DELAWARE BATTLE AGAINST MURDER OF BABIES & PERVERSION~THE “NUCLEAR OPTION”?~ABORTION & TRANSGENDER ACTIVISTS PUSH FOR AMENDING DELAWARE’S CONSTITUTION~VOTE TODAY

BYPASSING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE
MURDER OF UNBORN & LGBT PERVERSION REDEFINED BY BYPASSING THE LEGISLATURE & AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION WITH NEWLY DISCOVERED “RIGHTS” INSTEAD
THE “NUCLEAR OPTION”?~
ABORTION & TRANSGENDER ACTIVISTS 
PUSH FOR AMENDING DELAWARE’S CONSTITUTION~VOTE TODAY
BY NICOLE THEIS
SEE: https://mailchi.mp/delawarefamilies/more-details-re-regulation-1176801?e=6a80f7e7aerepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Take 2 min… ask your Legislator to vote NO on HB399, the ERA bill.
The committee hearing was filled with pro-abortion activists.

We quickly learned the House Democrat caucus would be fast tracking a bill to amend the Delaware Constitution.

This attempt was defeated twice, but now it’s back with new language but the same intent. Our attorneys got right on it. HB 399, the Equal Rights Amendment, seeks to Amend Delaware’s Constitution to read:

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged on account of the sex of the person.”

Sounds fine, right? But remember: Every legislative battle like this comes down to who gets to decide the meaning of words.

Who decides the meaning of “sex”? Is it biological? Who decides what is a right and if it has been violated based on sex discrimination?

Answer: The very left leaning activist judges in the Delaware Courts based on “the State’s value of equality” not our elected legislators.

“Equality of rights” “based on sex” can mean anything in today’s political climate, because it isn’t defined anywhere else in the Constitution.

The primary sponsors of this bill are radically pro-abortion, they’re the same ones who championed Delaware’s late term abortion law, and now they want to amend the State Constitution to reflect their “value of equality.” 

In other states, a so-called Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) like this one has been used to prohibit any regulations or restriction on abortion, because abortion is viewed as a right based on one’s sex and provided at tax payer expense on the basis of “sex discrimination.

The argument goes like this: only females seek abortions, so any government policy that restricts access to abortion or that treats abortion differently from procedures performed on men is, on its face, an abridgment of “rights…on account of sex,” which is precisely what the ERA forbids.

In the synopsis, the sponsors state that without this Constitutional correction that women’s rights and protections are limited.

How are they defining “what is woman” and what rights and protections are they referring to that are not already covered in our laws?  Ask your Legislator. Explain that if they can’t answer this clearly, to VOTE NO on HB399 to Amend the State Constitution.

Prevent Tax-Payer Funding of Abortion — Tell Your Representative to VOTE NO on HB 399, the ERA!
REGULATION 225, remember that? That’s why we’re calling this bill the “NUCLEAR OPTION,” because if passed, the idea of “sex or gender discrimination” would be cemented in the State Constitution and out of the control of Legislators, whom we elect. 

Our attorneys said it this way: If HB399 were to pass, schools would be impacted, and the privacy and safety of children in areas like school locker rooms, restrooms, and showers (as well as overnight accommodations) would be compromised.

The right of parents to direct their childrens‘ education and upbringing, particularly in when/how their children are exposed to the anatomy of the opposite sex on issues of human sexuality, will likely be impacted. 

In case you need a refresher on Regulation 225:

Latest National News Coverage of Regulation 225:
Tucker Carlson Highlights Parents’ Concerns with Education Reg. 225
Focus on the Family “Crossing Delaware” Report on Reg. 225
HB 399 (aka the ERA) is on the agenda for a vote in Delaware’s State House TODAY. Your Legislators must hear from you. We’ve made it easy to take quick and immediate ACTION, click here.
Additional Resources: 

Spread the Word Now! Share this facebook post!

______________________________________________________

SEE ALSO:
JUNE 9, 2017:

WEST CHESTER, PA ANTI GUN RALLY~LOTS OF SCARED, MISINFORMED PROTESTORS IN WEALTHY LIBERAL CHESTER COUNTY

WEST CHESTER, PA ANTI GUN RALLY~
LOTS OF SCARED, MISINFORMED PROTESTORS 
BY DARREN WOLFE
SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2018/03/west-chester-pa-anti-gun-rally-2018-misinformed-protestors/#axzz5B8kxuJK0republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
West Chester, PA Anti Gun and Anti Freedom Rally 2018

West Chester, PA Anti Gun and Anti Freedom Rally 2018

West Chester, PA – -(Ammoland.com)- A cold wind blew through West Chester, PA that Saturday. It was the day of the so-called March For Our Lives. While the wind was cold the protesters’ anger burned and nothing good ever comes from such burning anger.
Reacting to my sign that reads “background checks do not work” this guy was really upset. (I wasn’t able to record the first part of the conversation as my camera had shut off.):
This belief in background checks is truly emotional and cult like. It’s not surprising though, it’s the only way to hold on to that belief in the face of overwhelming evidence that they’ve failed. No doubt readers noted the cherry picking of examples and denial of contrary facts. The reference to Prof. Cook at the beginning of the video was about me bringing up the article “Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides“. In it Prof. Cook clearly states that the Brady Bill is a failure, I.E. background checks don’t work.
These ladies were much nicer but just as wrong. They seem to think that all ARs (scary black rifles) are capable of fully automatic fire. As usual for gun rights haters they’re wrongly convinced that the US has the highest murder rate in the world:
Anyone wondering about my references to social dynamics in the videos is invited to listen to this presentation by Prof. Randolph Roth of Ohio State University on the subject. I also recommend his book “American Homicide”. Both make clear that it is social dynamics, not access to guns, that drive the murder rate up or down.
The sign also lead to a very pleasant conversation with a member of Gun Sense Chester County who remembered me from Mike Weisser’s presentation of March 3, 2018. I said that if they were going to claim that we have such a high murder rate in the US then that shows that all the gun control we have, including background checks, has failed. Her answer was that background checks aren’t universal that’s why they fail. She claimed that according to a RAND Corp study they do help a little in some cases. (This article from Newsweek says that RAND found a lack of evidence on the subject. If that’s really the best they can do…)
When I then pointed out that every step of the way advocates of gun control say this measure or that measure will solve the problem yet they never do. Each time gun control fails they only say we need more to make it work. We ended our conversation there.
Since my camera had shut off, again, I wasn’t able to video another man who took exception to my sign. Our discussion quickly turned to the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. When I explained that it was about keeping the government disarmed by having a militia rather than standing forces he got really hot and bothered.
He exclaimed that we need the government armed to protect the public from people like me. Maybe it was the hoodie I was wearing, who knows?
The cold wind also blew in a celebrity to promote gun control, Jay Leno. Gun owning members of his fan club may want to reconsider their memberships.
What’s the takeaway from covering the march? These people are scared, hurt, and angry but most of all misinformed. Isn’t that what enemies of freedom always count on? They think they’re doing good but good comes not from reacting emotionally but from having knowledge and thinking things through. One is reminded of the words of Judge Louis D. Brandeis:
“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding.”
A quick look at some of their signs tells us that they want to ban all the guns they think they can get away with:

Ban Rifles Sign West Chester, PA Anti Gun and Anti Freedom Rally 2018Ban Rifles Sign West Chester, PA Anti Gun and Anti Freedom Rally 2018Guns Are Death Sign West Chester, PA Anti Gun and Anti Freedom Rally 2018Guns Are Death Sign West Chester, PA Anti Gun and Anti Freedom Rally 2018

The day didn’t end on a sad note though. On the way home I stopped at the massive, 1700 table gun show at Oaks, PA. It sure seemed like there were more people at the gun show than attended the march. That is a good sign.
About Darren Wolfe
Darren Wolfe presently blogs as the International Libertarian (http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/). He is the former Eastern Vice Chair of the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania. Darren is also an avid shooter and chess player.
Follow him on Twitter: http://twitter.com/IntLibertarian.

TRENTON, NEW JERSEY: GUN OWNER RALLY A SUCCESS~ASSEMBLY IGNORES OPPOSITION & PASSES FOUR GUN CONTROL BILLS

TRENTON, NEW JERSEY: GUN OWNER RALLY A SUCCESS~ASSEMBLY IGNORES OPPOSITION
BY NRAHQ
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
WHAT NEW JERSEY ONCE WAS: 
New Jersey



New JerseyNational Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

Fairfax, VA – -(Ammoland.com)- On Monday, as many as 2,000 NJ gun owners packed the pavilion around the War Memorial and heard from 23 speakers, including legislators and Second Amendment leaders from around the state.
The NRA and ANJPRC sponsored event had one loud, resounding message for anti-gun politicians in Trenton. “We are going to fight with every tool at our disposal to end Second Amendment infringements in New Jersey.” We want to sincerely thank all of the NRA members who took time out of their busy lives to attend this important event and make it a resounding success.
In typical fashion, the Assembly convened shortly after the rally concluded and voted to pass a package of anti-gun bills. The bills which were approved by the Assembly on Monday included:
A.1217 by Assemblyman Jack McKeon (D) creates extreme risk protection orders. The bill has serious due process issues, including no pre-seizure notification. Ex parte hearings deprive the accused of their right to be heard and make their case.
A.2757 by Assembly Majority Leader Lou Greenwald (D) is a redundant bill that requires background checks on private transactions. This bill is simply political gimmickry as private transactions in New Jersey already require a background check through the FID card process. This bill would do nothing except add another layer of bureaucracy and fees.
A.2758 by Assemblyman Greenwald (D) codifies the “justifiable need” standard for issuance of concealed carry permits. The bill is designed to strike a death blow to concealed carry in a state that already makes it virtually impossible to obtain a carry permit.
A.2761 by Assemblyman Greenwald (D) would ban magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds. The bill was amended last week in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. After realizing that the bill would most likely result in litigation, the Committee amended the bill to allow permanent blocking of already owned magazines. However, the amendment does not remove our strenuous opposition to the bill.
This fight is far from over. The Senate has to take action, and nothing has been scheduled in the upper chamber. Please continue to follow NRA-ILA alerts for updates.
About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

WEST VIRGINIA GOVERNOR SIGNS REFORM TO PROTECT EXERCISE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

WEST VIRGINIA GOVERNOR SIGNS REFORM 
TO PROTECT EXERCISE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
BY DEAN WEINGARTEN
SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2018/03/wv-governor-justice-signs-reform-to-protect-exercise-of-the-second-amendment/#axzz5B8mnwvaArepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- Governor Jim Justice of West Virginia has signed a reform bill to ensure that West Virginians can exercise their Second Amendment rights during travel. The Governor signed the bill HB 4187, on Friday, March 23rd. The bill passed the House with 85 Yea votes to 14 Nays, on February 27th. It passed the Senate on 9 March, 32 to 1, then had to return to the House because of two amendments that passed the Senate. It passed the House again, on 10 March, 87-11. From wdtv.com:
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (WDTV) — Governor Jim Justice has signed a bill to allow people to keep firearms locked in their vehicles while parked on their employer’s property.
Here is the summary of HB 4187. It limits the ability of businesses to forbid firearms in private vehicles that park in their parking lots. The reason for the bill is to ensure that private employers cannot prevent employees from exercising their right to bear arms on the way to and from work. West Virginia joins 22 other states that have enacted similar protections.  Summary From HB 4187:
The purpose of this bill is to create the “Business Liability Protection Act”. The bill includes the right to limit possession of firearms on certain premises and definitions. It also provides for misdemeanor criminal offense and penalty. It prohibits employers from certain specific actions against a person when that person possesses a firearm legally, including a condition of employment. The bill provides a duty of care of public and private employers and provides for immunity from liability. The bill authorizes the Attorney General to enforce this statute, including the right to sue or seek injunctive relief; and seek civil fines.
The two amendments added in the Senate addressed concerns from private businesses.  From wvgazettemail.com:
In the Senate, legislation that would stop private businesses and associations from prohibiting guns in vehicles parked on their property advanced to passage stage on Friday, after the Senate adopted two amendments Thursday (HB 4187).
One change requires that firearms in vehicles be hidden out of view of passers-by. The second clarifies that the right to have firearms in vehicles does not apply to vehicles owned or leased to a private business or association.
The amendments were adopted on a voice vote, without debate.
Courts have ruled that legislators have the power to make trade-offs between the exercise of rights.  The Mississippi Supreme Court found that the Constitution and statutes of Mississippi protected the right to keep and bear arms, including in a person’s vehicle.  From Swindol v. Aurora Flight Sciences Corp. MS Supreme Court(pdf):
Swindol appealed, and the Fifth Circuit has now certified the following question to this Court:
Whether in Mississippi an employer may be liable for a wrongful discharge of an employee for storing a firearm in a locked vehicle on company property in a manner that is consistent with [Mississippi Code] Section 45-9-55.
Swindol v. Aurora Flight Sciences Corp., 805 F.3d 516, 523 (5th Cir. 2015). The Fifth Circuit also concluded that it “would benefit from [this Court’s] analysis of whether Section 45-9-55(5) bars” Swindol’s suit. Id. at 522.
The Mississippi Supreme Court found that the Constitution and statutes of Mississippi protected the right to keep and bear arms, including in a persons’ vehicle.
There is a growing body of state law that holds the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right on an equal with others in the Bill of Rights.  Federal appeals courts in blue states such as California and Maryland have ruled the right to be of secondary value, that may be infringed with little consequence.
One more appointment by President Trump could break the logjam on the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme court has refused to take significant cases on Second Amendment rights beyond the restoration of rights seen in the McDonald decision in 2010.
©2018 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
About Dean WeingartenDean Weingarten
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

FORGET OR REFUSE AN APPOINTMENT OR PROCEDURE?-THE SNITCHES IN YOUR KIDS’ PEDIATRIC DENTAL OFFICE-THE DENTIST, HYGIENIST, ASSISTANT, ETC. WILL REPORT YOU TO THE STATE FOR NEGLECT AND/OR ABUSE

FORGET OR REFUSE AN APPOINTMENT OR PROCEDURE?-THE SNITCHES IN YOUR KIDS’ PEDIATRIC DENTAL OFFICE-THE DENTIST, HYGIENIST, ASSISTANT, ETC. WILL REPORT YOU TO THE STATE FOR NEGLECT AND/OR ABUSE 
BY MICHELLE MALKIN
SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2018/03/snitches-kids-dental-office/#axzz5B8nU5CyWrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The Snitches in Your Kids' Dental Office



The Snitches in Your Kids’ Dental Office

U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- How sharper than a serpent’s tooth to have a despotic pediatric dentist.
Parents who decide, for whatever reason, that they don’t like their children’s oral care provider should be forewarned. Empowered by government “mandatory reporter” laws, dental offices are now using their authority to threaten families with child abuse charges if they don’t comply with the cavity police.
Mom Trey Hoyumpa shared a letter last week on Facebook from a dental office called Smiles 4 Keeps in Bartonsville, Pennsylvania. It informed her that if she did not make a dental appointment for “regular professional cleanings” for her child, she could be charged with “dental neglect.” Citing a law called Pennsylvania Act 31 on child abuse recognition and reporting, the dental office threatened to report the mom to state authorities if she did not schedule an appointment.
Hoyumpa wrote: “Smiles 4 Keeps bullies the parents, controls the care behind closed doors, and turns parents into villains…and I will not stand for it anymore!!!”
On social media, parents who’ve encountered the toxic alliance of snoopy medical providers and child welfare agencies shared their own experiences with government bullies who operate on a presumption of guilt.
Brett Darken wrote: “Anyone familiar with ‘family court,’ DCF, state probate and guardianship courts know well this story. In any other context, it would be considered a threat, coercion and intimidation under RICO laws. But because it’s the government, it’s legal.”
This is a menacing threat to have hanging over customers of dental practices, or any medical providers for that matter: If you leave, you better tell us where you are going or we could report you to government child welfare agencies for suspected abuse.
One Twitter commenter wondered: “Is this fake?”
Unfortunately, it’s all too real, and the dental office is championing an intrusive practice that is likely to spread.
Smiles 4 Keeps replied to parental criticism on Facebook by quoting the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry definition of “dental neglect” as the “willful failure of parent or guardian to seek and follow through with treatment necessary to ensure a level of oral health essential for adequate function and freedom from pain and infection.”
The dental office also defended its intimidation letter to the mom by explaining that physicians and dentists are “mandated reporters” who are “required to report suspected cases of abuse and neglect to social service or law enforcement agencies in order to prevent such tragedy.”
But as investigative reporter Terri LaPoint at MedicalKidnap.com points out, nowhere has Smiles 4 Keeps provided any evidence that Trey Hoyumpa was neglectful or abusive in any way. Moreover, Smiles 4 Keeps insists that parents provide the name of a new dentist if the family chooses to find a new provider. Hoyumpa was just one of 17 recipients of the threatening Smiles 4 Keeps salvos.
Dr. Ross Wezmar of Smiles 4 Keeps actually boasted to local news station WNEP about the snitch letters’ ability “to jar the parent to realize that with a child comes responsibility.” Benevolent Dr. Marcus Welby he is not. Wezmar claimed his bully notes are the first in the nation to be dispatched. With the encroachment of socialized medicine in America, they certainly won’t be the last.
Think it can’t happen to you? Last year, in Ontario, Canada, mom Melissa Lopez wanted a second opinion on getting fillings for her daughter and decided to change providers. The jilted dentist, as Lenore Skenazy reported on Reason.com, called Child Protective Services to report possible “oral neglect.” The case was dismissed, but CPS refuses to remove Lopez’s file from its books — it is part of a permanent record that keeps a permanent cloud of suspicion over her.
Skenazy drills down to the core: “The issue here is how easy it is to drag a family into an abuse investigation, and how hard it is for the family, like an impacted molar, to get itself extracted.”
Indeed, the partnership between medical providers and government child welfare services has threatened innocent families across the country under the guise of “protecting the children.” It is a short hop from cavity-shaming and misdiagnoses to ripping families apart.
Don’t forget the case of Justina Pelletier, savagely torn from her family by Boston Children’s Hospital after the prestigious medical institution wrongly accused her parents of causing her chronic illness. BCH locked Justina in a mental ward until her sister published an undercover video of Justina pleading to be reunited with her family. Public outrage forced her release and now the Pelletiers are suing BCH.
Big Nanny monitors hostile to family privacy and autonomy are everywhere — in your kids’ classrooms, cafeterias, and doctors’ and dentists’ offices. Eternal vigilance against government intrusion is the price of parenthood.
About Michelle MalkinMichelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin is host of “Michelle Malkin Investigates” on CRTV.com. As well as the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies” & “Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild“. Her email address is writemalkin@gmail.com.

