LDS CHURCH SAYS LGBT MORMONS ARE NO LONGER “APOSTATE”

A CHANGING UNDERSTANDING OF REVELATION FROM GOD?
LDS CHURCH SAYS LGBT MORMONS 
ARE NO LONGER “APOSTATE” 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The Mormon Church is full of self-correction. Although the Christian religion, which is by nature intrinsically anchored to Sacred Writing, the Mormon faith is tethered to a human hierarchy consisting of a President and Prophet, First Counselor, Second Counselor, and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. All Scriptural interpretation, doctrinal belief, and theological interpretation is therefore subjected to changing human interpretation.
Mormon Church history is full of policy reversals, supposedly by the will of God, handed down by their presidents and prophets. Last year, the LDS officially scuttled their name Mormon, scrubbing it from all official literature and advertising as a part of a decades-long plan to merge their faith into the perceived mainstream of Christianity (they’ve even changed the name of their famous Mormon Tabernacle Choir to accommodate the re-branding. Until 1978, black men were prohibited from the priesthood and both black men and women were forbidden from receiving the ordinances. In 2012, the LDS Church un-banned caffeinated soda products (caffeine is still banned in hot drinks like tea or coffee). And most famously, the LDS church conveniently abandoned polygamy in 1890, which happened to coincide with Utah’s entrance into the Union, which required their abandonment of polygamy (God seems to speak through his prophets when it’s politically expedient).
The traditionally super-conservative Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is rapidly changing their policies on LGBTQXYZLMNOP issues.
In a major change that came a week ago, the LDS headquarters announced that God again had changed his mind on an important social issue. Although the Mormons had banned people in ‘gay marriages’ as “apostates,” they reversed that decision on April 4.
Most drastically, dropping the ‘apostate’ label on gay Mormons will allow their children to be baptized and ‘blessed’ prior to their adulthood. The church will now put their seal of approval on children adopted, artificially conceived, or trafficked into gay marriages.  President Dallin Oaks said that the decision of the LDS church was to “reduce the hate and contention so common today.”
In reality, the decision is probably due to nearly 1 thousand gay or gay-supporting Mormons who recently showed up in Salt Lake City to resign their membership in the church out of protest of the church’s stance against LGBTQXYZLMNOP marriages.
As good Continuationists (those who believe the Apostolic Sign Gifts like prophecy have continued into the church age, such as charismatics, Pentecostals, the Assemblies of God and lots of confused Baptists), the LDS press release announced that the changes to policy were due to a changing understanding of revelation from God.
“These policy changes come after an extended period of counseling with our brethren in the Quorum the Twelve Apostles after fervent, united prayer to understand the will of the Lord,”
In other words, the revelation from God has not changed, but it has been misunderstood and only now is being rightfully interpreted by the church.

VIDEO: HOW TO SURVIVE A CHURCH SHOOTING

VIDEO: HOW TO SURVIVE A CHURCH SHOOTING 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Are you packing to church? If you’re trained, you should be.
A movie trailer for Emanuel, the film about the 2015 shooting at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, was released several days ago. The mass shooter [name purposefully withheld] walked into the church’s Bible study and open fired, killing 9 church members. The film which is produced by NBA star, Stephen Curry, highlights the tragedy and interviews the families of those affected.
Along with the graphic and awful footage released from the New Zealand Mosque shooting several weeks ago, we are reminded that places of worship are often targets of devilish people who are looking for easy targets.
The best thing you can do, in case of such an event, is to have pre-planned the response scenario and have engaged in active shooter training.
This video from the United States Concealed Carry Association (of which I am a card-carrying member) gives some valuable advice to church-goers in relation to active shooter situations.
Try these tips:
  1. Your church needs a security team.
  2. Conceal carry a firearm when you go to church (“no metal detectors, no problem,” as they say).
  3. Talk to your family about an active-shooter situation. It’s important to tell everyone in the church that if they’re not intending to stop the shooter, to get down. This way, if everyone else is down, those who are armed can more easily acquire the target that needs to be eliminated (as shooters typically stand).
  4. Be thinking ahead of time about target-acquisition and line-of-sight issues from where you’re sitting and entrances where gunmen may approach.
And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy oneLuke 22:36
To join the USCAA and receive more updates about protecting your houses of worship, click here.

