a specific church or religion, follow a particular theology or belief, or to have had religious training in order to qualify.
• May submit, but is not required to provide, an attestation from a religious or other type of organization, as well as other evidence to establish eligibility.
But this is clearly a change in the law — done administratively. The law expressly states that exemptions will only be given based upon belief in a Supreme Being and not for personal objections:
The term “religious training and belief” as used in this section shall mean an individual’s belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code.
Are such changes an improvement in U.S. immigration law? Or do they provide a huge legal loophole facilitating a path to citizenship by immigrants who express no loyalty to the United States and do not assimilate? Readers could certainly debate this question. But there is no question that under the U.S. Constitution, Congress, not the president, makes law, and the Obama administration is making law, not clarifying the law, which is against the law.
Moreover, it is indeed ironic that while naturalized citizens are now allowed to raise religious or conscientious objections to taking up arms for the United States, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services determined last week that two Catholic universities could not raise conscientious objections to providing health insurance that includes elective abortions.
Disagreeing with the change to the oath, Tancredo notes,
The pledge to help defend America was good enough for the 6.6 million immigrants naturalized since 2005 and good enough for the over 15 million naturalized since 1980, but Obama’s appointees at the USCIS think that is too much to ask of the 18.7 million estimated legal immigrants eligible today for eventual naturalization or the 750,000 who will be naturalized in the coming year.
Appearing on Breitbart News Sunday with host Stephen Bannon, Tancredo explained that he believed the change was made to the oath in order to encourage immigrants from Muslim countries to become naturalized, which makes some sense since Islam does not forbid participating in warfare but many Muslims might be personally opposed to aiding the U.S. armed forces: “This is a decision they made themselves because as the Muslim immigration population grows into this country, this may be something that would reduce the numbers, you know, if people actually had to do that,” Tancredo told Bannon.
And while the change to the oath was made last year, without any fanfare and without approval from Congress, Tancredo contends that Congress should since have taken action to reverse the changes. In his Breitbart News, he asked:
Why doesn’t Congress change the law and take control of the Oath of Allegiance? So far, there is no indication that the Republican leadership will do so.
But the law is already very specific, so Congress wouldn’t need to “change the law,” merely see to its enforcement; it is now just being ignored. Some members of Congress have indeed noted the change and publicly criticized it. In a statement on his official website, for example, Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) stated, “All citizens of the United States — native or naturalized — should have that same sense of patriotism and duty. The Obama Administration’s announced change to the Oath of Allegiance undermines what it means to be a citizen of the United States.”
Tancredo asserts that since it has been one year since the change was implemented and nothing has been done to correct it, this is yet another example of an impotent Congress.
Robert Spencer: Should we censor ourselves to avoid offending Muslims?
Published on Jun 29, 2016
Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer discusses recent recommendations by David Petraeus and Larry Summers that Americans should censor themselves in order to avoid offending Muslims, and explains why these suggestions are wrongheaded and dangerous for free societies.
Reporter Chases Gen. David Petraeus Through The Streets of Dresden, Germany: Bilderberg 2016
Published on Jun 11, 2016
http://www.infowars.com/video-reporte… David Petraeus goes out for a jog and Infowars Reporter Rob Dew asks him if he had to resign over an email scandal isn’t it fair that Hillary Clinton resign from the Democratic Party for doing essentially the same thing.
You may not be getting prepared for a major national disaster, but the government sure is. I have been informed that in recent months numerous emergency food companies have been contacted by the government, and they have been told that their inventories could potentially be seized in the event of a significant emergency. And as you will see below, the government recently participated in an exercise that simulated “an unprecedented global food crisis lasting as long as a decade”. In addition, NPR has just revealed details about the very secretive Strategic National Stockpile program that is storing billions of dollars worth of medical supplies in warehouses around the nation. This is a program that most Americans do not even know exists. On top of everything else, strange reports of military vehicles with UN markings have been coming in from all over the nation. So what in the world is the government up to? Why are they working so feverishly hard to get prepared?
Let’s begin our discussion with the Strategic National Stockpile. According to NPR, there are at least six of these warehouses at various locations around the country, and they are holding at least seven billion dollars worth of supplies…
Thousands of lives might someday depend on this stockpile, which holds all kinds of medical supplies that the officials would need in the wake of a terrorist attack with a chemical, biological or nuclear weapon.
The location of these warehouses is secret. How many there are is secret. (Although a former government official recently said at a public meeting that there are six.) And exactly what’s in them is secret.
“If everybody knows exactly what we have, then you know exactly what you can do to us that we can’t fix,” says Burel. “And we just don’t want that to happen.”
What he will reveal is how much the stockpile is worth: “We currently value the inventory at a little over $7 billion.“
The NPR report indicates that most of the supplies are medical in nature, and this includes “millions of doses of vaccines“.
Could it be possible that the government is anticipating a major pandemic in our near future?
As I mentioned above, the government has also been preparing for a major food crisis. The following comes from Vice…
The US national security industry is planning for the impact of an unprecedented global food crisis lasting as long as a decade, according to reports by a government contractor.
The studies published by CNA Corporation in December 2015, unreported until now, describe a detailed simulation of a protracted global food crisis from 2020 to 2030.
The simulation, titled ‘Food Chain Reaction’, was a desktop gaming exercise involving the participation of 65 officials from the US, Europe, Africa, India, Brazil, and key multilateral and intergovernmental institutions.
So could we actually see such a major food crisis during the years ahead?
Well, according to Reuters global demand for food has already been surging, and one new report indicates that it won’t be too long before we could see “a doubling of food prices”…
Swelling populations and demand for food combined with ever scarcer water and land resources could lead to a doubling of food prices and trigger civil unrest in some developing countries, a new report says.
Demand for food with a higher environmental impact, such as meat, has surged as emerging countries like China and India grow in size and in wealth, said Martin Halle, policy analyst at Global Footprint Network (GFN).
“A few things are very clear: the demand for food is going up tremendously because of population growth,” he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
Of course it is the job of the government to prepare for various apocalyptic scenarios. If government officials weren’t planning for how our nation would make it through a major disaster, they wouldn’t be doing their jobs.
But what are we to make of all of the strange sightings of UN vehicles all over America recently?