GERMANY: MUSLIM “CHILD REFUGEES” AMBUSH & STAB WOMAN; VICTIM NOW FIGHTING FOR HER LIFE

GERMANY: MUSLIM “CHILD REFUGEES” AMBUSH & STAB WOMAN; 
VICTIM NOW FIGHTING FOR HER LIFE 
BY ROBERT SPENCER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Thank you, Chancellor Merkel! Celebrate diversity!
“Woman, 24, fights for life after being ambushed and stabbed by three child Syrian refugees who followed her after arguing with her at a supermarket in Germany,” by Allan Hall, MailOnline, March 26, 2018 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
A 24-year-old woman is fighting for her life after being stabbed during a fight with a group of Syrian child refugees near Hanover, Germany.
The woman and a friend had gotten into an argument with two boys, aged 13 and 14, in a supermarket in the small town of Burgwedel near Hanover on Saturday evening.
The pair met the teens again on their way home, at which point they had been joined by a 17-year-old and the argument between the woman’s 25-year-old friend and the Syrians escalated.
Local media reports that the 24-year-old had stepped in to calm the combatants down, when she was stabbed by the 17-year-old.
All three teenagers fled the scene, but were soon caught by police.
The 17-year-old appeared before a court on Sunday and has been charged with attempted murder….

PEOPLE FLEEING WESTERN EUROPE BECAUSE OF MUSLIM MIGRATION

PEOPLE FLEEING WESTERN EUROPE 
BECAUSE OF MUSLIM MIGRATION 
BY SELWYN DUKE
SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/28612-people-fleeing-western-europe-because-of-muslim-migrationrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
One is a Christian migrant who returned to Syria because he found Austria more dangerous. Another is a Croatian man who grew up in Sweden but recently moved to Poland with his wife and kids, saying he doesn’t “recognize the country [he] grew up in anymore.” Yet another, also a part of what has been called the “Swedish Diaspora,” is a woman who moved to Hungary because, she says, “There is no safety at all” in Sweden. They’re all part of the secondary migration caused by Muslim migration.
Many would find it shocking that people would leave the rich West for relatively poor Eastern Europe and even war-torn Syria. But it underlines a reality denied and covered up by Western governments and media: The large influx of Muslim migrants into Europe in recent years has caused burgeoning crime and the exacerbation of the no-go-zone phenomenon. More scandalous still, the cover-up effort is so intense it has led to police ignoring female rape victims, telling others not to mention the ethnicity of their attackers, and to a leftist Dutch mayor‘s attempt to keep her own mugging, in a migrant area, out of the media.
Christian Syrian Spiro Haddad wanted to come to Europe so badly that he spent €3,000 on smugglers to reach Austria. He left his native country because, as he put it in an interview with a German TV broadcaster in Syria, “we are Christians and lost everything in the war.”
Initially optimistic, Haddad’s hopes were quickly dashed, however. “I was scared when I saw how many of the refugees openly pledged to Al-Nusra and ISIS,” he said. Note that this accords with the report by practicing Muslim and fellow refugee Dr. Mudar Zahran, who said in 2015 that he had pictures and “names of terrorists who actually are already in Europe.”
Haddad says that he had to keep his Christian faith secret in Austria to survive, that he had to echo the jihadist types, who “wanted to change churches into mosques,” according to Voice of Europe (VOE). (Note: As reported in 2012, this is already happening.) As he put it, the “people I had once fled from were making the decisions.” Moreover, in what has now become a common pattern, he said that he contacted Austrian authorities, but they didn’t take him seriously (video below). So, €3,000 sadder and wiser, he returned to Syria.
Amazingly, Haddad actually feels safer in Damascus, Syria, than in Europe, a continent for which he has a warning. It’s “not good that Europe is open to all,” he says. “ISIS and Al-Nusra want to destroy everything, even with you. If you do not understand that, I’m pessimistic for the future of Europe.”
No one has to tell this to a woman interviewed recently by Hungarian news channel M1 and identified only as a “member of Swedish Diaspora” (I’ll call her MSD). Born in Sweden to a Hungarian mother, she explained that she left because there “is no safety at all with all those migrants they let into the country.” Saying the situation is only getting worse, the woman states that “you can’t travel during the daytime on the metro in Stockholm where I lived, because the migrants sexually molest the women.”
MSD says that no one helps, not even the police. This is reminiscent of the recent story of Pole Agnieszka Wiśniewska; she moved to Sweden in 2007 seeking a better life only to be raped by Arabs — and then ignored by police. She’s now thinking of returning to Poland.
As for MSD, she states that migrants get jobs before native Swedes do. In fact, she claims that even Swedish doctors have trouble finding positions, saying that while she was lucky enough to land an internship at a hospital, approximately 80 percent of her colleagues were “migrants, Muslims, from the doctors to the nurses, everyone.”
MSD says that many Swedish nurses leave their jobs because they get sexually molested in the workplace (in contrast, a native Swedish man can get in trouble if he even looks at a woman cross-eyed). Yet she says that “these facts are not allowed to come out, but [are] kept quiet.”
This, too, is an old story. Just consider the ordeal of “Emma,” a Brit who was raped by multiple Muslim men when she was 13, only to be told repeatedly by the police “not to mention the ethnicity of the attackers,” as Breitbart put it last year. Emma was one of the victims of the Rotherham, England, Muslim rape gangs, which victimized more than 1,500 British girls but whose crimes were covered up by politically correct authorities for 16 years. In fact, a government official who sought to blow the whistle was forced into diversity training and told “You must never [again] refer to Asian men,” and your “awareness of ethnic issues” needs to be raised. Note that “Asian” is how Muslims are referenced in Britain.
MSD certainly had her awareness of issues raised, in a very tragic way. She related how a migrant attacked her on the Stockholm metro one day; no one intervened, and MSD says, echoing Wiśniewska, that the police will just say they don’t have time for such matters.
In addition, MSD reports that migrant students pulling knives on teachers is a daily occurrence; that it isn’t safe for kids in the schools or on the streets; that migrants have burned down homes with Molotov cocktails, sometimes claiming lives; and that most terrorist-type attacks never even make it into international media. Unsurprisingly, MSD also says that some of her friends and acquaintances have left Sweden as well and that others are planning to follow suit (video below).
Then there is a Croatian man who grew up in Sweden but has moved to Poland. Also unidentified and interviewed by VOE late last year, he explained that he and his siblings were brought to Sweden when he was small. He said he had a “great childhood” and loved growing up in the country, which back then was clean and safe, and enabled him to get an education and a career as an IT/tech-specialist.
So why did he leave? “Sweden has been in decay for quite some time now,” he told VOE. “The schools are terrible, simple medical help takes a long time, the violence is increasing on every level and I simply don’t recognise the country I grew up in anymore.” He now finds Poland vastly preferable and lives there with his wife, children, and parents and will be joined by his wife’s parents in 2019.
Even more significantly, the Croat states that in Poland people can discuss matters like “adults.” Contrasting, he complains of what others have termed the “Soviet Sweden” mentality, where hate-speech laws combined with social stigmatization and career destruction serve to silence Swedes opposed to migration. He says that “people know that migration has led to more crimes, more rapes, more violence, more gangs but the government and media” whitewash the issue. “Swedes KNOW that something is terribly wrong,” he states, “but no one speaks openly about it.”
No doubt. While Sweden has the highest per-capita migration rate in Europe, nonetheless, even “assimilation” is “a Nazi word” in the country, reported Danish journalist Mikael Jalving in the shocking 2014 CBN TV news piece, “Soviet Sweden? Model Nation Sliding to Third World” (below).
The above also reports on a former Swedish radio journalist who left Sweden in 2013 and “returned to her native Somalia,” as CBN’s Dale Hurd relates it. “She told Swedish television that Mogadishu was safer than the immigrant suburbs of Stockholm.”
Of course, as alluded to earlier and as I reported just recently, hate-speech laws, travel bans, and social stigmas are used all over Western Europe to silence critics of immigrationism, as citizens’ needs are routinely subordinated to those of statist-enabling foreigners. It’s an attitude that was summed up very well back in 2001 by Social Democrat politician Mona Sahlin when she brazenly said that “the Swedes must be integrated into the new Sweden; the old Sweden is never coming back.”
Yet more and more Europeans are choosing emigration to somewhere better over integration into something worse — and they’re never coming back to their “new” old lands.

FACEBOOK UNDER FIRE: USERS AND INVESTORS LEAVING

FACEBOOK UNDER FIRE: 
USERS AND INVESTORS LEAVING
BY C. MITCHELL SHAW
SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/computers/item/28603-facebook-under-fire-users-and-investors-leaving;  republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Following the news of Facebook’s data breach that allowed political manipulation of the 2016 election, the social media giant is facing a steady stream of criticism from a variety of sources. Facebook has been called out for the data breach that compromised millions of users, allowing their votes to be manipulated. In particular, the criticism is focused not so much on the breach as on the personal data that Facebook collects on users in the first place.
Some of the people criticizing Facebook are well-known heavy hitters in the tech world. For instance, last Tuesday, Brian Acton — who founded the encrypted messaging app WhatsApp — tweeted, “It is time. #deletefacebook.” And on March 17, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden put Facebook’s claims of being the innocent victims in all of this into perspective when he tweeted, “Facebook makes their money by exploiting and selling intimate details about the private lives of millions, far beyond the scant details you voluntarily post. They are not victims. They are accomplices.” Snowden followed that tweet with another, saying, “Businesses that make money by collecting and selling detailed records of private lives were once plainly described as ‘surveillance companies.’ Their rebranding as ‘social media’ is the most successful deception since the Department of War became the Department of Defense.”
While Snowden’s tweets address the heart of the issue, i.e., that most of what passes for social media is really just what this writer refers to as “surveillance as a feature,” Acton’s call for people to delete their Facebook accounts is telling. In 2014, Acton was involved in selling WhatsApp to Facebook for $19 billion. He held 20 percent ownership in the company at that time, so his share of the sale — paid out in cash and stock options — was something approaching $4 billion. He continued to work at WhatsApp after the sale, leaving last year to help Signal founder Moxie Marlinspike found the Signal Foundation.
Signal is a competitor of WhatsApp. Since Signal is built on open-source software to accomplish zero-knowledge, end-to-end encryption of texts, voice calls, and video calls, WhatsApp actually uses Signal’s technology to power WhatsApp services. Acton invested $50 million in the Signal Foundation. At the launch of the foundation, Marlinspike said, “Brian left WhatsApp and Facebook last year, and has been thinking about how to best focus his future time and energy on building nonprofit technology for public good,” adding, “The addition of Brian brings an incredibly talented engineer and visionary with decades of experience building successful products to our team.”
That Facebook is taking a well-deserved beating over the leaked personal data of more than 50 million users is obvious. The market responded by shareholders dumping their stocks. In fact, Reuters reported and tweeted on March 19 that Facebook shares are “down 5.6 percent” and the social media giant is “set to lose over $30 billion in market value if losses hold.”
The popularity of #deletefacebook, and the downward direction of Facebook’s financials, have already caused Newsweek to speculate whether this is “the end of the social network.” That is not such a far-fetched question.
So while lawmakers on both sides of the pond are demanding that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg (shown) appear before committees as they consider legislation to regulate social media (and Zuckerberg has said he favors some regulation), the free market is already dealing with Facebook without any assistance from government.
In fact, when Acton tweeted it is time to #deletefacebook, tech magnate Elon Musk responded sarcastically, “What’s Facebook?” When another Twitter user pointed out that Musk’s SpaceX project had a Facebook page, Musk replied that he “didn’t realize there was one” and that he would delete it. He then deleted both the SpaceX page and the page for the electric car company, Tesla, which he founded.
Since social-media sites gain credibility from the exposure offered by famous people and companies who use those sites, the deletion of accounts may matter as much as the dumping of stocks. If this evolves into an exodus, the result could be a one/two combination of stock dumping and page deleting that would be so connected that it would be hard to tell which is the chicken and which is the egg.
An example of this is the fact that the Facebook pages for SpaceX and Tesla each had more than 2 million “likes.” That means that the millions of people who were following those pages will have to look to other platforms for news about those companies.
As this continues to take off, #deletefacebook is trending on Twitter, which seems only too happy to make the most of it.
And while Twitter is enjoying its day in the sun over all of this, the truth is that the company collects the same type of data as Facebook. The only difference is that Twitter hasn’t been hit with a data breach. Yet. That we know of. But since the Facebook breach was in 2014 and only came to light because Cambridge Analytica founder Christopher Wylie blew the whistle on what he calls “Steve Bannon’s psychological warfare mindf*ck tool,” it is not beyond the realm of possibility (or even probability) that Twitter users’ data has been similarly used.
And there is the rub. The important point here is not that someone outside of Facebook got the data and used it to manipulate users; it is that — as Snowden said — “Facebook makes their money by exploiting and selling intimate details about the private lives of millions, far beyond the scant details you voluntarily post.” That someone else got their hands on the data and used it only serves to illustrate that the data shouldn’t exist in the first place. Facebook, Twitter, and other social-media platforms routinely use those platforms and the data they collect on users to manipulate those users. Part of that is about profits and part of it is about a political agenda.
And while many social-media platforms are “surveillance companies” masquerading as something else, the free market is already producing competitors that do not harvest users’ data. One such platform is Oneway — a social-media site dedicated to free speech and being “human friendly.” Part of that commitment means no data-harvesting. As Oneway founder Derek Peterson explained to The New American, there would simply be no way for his platform to be manipulated for any purpose, since there is no data to manipulate. “In a world of hackers, intelligence agencies, and corporations, privacy on the Internet is virtually impossible to guarantee. The only way to truly secure a user’s data is to never collect it in the first place,” he said, adding, “On oneway.com all we know about our users is their username, e-mail address, and what they publish publicly.” In fact, “passwords are encrypted such that we can’t even read them if we wanted to.” This means that “there is no benefit to any government agency, hacker or company in acquiring our user data.”
Since even Oneway can’t see a user’s password, and the site does not collect or store data on users, it would even be possible to have a completely anonymous account. All a user would need to do is create an anonymous, encrypted e-mail address (I’m looking at you, Protonmail) using the Tor network, never access that address outside of Tor, and use that address to sign up for a Oneway account. As long as the user — whether a journalist, activist, or average citizen who is concerned about privacy and anonymity — always uses Tor to access both that e-mail address and his Oneway account, it would be virtually impossible to tie that user to those accounts. And since Oneway doesn’t harvest data, there is no data to be leaked.
Facebook could learn a lesson from sites such as Oneway. The free market may insist on it. As for this writer, I have been using Oneway for a few weeks now and — like so many others — the only reason I have even kept a Facebook account is to stay in touch with friends and family. Considering recent revelations, I am compelled to acknowledge that — all of my reasonable complaints about both the surveillance state and the culture of surveillance notwithstanding — I have maintained a relationship with a company that exists primarily to spy on me.
This is my tipping point. I have downloaded all of my photos and videos from Facebook and will be taking Acton’s sound advice to #deletefacebook. Come see me at Oneway. I am there as radix_libertatem.
_______________________________________________________________

Facebook spying, the empowered Left, 

the Harbinger of Woe

1984 is here! Yes facebook was/is spying on its users. What does that mean for us?

UK: MUSLIM RAPE GANG SUBJECTED NON-MUSLIM GIRLS TO “UNIMAGINABLE CRUELTY”

UK: MUSLIM RAPE GANG SUBJECTED NON-MUSLIM GIRLS TO “UNIMAGINABLE CRUELTY” 
BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/03/uk-muslim-rape-gang-subjected-non-muslim-girls-to-unimaginable-crueltyrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Seven men have been found guilty of grooming and raping underage girls aged 13 to 17, plying them with drink and drugs and abusing them at sex “parties” and in a van know as the “shag wagon”.
The seven-man grooming gang was described as “predatory and cynical” by a judge…

 It keeps on unfolding: more and more cases of obscene, cruel abuses of UK girls and still, there has been no global outcry to match the enormity of the behavior of the Muslim rape gangs. In fact, the Muslim rape gangs are still being described by the British press as “grooming gangs”; the perpetrators are referred to as “Asian.” Meanwhile, the BBC has referred to this particular Muslim rape gang as “Oxford men.”