THE GOSPEL COALITION TURNS AGAINST PROTESTANTS, SIDES WITH CATHOLIC PHILOSOPHER AGAINST THE REFORMATION

THE GOSPEL COALITION TURNS AGAINST PROTESTANTS, SIDES WITH CATHOLIC PHILOSOPHER 
AGAINST THE REFORMATION
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Tim Keller, at the TGC19 Panel, Lauding a Romanist Who Blames the Reformation for ‘Secularization’ that stands in the way fo their Jesuit-Marxist Social Justice Worldview
The Gospel Coalition’s annual conference was held earlier this month and produced many sessions and panels, one of which especially stood out in promoting one of the primary influences in the ideology and ministry philosophy of TGC co-founder and Vice President Dr. Tim Keller, who was one of the four panelists.
TGC Senior Editor, Collin Hansen moderated, with fellow TGC Senior Editor, Brett McCracken and author, Jen Pollack Michel rounding out the panel. The discussion centered around the survival of Christianity in this secular age based on the book titled “Our Secular Age: Ten Years of Reading and Applying Charles Taylor,” produced by TGC and contributed to by Hanson, Alastair Roberts, Carl Trueman, Michael Horton, Alan Noble, and more ‘woke’ Social Justice advocates.
Because the panel discussion focused on the book regarding Charles Taylor, it benefits those of us in the proletariat cheap-seats to ask the question as to who exactly this character is, who draws so much attention and appreciation from the Evangelical Intelligentsia.
You can watch the panel discussion below, but it might be wise to skip to the summary below for the sake of time. You won’t want to miss it.
Dr. Charles Margrave Taylor was a Roman Catholic and communitarian philosopher, and his biographers list the greatest influences on Taylor’s thinking as Aristotle, Plato, Hegel, and Karl Marx
Com-mu-ni-tar-i-an  adjective kə-ˌmyü-nə-ˈter-ē-ən  of or relating to social organization in small cooperative partially collectivist communities
Col·lec·tiv·ism   noun the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.
Synonyms for communitarianism (which is what Russell Moore is according to sources) includes collectivism, socialism, Sovietism, Bolshevism, Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, and Maoism.
Taylor’s magnum opus, A Secular Age, is a massive 896 pages that best demonstrates his religious philosophy, as summarized below:
Taylor believes that a movement of Reform in Christianity, aiming to raise everyone up to the highest levels of religious devotion and practice, caused the move to secularization. The disciplined Reformed-self replaced the porous-self, vulnerable to external forces, spirits and demons, with a new buffered-self, or a disciplined and free agent living in a progressively disenchanted world of expressive individualism.”
According to Taylor, the success of Reform and the propagation of successful disciplined individuals leads to a disciplinary society that starts to take action against rowdiness and indiscipline.
Calvinists and Puritans were by nature industrious and disciplined. With such men a safe, well-ordered society can be built (p. 106), so Taylor argued, but the success of the project encouraged an anthropocentrism (human-centeredness) that opened the gates for a godless humanism (p. 130). Humans, therefore the arguing goes, are individuals no longer embedded in society, God is no longer embedded in the cosmos, and the notion of human flourishing becomes transformed into “salvation which takes us beyond what we usually understand as human flourishing” (p. 152).
Taylor argues that the Reformation was essentially a bad thing because its congruent entanglement with the Enlightenment caused “people started using reason and science instead of religion and superstition” (p. 273) to explain the world.
To argue for his theistic (but still terribly flawed outlook) unbelief, Taylor presents a selection of recent spiritual conversions or “epiphanic” experiences among Romanist artists and writers.
In summary and according to the Roman Catholic and communitarian philosopher, Charles Margrave Taylor, everything in the world was basically fine until the Reformers – led by Luther and Calvin – and the consequence of the Reformation was a rise in secularism. Taylor insists that the long road from the religious bliss of The Dark Ages to the secular doom of today started with The Protestant Reformation, and will only end when we go back to The Dark Ages.
No, seriously. That anti-Reformation theology is what’s being promoted at “The Gospel Coalition.”
Taylor recommends mystical, sensual experiences that provide a rich variety of paths to God, as well as a new approach to issues of sexuality, thereby promoting unity in the church. Not surprisingly, Taylor is a constant presence in Keller’s sermons, speeches, and books. This is a panel discussion on what they’ve learned from Taylor and the need to implement his philosophy in the church!
Unbelievable.
Charles Taylor is lauded by The Gospel Coalition for attacking the “secularism” of the Protestant Reformation (because The Gospel Coalition’s Jesuit-Marxist Liberation Theology stands opposed to Lockean concepts of personal liberty that came out of the Reformation and formed English Common Law and civil liberties). Another liberal organization, Huffington Post, had equally glowing things to say about Taylor if that tells you anything.
According to the HuffPo:
Taylor is of global influence as a Catholic thinker, a leader on the social democratic left and a spokesperson for combining rather than opposing liberalism and defense of community.
It should be apparent by now that The Gospel Coalition is an ideological change-agent for the political left in American evangelicalism.
[Contributed by Toni Brown]