In particular, a series of photos of white UN military vehicles traveling through Virginia that were posted on Facebook by Jeff Stern has popped up in news stories worldwide.
Is all of this activity unusual? If so, should we be alarmed by it? Brandon Turbeville apparently thinks so…
For the past day or so, military convoys have been witnessed traveling both North and South, with lines of equipment ranging from Humvees, troop transport trucks, and tankers to military personnel following the convoy in civilian vehicles. Interestingly enough, many of the soldiers traveling in the convoy were seen wearing helmets, an unusual procedure for a simple convoy. In addition, the convoys were carrying what appeared to be construction equipment.
Although the troop movement may indeed have been a routine convoy and the United Nations vehicles may also have been a routine shipment from a manufacturing facility or even a simple and benign transport, the controversy brewing in the United States elections and the potential for civil unrest, the dangers of economic collapse, and the potential conflict with Russia are all potentials for use of United Nations “peace keepers” inside the United States as many have posited in the past as well as for some type of “martial law” scenario.
The armored UN vehicles that were spotted being transported through Virginia are quite impressive. Here is some info on them from the Daily Mail…
The VX weighs in at 16,600lbs.
Seating for two plus eight crew.
Windows do not roll down, instead there are locked gun ports on the vehicle that can be opened to shoot bullets out or accept documents in and are even big enough to pass through a can of soda.
In addition, these heavily armored vehicles are designed to withstand a gas attack and to be impervious to small arms fire…
Internal fans can keep bad air out, such as in the event of a gas attack, or bring fresh air in when reversed.
PA system to speak to the outside world.
Remote-controlled spotlights on the roof and pairs of red and blue strobe lights are mounted to each four sides of the vehicle.
Every window on the vehicle is filled with ballistic glass that’ll shed small arms fire like they’re pebbles and even resist a close-range shot from a high-powered rifle.
Each vehicle has nine gun ports, and so when they are fully manned they can lay down a very impressive field of fire.
At the end of the day, I don’t know what all of this means.
Everything that I just detailed could just be part of normal government activity that is simply receiving some unusual attention right now.
Or of course it could also be possible that the government is getting prepared for something really big, but even if they were, they would not tell us in advance anyway.
Personally, I am convinced that this period of time leading up to the election will be highly chaotic in America, and so my eyebrows definitely perked up when I came across these various news stories.
But ultimately the significance of all of this will be determined by what happens during the weeks and months to come. Without a doubt things have become much more serious in this nation lately, and I have a feeling that they are about to get a whole lot more serious…
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The incumbent president hit out at Donald Trump in an interview released Tuesday, saying that Trump cannot legitimately speak for the public, or against globalism because he “embodies global elites.”
Obama made the comments during an exchange with a NPR reporter.
When asked if there is a correlation between the rejection of globalism in Britain following the vote to leave the EU and the rejection of the political establishment in the US, a clearly frustrated Obama hit out at Trump.
“Mr. Trump embodies global elites and has taken full advantage of it his entire life,” Obama said while sardonically chuckling to himself.
“So, he’s hardly a spokesperson — a legitimate spokesperson — for a populist surge from working class people on either side of the Atlantic.”
Obama went on to say that some of the concerns regarding a loss of national identity and control, particularly where immigration is concerned are shared by people in Britain and the US.
However, he then blamed “xenophobia that’s flashing up not just in Great Britain but throughout Europe which has some parallels with what Mr Trump has been trying to stir up here.”
“The ability to tap into a fear that people may have about losing control, and to offer some sort of vague nostalgic feelings about how we’ll ‘make Britain great again’ or ‘make America great again’, and the subtext for that is somehow that a bunch of foreigners and funny looking people are coming in and changing the basic character of the nation – I think that some of that is out there.” Obama said.
Obama added that the declarations of globalism collapsing are premature.
“There’s been a little bit of hysteria post-Brexit vote, as if somehow NATO’s gone, the trans-Atlantic alliance is dissolving, and every country is rushing off to its own corner,” he said. “That’s not what’s happening.”
Over recent days, Trump has taken aim at globalism as a key part of his appearances. In his most recent high profile speech, in speaking about the economy, Trump stated “we got here because we switched from a policy of Americanism, focusing on what’s good for America’s middle class, to a policy of globalism — focusing on how to make money for large corporations who can move their wealth and workers to foreign countries, all to the detriment of the American worker and the American economy itself.”
In another appearance last week, Trump said “This is a wave of globalism that wipes out our middle class and our jobs along with it.”
Today Trump is scheduled to make a speech focused on “Declaring American Economic Independence” at an industrial plant in Pennsylvania’s Rust Belt region.
Infowars Reporters Adan Salazar, Jakari Jackson, and Michael Zimmermann were shooting reports at the Texas / Mexico border when they came across a large group of illegal immigrants that had crossed the border just minutes before.
Border Patrol Agent: Tuberculosis, Scabies Coming Over ‘Pretty Regularly’
Published on Jun 27, 2016
US Border Patrol Agent and Vice President of the National Border Patrol Council Local Chapter 3307, Chris Cabrera, talks border security and infectious diseases.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
WASHINGTON — Concerns are being raised as Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has been silent about Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down a Texas abortion law as being an “undue burden on abortion access.”
As previously reported, the court issued its 5-3 decision on Monday, stating that the Texas regulations, which require abortionists to have admitting privileges at a local hospital and keep their facilities up to the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers, are unconstitutional.
“We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the majority. “Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a pre-viability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the federal Constitution.”
Following the issuance of the ruling, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton praised the decision as being a victory for abortion advocates.
“SCOTUS’s decision is a victory for women in Texas and across America. Safe abortion should be a right—not just on paper, but in reality,” she Tweeted.
Clinton followed with, “This fight isn’t over: The next president has to protect women’s health. Women won’t be ‘punished’ for exercising their basic rights.”
But Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump posted about himself around the same time, and issued no further statements on Twitter on Monday.
“@CNN is all negative when it comes to me. I don’t watch it anymore,” he wrote.
His silence on the matter caused some to be concerned, since Americans who support Trump have looked to him to help overturn Roe v. Wade.