According to female Islamic scholar, Professor Suad Saleh, from the prestigious Al-Azhar University, the rape gang activity is all about Islam: “Muslim men are allowed by Allah to rape non-Muslim or infidel women to ‘humiliate’” them. Saleh is correct (Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50, 70:30), contradicting the Western politically correct dupes who incessantly rationalize or downplay these gross human rights abuses. As Robert Spencer noted some days ago: “One survivor of a Muslim rape gang in the UK said that her rapists would quote Quran to her, and believed their actions justified by Islam.”
Detective Chief Inspector Mark Glover noted:
This group of men subjected them to an almost unimaginable level of cruelty and sexual abuse over a significant period of time.
The UK has become a subjugated land, where Muslim rapists are tolerated and those who speak out against Islamization are banned and shunned by the establishment — including Robert Spencer. Only one book actually exists in the UK on the Muslim rape gangs. To hear an interview with the author, click HERE.
In addition to the Muslim rape gang abuses against infidel girls, last year a UK Sharia court did the unthinkable: it handed down a sentence approving of honor killing. Many Muslim women are sent back home by those same courts, to be further abused by their husbands.
More on this story. “Another Grooming Gang: Abuse on ‘Massive Scale’, Men Drugged and Raped Girls in ‘Sh*g Wagon’”, by Liam Deacon, Breitbart, March 26, 2018:
Seven men have been found guilty of grooming and raping underage girls aged 13 to 17, plying them with drink and drugs and abusing them at sex “parties” and in a van know as the “shag wagon”.
The seven-man grooming gang was described as “predatory and cynical” by a judge as the jury announced their decision on Friday following a five-month trial at Oxford Crown Court.
The men, aged between 37 and 48, denied what prosecutors described as “sexual exploitation on a massive scale” — but were found guilty of charges including multiple counts of rape, indecent assault, false imprisonment, and supplying drugs.
Reporting on the gang of what the BBC described as “Oxford men” was previously restricted, and two men involved in the trial still cannot be named for legal reasons.
The guilty men were named as Assad Hussain, 37, of Morrell Avenue; Moinul Islam, 41, of Wykeham Crescent; Raheem Ahmed, 40, of Starwort Path; Kamran Khan, 36, of Kersington Crescent; Kameer Iqbal, 39, of Dashwood Avenue; Alladitta Yousaf, 48, of Bodley Road; and Khalid Hussain, 38, of Ashurst Way.
Two others, Saboor Abdul and Haji Khan, were acquitted of all charges.
Six of the attackers were from Oxford and one from Bolton, Thames Valley Police said. Their five “vulnerable female victims” were aged 13 to 17 when they were abused from 1998 and 2005.
“Systematic and widespread grooming, that is what this case has revealed,” remarked Judge Peter Ross, who presided over the trial…..
“This has been a lengthy and difficult investigation undertaken by Thames Valley Police and the Elmore Team, which has taken place over a significant period of time,” commented Senior Investigating Officer Detective Chief Inspector Mark Glover, of the Thames Valley Police Major Crime Unit.
“These convictions would not have been possible without the incredible bravery and ongoing support of the victims.
“This group of men subjected them to an almost unimaginable level of cruelty and sexual abuse over a significant period of time.
“To have come through that trauma, and to have been able to help and support us throughout our investigation is a testament to the strength of their characters.
“I know that nothing will be able to change the damage done to these women’s lives by this group of men, but I hope that these convictions will help them to move forward with their lives.”……

GERMANY: HEADMASTER TELLS MOTHER OF DAUGHTER BULLIED BY MUSLIMS TO COVER UP WITH A HIJAB

GERMANY: HEADMASTER TELLS MOTHER OF DAUGHTER BULLIED BY MUSLIMS TO COVER UP WITH A HIJAB
Blonde Christian girl beaten and abused
A mother in Germany whose daughter was being bullied by Muslim students because she was blonde, Christian and didn’t wear a headscarf was told by the headmaster of a school in Frankfurt to cover her up with a hijab.
BY PAUL JOSEPH WATSON
SEE: https://www.infowars.com/germany-headmaster-tells-mother-of-daughter-bullied-by-muslims-to-cover-her-up-with-a-hijab/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

A mother in Germany whose daughter was being bullied by Muslim students because she was blonde, Christian and didn’t wear a headscarf was told by the headmaster of a school in Frankfurt to cover her up with a hijab.
The mother of the student told BILD that her daughter was being bullied by Muslim girls to such a degree that she had to “take them out of school for protection.”
“She was beaten and verbally attacked on the way to school,” said the mother, explaining that abuse was because her daughter has blonde hair, doesn’t wear a headscarf, has a German-Hebrew name and is a Christian.
When the headmaster was informed of the situation, he told the mother to cover up her daughter with a hijab.
“Your daughter does not have to say that she is German. Besides, you can give her a headscarf!” the mother was told.
The school refused to comment on the story.
Meanwhile, at another school in Ennepetal, children were bullied for eating gummy bears because the “impure” sweets contain pork gelatin and are therefore not halal.
The report also mentions the case of two fourth-graders from Bavaria, who came home crying before telling their father, “This student has said he is cutting off our heads because we are Christians.”
The mother of a third grader in Bonn also complained to a school after a Muslim student told her daughter, “Your parents will burn in hell if they do not believe in Allah.”
The story is yet another example of religious bullying and the Islamist takeover of schools in heavily migrant populated areas of Germany.
As we reported yesterday, the president of Germany’s Teachers Association has warned that schools with over 70% migrant students are spiraling out of control, with attacks on female teachers and Jewish students becoming commonplace.
Heinz-Peter Meidinger told BILD that a story in Berlin about Muslim migrant students circulating ISIS beheading videos was not a lone case and that such propaganda is “spreading like wildfire”.
Meidinger said that the presence of security guards at schools, a rarity in European countries, was “synonymous with a capitulation,” and that the situation had worsened since the influx of around 2 million new migrants from 2015 onwards.

SANCTUARY CITIES UNDERMINE LAW ENFORCEMENT & ENDANGER OUR COMMUNITIES

SANCTUARY CITIES UNDERMINE LAW ENFORCEMENT & ENDANGER OUR COMMUNITIES 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Official White House Fact Sheet
President Donald J TrumpPresident Donald J Trump : Sanctuary Cities Undermine Law Enforcement & Endanger Our CommunitiesWhiteHouse.govWhiteHouse.gov
Washington DC –-(Ammoland.com)- Sanctuary jurisdictions obstruct Federal immigration enforcement efforts and put law enforcement at greater risk.
  • A “sanctuary city” generally refers to a State or local jurisdiction that refuses to cooperate with Federal immigration enforcement, often by rejecting “detainer” requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and refusing to share information relating to potentially removable aliens.
    • Detainers are used to request that a State or local law enforcement agency hold a criminal alien in local custody for up to 48 hours after their release on state charges to allow ICE to take custody of the alien and initiate removal proceedings.
    • State and local law enforcement agencies routinely detain suspects for violating Federal laws at the request of federal authorities.
    • The Constitution and Federal statues allow for ICE to detain illegal aliens, and for local police to do so at ICE’s request, relying on ICE’s determination of probable cause.
      • Detainers themselves establish probable cause of an alien’s removability and it would be absurd to require ICE to obtain a judicial warrant every time it detained an illegal alien.
      • Indeed, Congress authorized immigration officers, rather than Federal judges, to issue administrative warrants to arrest aliens based on probable cause to believe they are in violation of the immigration laws.
    • If this was necessary under the Fourth Amendment, immigration enforcement would grind to a halt.
  • When sanctuary cities refuse to comply with detainer requests, law enforcement officers must carry out their immigration enforcement duties in workplaces, residences, and in the streets.
    • This can lead to ICE having to enter dangerous environments to arrest criminal aliens.
  • Some sanctuary city officials have gone as far as warning illegal aliens about upcoming immigration enforcement actions, allowing criminal aliens to prepare themselves and putting law enforcement, the public, and the aliens at even greater risk.
ENDANGERING COMMUNITIES: Reckless sanctuary policies endanger the safety of our communities and obstruct immigration enforcement actions which can prevent further crime.
  • Too many criminal illegal aliens have been released into American communities and gone on to commit crimes which could have been prevented had ICE been able to take the individuals into custody.
  • In 2016, the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) arrested a criminal illegal alien for possession of cocaine for sale and other charges.
    • The individual had been deported three times previously and had prior convictions for similar offenses but was still released.
    • SFPD arrested the individual again in 2017 on charges involving the sale of narcotics, yet the city again refused to comply with an ICE detainer request and the individual was released.
  • SFPD arrested an illegal alien and alleged gang member more than ten times between 2013 and 2017 for charges including rape, assault, domestic battery, robbery, and vehicle theft.
    • On each occasion ICE’s request to have the individual transferred to their custody or receive notice before his release was denied.
  • A criminal illegal alien was arrested in Cook County, Illinois in 2011 for driving on a suspended license from a prior conviction for driving under the influence (DUI).
    • ICE issued a detainer request but the individual was released from jail and arrested less than a year later for aggravated DUI causing death.
  • Activists say sanctuary policies make illegal aliens feel safe enough to report crimes to police.
    • Illegally present crime victims and witnesses are eligible for certain immigration benefits, like the U-visa and T-visa, to encourage their cooperation in reporting crime.
IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT: President Trump’s Administration has and will continue to pursue strong immigration enforcement based on the rule of law.  
  • President Trump’s Administration has taken action to ensure our Nation’s immigration laws are faithfully enforced.
  • The Department of Justice has filed a legal action regarding three California laws that intentionally obstruct the enforcement of Federal immigration law, regulate private entities that seek to cooperate with Federal authorities, and impede consultation and communication between Federal and State law enforcement officials.
  • During fiscal year (FY) 2017, ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) made more than 140,000 administrative arrests and effected more than 225,000 removals.
    • From President Trump’s inauguration through the end of FY 2017, ERO made more than 110,568 arrests compared to only 77,806 in all of FY 2016.
  • However, more resources are needed to ensure law enforcement is able to do its job and enforce our immigration laws.
    • There are nearly one millions aliens in the United States with final orders of removal but not enough officers or resources to enforce the orders.
    • Many sheriffs have backed off of holding criminal aliens for fear of lawsuits.

TRUMP FAILS TO KEEP PROMISES: JOHNSON AMENDMENT REMAINS INTACT IN LATEST OMNIBUS SPENDING BILL~PLANNED PARENTHOOD WILL GET $500 MILLION TOO!

TRUMP FAILS TO KEEP PROMISES: 
JOHNSON AMENDMENT REMAINS INTACT IN LATEST OMNIBUS SPENDING BILL 
BY JACK JENKINS
SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/johnson-amendment-remains-intact-latest-omnibus-spending-bill/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The part of tax law that prohibits houses of worship from engaging in explicit political activity will remain intact for now, despite concerns that Republican lawmakers would try to repeal it in the latest massive federal spending bill they released this week.
The more than 60-year-old law, often referred to as the Johnson Amendment, bars churches and other tax-exempt organizations from endorsing political candidates. A group of conservatives — mostly evangelical Christian leaders and a few Republican lawmakers — have advocated for its removal in recent years, and a 2017 bill from the House Appropriations Committee included a provision largely defunding IRS efforts to enforce it.
This year’s $1.3 trillion omnibus bill,  released by the GOP on Wednesday night (March 21), however, does not include a repeal. Its absence was celebrated by faith leaders and nonprofit groups who advocated against repealing the law, arguing that it protects them from political coercion.
“Those who depend on houses of worship and community nonprofits can breathe a sigh of relief, as concerted efforts to weaken the long-standing law that keeps the 501(c)(3) sector free from partisan campaigning were rebuked yet again,” said Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.
“Some hoped they could slip a bad policy change into must-pass legislation, but advocates for keeping nonprofits nonpartisan spoke up and prevailed.”
Tim Delaney, president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, echoed Tyler’s enthusiasm but warned that repeal efforts will likely continue.“It would be nice to celebrate a long and hard-fought victory, but we cannot afford to relax,” he said in a statement.
“Last year prominent politicians and well-funded lobbyists tried to gut the Johnson Amendment through an executive order and five separate bills. Their zeal last year suggests they likely will continue their push to hijack charitable goodwill for their own political ambitions while rewarding their supporters with charitable tax deductions for partisan donations.”
Last year’s attempts to gut the Johnson Amendment included several efforts to attach a repeal to larger legislation. The GOP-authored tax bill, for example, initially included language that would damage the law. That version was passed by the House of Representatives but removed from the final bill negotiated with the Senate in December.
The campaign to remove the Johnson Amendment has intensified since the election of President Trump, who promised to “totally destroy” it. The president signed an executive order addressing the issue in May 2017, later stating in an interview with conservative Christian leader Pat Robertson that he had “gotten rid” of the law. But experts — including conservative groups such as the Alliance Defending Freedom — disagreed, noting the text of the order only asks the Treasury Department to use “maximum … discretion” when enforcing the Johnson Amendment.
Despite a contention by the Johnson Amendment’s foes that the rarely enforced law compromises religious freedom or liberty, removing it is deeply unpopular with people of faith.
According to a 2016 Public Religion Research Institute poll, majorities within all major U.S. religious groups oppose allowing churches to endorse candidates while retaining their tax-exempt status — including white evangelical Protestants. In addition, 99 religious groups sent a letter to Congress in April 2017 asking lawmakers to stop attempts to politicize churches, and later that year more than 4,000 faith leaders signed on to a letter demanding Congress refrain from weakening or repealing the Johnson Amendment.
Photo courtesy: Getty Images
Publication date: March 26, 2018
Websites Links

PENNSYLVANIA PLANNED PARENTHOOD: “WE NEED A DISNEY PRINCESS WHO’S HAD AN ABORTION”~AND: “WHO’S PRO-CHOICE, AN UNDOCUMENTED MIGRANT, A UNION WORKER, A TRANSGENDER”

P.P.HATES CHILDREN
PENNSYLVANIA PLANNED PARENTHOOD: 
“WE NEED A DISNEY PRINCESS WHO’S 
HAD AN ABORTION” 
BY HEATHER CLARK
SEE: http://christiannews.net/2018/03/28/pennsylvania-planned-parenthood-we-need-a-disney-princess-whos-had-an-abortion/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
ALLENTOWN, Pa. — A Pennsylvania chapter of Planned Parenthood tweeted on Tuesday that Disney should create a storyline about a princess who has had an abortion, or has gender dysphoria, or is an illegal immigrant.
“We need a disney princess who’s had an abortion. We need a disney princess who’s pro-choice,” Planned Parenthood Keystone wrote. “We need a disney princess who’s an undocumented immigrant. We need a disney princess who’s actually a union worker. We need a disney princess who’s trans.”
The entity later deleted the tweet following public outrage.
“Today, we joined an ongoing Twitter conversation about the kinds of princesses people want to see in an attempt to make a point about the importance of telling stories that challenge stigma and championing stories that too often don’t get told,” Planned Parenthood Keystone President Melissa Reed outlined in a statement.
“Planned Parenthood believes that pop culture—television shows, music, movies—has a critical role to play in educating the public and sparking meaningful conversations around sexual and reproductive health issues and policies, including abortion,” she remarked. “We also know that emotionally authentic portrayals of these experiences are still extremely rare—and that’s part of a much bigger lack of honest depictions of certain people’s lives and communities.”
However, Reed said that “upon reflection,” the Allentown-based group decided that the “seriousness” of their point wasn’t appropriate for the subject matter of what Disney princesses people would like to see, and consequently deleted the tweet.
The tweet still may be viewed via the Wayback Machine, and members of the public continue to express disgust.
“Leave your agenda out of children’s movies/entertainment,” one commented.
“That’s their goal: indoctrinate children as young as possible,” another opined.
“We need a Planned Parenthood who’s not funded by taxpayers,” a third wrote.
Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky recently also raised eyebrows after tweeting “Some men have a uterus,” writing the statement 11 times. That post still remains on the affiliate’s Twitter. 
As previously reported, according to its annual report, Planned Parenthood performed 321,384 abortions during the 2016-2017 fiscal year. The CDC, which releases nationwide abortion figures each year, outlined in December that “women in their 20’s accounted for the majority of abortions and had the highest abortion rates,” noting that the vast majority—85%—of women obtaining abortions are unmarried.
Most abortions are for convenience purposes.
Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, who penned a newsletter entitled “The Woman Rebel: No Gods, No Masters,” actually wrote against abortion, stating that “the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.”
“The great majority of women, however, belong to the working class. Nearly all of these women will fall into one of two general groups—the ones who are having children against their wills, and those who, to escape this evil, find refuge in abortion. Being given their choice by society—to continue to be overburdened mothers or to submit to a humiliating, repulsive, painful and too often gravely dangerous operation, those women in whom the feminine urge to freedom is strongest choose the abortionist,” she wrote.Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, who penned a newsletter entitled “The Woman Rebel: No Gods, No Masters,” actually wrote against abortion, stating that “the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.”
However, Sanger’s solution to countering abortion was birth control, initially naming her organization the American Birth Control League. She decried large families, writing in a chapter of her book “Woman and the New Race”, “The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children.” She claimed that children get lost in large families and end up in jail or as prostitutes.
Sanger was also an advocate of eugenics against the disabled, as she made a correlation between birth control and the purification of the races.
“Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives,” she wrote. “If we are to make racial progress, this development of womanhood must precede motherhood in every individual woman.”
______________________________________________________________
THE BACKLASH:

Planned Parenthood Wants a Disney Princess 

to Have an Abortion

BY RAVEN CLABOUGH
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Planned Parenthood is taking a rule out of the Social Justice Warrior (SJW) handbook and is looking to turn a Disney princess into an indoctrination tool to advance an agenda. In a Twitter post on Tuesday, Planned Parenthood listed demands for Disney, one of which is to create a character who has had an abortion. The rest is a laundry list of left-wing bullet points. 
The tweet reads:
We need a disney princess who's had an abortion We need a disney princess who's pro-choice We need a disney princess who's an undocumented immigrant We need a disney princess who's actually a union worker We need a disney princess who's trans.
The Left seems to be outright admitting that the entertainment industry is no longer for entertainment, but a tool for indoctrination. It's bad enough that adults cannot watch television without constantly being confronted by the left-wing agenda that seems to take aim at the traditional family and attempts to turn Americans against law enforcement, the military, and the church. But now, children are not even safe from this lunacy.
The tweet has since been deleted, but screenshots preserve its ridiculous message.
Fortunately, even Planned Parenthood supporters did not seem to be on-board with Planned Parenthood's agenda, InfoWars reports.
“Disney princesses are for CHILDREN and these are adult issues. Jesus,” one supporter said. “This far-out crap is why we got stuck with Donald Trump.”
Another user agreed with the first: "Exactly. They have no idea how extreme this sounds (and yes, I'm pro-choice)."
A third user opined, "Stop trying to push adult issues on innocent impressionable children. It's wrong and kinda gross."
Conservative pundit Ben Shapiro tweeted back at Planned Parenthood, “We need a Disney princess who uses her royal authority to defund you stupid a**holes.”
Others showed their opposition to Planned Parenthood's tweet by mercilessly mocking it.
One user tweeted, "we need a disney princess with a foot fetish." Another joked, "we need a Disney Princess with osteoporosis."
User Cameron Wallace showed Planned Parenthood how conservatives could also use Disney princesses to advance their own agenda:
We need a conservative disney princess. We need a pro life disney princess. We need a disney princess who has her concealed carry permit. We need a free market disney princess. We need a patriotic disney princess.
Planned Parenthood's tweet likely did not get the support the abortion provider hoped it would. The tweet itself received only 40 retweets and 38 likes.
Disney princesses have strangely been at the center of controversy for years. Feminists have criticized the fact that Disney princesses almost always need to be saved by a prince in order to break a spell or gain freedom. Others have opined that Disney princesses need to be beautiful and often dress promiscuously. More recently, SJWs have created further controversy by setting standards as to which children should be able to dress as which princess for Halloween. The PC police contend that white children should not be able to don costumes of minority characters, while also complaining that white children dressing like white princesses are an example of white privilege. It's a lose-lose situation.
Sadly, Disney princesses are not the only beloved children's characters to be a target of the Left to push an agenda. Years ago, after gay marriage became legalized in New York, there was a major online push for Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie to have a gay wedding.
"Let Bert & Ernie Get Married On Sesame Street," read a petition at change.org started by Illinois resident Lair Scott. "We are not asking that Sesame Street do anything crude or disrespectful by allowing Bert & Ernie to marry. It can be done in a tasteful way. Let us teach tolerance of those that are different. Let Sesame Street and PBS Kids be a big part in saving many worthy lives."
In just seven days, there were over 1,000 signatures on the petition.
Supporters were disappointed, however, when a spokesman for Sesame Workshop issued a statement that read, "Bert and Ernie were created to teach preschoolers that people can be good friends with those who are very different from themselves. Even though the Sesame Street Muppets ... possess many human traits and characteristics, they have no sexual orientation."
And sane people everywhere heaved a collective sigh of relief.
But according to the conservative media watch organization Parents Television Council (PTC), children's cartoons are increasingly becoming problematic, particularly those aired on the Cartoon Network. The group gave the network a failing grade in its 2011 special report entitled "Cartoons are no laughing matter," claiming that the network aired a number of animated series that contained sexual references and depictions, foul language and violence, and failed to warn parents in advance 100 percent of the time.
While watching cartoons might seem “an innocent pastime, animation can pose an inherent risk for children and teens,” the study noted. Cartoons, it continued, “can potentially trivialize and bring humor to adult themes and contribute to an atmosphere in which children view these depictions as normative and acceptable.”
The report warns the danger is exacerbated because “children and teens are consuming more and more of their video entertainment outside the traditional confines of a television set.”
That is precisely why Planned Parenthood seeks to use cartoons to push their agenda. At least for now, enough sane people rejected the proposal to stop it in its tracks.
_____________________________________________________________

Disney Princesses Pushed To Be Trans & Pro-Abortion  Dr. Duke Pesta 


NAZISM REVISITED: NY TIMES OP-ED: “REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT” TO “MAKE SCHOOLCHILDREN SAFER”~FORMER SUPREME COURT JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS WANTS SECOND AMENDMENT REPEALED

“REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT” TO 
“MAKE SCHOOLCHILDREN SAFER”

Former Supreme Court associate justice calls for abolishing right to bear arms

BY PAUL JOSEPH WATSON
SEE: https://www.infowars.com/ny-times-op-ed-repeal-the-second-amendment-to-make-schoolchildren-safer/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
A New York Times op-ed published this morning calls for repealing the Second Amendment in its entirety in order to “make our schoolchildren safer”.
Written by John Paul Stevens, a retired associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, the article claims that merely calling for age limits on purchasing firearms to be raised is not enough and that gun control activists should “demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.”
Asserting that the right to bear arms is a “relic of the 18th century,” Stevens decries the 2008 Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court ruling, on which he was one of the dissenters, which found that there was an individual right to bear arms.
“Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option,” writes Stevens.
He concludes by saying that abolishing the right to bear arms via a constitutional amendment “would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States” and “make our schoolchildren safer”.
Stevens doesn’t delve into the thorny issue of what would happen if the government attempted to forcibly disarm around 70 million American gun owners who between them own roughly 300 million guns.
The op-ed, the headline of which began trending on Twitter, will further fuel the argument made by conservatives that the left’s call for regulation of AR-15s is merely one step along the road to full gun confiscation.
As we reported yesterday, numerous protest signs seen at the ‘March For Our Lives’ event openly called for all guns to be banned, by force if necessary.
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:
Follow on Twitter: 
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.
______________________________________________
Stevens’ Call to Repeal Second Amendment Caps a Career of Judicial Subversion
BY DAVID CODREA
SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2018/03/stevens-call-to-repeal-second-amendment-caps-a-career-of-judicial-subversion/#axzz5B4NnW2ZVrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Left intentionally unsaid is that, per a prior Supreme Court, the militia is “expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time [and] “the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear … ordinary military equipment … that … could contribute to the common defense.”USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “Repeal the Second Amendment,” retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens declared in a Tuesday “op-ed” in The New York Times.  It’s actually the third time “the newspaper of record” has hosted such sentiments in recent months, and they’re hardly alone.

But no one’s talking about taking your guns, the gun-grabbers scoff.  Honest.
Citing the “dark money”-funded #MarxForOurLives media events we’re told were “organized” by children, Stevens cites ginned-up “demand” as justification for gun bans and for the eradication of a right the Founders deemed “necessary to the security of a free State.”
Recognizing the dangers of “pure democracy” mob rule, our Bill of Rights defined some of the areas where the individual would be immune to the will of the collective. Stevens knows that. His ignoring it is a motivated choice.
What this means is, no matter how many of us disagree with you, we cannot lawfully use force to shut you up, to suppress your political views, or to make you worship in the way we see fit. We cannot break into your house and search your property without probable cause and a legal warrant. We can’t torture you into confessing to a crime. Barring behaviors on your part to disqualify yourself from incarceration after being afforded full due process protections, we cannot strip you of your right to keep and bear arms.
The safeguard against tyranny provided by an armed populace from which a citizen militia can be formed is “a relic of the past,” Stevens counters, providing no additional corroboration beyond his say-so.
Now there’s a neat trick—because the government has ignored its duty it can now declare it obsolete.  Try that with your employer. Stevens is offering a personal opinion here, not a legal one. And note he doesn’t say what about human nature has changed.
In the previous century that saw two world wars, continual violent political upheaval, genocide and systemic, brutal tyranny and repression, and noting the continuation into this century, has humanity truly demonstrated a benevolence and maturity that distinguishes our era from those that preceded us? In a culture that breeds gang warfare, rampant violence, city-crippling riots and a national murder rate measured in the tens of thousands, how can anyone credibly claim that the need for individual and collective defense is a relic of the past? And ultimately, what is this “outdated” Second Amendment really about, if not the preservation of a free people when all other options to defend life and liberty have been exhausted? Against all enemies, individual and aggregated, foreign and domestic…?
Don’t look for Stevens to address that.
While it’s true Congress has been allowed to abandon its Constitutional duty “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,” former diplomat Alan Keyes correctly notes that’s something a free people ought to revive. The question now becomes how to convey that to lawmakers as an expectation with credible consequences should they continue to shirk an enumerated job requirement.
“For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation,” Stevens claims.

“Any limit”? What a liar.

And that would come as a surprise to William Rawle, whose ”View of the Constitution” was the standard Constitutional law text at leading universities in the early 19th Century. Here’s what he had to say:
“No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under a general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any pursuit of an inordinate power either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”
“In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a ‘well regulated militia,” Stevens follows up, deliberately obscuring the most crucial point.
The Miller court specifically acknowledged “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense … [who] were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time [and] “the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear … ordinary military equipment … that … could contribute to the common defense.”
The “well regulated” part began after they reported for duty.
“Chief Justice [Warren] Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating ‘one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime,’” Stevens continues, conveniently not mentioning that the opinion was not issued in any legal case, but rather in Parade Magazine of all places.
Attorney Dave Kopel pointed out Burger’s many errors and false assumptions. As an aside, Burger was appointed by Richard Nixon, a president who wanted to ban handguns.
“I was among the four dissenters,” Stevens says of the Heller decision, meaning if he had the power, he would order that you do not have a right to keep and bear arms and that the government should destroy you if you defied him.
“Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option,” Stevens declares.
First of all, a Constitutional amendment is anything but simple. The Founders that Stevens disregards so cavalierly purposely designed things that way. And this also shows Stevens hasn’t let either reality or existing precedent influence his biases, as the Heller majority noted when citing an earlier decision:
“The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’ As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, ‘[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed…’”
If a tyrannical government does repeal the Second Amendment it will not take away our right to keep and bear arms. Only we can give that up.
Calling for repeal is a Hail Mary of sorts on Steven’s part. A few years back he wanted to amend things to read:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms — when serving in the militia — shall not be infringed.”
It’s tempting to dismiss this latest attack as the ramblings of a subversive dotard and conclude there’s no fool like an old fool. But Stevens has been doing this for years and is voicing the very real goals of those intent on establishing that old standby of totalitarian regimes everywhere, a monopoly of violence.
The only appropriate response to that (despite the impulse of some who fancy themselves our “gun rights leaders” to offer “compromise”) is one word:
No.
It’s three words if you add “Your move.”
About David Codrea:David Codrea
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.
In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

SOROS IN CONTROL: HIGH SCHOOLER DELANEY TARR BRAGS OF PLAN TO BAN GUNS~FORMER SUPREME COURT JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS CALLS FOR REPEAL OF SECOND AMENDMENT & NATIONWIDE CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS

HIGH SCHOOLER DELANEY TARR 
BRAGS OF PLAN TO BAN GUNS
Alex Jones presents video footage from the March For Our Lives Rally in Washington D.C. where highschooler Delaney Tarr proclaims she wants to take more guns than she initially asked.

True Gun Control Plans, 

“Give Us An Inch, We Will Take A Mile”

FORMER SUPREME COURT JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS CALLS FOR REPEAL OF SECOND AMENDMENT & NATIONWIDE CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS 

Soros Now In Complete Control Of Public Education / Organizing Youth For Gun Confiscation

Alex Jones breaks down how the George Soros funded March For Our Lives Rally is an attempt for foreign actors to take control and steer our public education narrative toward total gun confiscation.

Students Chant To Take Away Rights Under American Flag — #MarchForOurLives



LIBERAL DELAWARE COPYCATS ABUSE THE LAW: “ASSAULT WEAPONS” BAN INTRODUCED TO DELAWARE GENERAL ASSEMBLY~COPIES THE MARYLAND BILL

DELAWARE LEGISLATORS:
DAMN THE CONSTITUTION
NO EXCEPTIONS HERE:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
WHERE LIBERALS RULE, YOU CAN EXPECT MORE AND MORE LAWS & ERADICATION OF GUN RIGHTS, ALL IN THE NAME OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE WELFARE OF CHILDREN
EXCEPT IN DELAWARE, YOU HAVE TO WAIT 1.5 HOURS BEFORE THE POLICE ARRIVE WHEN THERE IS A SHOOTING, OTHER CRIME, OR INCIDENT
LEAVING YOU DEFENSELESS & LIKELY KILLED

ABOVE: SENATOR BRYAN TOWNSEND

Firearms Laws / Guns Safety: Bryan Townsend at Congressional Candidates Debate 8/15/2016

LAWYER ABUSES THE LAW OF THE LAND; INTRODUCES UNCONSTITUTIONAL BILL
“ASSAULT WEAPONS” BAN INTRODUCED TO DELAWARE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 
BY JOHN CRUMP
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- Sen. Bryan Townsend (D-Newark) introduced a new proposed ban on most semiautomatic guns in the Delaware General Assembly on Thursday.
Townsend based the bill on the infamous Maryland Firearm Safety Act of 2013 (“FSA”) which banned most modern sporting rifles. Maryland Democrats used the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut to push the bill through their legislator. It appears that the anti-gun politicians in Delaware are using the Parkland Florida shooting as an excuse to introduce the bill and push it through
The bill would ban 60 specific makes and models of rifles, shotguns, and “assault pistols”. The law goes further and would prohibit any gun that Delaware deems a “copycat weapon.” The legislation would give Delaware almost unlimited power to determine which firearm would fall into this category.
The bill would also prevent the transfer, sale, or manufacture of these firearms. Any firearms companies located in Delaware will have to shut down or leave the state. There is a grandfather clause for citizens that already own these rifles.
The bill states that it is necessary for the safety of the general public, as well as members of Delaware's law-enforcement community. The legislation falsely asserts that these firearms are used disproportionately to their ownership in mass shootings and the murders of police. It also claims that the banning of these weapons would make criminals less dangerous.
In one part of the bill makes the absurd claim that the differences between semi-automatic firearms and automatic firearms are slight. It then makes the claim that semi-automatic guns are more lethal than automatic guns. It even goes as far as to ban any rifle that looks like an M16.
“These are not firearms used in home defense like handguns or for hunting like other types of rifles,” Townsend said in a statement. “They are derived from the battlefield, and their purpose is to kill in large numbers.”
The bill does acknowledge that some people do use these would-be banned firearms for self-defense. It then goes further and states that most people choose other guns for self-defense. It uses that fact to try to override the self-defense argument.
Stephen Wileford Church HeroI guess they already forgot when Stephen Wileford used his AR-15 to stop a church shooter.
Townsend also wrongly claims that so-called “assault weapons bullets” can penetrate standard home construction and car doors while handgun rounds cannot. The bill also states that the 5.56 round can easily penetrate body armor. These false statements show that Townsend is either grossly misinformed or he is dishonest. Anti-gun groups have used this tactic in gun control bills in other states.
Townsend also wrote in the legislation that modern sporting rifles give criminals a “military-style advantage” over law enforcement. Most officers have access to AR15s along with training on the platform, and statistically, most criminals do not use AR15s in crimes. Any advantage would be canceled out for these reasons.
The bill sites the fourth circuit court upholding the Constitutionality of the Maryland law as the Constitutional justification for the act. The Supreme Court of The United States refused to hear the appeal of the decision of the fourth circuit court.
Gun rights groups have rejected this far-reaching law that would even ban throwing stars.
“There is no room for compromise or amendments on this,” Jeff Hague, president of Delaware State Sportsmen's Association told Delaware Online. “This is bad legislation and we will not support it in any manner.”
It will be interesting to see how the debate on this bill plays out in the Delaware General Assembly. The bill is full of misconceptions and false information. Delaware gun owners should contact their representatives. The contact information for the Delaware General Assembly can be found here.
About John CrumpJohn Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. He is the former CEO of Veritas Firearms, LLC and is the co-host of The Patriot News Podcast which can be found at www.blogtalkradio.com/patriotnews. John has written extensively on the patriot movement including 3%'ers, Oath Keepers, and Militias. In addition to the Patriot movement, John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and is currently working on a book on the history of the patriot movement and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss or at www.crumpy.com.
____________________________________________________________________

Governor Carney, Senator Townsend, Representative Longhurst Announce Assault Weapons Legislation