SOUTH KOREAN COURT FINDS ABORTION LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL: UNBORN HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO LIFE

SOUTH KOREAN COURT FINDS ABORTION LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL: UNBORN HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO LIFE 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational 
and research purposes:
Pro-abortion activists gathered to celebrate the Constitutional 
Court’s overturning the current ban on abortion

Thursday South Korea’s constitutional court ruled the decades old ban on abortion is unconstitutional. The current law criminalizes abortion. Pro-abortion activists were elated and gathered near the courthouse in what they’re calling a victorious court ruling.

Although South Korea is one of the few remaining countries to criminalize infantacide (except for rape, incest, severe genetic anomalies or when the mother’s life is in jeopardy). As the current law stands, physicians who perform abortions can be imprisoned for up to two years and women who terminate their pregnancy (let us be straightforward, murder their unborn child) can receive a maximum of one-year sentence or can be fined up to 2m won (approximately $1,760).
This is seen as a historic court ruling as abortion has been illegal since 1953. The nine-member panel ruled 7-2 that the 66 year old abortion law is unconstitutional and new legislation must be written by South Korean legislators. 
In the decision the court stated:
The abortion ban limits women’s rights to pursue their own destinies, and violates their rights to health by limiting their access to safe and timely procedures.[…] Embryos completely depend on the mother’s body for their survival and development, so it cannot be concluded that they are separate, independent living beings entitled to the right to life.
The debuty Asia director of Human Rights Watch, a human rights organization stated:
It’s about time South Korea heeded the voices of the majority of South Korean women who have today won the right to determine what happens with their bodies and their lives. Now the National Assembly needs to move without delay to revise the law in line with this far-reaching court verdict and ensure women’s rights are protected in law.
The current law is still in effect, however in the Constitutional Court ruling it stated that legislators must rewrite the law based on their ruling by the end of this year.
Anti-abortion activists that had also gather outside the courthouse are deeply saddened by the court’s decision. One of those protesters, Joon Il-kim, a mathematics professor at Yonsei University in Seoul, said:
I feel very sad. […] I do not agree with the decision. There’s a discrepancy between women’s rights and [an unborn] baby’s rights — it is a small human on its own.
Anti-abortion activists declared that they will continue to fight for the right to life for unborn children.
[Editor’s Note: HT Alex Reid]