“The man who is supposed to represent the values of the Republican Party as their nominee, Donald Trump, should have plenty to say on today’s abortion ruling. It is, after all, a bigger sign that he is supposedly the cure-all to a liberal Supreme Court. But, alas, Donald Trump has no opinion on today’s ruling,” wrote Joe Cunningham of RedState.
“Dubbed a recent convert to Christianity by evangelical leaders, Trump has worked to build in-roads into the Christian community. They should, in turn, expect him to condemn the ruling,” he said. “After all, it took mere minutes for Hillary Clinton to praise the killing of the innocent as a Constitutional right everyone should have access to, and Trump is as prolific on social media as they come. Surely, he should have something to say. But he doesn’t.”
While Trump publicly remained silent on the ruling, his evangelical advisory board issued a statement touting Trump as the pro-life choice for Americans. The board includes Texas prosperity preacher Kenneth Copeland, David Jeremiah of Shadow Mountain Community Church in California, Paula White of New Destiny Christian Center in Florida, Jentezen Franklin of Free Chapel in Georgia, James Robison of the Texas-based LIFE Outreach International and Tim Clinton of the Virginia-based American Association of Christian Counselors.
“In an unprecedented meeting last week with American Christian leaders, Donald J. Trump promised to only appoint pro-life justices,” the statement read. “We commend him and pray that the tragedy of today’s ruling will not be repeated in subsequent administrations.”
As previously reported, in April, Trump told reporters in regard to abortion that he believes that “at this moment, the laws are set, and I think we have to leave it that way.”
“Well, first of all, I would’ve preferred states’ rights,” he told CBS News’ John Dickerson. “I think it would’ve been better if it were up to the states. But right now, the laws are set. And that’s the way the laws are.”
“But do you have a feeling on how they should change?” Dickerson asked. “There are a lot of laws you wan to change. You’ve talked about them—everything from libel to abortion. Anything you’d want to change on abortion?”
“At this moment, the laws are set. And I think we have to leave it that way,” Trump replied.
“Do you think it’s murder—abortion?” Dickerson then inquired.
“I have my opinions on it, but I’d rather not comment on it,” Trump replied.
“You said you were very pro-life,” Dickerson stated. “Pro-life means that abortion is murder.”
“I mean, I do have my opinions on it,” Trump replied. “I just don’t think it’s an appropriate forum.”
His campaign later released a statement asserting that what Trump really meant was that abortion laws need to stay the same until he is elected.
“Mr. Trump gave an accurate account of the law as it is today and made clear it must stay that way now—until he is president,” spokesperson Hope Hicks told reporters. “Then he will change the law through his judicial appointments and allow the states to protect the unborn.”
“The Republican platform, every four years, has a provision that states that the right of the unborn child shall not be infringed. And it makes no exceptions for rape, for incest, for the life of the mother. Would you want to change the Republican platform to include the exceptions that you have?” asked Savannah Guthrie on NBC’s “Today” show in April.
“Yes, I would,” Trump replied. “Yes, I would. Absolutely. For the three exceptions, I would.”
“Would you have an exception for the health of the mother?” Guthrie inquired.
“I would leave it for the life of the mother,” Trump responded, “but I would absolutely have the three exceptions.”
The current Republican platform reads in part, “Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”
Supreme Arrogance: Justice Alito Breaks Down the Illegal Abortion Decision
Published on Jun 27, 2016
Regardless of your opinion on abortion, today’s Supreme Court decision should make you as angry as Justice Alito.
Abortion Decision Exposes Constitutional Crisis
Published on Jun 28, 2016
It’s a waste of time to spend “decades, years, months...or even seconds” studying the Constitution. So says a law professor & Federal Appeals Circuit Court Judge. While he swore to uphold the law, he believes the court should “create a common law of constitutional law, based on current concerns, not what those 18th century guys were worrying about.” This is the philosophy of the current Supreme Court as evidenced by recent decisions including today’s decision on abortion law in Texas. A Reagan-appointed judge violated his oath to the Constitution and became the deciding vote.
QUOTES: "Alito was so upset that he read a summary of his dissent from the bench. Thomas wrote a fiery dissent of his own, and he and Chief Justice John Roberts also signed on to Alito's dissent.
In that opinion, Alito slammed the majority, claiming it "simply disregards basic rules that apply in all other cases." He asserted, "The Court's patent refusal to apply well-established law in a neutral way is indefensible and will undermine public confidence in the Court as a fair and neutral arbiter."
He ended his dissent with this put-down: "When we decide cases on particularly controversial issues, we should take special care to apply settled procedural rules in a neutral manner. The Court has not done that here."
While reading the summary of the dissent, Alito groused, "If at first you don’t succeed, sue, sue again." He said that in any other case, the court would have stuck to procedural rules, but "this is an abortion case, so the regular rules don't apply." As Alito spoke, Justice Elena Kagan, a member of the majority who was sitting next to him, kept rubbing her forehead.
Thomas offered a more sweeping condemnation. In his own dissent—which he did not read from the bench—he griped, "The Court should abandon the pretense that anything other than policy preferences underlies its balancing of constitutional rights and interests in any given case." Thomas repeatedly hammered the justices in the majority for caring more about outcomes than the law itself. "As the Court applies whatever standard it likes to any given case," he huffed, "nothing but empty words separates our constitutional decisions from judicial fiat.""
MASS DECEPTION PROVOKES GOD’S WRATH & JUDGEMENT NEW YORK CITY GAY PRIDE PARADE: A POLITICAL PROPAGANDA SPECTACLE SHOWCASING VICTIMIZATION, PERVERSION, GUN CONTROL & GAY PROPONENTS CAPITALIZES ON ORLANDO JIHADIST’S MURDERS & STONEWALL INN REVISIONIST HISTORY
Mayor Bill de Blasio and the Rev. Al Sharpton, left, march in the 46th annual New York City Pride March on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan on Sunday, June 26, 2016. This year’s Pride parade pays tribute to the 49 killed in the shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, two weeks ago on June 12.