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
DOVER, Del. – Governor John Carney, Senator Bryan Townsend, and House Majority Leader Valerie Longhurst on Thursday announced legislation to ban the sale, purchase, transfer, and certain possession of assault-style weapons in Delaware. The legislation will be introduced by Senator Townsend in the Delaware Senate on Thursday. Representative Longhurst is the legislation’s prime sponsor in the Delaware House of Representatives.
The legislation would prohibit the sale and transfer of specific firearms in Delaware, which are listed in the legislation, as well as copycat weapons that meet certain criteria. It also would prohibit the transportation of assault-style weapons across state lines into Delaware, subject to certain exceptions. The bill would not ban possession of any weapons purchased legally before the legislation’s effective date. It would impose certain restrictions on where lawfully owned assault weapons may be possessed and transported. The legislation would allow possession in a lawful owner’s home, their place of business, a shooting range, and during an exhibition, display, or educational exhibit.
Licensed firearms dealers and manufacturers would be permitted to sell or transfer any assault-style weapons in their inventory as of the effective date of the legislation to a licensed firearm dealer in another state or to an individual purchaser in another state through a licensed firearms dealer. Among other individuals and entities, the bill includes exceptions for law enforcement officers, military personnel, and certain testing and repair facilities.
Governor Carney, Senator Townsend, and Representative Longhurst issued the following statements:
“As we have seen in Parkland, Las Vegas and in many other horrific tragedies across our country, military-style weapons can be used to carry out catastrophic acts of violence. These weapons allow those intent on doing harm to outgun members of law enforcement, and they have no place on the streets of our neighborhoods,” said Governor John Carney. “It’s true that we need a national approach to confront the threat of gun violence. I believe President Trump and Congressional leaders should take action. But we cannot wait to do what’s right in Delaware. This is important legislation that will make our state safer – and I urge members of the General Assembly in both parties to act quickly and send this bill to my desk as soon as possible. Thank you to Senator Townsend and Representative Longhurst for their partnership, and their leadership, on this issue.”
“The status quo on gun violence isn’t working. Delaware has made important progress in recent years, but we can — and must — do more,” said Senator Bryan Townsend. “Military-style assault weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment. They have limited or no practical use for hunting or home defense, yet they are the weapon of choice in mass shootings and pose additional risk to law enforcement. It’s irresponsible to make them available to the general public on-demand. We owe it to our students, our families, and our law enforcement to keep weapons of war where they belong: on the battlefield, not on store shelves.”
“We have an obligation to always look for ways to make our communities safer. Having fewer assault-style weapons on our streets is one way we can accomplish that goal,” said House Majority Leader Valerie Longhurst. “The rallying cry across the country is being repeated over and over – enough is enough, and more than half of gun owners agree that we need to step up and address these firearms. These firearms are massively deadly weapons and should not be sold any longer.”
________________________________________________________
THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT LISTED IN BILL:
SPONSOR:
Sen. Townsend & Rep. Longhurst & Rep. Brady & Rep. Potter
Sens. Henry, Marshall, McDowell, Sokola; Reps. Baumbach, Bentz, Heffernan, Kowalko, Lynn, B. Short
DELAWARE STATE SENATE
149th GENERAL ASSEMBLY
SENATE BILL NO. 163
AN ACT TO AMEND THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO DEADLY WEAPONS.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE:
Section 1. Amend Subchapter VII, Chapter 5, Title 11 of the Delaware Code by making deletions as shown by strike through and insertions as shown by underline as follows:
§§ 1462 -1469. [Reserved.]
§ 1462. Manufacture, sale, transport, transfer, purchase, receipt, or possession of assault weapons.
(a) Definitions. - For purposes of this section:
(1) “Assault long gun” means any of the following or a copy, regardless of the producer or manufacturer:
a. American Arms Spectre da Semiautomatic carbine.
b. AK-47 in all forms.
c. Algimec AGM-1 type semi-auto.
d. AR 100 type semi-auto.
e. AR 180 type semi-auto.
f. Argentine L.S.R. semi-auto.
g. Australian Automatic Arms SAR type semi-auto.
h. Auto-Ordnance Thompson M1 and 1927 semi-automatics.
i. Barrett light .50 cal. semi-auto.
j. Beretta AR70 type semi-auto.
k. Bushmaster semi-auto rifle.
l . Calico models M-100 and M-900.
m. CIS SR 88 type semi-auto.
n. Claridge HI TEC C-9 carbines.
o. Colt AR-15, CAR-15, and all imitations except Colt AR-15 Sporter H-BAR rifle.
p. Daewoo MAX 1 and MAX 2, aka AR 100, 110C, K-1, and K-2.
q. Dragunov Chinese made semi-auto.
r. Famas semi-auto (.223 caliber).
s. Feather AT-9 semi-auto.
t. FN LAR and FN FAL assault rifle.
u. FNC semi-auto type carbine.
v. F.I.E./Franchi LAW 12 and SPAS 12 assault shotgun.
w. Steyr-AUG-SA semi-auto.
x. Galil models AR and ARM semi-auto.
y. Heckler and Koch HK-91 A3, HK-93 A2, HK-94 A2 and A3.
z. Holmes model 88 shotgun.
aa. Avtomat Kalashnikov semiautomatic rifle in any format.
bb. Manchester Arms "Commando" MK-45, MK-9.
cc. Mandell TAC-1 semi-auto carbine.
dd. Mossberg model 500 Bullpup assault shotgun.
ee. Sterling Mark 6.
ff. P.A.W.S. carbine.
gg. Ruger mini-14 tactical rifle.
hh. SIG 550/551 assault rifle (.223 caliber).
ii. SKS with detachable magazine.
jj. AP-74 Commando type semi-auto.
kk. Springfield Armory BM-59, SAR-48, G3, SAR-3, M-21 sniper rifle, and M1A, excluding the M1 Garand.
ll . Street sweeper assault type shotgun.
mm. Striker 12 assault shotgun in all formats.
nn. Unique F11 semi-auto type.
oo. Daewoo USAS 12 semi-auto shotgun.
pp. UZI 9mm carbine or rifle.
qq. Valmet M-76 and M-78 semi-auto.
rr. Weaver Arms “Nighthawk” semi-auto carbine.
ss. Wilkinson Arms 9mm semi-auto “Terry”.
(2) “Assault pistol” means any of the following or a copy, regardless of the producer or manufacturer:
a. AA Arms AP-9 pistol.
b. Beretta 93R pistol.
c. Bushmaster pistol.
d. Claridge HI-TEC pistol.
e. D Max Industries pistol.
f. EKO Cobra pistol.
g. Encom MK-IV, MP-9, or MP-45 pistol.
h. Heckler and Koch MP5K, MP7, SP-89, or VP70 pistol.
i. Holmes MP-83 pistol.
j. Ingram MAC 10/11 pistol and variations, including the Partisan Avenger and the SWD Cobray.
k .  Intratec TEC-9/DC-9 pistol in any centerfire variation.
l . P.A.W.S. type pistol.
m. Skorpion pistol.
n. Spectre double action pistol (Sile, F.I.E., Mitchell).
o. Stechkin automatic pistol.
p. Steyer tactical pistol.
q. UZI pistol.
r. Weaver Arms Nighthawk pistol.
s. Wilkinson “Linda” pistol.
(3) “Assault weapon” means any of the following:
a. An assault long gun.
b. An assault pistol.
c. A copycat weapon.
(4)a. “Copycat weapon” means any of the following:
1. A semiautomatic centerfire rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and has any 2 of the following:
A. A folding stock.
B. A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
C. A flash suppressor.
2. A semiautomatic centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
3. A semiautomatic centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 29 inches.
4. A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
5. A semiautomatic shotgun that has a folding stock.
6. A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
b. “Copycat weapon” does not include an assault long gun or an assault pistol.
(5) “Detachable magazine” means an ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from a firearm without requiring disassembly of the firearm action or without the use of a tool, including a bullet or cartridge.
(6) “Flash suppressor” means a device that functions, or is intended to function, to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter’s field of vision.
(7) “Licensed firearms dealer” means any person licensed as a deadly weapons dealer under Chapter 9 of Title 24 and 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq.
(8) “Qualified retired law-enforcement officer” means as defined in § 1441B(c) of this title.
(9) “Shooting range” means any land or structure used and operated in accordance with all applicable laws and ordinances for the shooting of targets for training, education, practice, recreation, or competition.
(b) Applicability. - This section does not apply to any of the following:
(1) The following individuals, if acting within the scope of official business:
a. Personnel of the United States government or a unit of that government.
b. Members of the armed forces of the United States or of the National Guard.
c. A law-enforcement officer.
(2) An assault weapon modified to render it permanently inoperative.
(3) Possession, importation, manufacture, receipt for manufacture, shipment for manufacture, storage, purchases, sales, and transport to or by a licensed firearms dealer or manufacturer who does any of the following:
a. Provides or services an assault weapon for a law-enforcement agency of this State or for personnel exempted under paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
b. Acts to sell or transfer an assault weapon to a licensed firearm dealer in another state or to an individual purchaser in another state through a licensed firearms dealer.
c. Acts to return to a customer in another state an assault weapon transferred to the licensed firearms dealer or manufacturer under the terms of a warranty or for repair.
(4) Organizations that are required or authorized by federal law governing their specific business or activity to maintain assault weapons.
(5) The receipt of an assault weapon by inheritance, and possession of the inherited assault weapon, if the decedent lawfully possessed the assault weapon and the person inheriting the assault weapon is not otherwise a person prohibited under § 1448 of this title.
(6) The receipt of an assault weapon by a personal representative of an estate for purposes of exercising the powers and duties of a personal representative of an estate.
(7) Possession by a qualified retired law-enforcement officer who is not otherwise prohibited from receiving an assault weapon if either of the following applies:
a. The assault weapon is sold or transferred to the qualified retired law-enforcement officer by the law-enforcement agency on retirement.
b. The assault weapon was purchased or obtained by the qualified retired law-enforcement officer for official use with the law-enforcement agency before retirement.
(8) Possession or transport by an armored car guard, as defined in § 1302 of Title 24, if the armored car guard is acting within the scope of employment with an armored car agency, as defined under § 1302 of Title 24, and is licensed under Chapter 13 of Title 24.
(9) Possession, receipt, and testing by, or shipping to or from any of the following:
a. An ISO 17025 accredited, National Institute of Justice-approved ballistics testing laboratory.
b. A facility or entity that manufactures or provides research and development testing, analysis, or engineering for personal protective equipment or vehicle protection systems.
(c) Prohibitions. - Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, it is unlawful for a person to do any of the following:
(1) Transport an assault weapon into this State.
(2) Manufacture, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, receive, or possess an assault weapon.
(d) Exceptions. -
(1) A licensed firearms dealer may continue to do all of the following with an assault weapon that the licensed firearms dealer lawfully possessed on or before [the effective date of this Act]:
a. Possess the assault weapon.
b. Sell the assault weapon or offer the assault weapon for sale. But, the licensed firearms dealer may only sell the assault weapon or offer the assault weapon for sale as permitted under paragraph (b)(3)b. of this section.
c. Transfer the assault weapon. But, the licensed firearms dealer may only transfer the assault weapon as permitted by paragraph (b)(3)b. or (b)(3)c. of this section or by paragraph (d)(2)b. of this section.
(2)a. A licensed firearms dealer may take possession of an assault weapon from a person who lawfully possessed the assault weapon before [the effective date of this Act] for the purposes of servicing or repairing the assault weapon.
b. A licensed firearms dealer may transfer possession of an assault weapon received under paragraph (d)(2)a. of this section for purposes of accomplishing service or repair of the assault weapon.
(3) A person who lawfully possessed, had a purchase order for, or completed an application to purchase an assault weapon before [the effective date of this Act], may possess and transport the assault weapon on or after [the effective date of this Act] only under the following circumstances:
a. At that person’s residence, place of business, or other property owned by that person, or on property owned by another person with the owner’s express permission.
b. While on the premises of a shooting range.
c. While attending any exhibition, display, or educational project that is about firearms and that is sponsored by, conducted under the auspices of, or approved by a law-enforcement agency or a nationally or state recognized entity that fosters proficiency in, or promotes education about, firearms.
d. While transporting the assault weapon between any of the places set forth in this this paragraph (d)(3) of this section, or to any licensed firearms dealer for servicing or repair under paragraph (d)(2) of this section, if the person transports the assault weapon as follows:
1. If the assault weapon is transported outside of a motor vehicle, it must not be concealed from public view.
2. If the assault weapon is transported inside a motor vehicle, it must be unloaded and must be kept in one of the following ways:
A. In the trunk of the vehicle.
B. In a case or other container that renders the assault weapon inaccessible to the operator of or any passenger in the vehicle.
(4) A person may transport an assault weapon to or from any of the following:
a. An ISO 17025 accredited, National Institute of Justice-approved ballistics testing laboratory.
b. A facility or entity that manufactures or provides research and development testing, analysis, or engineering for personal protective equipment or vehicle protection systems.
(e) Penalty. - A violation of this section is a class F felony for a first offense and a class E felony for any subsequent offense within 10 years of a prior offense.
(f) Disposal. - A law-enforcement agency in possession of a person’s assault weapon as a result of an arrest under this section shall dispose of the assault weapon under the process established for deadly weapons and ammunition under § 2311 of this title following the person’s adjudication of delinquency or conviction under this section or by the person’s agreement to forfeit the assault weapon under an agreement to plead delinquent or guilty to another offense.
§§ 1463 – 1469. [Reserved.]
Section 2. Amend § 1457, Title 11 of the Delaware Code by making deletions as shown by strike through and insertions as shown by underline as follows:
§ 1457. Possession of a weapon in a Safe School and Recreation Zone; class D, E, or F felony; class A or B misdemeanor.
(a) Any person who commits any of the offenses described in subsection (b) of this section, or any juvenile who possesses a firearm or other deadly weapon, and does so while in or on a "Safe School and Recreation Zone" shall be guilty of the crime of possession of a weapon in a Safe School and Recreation Zone.
(b) The underlying offenses in Title 11 shall be:
(1) Section 1442. — Carrying a concealed deadly weapon; class G felony; class D felony.
(2) Section 1444. — Possessing a destructive weapon; class E felony.
(3) Section 1446. — Unlawfully dealing with a switchblade knife; unclassified misdemeanor.
(4) Section 1448. — Possession and purchase of deadly weapons by persons prohibited; class F felony.
(5) Section 1452. — Unlawfully dealing with knuckles-combination knife; class B misdemeanor.
(6) Section 1453. — Unlawfully dealing with martial arts throwing star; class B misdemeanor.
(7) Section 1462. – Manufacture, sale, transport, transfer, purchase, receipt, or possession of assault weapons.
Section 3. If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application; and, to that end, the provisions of this Act are declared to be severable.
Section 4. This Act takes effect 60 days after its enactment into law.
SYNOPSIS
This Act prohibits the manufacture, sale, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, receipt, possession, or transport of assault weapons in Delaware, subject to certain exceptions. One exception relevant to individuals is that the Act does not prohibit the possession and transport of firearms that were lawfully possessed or fully applied for before the effective date of this Act; although for these firearms there are certain restrictions relating to their possession and transport after the effective date of this Act.
This Act is based on the Firearm Safety Act of 2013 (“FSA”) passed in Maryland in the wake of the tragic slaughtering of children on December 14, 2012, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The FSA’s assault weapons ban was upheld as constitutional on February 21, 2017, by the full membership of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in the case of Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017).
The names Newtown, Aurora, San Bernardino, Orlando, Las Vegas, and Parkland, among others, have become synonymous with tragic killing of innocent, unsuspecting Americans of all ages and backgrounds, amidst a framework of federal and state laws that have permitted the purchase of weapons designed for the battlefield — not for our schools, our theaters, our places of worship, or our homes.
Safety — both for the general public, as well as members of Delaware's law-enforcement community — is the objective of this Act, as it was for the FSA. And, as with the FSA, a primary goal of this Act is to reduce the availability of assault weapons so that when a criminal acts, he or she does so with a less dangerous weapon and less severe consequences.
Relying on United States Supreme Court precedent from District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), as well as the holdings of its sister circuits, the full Fourth Circuit concluded that the assault weapons banned by the FSA are not protected by the Second Amendment. The Fourth Circuit was convinced that the banned assault weapons are among those arms that are “like” “M-16 rifles” — “weapons that are most useful in military service” — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach.
The Fourth Circuit concluded that Maryland had presented extensive uncontroverted evidence demonstrating that the assault weapons outlawed by the FSA are exceptionally lethal weapons of war. The Fourth Circuit also concluded that the evidence showed the difference between the fully automatic and semiautomatic versions of military-style weapons is slight. Further evidence considered by the Fourth Circuit that motivates this Act is as follows:
(1) Like their fully automatic counterparts, the banned assault weapons are firearms designed for the battlefield, for the soldier to be able to shoot a large number of rounds across a battlefield at a high rate of speed, and that their design results in a capability for lethality — more wounds, more serious, in more victims — far beyond that of other firearms in general, including other semiautomatic guns.
(2) The banned assault weapons have been used disproportionately to their ownership in mass shootings and the murders of law-enforcement officers.
(3) The banned assault weapons further pose a heightened risk to civilians in that rounds from assault weapons have the ability to easily penetrate most materials used in standard home construction, car doors, and similar materials, and that criminals armed with the banned assault weapons possess a “military-style advantage” in firefights with law-enforcement officers, as such weapons allow criminals to effectively engage law-enforcement officers from great distances and their rounds easily pass through the soft body armor worn by most law-enforcement officers.
(4) Although self-defense is a conceivable use of the banned assault weapons, most individuals choose to keep other firearms for that purpose.
(5) Prohibitions against assault weapons will promote public safety by reducing the availability of those armaments to mass shooters and other criminals, by diminishing their especial threat to law-enforcement officers, and by hindering their unintentional misuse by civilians.
(6) In many situations, the semiautomatic fire of an assault weapon is more accurate and lethal than the automatic fire.
Finding this evidence and these conclusions by the Fourth Circuit to be strongly persuasive of the applicable framework of constitutional rights, and firmly believing that promoting the safety of the Delaware public and Delaware law-enforcement is a paramount function of the Delaware General Assembly, Delaware legislators file this Act in the name of public safety and with adherence to core constitutional principles.

NAZISM REBORN: SOROS, LIBERALS, GLOBALISTS, SOCIALISTS FUND & FOMENT RESISTANCE TO FIRST & SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS, GUN OWNERS, PATRIOTS, CONSTITUTIONALISTS

NAZISM REBORN: 
SOROS, LIBERALS, GLOBALISTS, SOCIALISTS FUND & FOMENT RESISTANCE TO FIRST & SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS, GUN OWNERS, PATRIOTS, CONSTITUTIONALISTS
“Spontaneous Student Protest Marches” 
Paid for by Wealthy Donors & Corporations
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research 
purposes:
“Spontaneous Student Protest Marches” Paid for by Wealthy Donor's & Corporations
New Hampshire – -(Ammoland.com)- We have been asked to comment on the weekend's so called “student led marches for gun control” which occurred across the country.
First, you should know that these protests are far from the simple, grassroots teenager led movement that the mainstream media wants to you think they are.
These marches are funded and led by anti-gun billionaires and millionaires. For example, in spite of the fact that many football fans are also Second Amendment advocates, Robert Kraft, the anti-gun owner of the New England Patriots donated the use of the team's private plane to transport the Florida protesters to Washington, DC.
Wealthy Florida Gun Banner Al HoffmanWealthy Florida Gun Banner Al Hoffman
Every gun control organization in America, large and small, national and local, was backing these so called marches. And a new anti-gun organization seems to have been formed by a wealthy Florida resident named Al Hoffman.