BOSCH FAWSTIN: “PEACEFUL DEATH THREATS” BY MUSLIMS

BOSCH FAWSTIN: “PEACEFUL DEATH THREATS” 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
NOW AVAILABLE
UPDATE: Here’s a video preview of Peaceful Death Threats, along with some commentary by me on my proof copy of the book.
My Introduction to my new book, Peaceful Death Threats:
If I didn’t draw Mohammad cartoons, Muslims would be peaceful?
Some Muslims actually believe that, and they act as if my “terrorism”, (yes, they call my cartoons “terrorism”, as you’ll see in the pages ahead) must be responded to in kind, with terrorism, even though they’re “peaceful”.
If you want to maintain your illusions that “Islam means peace” and that “99.9% of Muslims are peace-loving”, then this book is not for you, as you’re either a Muslim or you might as well make it official and become one. If you can’t imagine threatening to murder cartoonists over cartoons, then this book is for you.
Islam wasn’t “hijacked” by jihadists, peace was hijacked by Muslims. In my acceptance speech after I won the Mohammad cartoon contest, I asked the audience, “Why do you think we have this kind of security?”, and as the audience started to applaud, and even laugh, as they had a good idea where I was going with it, I said that it was because Islam did not mean peace. The Only reason any of us are talking about Islam is because it doesn’t mean peace. Islam hasn’t given us any reason to talk about it outside of our concern over it.
When a lone evil scumbag goes on a shooting spree in America, the “national conversation” is that it has something to do with America, that it says something about us, and that we all have to answer for it in some way. Only self-loathing leftists would define America by a small minority of evil scumbags. Yet when daily atrocities are committed by Muslims across the world, the “national conversation” crowd tells us that it “has nothing to do with Islam”, while also saying that we had it coming. They live for a chance to condemn America for things it’s not responsible for, and to exonerate Islam for things it is responsible for. These “national conversationalists” don’t want a conversation about Islam, about jihad, or about the truth. And the “national conversation” that needs to take place is about Islam and its calls for violence against non-Muslims.
As for “nice Muslims”, especially those in the West, they embody Western values that they fancifully attribute to Islam, and it’s left to “mean” people like me to have to point that fact out. The reason why many of us choose to define Islam by the behavior of its least devout Muslims is because devout Muslims are monsters. But of course, in this increasingly truthless world we’re living in, merely pointing that fact out makes me a monster.
I got a wave of death threats a few months ago from Muslims the likes of which I’ve never experienced, and my life has not been the same. Thousands of Muslims from across the world, with many from Pakistan, threatened to murder me after I was announced as the judge for a new Mohammad cartoon contest that Geert Wilders announced in the summer of 2018. Many of the threats were monotonous and I couldn’t keep up with all of them, as they came from all corners of the internet, from social media, email, YouTube, my blog, and I even got audio death threats in Facebook messenger. So the threats in this book are the “best” 400 of them.
Since I’ve been called “the most dangerous man in comics”, this book has the potential to be my most “dangerous” one yet, as it will make it more difficult for some among us to maintain their illusions about Islam and its “peaceful” followers. My “co-writers” in this book are average, everyday Muslims who think it’s normal to threaten to rape and murder a cartoonist over Mohammad cartoons. They and their culture are not to be “understood”, but condemned. This book is a good document to show that Islamic culture, at large, is a problem, and that Muslims at large want cartoonists who draw Mohammad to be murdered, by their hand, or by the hands of their more devout co-religionists. All of the thousands of Muslims who wrote me death threats want me dead, and those who didn’t write me would likely celebrate if I were murdered, or at “best”, would “understand” why I had to die. “Not all Muslims”? Not One Muslim wrote me to say, “I may not like what you do, and I may even hate it, but you have the right to draw whatever you want, and you shouldn’t be threatened or killed over it.”
Not one.
When the Muslims who’ve threatened me hear of this book, what do you think their response would be that their threats were published, and that they inspired 60 new Mohammad cartoons by me? More threats.
The threats in this book are from Muslim students, doctors, engineers, musicians, etc., and I think that will be a revelation for some, for those who still cling to the idea that it’s only “extremists” who are the problem, because seeing is believing. Seeing death threats along with the names and pictures of average Muslims might open some eyes.
After years of getting death threats, they’ve become white noise to me, in a way. They’re meant to scare me into silence and inaction, but I’m more likely to laugh at them than be terrified. But I do pause at times, at the casual, decadent evil of it all, and the mass support that it gets from far more Muslims than many would like to believe. What did Muslims do after the massacre of Charlie Hebdo? They callously ran over the dead bodies of the murdered innocents to defend Mohammad, who murdered innocents. Islam didn’t teach them to live and let live, despite whatever criticism came their way, Islam taught them that the answer to criticism is murder. That the first, natural, Islamic response is murder.
Regarding my new Mohammad cartoons in this book: I think it’s important to show Mohammad, the murderous figure who inspires Muslims to murder, alongside screenshots of the death threats over my Mohammad cartoons, which inspired even more Mohammad cartoons by me.
And to those who’ve dismissed me when I say that Hitler is Islam’s favorite Infidel, there were endless Muslims who expressed their admiration for Hitler to me, and I have a page of the “best” ones in this book, where I draw Hitler as Mohammad.
I’m well aware that most of these threats are just talk, however obscene that talk is, but unlike members of other groups, Muslims are more prone to back up their threats with violent action, and so I take their threats more seriously than I do the threats of others. And some of them get very specific and personal.
It’s one thing for Muslims to have their prohibitions, but it’s quite another thing for them to try to force their prohibitions on us. Since 9/11, we’ve waged war the way Muslims wage peace, and we’re gong to have to learn how to wage war, in order to have peace.
Peace.
-Bosch Fawstin, February 2019
Here’s where I will be signing the book, on the opening page, first page, title page.
You can order Peaceful Death Threats at TheBoschFawstinStore.blogspot.com