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, with girlfriend Sandra Lee, left,
and daughter Michaela Kennedy Cuomo
HILLARY CLINTON WITH CUOMO & SHARPTON
AGAINST GUNS, BUT NOT MUSLIM JIHADISTS
AGAINST REPUBLICANS, BUT NOT MUSLIM JIHADISTS
A REGISTERED DEMOCRAT, OMAR MATEEN, MASSACRED 49 AT PULSE NIGHT CLUB
Barbara Poma, center, the owner of Orlando’s Pulse nightclub, rides on a float during the 2016 New York City Pride March on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan on Sunday, June 26, 2016.
PULSE NIGHT CLUB OWNER WAS IN THE LEAD FLOAT AT THE PARADE
BELOW: BARBARA POMA (RIGHT) WITH RON LEGLER (LEFT)
QUOTES: “In addition Pulse, Poma is involved with several other establishments as well. Wildside Bar & Grille restaurants, as well as Pacino’s Italian Ristorante are listed on herLinked In pageas being owned by her company RB Management. Prior to being involved in the nightclub scene, Poma worked as a teacher.”
“Ron Legler has had his hand in several projects in his career. Legler is the President at the Hippodrome Theatre at the France-Merrick Performing Arts Center and President for the France-Merrick Performing Arts Center at Broadway Across America.”
“People dressed in drag saw the march as especially important this year because gay mecca Stonewall Inn was declared a national monument. The march, started in Tompkins Square Park, and ended at the Stonewall Inn.The owner of Pulse, Barbara Poma, and the club’s entertainment manager, Neema Bahrami, were honored guests at the rally. “I’m here today because I want you to know that Orlando and the world’s gay community are strong and united,” said Ms Poma. “We will not allow evil to prevail.” Marchers wore orange bandanas as they enter the event to show solidarity with the Pulse victims and their families and the movement to end gun violence. There was a moment of silence as the names of all 49 victims flashed on a screen.”
GRIEF BUT NOT REPENTANCE FOR FACILITATING & ENABLING SINFUL PERVERSION AT PULSE;
CREATED “A SAFE HAVEN”
FOR THE GAY COMMUNITY TO HOOK UP
HONORING THE DEAD FROM ORLANDO SHOOTING AT HUDSON RIVER PARK, NYC POMA READ A LETTER:
“OUR CLUB ARE OUR CHURCHES, OUR TEMPLES, OUR PLACES OF CONGREGATION & CELEBRATION. INSTEAD OF PASTORS & PREACHERS, WE HAVE DRAG QUEENS & KINGS. HOLY COMMUNION IS THE __WHISKEY. THE SPIRIT COURSES THROUGH THE VEINS OF EVERYONE DANCING. AND JUST LIKE A CHURCH, “PULSE” HAS A COMMUNITY. THIS IS WHERE OUR BABY TIKES & DIKES COME TO EVOLVE INTO ANY VERSION OF QUEER THEY WANT TO BE.”
AFTER READING THE LIST OF THE DEAD, POMA & BAHRAMI SPEAK TO CROWD
Democratic operatives responsible for creating their party’s platform this year have unanimously adopted a provision calling for the Department of Justice to investigate companies who disagree with Democrats on global warming science.
A panel of Democrats voted Friday to approve a final draft of the party’s platform to promote “Progressive Democratic Values,” which apparently includes investigating energy companies who “misled” shareholders about global warming.
“Another joint proposal calling on the Department of Justice to investigate alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change was also adopted by unanimous consent,” according to the Democratic National Convention’s website.
The drafting committee, led by DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, has decided to back ongoing investigations by mostly Democratic state attorneys general into Exxon Mobil’s stance on global warming.
Currently, AGs from California, Massachusetts, New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands have launched investigations of Exxon, and at least two AGs have demanded records on conservative think tanks and scientists skeptical of global warming. Such targeting has only fueled calls that these investigations are an attack on free speech.
New York AG Eric Schneiderman was the first to launch an investigation into Exxon, based on reporting from eco-left wing reporters at Inside Climate News and Columbia University. Schneiderman hosted a conference in March with other AGs to announce more investigations into Exxon.
Republican lawmakers and AGs have pushed back, calling the investigations into Exxon and think tanks an assault on free speech.
Some Republican AGs recently warned their liberal counterparts that if skeptics can be investigated for misrepresenting global warming, alarmists can be as well.
“If it is possible to minimize the risks of climate change, then the same goes for exaggeration,” Republican AGs wrote. “If minimization is fraud, exaggeration is fraud.”
Democrats have largely scoffed at free speech arguments, saying Exxon and others were committing fraud by disagreeing with the Obama administration over the severity of global warming and the effects of potential climate policies.
“As Democrats, we believe that our country’s greatest strength is its people, and we’re committed to the values of inclusion and opportunity for all,” Wasserman Schultz said in a statement. “Our candidates ran strong campaigns that addressed the priorities of the American people, and I am proud to say that the drafting process has reflected our commitment as a party to elevating their voices.”
The draft party platform now needs approval from the full platform committee in Orlando in July. That document will then need approval at the Democratic National Convention later that month.
The Democratic platform didn’t just embrace prosecuting skeptics, it also approved a provision to get rid of fossil fuels by 2050.
“Moving beyond the ‘all of the above’ energy approach in the 2012 platform, the 2016 platform draft re-frames the urgency of climate change as a central challenge of our time, already impacting American communities and calling for generating 50 percent clean electricity within the next ten years,” reads the platform summary.
“The Committee unanimously adopted a joint proposal from Sanders and Clinton representatives to commit to making America run entirely on clean energy by mid-century, and supporting the ambitious goals put forward by President Obama and the Paris climate agreement,” according to the platform.
The Church of the Nazarene seems to be heading towards full acceptance of homosexuality. With its compromising at the university and seminary levels, as well as in local churches and districts, the evidence is there. The desire to “be relevant”, or the need for being viewed as “kind” and “tolerant” Christians, is too strong apparently for the leadership in the church today. Acceptance of homosexuality in the Church of the Nazarene is coming, and is just a matter of when, not if. Perhaps it will take another five or 10 years, or perhaps it will happen at the next General Assembly in 2017
The groundwork for this has been laid down for a long time. It can all be traced to the persistent and obsessive put-down of the belief of Holy Scripture as the inerrant and infallible word of God. Ask most leaders in the Nazarene church today, and they will tell you that they do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. Some have been denied ordination for believing such a thing. That is how all the heresies have started, when “men of god” ask the same question that Satan asked in the Garden of Eden: “Hath God really said.” This is seen within the emergent church movement, which has been embraced by Nazarenes throughout the denomination. It is a movement that has total disdain for the Bible’s authority and inerrancy.