If you still think this is a simple student led grassroots protest consider that Delta Airlines donated the use of three jets to transport some protestors to Washington DC — free of charge.

The reality is that it is virtually impossible for teenagers to pick up the phone, contact Delta and receive the use of jumbo jets. What is more likely is that the teenagers were assisted by highly organized gun control organizations. Organizations that, after each and every tragedy involving a firearm roll out the same tired gun ban proposals. This is not about safety, or restricting access to firearms by convicted criminals. These organizations support magazine capacity restrictions, bans and confiscation of certain types of firearms, and when restrictions don't work, they call for even more restrictions on law abiding people who have not done anything wrong.
You and I both know that further gun control, will not make anyone safer; it will lead to more victim rich environments and violence. Armed self defense worked in Texas and it can work anywhere.
The professional anti-gun activists who orchestrated these marches, do not believe that you have a right to carry a gun for self defense. What is even more frightening is that these gun ban activists fail to grasp the simple fact that a person who is determined to commit murder will not obey a law that says: “no guns allowed in schools”.
Still have doubts about their true agenda? Click here to read some of their “model laws”.
Now, lets consider the real facts, the murders in 1999, at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado happened during the 10 year ban on so called “assault weapons”, the murders at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and the Pulse Nightclub occurred in two of the many places in Florida that are off limits to legally carried guns, the murders at the Aurora Colorado Movie Theater also occurred in a gun free zone. However, a brave School Resource Officer in St. Mary's County Maryland stopped a violent school shooter before he could do more harm. Armed self defense works.
Think this can't happen here? The Vermont House of Representatives passed a magazine ban last week.
On a final note, I think I have outlined pretty clearly who the enemies of freedom are. However if you read the Union Leader you may have seen the attacks on NHFC's no compromise position on the Second Amendment. New Hampshire Firearms Coalition and our members truly support your civil right to keep and bear arms; but there are some who would rather spend time on personal attacks and distracting us from protecting your rights than actually helping us in the fight.
I have to admit, it gives me great pause when we are watching national anti-gun activism at a new level and at the same time, some groups who self identify as firearms advocacy organizations are spending time and effort attacking your New Hampshire Firearms Coalition . I think it is critical, now, more than ever, that we keep our eyes on these new and increasing threats and focus all of our efforts on defeating the anti-gun activism that is before us.
I have some news, for those who want to stand in the way of New Hampshire Firearms Coalition's highly effective, principled stance on protecting the civil rights of the firearms owners in New Hampshire: New Hampshire Firearms Coalition will not be silenced.
If you have never told your friends and family about New Hampshire Firearms Coalition, forwarding this article would be a terrific way to get them involved in the struggle to protect our rights. Thanks for your continued support!
In liberty,
JR Hoell Corporate Secretary – NHFC, Inc.
P.S.: The New Hampshire Firearms Coalition is working tirelessly to keep gun owners like you up-to-date on as many gun issues as possible — please consider contributing to the effort by chipping in $15 or $20.
Click here to support NHFC by purchasing one of our custom rifles. New Hampshire Firearms Coalition
About New Hampshire Firearms Coalition:
The New Hampshire Firearms Coalition is New Hampshire's only No Compromise Gun Rights Organization. While many so-called “gun rights groups” work to curry favor with politicians and the media, NHFC is working aggressively to hold politicians accountable and to put a stop to gun control. Visit: www.nhfc-ontarget.org
_______________________________________________________________
Disgusting Immoral Child Whoring by Anti-Gun Protestors – WARNING Offensive Images
BY DAVID LAPELL
SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2018/03/america-second-amendment-headed/#axzz5Awy0d9qHrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Child Protestor wishing to Fuck the NRAChild Protestor and mother wishing to fuck the NRA.
USA – -(Ammoland.com)- I have been torn today, after watching the “National” March on Washington and how overwhelmingly one-sided the coverage seems to have been as well as the moral morass and ignorance of the protestors.
In a few hours time I saw many interviews, and the responses I saw not only made me angry, it made me sad as well.
Sad because so many young adults, ignorant of history and the Constitution, were being used as pawns and as political props. Props used by those on the left who are pushing these rallies, but since their faces are known [Bloomberg], they conscripted children to do their dirty work.
What made me angry were how young I saw some of the kids to be, that held signs in favor of gun control, some that aren’t even old enough to be in Kindergarten. In those cases, the parents who use their kids in such a way are morally reprehensible, and they should all be ashamed. Who would use their children like this?
What struck me was how uninformed so many were when a few reporters started asking intelligent questions. Several responded that they wanted a ban on “assault weapons,” but when pressed what one of those was, they were pretty much clueless. There were many holding signs that had to be partially blurred out as to what they thought gun owners and the NRA could do with guns as a whole. Probably one of the most common things I saw, after the marchers got done stating the long list of things they wanted banned, most if not all then parroted out that they “don’t want to infringe on the rights of the law-abiding citizens”.
Perhaps one reporter should have brought around a dictionary and pointed out what the word “infringe” actually means.
Whoring Babies Against GunWhoring Babies Against GunOffensive Anti NRA Signage Carried by Clearly Ignorant ChildrenOffensive Anti NRA Signage Carried by Clearly Ignorant Children
On the very nice, and very expensive looking for a grassroots organization, main stage at the rally in Washington, DC, one celebrity after another trotted out and bloviated their views. Miley Cyrus, Kim Kardashian, Ariana Grande to name a few and more offered support from afar. What no one asked these self-centered Samaritans is how much-armed security they have around them to keep them safe. How many police officers and armed guards keep them and their families safe while lending their support to those who out of ignorance, arrogance or in some cases both would deprive gun owners of that same right. All the while vilifying the American men and women who make up the NRA. This hypocritical stance is one reason why gun owners and conservatives look at these rallies with disgust and are wary every time the words “common sense gun laws” are uttered.

What these rallies are and what they are gearing up to be are voter drives.

The left knows they are on the losing end when it comes to common sense issues. That was proven in November of 2016, but many are beginning to show fatigue from politics and at the same time, don’t seem to want to be bothered to vote this fall.
As a conservative, I can tell you that the left is mobilizing and doing so with as much money and media backing as they possibly can. I want you to imagine what this country will look like if the Democrat party gets back in control of Congress, a terrifying proposition.
Children Protesting the NRAChildren Protesting the NRAPink Pussy Hats Protesting Donald Trump at Anti-Gun RallyPink Pussy Hats Protesting Donald Trump at Anti-Gun Rally, what does this have to do with School Safety?Proud NRA Protestor with Vulgar SignProud NRA Protestor with Vulgar Sign
You can bet one thing is for sure, the Democrats getting control of Congress can mean one thing, impeachment proceedings for sure. On top of that appointees for judges for district courts to the Supreme Court will be compromised, which means a Justice that can go whichever way the wind blows, and frankly, we’ve had too many of them as it is.
Now I want you to think a little farther down the line, and that’s to 2020. Imagine what January, 2021 can look like if a Democrat President comes into power with control of a Congress run by the same party. If you think that a ban on bump stocks is hard news, imagine what could be passed with a vengeful party who has been on the receiving end of a couple of years of policies they didn’t like.
Only thing worse than a Democrat President in 2021 is the thought of hearing the words Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. If you think it can’t happen, it can, and will if we as gun owners and voters don’t get off our collective backsides and do something about it.
What we’re seeing with these marches using children, are that battle lines being drawn, and the orther side has no problem placing kids in the line of fire. I don’t hold them the babies responsible; I do however fault whoever is educating them and the schools that are encouraging it while at the same time silencing the students who oppose the agenda of the left. Sadly what I can say is that I think this is just the beginning.
There are some on the left who want to see these kids protesting non-stop, joining up with the likes of ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter which is starting to happen in places like Sacramento. No good can come from these organizations merging except high school students being placed in the back of patrol cars with the media plastering some sad faces all over the evening news.
Anti Gun Politicization Of Shooting Deaths Let A Tragedy Go To Waste“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” – Rahm Emanuel
One thing we can all say for sure is that this country is split, right down the middle, politically, culturally, and morally, and that divide instead of healing is worsening daily.
Elections this November are critical to gun owners and conservatives in the long run. If the Democrats regain control of Congress the next year will be dominated by one thing, impeachment for whatever reason they can come up with, it won’t matter, and this country will be even more torn. Throw any tragedies or disasters into the cauldron, and one can see how things can spiral downward. No matter what gun owners differences are with each other, with the NRA, it’s now plain to see how the other alternatives can be worse in the long run. Karl Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto when it came to the history of society something that wrings shockingly true of what we are seeing in these rallies that is a dire warning:
“Society as a whole is splitting up more and more into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other.”
Karl Marx was the author of what many on the left are practicing now, most of them don’t even know it. The marches we’re all seeing against guns, gun owners, the NRA and the Second Amendment as a whole is precisely what the father of Communism envisioned for promoting his political ideals and it’s been eating away at America for the last few decades here.
If the Democrats win, that cancer will spread further and faster than ever. It will be up to us in November to fight back the tide in the voting booths nationwide.
AmmoLand Join the NRA BannerAmmoLand says Join the NRA About David LaPell David LaPellDavid LaPell
David LaPell has been a Corrections Officer with the local Sheriff's Department for thirteen years. A collector of antique and vintage firearms for over twenty years and an avid hunter. David has been writing articles about firearms, hunting and western history for ten years. In addition to having a passion for vintage guns, he is also a fan of old trucks and has written articles on those as well.
___________________________________________

GOOGLE SEARCHES FOR ‘BUY AR-15’ SURGE AFTER ‘MARCH FOR OUR LIVES’ RALLY

David Hogg: Gun salesman of the year

BY PAUL JOSEPH WATSON
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Google searches for people wanting to buy AR-15’s spiked shortly after Saturday’s gun control ‘March For Our Lives’ rally, another indication that the left’s crusade against the Second Amendment is in fact causing increased firearms sales.
Just hours after the nationwide protest ended, searches for “buy AR-15” hit their biggest peak since shortly after last month’s Parkland shooting.
More generic searches for “buy a gun” also peaked at the same time.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the relentless effort to demonize the Second Amendment since last month’s Parkland massacre has only resulted in more Americans buying guns.
As we reported last month, gun stores in Florida reported sales 33% higher than the previous February.
Gun stores in Idaho are also reporting increased sales of AR-15’s since last month’s school shooting, with customers also purchasing pistols at the same time, according to Jared Huckstep, owner of Hux Customs in Chubbuck.
“One only has to look at the lack of inventory in the AR-15 section of his gun shop to notice the increase in sales,” reports the Idaho State Journal.
Some suppliers are also adding hundreds of dollars on to the price of AR-15’s to exploit demand.
“I have friends in Salt Lake and Florida, and they’re seeing super spikes,” said Reed Payne, co-owner of Ross Coin and Gun in Idaho Falls, adding that the surge would continue if Democrats won control of the Senate in November.
As we reported earlier, while the ‘March For Our Lives’ was ostensibly a call to regulate so-called “assault weapons,” many protest signs at the event advocated banning all guns.
Other signs advocated the use of government force to enact violent gun confiscation if necessary.

_____________________________________________________________________

David Hogg Says Gun Owners 
Are Shaking In Fear Over Him
The “Hitler Youth” invasion of Washington D.C. took place today as young fascists-in-
training were corralled into the nation’s capitol to demand that government 
authoritarians strip away the civil liberties of all law-abiding Americans in the name of 
“gun control.”

Just like Hitler Youth enthusiasts, these fascists-in-training are told they’re “saving lives” 
for “a better future,” and that the only thing standing in their way is a bunch of violent 
gun owners who want to murder every baby in sight. (The irony of all these left-wingers 
actually condoning the abortion murder of babies, of course, is completely missed 
in all this.) https://www.infowars.com/hitler-youth...
_____________________________________________________________________
HOGG WILD! HOGG (BRAIN)WASHED!

Hogg Hitler! The little dictator in the making.

Calling For Gun Control Is The Most Establishment Thing You Can Do

Alex Jones and Owen shroyer break down how David Hogg is just another tool for the hard core establishment left along with Hollywood who's only goal is to get all the guns so they can finish make america into another socialist country

like England and France.

Question: When the government death squads come for your loved ones, how will you stop them?
SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/question-anti-gun-protesters-government-death-squads-come-loved-ones-will-stop/

And here’s a photo of David Hogg and his little sister promoting almost the exact same armbands, carrying almost the exact same symbol:
______________________________________________________________________

A candidate running for the office of Sheriff in North Carolina was caught on video advocating all manner of anti- Second Amendment policies, including a suggestion that it is ok to murder Americans to take their firearms.

VIDEO: CANDIDATE FOR SHERIFF IN N.C. SUGGESTS KILLING AMERICANS TO TAKE THEIR GUNS

A whole new meaning to ‘March For Our Lives’
BY STEVE WATSON
SEE: https://www.infowars.com/video-candidate-for-sheriff-in-n-c-suggests-killing-americans-to-take-their-guns/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
A candidate running for the office of Sheriff in North Carolina was caught on video advocating all manner of anti- Second Amendment policies, including a suggestion that it is ok to murder Americans to take their firearms.
Daryl Fisher, seen in the following footage, listed every gun control measure he could think of and admitted he was in favor of them.
Fisher then noted that many pro-gun Americans often repeat the phrase “I’ll give you my gun when you pry (or take) it from my cold, dead hands.”
“OK” Fisher said, implying that he is fine with law enforcement literally killing Americans to take their guns away.
The comment prompted laughter from Fisher’s supporters.



Suggests killing people to take their guns... Daryl Fisher candidate for sheriff in Buncombe County...
How ironic that the anti-gun protest was named the March For Our Lives, when people like this are advocating ending lives in order to push their political agenda.
Pro-gun Americans responded accordingly:



This is why I've been calling for an amicable divorce of the nation. We have nothing in common anymore. Let's just go our separate ways before it gets ugly. https://twitter.com/realredelephant/status/977667911811719169 

Im a father of 2. Married 12 years. Worked the same job 19 years now, paid taxes my entire adult life. No criminal record. This man would be ok with killing me because i wont give up my 2a rights. Guys like this is why i own them to begin with

Suggests killing people to take their guns... Daryl Fisher candidate for sheriff in Buncombe County... pic.twitter.com/pKyPATLx1h
This dude has always been anti-second amendment. He is an embarrassment to all law enforcement. He is advocating for the death of citizens legally owning guns. He must be removed from office.

Suggests killing people to take their guns... Daryl Fisher candidate for sheriff in Buncombe County... pic.twitter.com/pKyPATLx1h
I don't know who you think is going to take civilian guns by force, but i cant think of a single cop or serviceman who would try. 2a STILL means the second they enter my home, i shoot to kill. No warning, no wounding. Double tap. My family means i feel no remorse, just recoil.

Same here. I hope that day never Ever comes. But I will Stand My Ground In or on My property or in presence of my family and friends. Tap, Tap.
'Interesting' how glib the self-righteous wannabe gun grabbers are about taking lives. The hypocrisy is well beyond nosebleed levels and continues to rise.

False accusations and half-truths are not respectful tactics. Watch the full set of videos on Facebook and then make an informed decision.
It’s right there in the video. You stated you are willing to kill lawful gun owners in order to confiscate their weapons.

Admitted True Agenda of "March For Our Lives" 

Is The Loss Of Your Lives

North Carolina Man Running For Sheriff Wants To Take Your Life AND Seize Your Firearms
______________________________________________________________________
FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NOT BEEN BRAINWASHED BY THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM, WILL REMEMBER:
First thing Hitler did: confiscate guns

Stephen P. Halbrook Discusses Nazi Gun Control 

on the Steve Malzberg Show

Research Fellow Stephen P. Halbrook, author of "Gun Control in the Third Reich" appeared on the Steve Malzberg Show on NewsMax TV. Halbrook spoke about his recent book outlining the gun control methods employed by the Weimar Republic and the Nazi regime.

How the Nazis Used Gun Control

It's important that we know our history so that we don't make the same mistakes as previous generations.
Hitler Survivor Condemns Gun Control: 
"KEEP YOUR GUNS, BUY MORE GUNS" 
by Katie Worthman, Holocaust Survivor
Katie Worthman was born in Austria, and lived there for seven years under Hitlers brutal regime, and after world war II, she also lived three years under Soviet communist occupation. Needless to say, but Mrs. Worthman is someone who has an acute awareness of how media distorts things and tyranny comes to power. Mrs. Worthman, not only says that the media was wrong about how Hitler came to power, but she says that "In the beginning, Hitler didn't look like, or talk like a monster at all. He talked like an American politician." She says that the story of Hitler overthrowing governments and people in order to come to power just simply isn't true, but rather the Austrian people elected Hitler with 98% of the vote at the ballot box. Mrs. Worthman then goes on to say that the Austrian people had guns, but the government began to say that they were dangerous, so they began to implement gun registration. Then she said this was followed by turning in their weapons to the police station in order to cut down on crime, and if citizens didn't... there would be capital punishment. Mrs. Worthman says that the dictatorship, "didn't happen over night, but it took 5 years, gradually, little by little, to escalate to a dictatorship." She then goes on to say that, "When the people fear the government, that's tyranny, but when the government fears the people, that's liberty." As a Nazi survivor, what is her advice to us... "Keep your guns, keep your guns and buy more guns."