ARIZONA: MUSLIM MURDERS HIS WIFE & TWO DAUGHTERS, SAYS ALLAH TOLD HIM TO DO IT

ARIZONA: MUSLIM MURDERS HIS WIFE & TWO DAUGHTERS, SAYS ALLAH TOLD HIM TO DO IT 
BY ROBERT SPENCER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
“He said that the reason he shot these individuals is because in God’s eyes, it was all right for him to deal with someone in this manner who had been involved in adultery, extramarital affairs.” Apparently Smith was trying to cleanse his family’s honor, which is done by killing the offender. And there will be much, much more of this in America: Muslims commit 91 percent of honor killings worldwide. The Palestinian Authority gives pardons or suspended sentences for honor murders. Iraqi women have asked for tougher sentences for Islamic honor murderers, who get off lightly now. Syria in 2009 scrapped a law limiting the length of sentences for honor killings, but “the new law says a man can still benefit from extenuating circumstances in crimes of passion or honour ‘provided he serves a prison term of no less than two years in the case of killing.’” And in 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted down on Islamic grounds a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honor killings. Al-Jazeera reported that “Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values.”
Until the encouragement Islamic law gives to honor killing is acknowledged and confronted, more women will suffer.
“Suspect in west Phoenix shooting said ‘God told him to shoot his wife,'” by Brent Corrado, FOX 10, April 11, 2019 (thanks to Dane):
PHOENIX (FOX 10/AP) – Phoenix police say a man has been arrested on suspicion of killing his wife, his two young daughters and a man who the suspect thought was romantically involved with his wife.
According to police, the man, identified Friday afternoon as 30-year-old Austin Smith, killed his wife, 29-year-old Dasia Patterson. Smith is also accused of killing two young children, identified as five-year-old Nasha Smith and seven-year-old Mayan Smith, and fatally shooting 46-year-old Ron Freeman on Thursday night Continue reading below
The couple’s three-year-old daughter was not hurt and was found hiding under a bed when police arrived at the scene. According to court documents released Friday evening, the youngest daughter was not killed because she reminded Smith of himself.
Police say the suspect killed his family at their home near 75th Avenue and Camelback before going to another location near 67th Avenue and Osborn and fatally shooting the man because he believed was having an affair with his wife.
Sgt. Thompson says the suspect was arrested while driving away from an apartment complex where the man had been shot dead and two others were shot and wounded. The suspect made an appearance in front of a judge Friday evening.
Neighbors say Smith was always very friendly, but the rest of the family kept to themselves.
“Helped the neighbors, ‘hey amigo, you need something’,” said Carmen Gallego. “He even gave my husband some jump started cables on Sunday for his truck.”
The suspect said his religion was a factor in committing the crimes.
“He said that the reason he shot these individuals is because in God’s eyes, it was all right for him to deal with someone in this manner who had been involved in adultery, extramarital affairs,” said Phoenix Police Sergeant Tommy Thompson.
Smith also told police he killed his seven-year-old daughter because she was “weeping for the wicked”.
“Muslims don’t move like that either, so that’s an excuse,” said Patterson’s cousin, who did not want to be identified. “Muslims don’t move like that. They’re kids.”…