Just in the last seven years or so we have many examples of how the Church of the Nazarene is bringing the world into the church. We find that there is an attraction to the idea of “welcoming” or “affirming” the LGBT radicals who believe that homosexuality is not a sin. Nazarene leaders want to get along with everyone, and show their “love” and “compassion” towards homosexuals. The focus on “understanding” homosexuality (a sin) is far and above any focus on any other particular sin. It is an obsession, perhaps an attempt to be “relevant” as a church.
Just a few of many examples:
Recently, at Oklahoma City Church of the Nazarene in February (the senior pastor is Jon Middendorf), an event was hosted called “With All Due Respect: Hospitality & the LGBT Community.” The panel included a professor, Dr. Timothy Crutcher, from Southern Nazarene University; a mother of a homosexual child; a theology major who labeled herself as an intersex person; and Andy McGee, a Nazarene pastor and executive director of Love Wins: LGBT in Kansas City. The absurdity of all this can be seen when you read the article about this event. (http://www.gayly.com/love-wins-conservative-church-shows-respect-lgbt-community. This is an example of meaningless and endless talk about something that is clear as day in Scripture. When the LGBT community heaps praise on a Nazarene church for what they did, it cannot be good news for biblical Christians.
Adam Hamilton and Mike Slaughter are pastors in the United Methodist Church who believe that homosexuality and same sex marriage are okay. A few years ago, Hamilton proposed a radical change to the bylaws of the United Methodist Church. See a rebuttal to these two men by a concerned Methodist in this post: http://goodnewsmag.org/2014/06/an-open-letter-to-revs-adam-hamilton-and-michael-slaughter/
These men clearly promote a way of life which the Bible teaches is sinful, and are under fire in their own denomination for what they are advocating. Yet, at Nazarene Bible College, and at the Nazarene Theological Seminary as well, their material and videos are used in Bible classes for future pastors. Why does a holiness Bible college and the seminary allow the use of material by those who promote acceptance of homosexuality and same sex marriage?
An LGBT support group started at Eastern Nazarene College and approved by the college leadership.
A message preached to students at Eastern Nazarene College by the now former chaplain, Corey McPherson, in which he talked proudly of having worshiped together with the members at a “Christian” homosexual church. His message, which is transcripted on my blog, was a complete compromise to biblical Christianity, yet this message was apparently acceptable to the college president and other leaders in the church.
A radical LGBT group, SoulForce, was once again allowed to come onto the campus of Trevecca Nazarene University and “dialog” with administrators and students from the school. This was the second visit by this group to Trevecca, which is led by Dan Boone, who has also permitted a variety of unbiblical practices, such as contemplative mysticism, to continue at the school for years now.
Why is all this happening now?
A Storm Is Coming
(Lige Jeter)
As a lifelong Floridian, I am familiar with hurricanes, and know the basics on how to prepare for the danger it presents. Every resident that has lived in Florida for any length of time is familiar with what to expect. New residents who have never weathered a storm need to follow some simple common sense rules to avoid the obvious dangers connected with them. Each needs to assess their own situations in light of the forecast and act accordingly for the best interest of their family. Having prepared to survive (building upon the rock) increases your chances of survival. To do nothing (building upon the sand) guarantees failure.
Past experiences have taught those who forecast storms that certain atmospheric conditions, such as water temperature, prevailing winds, and landfall location, play a vital part in the likely destruction the threat represents to those in its path. As in any storm, promptly acknowledging its initial disturbance regardless how small is crucial. It is important to monitor its movement and its primary direction of travel. Monitoring future parameters surrounding the disturbance that contribute to it eventually becoming a hurricane is necessary. This same analogy applied to the Church facing an imminent Spiritual storm can protect its membership; or lack of can cause irreparable damage causing great loss.
There are several organized forces invading the Christian community. Groups like Soulforce, LGBT groups, and individuals such as Nazarene Ally have an unrelenting determination for acceptance, and to change the Church’s stand against homosexual and lesbian behavior including same sex marriage. They have won favor and support on about every front except the Church, as a whole, which appears to be their next big target to conquer. Even though the Church of the Nazarene recently made it clear on its Biblical standing regarding deviant behavior, it is not exempt from groups like these who are applying pressure targeting its leadership to change their position. Soulforce recently visited Trevecca Nazarene University for the second time, March 15, 2016. The article of their visit is found here: http://www.soulforce.org/#!Hollering-into-the-Well/cb7u/56e8721f0cf2bc133ba11645
An approach for social acceptance in the Church suggested by Nazarene Ally peddled under the banner, “We Can Do Better;” they play the numbers game, comparing the number of LGBT presumed in the world (2 – 4 percent) to the corresponding members inferred by definition in the COTN. By using the lower estimated percentile associated with the world, the COTN would have 48,000 LGBT members based upon 2.4 million memberships. This number could double by applying the higher estimated percentile of 4 percent. The intent of sequence was to weaken the perceived impact they would have on the Church if accepted. This small number would thereby reduce the threat of any implied compromise.
They hint that “A Perfect Storm” is about to take place suggesting a series of events could occur leading a pastor to perform a same sex marriage based upon a longtime childhood friendship. Using persuasive logic, they will go to any length to win support for their side. We are seeing this today in our ranks, the pressure is mounting to cave-in, but the Church cannot become a partner to this foolishness. The Church cannot afford to compromise its convictions or give in under any circumstance. The article is located here, Gay Nazarenes | Nazarene Ally
In 2Kings, God gives a warning not-to-be-taken lightly. The Church, as with any nation, if not careful can reach the moral point-of-no-return as warned in 2 Kings 19:3 “And they said to him, ‘Thus says Hezekiah: This day is a day of trouble, and rebuke, and blasphemy; for the children have come to birth, but there is no strength to bring them forth.” “For the children have come to the birth” represents the danger of perishing because the woman was so spent she had no strength to deliver the child.