Eyewitness: Yes, The Nazis Did Confiscate Our Guns

Austrian citizen Kitty Werthmann, an eyewitness to Anschluss, Hitler's annexation of Austria, confounds recent efforts by gun control advocates to re-write history, by re-affirming that the Nazis did indeed confiscate guns belonging to ordinary citizens. "The only way we can prevent accidents and crimes is for you to turn-in your guns at the police station, and then we won't have any crimes or any accidents. If you didn't turn in your guns -- capital punishment. So we turned in our guns."

__________________________________________

Jack Posobiec Reports On Protesters Bussed Into D.C. March For Our Lives Rally

Jack Posobiec joins Alex Jones live via Skype to break down his experience participating in the D.C. March For Our Lives Rally, and he exposes the protesters bused into the synthetic demonstration.
COMPLETELY HIGHLY ORGANIZED, NOT A SPONTANEOUS EVENT

BILLY GRAHAM GAVE “AID & COMFORT TO THE ENEMIES OF CHRIST”~A PERSONAL TESTIMONY

BILLY GRAHAM GAVE “AID & COMFORT 
TO THE ENEMIES OF CHRIST”~
A PERSONAL TESTIMONY 
My Testimony About Billy Graham
March 27, 2018
Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061
866-295-4143, 
fbns@wayoflife.org

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research 

purposes:

The following testimony is by Brian Snider bksnider@gmail.com -

Billy Graham on cover of Time
I grew up in the 1960s in Southern Baptist Churches and I never heard a negative word about Billy Graham, either from my parents, my church or the world at large. He seemed to be loved and admired by everyone. We often watched his crusades on television and I grew up having great respect for him. 

The decisions I made in my teen years led me away from my Southern Baptist upbringing and into deep and gross sin. I wandered around lost until I was in my early 30s. I did so many wicked things, it shocks my mind now to even think back on what I was by the time I was 32-years-old. I was guilty before God and worthy of hell. 

But then something dramatic happened to me. In February of 1992 I was radically saved through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Even though I grew up in church and heard the Bible preached from the time I was a child, I never knew in a personal way what Jesus Christ had done for me. 

In 1992, I found out exactly what he had done for me through his atonement on the cross! 

My sins – all those deep, dark, horrendous things I had done – were laid on his back when he went to the cross 2,000 years ago. That became a reality to me when I, in deep repentance, turned to place my faith and trust in him. 

What bliss! All my sins were taken away because of the free gift of salvation. 

For the first time in my life, I got interested in the Bible and in the truth. I began to study scripture, and I began to learn about how the world really works from God’s point of view. 

One of the things I found out was that most of the religious world was corrupt. By that, I mean that many who call themselves Christian had, in fact, deviated greatly from the gospel and the spiritual things that the Lord had given us in scripture. They had fallen away from the ‘faith once given to the saints.’ 

I also learned that the God had told us just such a thing would happen. Just as the Jews had failed their God in the OT, the Bible prophesies that the Christian church would be overwhelmingly corrupt when the Lord returns. 

Speaking of the last days, Paul warned Timothy: 2 Tim. 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 
Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? Luke 18:8(b)

When the Lord Jesus comes back in the sky, he is going to take vengeance on all those who have refused him. 

And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; 10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day. 2 Thess. 1:7-10

One of the main ways that men deviate from the gospel of scripture is by trying to mix self-effort with the gospel of grace. The greatest example, though certainly not the only one, is the Roman Catholic Church. 

The scripture says that anyone who preaches any gospel other than a gospel of grace is condemned of God: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Gal. 1:8,9

Then there are those who have made a mockery of the seriousness of scripture by turning it into a three-ring-circus of shame. Pick any televangelist you like to see what we mean by that. You can also lump pentecostalism, emerging churches and contemporary churches into this category. 

And then there are those who are called modernists. To me, these are some of the most despicable. They are the ones who claim to be Christian, but they have turned the miraculous aspects of scripture into myth and fable. They do not believe in an inerrant Bible, they do not believe in the Garden of Eden, they do not believe in the virgin birth or the resurrection, yet they go on calling themselves by the holy name of Christ, all the while teaching people to doubt God. 

My friend, you cannot be a Christian if you do not believe the Word of God. 

Believing God’s word is the ONLY way you can become a Christian. There is no other door. If you deny the word of God, you are lost. If you change the word of God, you will be reproved and found to be a liar. If you pervert the word of God, you are condemned. 

That is clear from the Old Testament and it is clear from the New Testament. Jesus said that failure to believe the writings of Moses means that you cannot believe the words of Christ. 

For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? John 6:46

Well, as a newly minted Christian, I started reading. Reading is a great gift. You learn things if you read. And because I had thrown off all my false notions about life and had come to trust the Bible as my guide, I was looking at everything in a whole new spiritual way. 

I was particularly interested in Christian history and the history of the Lord’s church. 

One of the saddest things that I read, and it was shocking to me at the time, was that the man that I grew up respecting so much as a little boy, this great evangelist Billy Graham, had actually made a career of giving aid and comfort to the enemies of Christ that I just named above. I vividly remember sharing this information with my brother, Alan, who had helped point me to Christ. 

Alan was indignant that I would criticize this man. But as he read Graham’s statements he realized that what I was saying was true. Graham had turned away from what was right. It was a hard truth, but it went right in line with the scriptural warnings about spiritual deception in the last days. 

How was it possible? How could anyone who claims to be a Christian, to love Christ, give any respect to those who pervert the word of God? 

Having just learned what Christ had done for me, and how precious He was, it seemed incredible that anyone who knows our Lord could betray Him in that way. 

But there it was in black and white. And Billy Graham didn’t do it just a little. This was not just a little compromise here and there. His entire career had been one betrayal of the Lord after another. It was done wholesale. And he had done it with eyes wide open. He started out on the side of conservative, fundamental, Bible-believing Christians and had made a conscious decision to go another direction. 

Whatever his motives might have been, his move in a more liberal direction was made against the pleadings friends and those who understood the dangers of flirting with apostasy. 

The last 70 years of his ministry have seen him drift further and further away from the position he espoused in his youth. In exchange, he has received much love and admiration from this world, for what that’s worth. 

1 John 5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

The Christ he claimed to preach certainly did not have the respect of this world. He didn’t want it. 

Jesus Christ said of himself that he was a prophet 
without honor. He was hated by this world. No, he was loathed by this world. 

He was taken to the brow of the hill in his own hometown to be thrown off. He was threatened by the Pharisees. He was accused of being demon possessed. Ultimately, he was crucified by this world. The Jews and the Gentiles joined forces to eliminate him from this earth. “We will not have this man to reign over us.” Luke 19:13. In his willingness to die for the truth, he was actually making it possible for man to be saved and freed from darkness and death. 

Those who have followed Christ in truth have often received the same reward from this wicked, sin-saturated world: 

Hebrews 11:36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: 37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; 38 (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. 39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: 40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

That is definitely not Mr. Graham’s testimony. He considered himself a 
Prophet with Honor. That is what he said of himself on the cover of his autobiography. I would agree that assessment. 

As much as Christ was hated by this world, Graham has been loved by this world. That ought to cause any thinking Christian to stop for a minute and ask “why?” Things that are different are not the same. 

If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. John 15:18-20

“We are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day,” Paul said of himself and his fellow apostles. Graham, apparently, did not desire a place with the outcasts. Instead, he had his name in lights and was welcome in Hollywood, Washington, New York and Rome. He wanted to make Christianity respectable to the world by downplaying its offense.

Now he is dead and he will be immortalized 
by the world as the greatest Christian of all time. That is not an honor anyone should seek. 

Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, presidents, cardinals, and religious leaders of all stripes will spend the next several days praising Billy Graham to the heavens as they have done for his entire ministry and career. 

Luke 6:26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

Why did the world so hate Christ and the apostles and so love Graham and his team? 

We do not have to look to deeply to discover a fundamental difference in approach. 

Jesus Christ’s main focus was on the truth about God and about Himself. He could in no way diminish his own honor because to do so would be to denigrate God. “He cannot deny himself.” 2 Tim. 2:13 

He is the center of human history because he was God in the flesh. He is the only hope of salvation of man. 

When a preacher offers Jesus Christ as the only hope of salvation, and when he makes it clear that the terms are very narrow, he will make himself an enemy of this world. 

For Billy Graham, the Jesus Christ he offered was not the narrow one of scripture. Graham made the way broad enough that Roman Catholic priests and modernist infidels found ample road under their feet. No matter how much anyone blasphemed Christ, Graham would praise them and give them false hope of eternity. If anything marks a false prophet, it is whether or not they will live and die for the cause of truth. 

Graham was able to find soft words not only for modernists and Roman Catholics, but even heathen idolaters. Bold, wicked, unrepentant blasphemers were treated as great friends of God by Graham. That’s the way to make sure that the world loves you. Never call the world’s hand. Never challenge the world and its wicked ideas about Jesus Christ. 

It has always been so. It was that way in Isaiah’s day and it is not different today. “That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the Lord: Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits:” Is. 30:9,10

Graham had no great love for the narrow preachers of a narrow gospel. Graham liked the broad road and the wide way. And the people of the broad way loved having him as one of their own. 

That was true even of the king of all apostates, the wicked Pope of Rome. My people have always said that the popes are antichrist. They have said it loudly and vehemently. The foul gospel of Rome damns people to an eternal hell. That is what we believe. 

The popes have never ceased to pervert the gospel; they have burned my people at the stake and they have hounded and mercilessly treated anyone who wanted to read the Bible in their own language: they have never been anything other than enemies of the cause and gospel of Jesus Christ. 

But that has never stopped Graham from crossing over to Satan’s side to praise the Pope, even to the point of calling John Paul II “a great evangelist.” Maybe for Mary, but not for Jesus Christ. Graham visited the Vatican 12 times and had a warm relationship with Rome. 

In doing all this, Graham was drawn into the infidelity he flirted with. 

“In this paradise that God had built, called the Garden of Eden – 
you can take it symbolically, you can take it literally – it makes no difference as far as the truth and meaning is concerned,” Graham said in 1962. He was wrong about that. What you believe about scripture will determine your eternal home. 

“I do not believe that the ground of our fellowship is to be the inerrancy of Scripture,” he said. 

Again, this was in 1962, lest someone think he only said such things in his dotage. 

If the ground of our Christian fellowship is not based on the inerrancy of scripture we have no other ground to stand on. If the Bible is not true, or a mixture of truth and error, we have no hope…we are of all men most miserable. (1 Cor. 15:19)

It is blasphemy against God to belittle his word and suggest that it may be wrong. It is not wrong. It is eternal truth spoken by an eternal God who will never let anyone denigrate his word in that way. 

Rev. 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

We have no problem understanding that if our country is at war with another country, any person who sides with the other country in any way is an enemy of our cause. They are traitors. 

Think of Hanoi Jane Fonda in Viet Nam. 

Billy Graham has been just such a traitor, but in a war that is so much greater, and with so much more consequence that is makes the mind reel to think of it. He didn’t just side with the enemies of something as temporal as country. He sided with the enemies of Jesus Christ, the eternal God and judge of all men. 

Most Christians have no ability to process something like Billy Graham because they are stuck on false ideas about reward and punishment. They believe that the good he did will cancel out any error in his methods. They believe that he was simply ‘smart’ to create a new way of doing things. 

But that is not the way things work. In fact, he had far more obligation to do right and to stick to the narrow path than the man who has no knowledge of the Bible at all. He knew the word of God, and therefore, his judgment will come in relation to that fact:

James 3:1 My brethren, be not many masters (teachers/instructors), knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.

Luke 12:48(b) For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

Most people only see with the eyes in their head, but to assess something like this, you must have spiritual vision. If you look at the ministry of Billy Graham through the lens of scripture, it is detestable. 

What about the people who heard about Jesus Christ through his ministry? Or, rather, is it right to do wrong that good may come? 

The real question is this: what power might have been unleashed against the forces of evil if he had not been so pragmatic? 

A voice like Mr. Graham’s would have had tremendous impact, and the Christian church of today might be far stronger without the encouragement he gave to apostasy. 

Fifty years before Graham was born, Charles Spurgeon was waging war against the same tendency to compromise that Graham faced, but Spurgeon played the man and stood for the old book and the old faith. His powerful pen is still lifting the hearts of Christians today. 

Spurgeon was certainly no man of squeamish words when it came to the Papacy: ‘It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is, no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not Popery in the Church of Rome, there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name.’ 

Would to God Graham had stood on the same ground. Instead, he has been the Neville Chamberlain of Christianity when he could have been Churchill. We will live with the harm he has done and the confusion he has sown until Jesus comes back. 

In taking the position he took, he got what many men crave more than anything – the respect of this world. He has received his reward. He played the world’s game and he will be paid in the world’s coin. To lie in honor in the Capitol rotunda is reserved for the elite of the elite. 

How different was the death of his Lord who was shamefully crucified without the gate. He was beaten and marred more than any man. Humiliated and disgraced, mocked and jeered. Paul and the ‘pestilent fellows’ who followed him were not treated much better. 

As Christians, we are to take our place ‘without the camp’ and bear the reproach of our Lord. Heb. 13:13When a Christian becomes anything other than an outsider in this world he must be something other than a Biblical Christian. 

Ultimately, that is the reason Mr. Graham remains so popular with the evangelical world. He appeals to evangelicals because they desperately want to be at home in this world..to be accepted by presidents, movie stars and the popular musicians of the day. Graham gave them all that and more. 

Many will say it is in poor taste to eulogize Mr. Graham in such harsh words, but the truth is, he agrees with me today. Now that he has stepped into eternity, he has seen the error of compromise in a way that none of us will fully comprehend until we see our own foolishness and sin in the light of eternal truth. 

You do not have to guess what eternity is like. You can read Scripture and know today. That is, if you stand on the ground of inerrancy. Once you step into the marshy quicksand of doubt, you won’t be able to know anything with certainty. 

To make common cause with an enemy of Christ – or to praise anyone else who does – should be anathema to any right-thinking Christian. From my study of the Bible, I believe that God has everlasting contempt for those who side with the enemies of his Son. 

You will say, ‘who is this fellow who is criticizing the great Billy Graham?’ I’m no one at all. I’m a wicked sinner who came to know the Lord Jesus Christ. But I believe that the simplest half-wit who believes the Bible is greater in the kingdom of God than all the big-name theologians who cast doubt on it. I have Scripture to support that. 

I also know that God doesn’t measure things the way we do. 

“For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence” (1 Cor. 1:26-29).
 
The above testimony is by Brian Snider 
bksnider@gmail.com –
________________________________________________________________

SEE ALSO:

TRUMP EXPELS 60 RUSSIAN DIPLOMATS; CLOSES CONSULATE

TRUMP EXPELS 60 RUSSIAN DIPLOMATS; CLOSES CONSULATE 
The Trump administration is expelling 48 envoys and 12 other Russian diplomats as well as closing the Consulate in Seattle, joining allies in condemnation of Russia’s attack on the UK. Rich Edson has more from the State Department.
The ousting comes over a nerve agent attack earlier this month in Britain.
It includes 12 Russian intel officers from Russia’s mission to the UN in New York.
It reflects concerns that Russian intel activities have been increasingly aggressive.