Should our Church ever compromise its polity against wrongful behavior, we too will be as the woman and will have no strength or desire to deliver ourselves. The danger is the Church will become complacent in its new spiritual state and will not wish to return. Some Churches have already gone too far to turn back. For those who engage the LGBT lifestyle the Bible is clear to those who claim to be a Christian Homosexual or Christian Lesbian, or any other act of perversion is an oxymoron. Wicked men often think that which they suggest against revelation justify them in rejecting it.
Prepare for the storm in the next General Assembly 2017.
This reminds me of Left-fascist Nick Lowles’ Hope Not Hate petition to ban me from the UK, which gained an extraordinary number of signatures in a very short time, no doubt including many more people than had ever actually heard of my existence — and was never examined by parliamentary authorities. Clearly the European political and media elites are scrambling to maintain their hegemony amid increasing popular discontent with, among other things, their suicidal Muslim immigration policies. Even if they force what is already a shattered dhimmi Britain to remain in the EU, their hegemony is inexorably crumbling.
“Second referendum petition: At least 77,000 ‘fake’ signatures removed hours after inquiry launched,” by Luke Heighton, Telegraph, June 26, 2016 (thanks to Blazing Cat Fur):
Parliamentary authorities have moved swiftly to remove around 77,000 allegedly fake signatures from an online petition which calls for a re-run of the Brexit referendum.
It follows a formal inquiry launched less than three hours earlier, amid claims some of the more than three million signatures it has gained since Friday may be fraudulent.
A statement posted on the House of Commons’ petitions committee Twitter account on Sunday afternoon said: “We are investigating allegations of fraudulent use of the petitions site. Signatures found to be fraudulent will be removed”.
It came as the ‘EU Referendum Rules triggering a 2nd EU Referendum’ petition posted on the UK Government and Parliament Petitions website showed a suspicious number of signatures attributed to places outside the UK – in some cases more than their total population.
Some 39,411 residents of Vatican City, home to Pope Francis, appeared to have signed the petition by Sunday morning, despite the tiny city state having a total population of just 800.
In isolationist North Korea, one of the least internet-connected countries in the world, 23,778 people had apparently gone online to express their frustration at the UK’s decision to quit the EU.
Located 800 miles south east of the Falklands, and with a permanent population of zero, the South Atlantic British Overseas Territory of South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands was responsible for more than 3,000 signatures
That was some 300 more than those coming from the British Antarctic Territory, which though home to some 400 researchers also has no settled population of its own.
Signatories are also recorded in places as far flung as the Caribbean island of Aruba (101), Bermuda (564), China (432), Hong Kong (2,089), Japan (742) Venezuela (24) and the South Pacific Islands of Tuvalu (18), Wallis and Fortuna (8) and Vanuatu (31).
Overall, close to 2.5 million signatures had been added from within the UK by midday on Sunday, making up an overwhelming proportion of the whole….
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The Polish news channel TVP Info reports French and German foreign ministers are ready to reveal a super state “ultimatum” to EU countries in response to Brexit.
The totalitarian proposals will strip the sovereignty of member states and the ability to have an army. The criminal law system and central banks will also be removed and run by bureaucrats in Brussels.
Additionally, member states will lose control of their borders and procedures on admitting and settling migrants.
“Our countries share a common destiny and a common set of values that give rise to an even closer union between our citizens. We will therefore strive for a political union in Europe and invite the next Europeans to participate in this venture,” a preamble to the document states.
The drastic measures will be presented during a meeting of the Visegrad group by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier later today. The Visegrad group consists of Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia.
“This is not a good solution, of course, because from the time the EU was invented a lot has changed,” complained Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski.
“The mood in European societies is different. Europe and our voters do not want to give the Union over into the hands of technocrats.
“Therefore, I want to talk about this, whether this really is the right recipe right now in the context of a Brexit.”
The super state proposal is a response to rumblings in Europe, Scandinavia, and France to depart the union. It will likely arouse further Euroskepticism.
Prior to the Brexit vote, European Council president Donald Tusk warned that European citizens do not share the enthusiasm of their leaders for “a utopia of Europe without conflicting interests and ambitions, a utopia of Europe imposing its own values on the external world, a utopia of Euro-Asian unity.”
NAZI ROOTS OF EU REVEALED
GLOBALIST PLOT TO SABOTAGE BREXIT KICKS INTO HIGH GEAR
As we predicted, political establishment desperate to annul democratic will of the British people
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Almost exactly as we predicted, a globalist plot to sabotage the Brexit vote and annul the democratic will of the British people has kicked into high gear.
It started almost immediately after the results of the referendum on Britain leaving the EU were announced. A petition that was actually started months ago by a ‘Vote Leave’ supporter was hijacked by ‘Vote Remain’ supporters, who demanded a ‘second referendum’.
Apparently, the fact that the majority of the British people voted to leave the EU just days ago isn’t good enough – leftists want to keep having referendums until they win.
I bought a ticket for the EuroMillions lottery but wasn't successful. I'm now demanding they make the draw over and over again until I win.
Senior figures within the political establishment then began to push the idea of forcing Brits to vote again, including former Tony Blair advisor Jonathan Powell, who told BBC Newsnight, “Remember, the Irish have done that twice this century – they voted against the treaty, had a second vote, and voted for it.”
Labour MP David Lammy followed suit, urging his fellow regressive leftists to stop the “madness” of democracy by demanding a second referendum.
Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon then suggested that her government could veto Brexit by withholding”legislative consent”. Scotland is desperate to remain in the EU because its economy is a shambles – the main exports being mediocre whiskey and heroin addicts – and as a result is totally dependent on Brussels hand-outs.
We have also witnessed the irony of thousands of leftists and “anarchists” protesting IN FAVOR of the status quo, IN FAVOR of bankers and big business during anti-Brexit demonstrations in London.
Meanwhile, the media has been busy blaming isolated, random acts of racism on Vote Leave’s victory, spinning the narrative that Britain has suddenly turned into some kind of inhospitable, bigoted 1930’s era Germany simply because the UK voted to leave a corrupt political union.
What you won’t see them report on is people being attacked by pro-Remain leftists for wearing Union Jack hats or those same agitators calling for old white people to die.