“TRANSGENDERISM” CAUSING PARENTS TO CHOOSE UNISEX BABY NAMES

“TRANSGENDERISM” CAUSING PARENTS 
TO CHOOSE UNISEX BABY NAMES
BY SELWYN DUKE
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research 
purposes:
“Choose your parents wisely,” goes the quip attributed to Bertrand Russell. This is especially good advice today given a new trend: selecting “gender-neutral” baby names for newborns out of the belief that “gender is fluid.”
Oh, the new appellations aren’t as bad as some perhaps drug-inspired inspirations, baby names such as “Rocket Zot,” “Dzyre,” “Moo,” “Audio Science” and “Bronx Mowgli.” (Pro tip: If you want to saddle a being with a bizarre name, buy a pet potbelly pig.) But they’re certainly more common, with unisex names such as Royal, Charlie, Salem, Skyler, Justice, and Oakley increasingly chosen by parents imbued with politically correct “transgender” notions, reports the AP.
The AP informs that unisex-type names are now more heavily represented in the Social Security Administration’s list of its top 1,000 names and are especially popular, quite predictably, among Millennial parents.
For example, baby-name site Nameberry.com “analyzed the 2016 Social Security Administration data into a top 50 androgynous name list focused on those with heavy [boy/girl] splits,” writes the AP. “Charlie came in at 50-50, followed by Finley at 58 percent for girls and 42 percent for boys. Skyler was in third place (54-46), Justice was fourth (52-48) and Royal was fifth (42-58).”
“Rounding out the Top 10 were Lennon (50-41), Oakley (52-48), Armani (46-54), Azariah (55-45) and Landry (53-47),” the news organ continued.
Providing a relevant anecdote, the AP also relates:
“We chose a gender-neutral name, Riley, for my daughter,” said Lori Kinkler, a psychologist in San Antonio, Texas. “We knew her sex, but gender is fluid and yet to be determined. Of all the difficulties faced by those who live beyond, or across, the binary, we didn’t want name-changing to be one of them.... I like that she feels she has options and knows she’ll be accepted by us no matter what.” Riley is 3.
To properly interpret this, note that Kinkler is viewing “sex” as the biological reality of being male or female and “gender” as being one’s perception of what he is, which is the current mainstream position of “transgender” activists (tune in tomorrow, though, for the latest theory).
Of course, “gender” is fluid insofar as it may not align with the given person’s “sex”; what’s often missed today, tragically, is that this is called “delusion.”
A more basic delusion, however, is that humans actually have gender. Used mainly in reference to word categories (i.e., masculine, feminine, and neuter) up until relatively recently, the term was widely applied to people by sexual “devolutionaries” who needed language to make delusive states of being sound merely like alternative lifestyles.
Now names reflecting this are being popularized, too. While the AP points out that unisex appellations are sometimes embraced simply because they sound “cool,” the idea when they’re chosen for ideological reasons is that kids shouldn’t be put in a “gender straitjacket.”
In the past I’ve reported on children raised in “sex neutral” ways, examples being “Pop” in Sweden(a nation with a “gender neutral” preschool), “Storm” in Canada, and Sasha in Britain. In some cases the parents won’t even divulge the sex of the child and refrain from using sex-specific pronouns when describing him for fear of provoking “gender specific” influence. As Sasha’s mother, Beck Laxton, put it, “I wanted to avoid all that stereotyping. Stereotypes seem fundamentally stupid. Why would you want to slot people into boxes?” This reflects philosophical juvenility.
Like so many confused parents, box-averse Laxton was on a quest to “let her kid just be a kid.” All right, but then why put him in the “kid” box?
As I explained in 2012, “I remember a cute story about the discovery of the doodlings of a seven-year-old medieval Russian boy named Onfim. In one picture, he drew himself as some kind of monster and included the caption, ‘I am a wild beast.’ This is a common childhood fantasy, but should we point to disturbed people such as ‘Wolfie Blackheart’ the ‘werewolf’ and conclude that perhaps we shouldn’t impose species-oriented norms on children?”
Note here that just as psychologists define “gender dysphoria” (GD) — strong and persistent feelings that you’re a member of one sex stuck in the opposite sex’s body — so do they define “species dysphoria” (SD), the sense that you’re really an animal stuck in a human body. And there’s just as much evidence that SD is an actual biological condition (as opposed to a delusion) as there is that GD is: none.
I continued:
Clearly, we put a little human in a human “box” not because of some arbitrary “social construct” but because he was born in a human body, and it’s far healthier to socialize him as a human than a ferret. In the same way that we cultivate a dog’s innate qualities by training him as a dog, it is how we cultivate a child’s human capacities and prepare him for his role as a human.
The point is this: The idea that you could raise a child and not place him in a “box” is a silly fantasy. We instill norms and ideas about status in children when we put clothes on them, tell them they’re human and American, teach them language and manners and to wash and brush their teeth, laugh at some behaviors and frown upon others, choose some forms of entertainment but avoid others, and when we do a thousand other things. And insofar as the parents don’t serve the role of instilling norms, the village will.
So we place a boy in a boy box not because of some arbitrary social construct, but because he was born in a boy’s body. And this brings us to the idea that, as Laxton believes, sex stereotyping limits a child’s “potential.” You see, there is a different theory — in fact, not that long ago it was recognized as a self-evident truth. It goes something like this: Far from being a defect, sex-specific parenting is a must. In just the same way we help a child with a proclivity for music fully exploit his potential by encouraging musical endeavors, it serves to cultivate and augment the characteristic qualities of each sex. This helps individuals to fulfill their potential, and prepares them for their unique role, as members of their sex. This is, mind you, how man has always created sound husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, those central building blocks of what is the central building block of civilization: the family.
Tragically, many today are making parenting decisions that can have far-reaching consequences based on “transgenderism”-enabling pseudo-science. Good science, as related in the fine Norwegian documentary The Gender Equality Paradox (shown below), informs that the sexes are inherently different womb to tomb.
Getting back to name shame, it may surprise you to learn that aside from “Lord” and “Savior,” some parents today are actually naming their children “God.” It’s perhaps fitting, however, in a time where people essentially think they can change their sex and that reality is whatever they will it to be.

HEIDI MUND: FEARLESS CHRISTIAN CHAMPION: ISLAM CONQUERING WEST~WITHSTANDS LIBERALS PROTESTING HER “ISLAMOPHOBIA” IN WASHINGTON STATE

THE LIBERALS PROTEST AGAINST HER
HEIDI MUND: FEARLESS CHRISTIAN CHAMPION: ISLAM CONQUERING WEST
BY ART MOORE
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research 
purposes:
BREMERTON, Wash. – On her previous trip to the Seattle area, Heidi Mund was greeted by more than 120 protesters carrying signs bearing messages such as “Love thy Neighbor” and “Choose Understanding Not Fear.”
When she came last week to the Navy town of Bremerton, Washington – a ferry-ride across the Puget Sound from Seattle – a smaller contingent of protesters turned out expressing the same concerns, viewing her as an enemy of tolerance who bears animosity and hatred toward Muslims.
What is it that provokes such a reaction to a German schoolteacher who grew up in communist East Germany as an atheist and a “sold-out socialist” before becoming a Christian?
In November 2013, Mund drove five hours to the historic Memorial Church of the Reformation in Speyer, Germany, when she heard the church – built to honor Martin Luther – had invited a Muslim imam to give the Islamic call to prayer.
Later, explaining the “curse,” she pointed out that the imam was declaring in his call to prayer that only Allah, revealed through the prophet Muhammad, is god.
From the church balcony on that November evening, she repeated the words Luther famously declared in 1521, “Here I stand, I can do no other.”
“Save the church of Martin Luther,” she shouted.
Mund, who was expelled from the church, later said in an interview with CBN, “They should have thrown the imam out of the church, because I am a believer in Jesus Christ, and he serves another god.”
She said that when a Muslim declares in a church “Allahu akbar,” or “Allah is supreme over all other gods,” as did the imam, “it is no longer a church; it’s a mosque.”
After declaring Allah is supreme, the Islamic muezzin then declares:
I bear witness that there is no god except Allah.
I bear witness that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.
Death threats
After speaking to the Kitsap Patriots Tea Party gathering March 19 in Bremerton, Mund told WND in an interview that her dramatic public stand – which has developed into a ministry called Wake Up, focused on warning Germany of the civilizational encroachment of Islam in Europe – has had consequences.
Her husband lost his job, and they both have been the targets of death threats.
“Several Muslims have written me, they wanted to slaughter me. Others wanted to rape me,” she told WND.
One day after she organized a rally subsequent to her protest at the church, her husband was fired, she said.
She noted that the German media has cast her as a racist and a “Nazi.”
“They made out of a faithful believer a Nazi,” she said. “Even my students and my colleagues at school, they believed the news more than what they have seen over years.’
Over those years, she said, fellow teachers had “honored me; my students they loved me.”
“But then, because of this fake news, they changed their minds.”
She said new laws in her country have curbed freedom of speech in the name of combatting “hate speech.”
“We really need to check what we speak or what we write in public, or even on our mobile phones,” she said. “They check What’s App by law and also our computers by law.”
A hate-speech charge was brought against her in Germany that later was dropped.
Before her appearance in Bremerton, protesters said they weren’t familiar with anything she specifically had said that was offensive, but they believed that she “degrades” Muslims, expresses hatred toward them because of their religious beliefs and is not welcoming to Muslim immigrants.

TENNESSEE: A SOUTHERN BAPTIST PASTOR REPENTS OF FREEMASONRY

A PASTOR REPENTS OF FREEMASONRY 
SEE: http://pulpitandpen.org/2018/03/22/pastor-repents-freemasonry/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The following testimony was provided by a former Freemason:
My name is Richard Mann.  I am a native of Clarksville, Tennessee.  I am member of Pleasant View Baptist Church.  I am an ordained Southern Baptist Minister.  I am a former member of Queen City Masonic Lodge No. 761.  Conviction from the Holy Spirit caused me to leave Freemasonry.
 At the time my mother was pregnant with me, my parents were struggling financially because my father had been laid off from his job.  After a particular shopping trip, my parents passed by a group of Shriners collecting money for their charities (Shriners are an appendant body of Freemasonry).  My father drove down the road for about a mile before stopping and remarking to my mother that he felt led to donate to the Shriners; he turned the car around gave the Shriners the last three dollars he and my mom had.  “We might someday need help,” he told my mother.  That day came very soon.  I was born with a major heart defect which required surgery.  I spent two months in Vanderbilt hospital receiving treatment.  My daddy’s insurance paid very little of our massive medical bill.  It just so happened that the Shriners came to the hospital and asked its administrators to pick a family that needed help.  The hospital administrators picked my family and the Shriners paid our medical debt in full. 
 When I grew up, I was ordained as a pastor in a Southern Baptist Church.   
 One of my very close friends was an older gentleman and a Freemason.  He began to tell me about the lodge.  One thing led to another and I found myself at two different Masonic meetings being examined for membership in the Lodge.  I was found worthy to become a Freemason.  I am not only a pastor but a born-again Christian indwelled by the Holy Spirit.  During every one of these meetings, the Spirit was advising me not to get mixed up in Freemasonry.  Unfortunately, Masonry lured me in through my interest in history.  Before answering the call to the ministry, I wanted to be a history professor.  The history of the Masonic Lodge, or “the Craft” as they call it, intrigued me.  I loved the history of the Lodge and was impressed by all the famous people who had been members.  Seminary professors and even American Presidents had been Masons and I could be one, too.  So, I disregarded the pleading of the Spirit and joined the Masonic Lodge.
Entering my first degree, the “Entered Apprentice” degree, was a strange experience.  I found myself in a room with two Masonic brethren.  They dressed me in the way an Entered Apprentice should dress and told me what an Entered Apprentice should say for the initiation ceremony.  I memorized all the answers that I was required to know and learned what I was told to learn.  I was particularly struck by the part of the ceremony that involved the Bible.  I was brought blindfolded (or “hoodwinked” as the Masons say) before an altar.  My hand was placed the Holy Bible, the square, and the compass (in the Lodge, these three items are referred to as “the furniture of the lodge”).  When the Masons took off my blindfold, I saw my hands placed upon the Bible, the square, and the compass while my knee and leg formed a right triangle.  This part of the ceremony was meant to make me understand the significance of the great light and the three lesser lights.  The Worshipful Master then led me in my first Masonic blood/death oath.   Please bear with me as I try to recall it in writing.  It has been a while since I said it and, frankly, I have tried to forget it.  I swore that I would not knowingly give out any of the secrets, parts, or points of the “Entered Apprentice degree” under no less a penalty than having my throat cut from ear to ear, my tongue torn out by the root and buried in the ground where the tide ebbs and flows in every 24 hours.”  All this was done with the outstretched hands of the brothers pointed towards me in the dark.
The Holy Spirit was convicting me the whole time, asking me why I knelt at an altar before for a Worshipful Master when the only man worthy of worship was Jesus Christ.  I shrugged it off.  I found myself in the same place taking the second degree, “Fellow Craft.”  In that degree, one has to do more of the work of preparing for the ceremony and take another oath.  Again, I swore before the Worshipful Master to keep the secrets of the degree, this time “under no less a penalty than to have my body severed in two, my chest torn open, and my entrails placed on the highest point of the temple where the birds of the air would feed on them.”  Soon after, I completed the work for the third degree, “Master Mason.”  This degree is the big one.  Once more, I swore before the Worshipful Master to keep the secrets of the degree, in this case, “under no less a penalty than having my body severed in half, my entrails burned, and my ashes scattered to the four winds.”  I was prepared as a man named “Hiram Abiff,” who is, according to Masonic lore, the architect of Solomon’s temple.  I was symbolically killed by three ruffians, played by other Masonic brethren, for refusing to give them the secrets of Masonry.  I laid “dead” on the temple floor (all Masonic lodges are intended as replicas of Solomon’s temple) until I was symbolically raised by King Solomon, played by the Worshipful Master.  This is what it means to be “raised a Master Mason.”  I was then taught the secret word, “Mah-Ha-Bone,” and the stance of a Master Mason.
After that, boy, I could do anything in the Lodge and nothing was said or judged because I was a Master Mason.  I learned more and more about my secret craft and was told I could go higher in the lodge.  One particular branch of Masonry, is called “Royal Arch Masonry.”  The highest degree in that branch is “Knight Templar.”  I studied that branch.  I also studied the Scottish Rite branch, which is only for Masons of the highest (32nd) degree.  I will not go into the death/blood oaths of those branches but they have them.  To the neglect of my Bible studies, I became proficient in many degrees of Freemasonry as well as the history of the Craft.  Eventually, I was asked to give a lecture of the ancient history of Freemasonry.  Of course I said yes!  I was free to include in the lecture whatever I saw fit with the understanding that the content of my presentation had to be approved by the Worshipful Master before it was taught to the brethren.
For my lecture, I traced the practice of Freemasonry back to Babylon.  I noted that technically and historically, Freemasonry and the New Testament Church were not compatible.  I demonstrated this by providing scripture that contradicted the claims and practices of Freemasonry.  The Worshipful Master told me to destroy my lesson and never speak of it again; although I was of a higher degree that he (he was only a 3rd degree mason), he held the authority over me in the lodge as “Master” to give this command.  Another man ended up giving the history lecture.  As part of his lesson, he claimed that the result of God confusing the language of mankind at Babel was that some cultures now connected to God through Buddha, Muhammad, and Jesus.  In other words, he was claiming that there was one God known by different names in different languages and religions.  I took great offense at his twisting of scripture and lying to all the men listening to his lecture; I could not stand for it.  I could ignore the conviction of the Holy Spirit no longer.
God pulled me out of the lodge and gave me a hatred for the Masonic system; not the men in the Lodge but the false doctrine they proclaim. The Lord Jesus said “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.”  If you are a Christian and are practicing Freemasonry, please pray and study.  Your eyes will be open to the lies of Satan.  Listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit telling you to get out of the Lodge.  Contact me and I will give you scripture against the Lodge.
After ending my involvement in Masonry, I felt alone and scared.  For the first time, I felt God was not moving in my life.  I stood one Sunday morning, prayed, and renounced Masonry and all my death/blood oaths.  When I finished preaching and left the pulpit, I went out to a water fountain and busted out crying.  Yes, you can be a Christian and a mason, but you will do it without the approval of God and against the witness of the Holy Spirit.  I beg you to get out of the lodge.  Repent of all of it; it’s hard but you can do it.
I am happy to say I am no longer a Freemason!
[Edited by: Seth Dunn]
Editors Note:  If you have a Christian testimony about leaving Freemasonry, please love your brethren by warning them and by submitting your testimony to talkback@pulpitandpen.org.



TRUMP ISSUES NEW MEMO DISQUALIFYING THOSE WITH GENDER DYSPHORIA FROM MILITARY WITH “LIMITED” EXCEPTIONS


TRUMP ISSUES NEW MEMO DISQUALIFYING THOSE WITH GENDER DYSPHORIA FROM MILITARY WITH “LIMITED” EXCEPTIONS
BY HEATHER CLARK
SEE: http://christiannews.net/2018/03/24/trump-issues-new-memo-disqualifying-those-with-gender-dysphoria-from-military-with-limited-exceptions/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
WASHINGTON — President Trump has issued a new memorandum disqualifying transgenders from serving in the military in alignment with recommendations from Secretary of Defense Gen. James Mattis, who submitted last month that those with gender dysphoria should be considered ineligible, with “limited” exceptions.
“[T]he secretary of Defense, in consultation with the secretary of Homeland Security, submitted to me a memorandum and report concerning military service by transgender individuals,” the memo, issued on Friday, reads. “These documents set forth the policies on this issue that the secretary of Defense, in the exercise of his independent judgment, has concluded should be adopted by the Department of Defense.”
“Among other things, the policies set forth by the secretary of Defense state that transgender persons with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria—individuals who the policies state may require substantial medical treatment, including medications and surgery—are disqualified from military service except under certain limited
circumstances,” it outlines.
Mattis’ recommendations, now reviewed by Christian News Network, came down to a matter of troop readiness and lethality.
“Based on the work of the Panel and the Department’s best military judgment, the Department of Defense concludes that there are substantial risks associated with allowing the accession and retention of individuals with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria and require, or have already undertaken, a course of treatment to change their gender,” he wrote to Trump on Feb. 22.
“Furthermore, the Department also finds that exempting such persons from well-established mental health, physical health, and sex-based standards, which apply to all service members, including transgender service members without gender dysphoria, could undermine readiness, disrupt unit cohesion, and impose an unreasonable burden on the military that is not conducive to military readiness,” Mattis added.
He suggested three exceptions, one being if a person diagnosed with gender dysphoria can demonstrate a period of at least 36 months where they no longer suffer from the psychological condition. Those diagnosed with gender dysphoria who do not seek to “transition” to the opposite sex, and are deployable, may also serve. Those who have already been serving prior to the effective date of the new policy will not be discharged.
As previously reported, last July, President Trump announced his initial decision to reinstate the ban on transgenders in the military, advising that the issue is a distraction and would place a burden on the finances of the Armed Forces.
“After consultation with my generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. military,” he tweeted. “Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgenders in the military would entail. Thank you.”
Weeks later, five service members filed suit to challenge the ban, with the assistance of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders.
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, appointed to the bench by then-President Bill Clinton, issued an injunction in favor of the complainants in October, writing in part, “On the record before the court, there is absolutely no support for the claim that the ongoing service of transgender people would have any negative effect on the military at all. In fact, there is considerable evidence that it is the discharge and banning of such individuals that would have such effects.”
It is not clear if Mattis’ recommendations and Trump’s subsequent new memo will be affected considering the injunction.
_______________________________________________________
Trump order bans most transgender people 
from military 
The White House released a memo on Friday evening stating that transgender people are now 'disqualified from military service except under limited circumstances
1 2 3 5