Of course, the Remainstream media has shown no interest in the anecdotal reports flooding social media of Vote Leave supporters being verbally abused, ostracized and even disowned by their intolerant leftist friends, colleagues and family.
Despite London’s FTSE ending the week up compared to the previous Friday, Remainiacs also continue to resort to ‘Project Fear’ – panicking at every downturn in the market and blaming it on Brexit.
Project Fear now wholly-owned subsidiary of pro-Remain media. Seem almost desperate for Leave to fail. Gloomy spin on everything.
I predicted all of this in my video on Friday, urging people not to think that the battle was won.
The political class will try every dirty, underhanded trick in the book to sabotage the Brexit vote and annul the democratic decision of the British people, including the demand that Brits vote again on Brexit after a general election.
Pro-globalist Conservative Party members will also try and delay the triggering of article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which will officially begin the process of Britain leaving the EU.
It is imperative that we continue to hold their feet to the fire – including Vote Leave leaders like Boris Johnson and Michael Gove – to ensure that this populist revolt isn’t hijacked by the political elite and that the Brexit vote actually leads to Britain’s withdrawal from the EU.
CNN “interviewed” former ambassador Christopher Hill on Sunday, June 26 who advocated the takeover of sovereign European nations, such as Germany, Greece and France, and merging them into one nation - much like Nazi-occupied Europe in 1942.
Bombshell: EU Moves to Full Dictatorship
To Stop Other Countries Exit
Sarah Palin congratulates the UK on the European Union 'Brexit'
Published on Jun 26, 2016
Sarah Palin congratulates the UK on Brexit and urges the U.S. to 'follow suit' and abandon the UN
Sarah Palin has congratulated the UK on voting to leave the European Union and has urged the United States to emulate the spirit of their transatlantic ally and leave the United Nations.
The former Governor of Alaska posted a picture of Margaret Thatcher to Facebook and quoted the former prime minister and conservative hero writing, 'liberty is fundamental'.
Praising the 'smart' British for their leap into the dark with the so-called Brexit, Palin declared voters in the UK had turned away from the 'apocalyptic One World Government'.
Palin then appeared to erroneously compare the European Union - a political and economic union of 28-nation states - to the United Nations - which is diplomatic body of 193-nations set up to promote global peace after World War Two.
She demanded the United States extricate itself from the UN, which 'dissolves a nation's self determination and sovereignty.
Indeed, it has been a tumultuous week in the UK, to say the least, but Sarah Palin is reassuring those who voted to leave the EU that they made the right choice.
The UK voted to leave the European Union by 51 per cent and will begin the process of separating itself from the politico-economic union of 28 member states that are located primarily in Europe.
The decision, the first of its kind in the UK, has caused turmoil in the country and rocked the stock market nationally.
It has also caused rifts in the UK between migrants, who as members of the EU have free movement among the country, and British nationals.
With a picture of former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and a quote reading 'liberty is fundamental', Palin offered her thoughts on the UK's decision to leave to EU.
'Congratulations, smart Brits. Good on you for ignoring all the fear mongering from special interest globalists who tend to aim for that apocalyptic One World Government that dissolves a nation’s self-determination and sovereignty… the EU being a One World Government mini-me,' she wrote.
Palin is alluding to the United Nations when she mentions the 'one world government'.
She believes the UN has put 'shackles' on the U.S.
Millennials complain that most of them voted to Remain while the Baby-Boomers voted to Leave the EU. It’s not fair they say. We look at the 4 decades of love & hate between Britain & the EU and what’s behind the generational gap.
Democrats are waging a war on due process, the rule of law, and the principle of legal rights going back to the Magna Carta.
Clause 39 of the Magna Carta issued by John of England in 1215 declares: “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”
For Democrats in the House and Senate, lawful judgment is no longer relevant. In their zeal to outlaw firearms and demolish the Second Amendment, Democrats and their progressive fellow travelers are striving to dismantle laws and legal proceedings for Americans included on secret lists compiled and held by the state. This represents the very essence of a police state.
“The Democrats demand that Americans be stripped of their Second Amendment rights with no attention paid to the Fifth Amendment, to due process,” writes Kevin Williamson. “They propose that Americans be stripped of their legal protections under the Bill of Rights even when they have not been charged with, much less convicted of, a crime. They propose that this be done on the basis of a series of secret government lists, whose contents, criteria, and keepers are treated as state secrets.”
Orwellian Potential Terrorists
Democrats now demand “potential terrorists” be stripped of their rights. Bernie Sanders has joined Senator Dianne Feinstein and the Democrat leadership and echoes their call for further authoritarian action:
It’s not very hard to understand that potential terrorists, criminals and the dangerously mentally ill should not have access to guns.
According to the Obama administration, the nation faces a terror threat perpetuated by “individuals motivated by anti-government animus.” Muslims do not figure prominently in the government’s terror equation.
“Justice officials have indicated that home-grown ‘right wingers’ are possibly more numerous and dangerous than the jihadists,” Assistant Attorney General John P. Carlin said in October during an event co-sponsored by the George Washington University’s program on extremism and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Carlin said the Justice Department’s recently formed “domestic terrorism counsel” will “analyze legal gaps that need to be closed.”
Gun Laws Target Government’s Political Enemies
“I’m sure it’s gun laws,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, in response to Carlin’s remarks. He noted the Justice Department has teamed up with the Southern Poverty Law Center to “go after” the Obama administration’s political enemies while downplaying the threat of Islamic terrorism.
In February, the Department of Homeland Security released an intelligence assessment focused on the supposed domestic terror threat from sovereign citizen groups, a threat the government insists overshadows jihadi and Islamic State terrorism. The assessment followed a DHS report leaked to the alternative media in 2009 that targeted veterans as a domestic terror threat.
The DHS report said local law enforcement’s primary concern should be the high volume of gun and ammunition purchases. The document equates Americans who stockpile ammunition to “right wing terrorists.” Moreover, stockpiling (merely purchasing) ammunition is an indication of involvement in “paramilitary training exercises” and potential terrorist activity, according to the government.
It is uncertain how many “right-wing extremists” are included on the government’s secret terror watch lists, but considering Carlin’s remarks in October and the formation of “domestic terrorism counsel” focused on demonizing the political enemies of the state, we can assume more than a few are.
“Are you a conservative, a libertarian, a Christian or a gun owner?” asks Michael Snyder. “If you answered yes to any of those questions, you are a ‘potential terrorist’ according to official U.S. government documents… We are moving into a very dangerous time in American history. You can now be considered a ‘potential terrorist’ just because of your religious or political beliefs. Free speech is becoming a thing of the past, and we are rapidly becoming an Orwellian society that is the exact opposite of what our founding fathers intended.”
Due process is also rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Government invariably targets its political enemies. Islamic terrorism does not pose a serious political threat to the elite. In fact, it can be argued much what now passes for Islamic terrorism is a creation of the state, a tool used—as we have witnessed since September 11, 2001—to destroy the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The real target—the target that must be disarmed and stripped of legal protection—is the American people.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Defense plans to soon lift the nation’s ban on openly transgendered persons serving in the military, according to reports.
“[Defense Secretary Ash Carter] has indicated that he expects to make a final decision soon, and that’s exactly where we are,” Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook told reporters this past week.
As previously reported, last July, Carter announced that a six-month study would be conducted to determine whether lifting the ban could have any adverse effect on battle preparedness.
“The Defense Department’s current regulations regarding transgender service members are outdated and are causing uncertainty that distracts commanders from our core missions,” he said in a statement.
The study was to encompass a variety of aspects, such as how transgenders will be housed, what uniforms they will wear, what bathrooms they will use, and what physical fitness/training standards they will be held to as a person that now seeks to be known as the opposite gender.
Officials also planned to consider whether the government will pay for “gender reassignment” surgeries and other treatments sought by those who identify as transgender.
According to the Washington Post, acting personnel chief Peter Levine outlined last month that there was a lack of consensus among Pentagon officials on how to solve the questions presented in the study, but that it was decided that the ban would be lifted during Obama’s tenure.
“We’re going to work through that .. and we’re going to do it expeditiously so that we can do it in this administration,” he said.
The Department of Defense has banned those who have gender identity disorders from serving in the military since the 1960’s, and those who seek to identify as the opposite sex can be dismissed on medical grounds. Defense Department Instruction 6130.03 allows for the discharge of those who have been diagnosed with “psychosexual conditions, including but not limited to transsexualism, exhibitionism, transvestism, voyeurism, and other paraphilias.”
But following the 2010 decision to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” some have been pushing for a lift on the transgender service ban. Last year, the Pentagon decided that only high-ranking officials in the military would be permitted to have the discretion to discharge those diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
But some remain concerned over the rush to lift the ban before the November election.
“Secretary Carter has put the political agenda of a departing administration ahead of the military’s readiness crisis,” Mac Thornberry (R-TX), the chairman of the Congressional Committee on Armed Services, said in a statement on Friday. “The force is exhausted from back-to-back deployments and spending their home-station time scrambling to get enough equipment and training before they deploy again. My focus is on helping the troops now—to be the most effective, deployable force possible.”
“Consistent with that philosophy, when we learned DOD was looking at new policies on the service of transgender individuals, the Committee posed a number of questions to DOD. In particular, there are readiness challenges that first must be addressed, such as the extent to which such individuals would be medically non-deployable,” he said. “Almost a year has passed with no answer to our questions from Secretary Carter.”
It is believed that there are currently at least 2,000 military members that identify as transgender who have been hiding their condition in order to remain in the service.
ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE (Reuters) – Pope Francis said on Sunday that Christians and the Roman Catholic Church should seek forgiveness from homosexuals for the way they had treated them.
Speaking to reporters aboard the plane taking him back to Rome from Armenia, he also said the Church should ask forgiveness for the way it has treated women, for turning a blind eye to child labor and for “blessing so many weapons” in the past.
In the hour-long freewheeling conversation that has become a trademark of his international travels, Francis was asked if he agreed with recent comments by a German Roman Catholic cardinal that the Church should apologize to gays.
Francis looked sad when the reporter asked if an apology was made more urgent by the killing of 49 people at a gay club in Orlando, Florida this month.
He recalled Church teachings that homosexuals “should not be discriminated against. They should be respected, accompanied pastorally.”
He added: “I think that the Church not only should apologize … to a gay person whom it offended but it must also apologize to the poor as well, to the women who have been exploited, to children who have been exploited by (being forced to) work. It must apologize for having blessed so many weapons.”
The Church teaches that homosexual tendencies are not sinful but homosexual acts are, and that homosexuals should try to be chaste.
Francis repeated a slightly modified version of the now-famous “Who am I to judge?” comment he made about gays on the first foreign trip after his election in 2013.
“The questions is: if a person who has that condition, who has good will, and who looks for God, who are we to judge?”
FORGIVENESS, NOT JUST APOLOGY
Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said that the pope, by saying “has that condition”, did not imply a medical condition but “a person in that situation”. In Italian, the word “condition” can also mean “situation”.
“We Christians have to apologize for so many things, not just for this (treatment of gays), but we must ask for forgiveness, not just apologize! Forgiveness! Lord, it is a word we forget so often!” he said.
Francis has been hailed by many in the gay community for being the most merciful pope toward them in recent history and conservative Catholics have criticized him for making comments they say are ambiguous about sexual morality.
He told reporters on the plane “there are traditions in some countries, some cultures, that have a different mentality about this question (homosexuals)” and there are “some (gay) demonstrations that are too offensive for some”.
But he suggested that those were not grounds for discrimination or marginalization of gays.
The pope did not elaborate on what he meant by seeking forgiveness for the Church “having blessed so many weapons”, but it appeared to be a reference to some Churchmen who actively backed wars in the past.
In other parts of the conversation, Francis said he hoped the European Union would be able to give itself another form after the United Kingdom’s decision to leave.
“There is something that is not working in that bulky union, but let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water, let’s try to jump-start things, to re-create,” he said.
He also denied reports that former Pope Benedict, who resigned in 2013, was still exercising influence inside the Vatican.
“There is only one pope,” he said. He praised Benedict, 89, for “protecting me, having my back, with his prayers”.
Francis said he had heard that when some Church officials had gone to Benedict to complain that Francis was too liberal, Benedict “sent them packing”.