TRUMP PROPOSES TO BUS ILLEGALS TO SANCTUARY CITIES~A POLITICAL MASTER STROKE

TRUMP PROPOSES TO BUS ILLEGALS TO SANCTUARY CITIES~A POLITICAL MASTER STROKE 
BY MATTHEW VADUM
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
President Donald Trump’s proposal to ship immigration detainees to so-called sanctuary cities –which are Democrat strongholds— is a political masterstroke, if the Left’s wounded animal-like howling is any indication.
With this politically brilliant tactic, the likes of which would never have come from a President Jeb Bush or a President Mitt Romney, Trump continues to demonstrate that he is one of the few Republican presidents in modern American history who actually knows how to fight the Left. He is giving leftists a well-deserved taste of their own medicine.
And what better place to send illegal aliens than to sanctuary jurisdictions? They claim to welcome illegals and provide services for them. Their sanctuary policies, by which they harbor and shield illegals from U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE), are magnets for illegals, giving them incentives to sneak across the border or overstay visas.
The president’s plan only gives sanctuary cities more of what they claim to want.
“We’ll bring them to sanctuary city areas and let that particular area take care of it,” Trump said April 12 at the White House. “They say, ‘we have open arms,’ they’re always saying they have open arms, let’s see if they have open arms.”
The same day Trump tweeted: “Due to the fact that Democrats are unwilling to change our very dangerous immigration laws, we are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing Illegal Immigrants in Sanctuary Cities only....”
“Sanctuary cities that release known criminal aliens put all Americans at risk,” Trump told the National Association of Attorneys General on March 4.
“In the last two years, ICE officers made 266,000 arrests of aliens with criminal records, including those charged or convicted of approximately 100,000 assaults — and these are new numbers, hard to believe — 30,000 sex crimes, and 4,000 murders.”
California leftists loudly rejected Trump’s plan, which is not all that surprising because the Golden State gave birth to the sanctuary movement. Los Angeles became the first U.S. sanctuary city in 1979 when its police department issued Special Order 40, a document that forbids police officers from inquiring about the immigration status of individuals not suspected of crimes.
California’s new governor, Gavin Newsom (D), a former mayor of San Francisco, has pledged to make his home state “a sanctuary to all who seek it” in defiance of President Trump’s drive to secure the nation’s border with Mexico and enforce U.S. immigration laws. The state already has unprecedented sanctuary laws on its books that shelter its 2.4 million illegal aliens from ICE. Those dubious statutes are under attack in a lawsuit filed by the Trump administration.
Newsom was one step away from the funny farm Friday as he experienced an adjective-rich mental breakdown while describing his opposition to the plan to CBS News.
Newsom said Trump’s proposal was “unserious,” “illegal,” “immoral,” “asinine,” “sophomoric,” “ludicrous,” “petulant,” “un-American,” and “rather pathetic.”
“To use immigrants as pawns — to put them in difficult and trying circumstances as political theater shows how low a human being can go. And this human being happens to be sadly and tragically the president of the United States,” Newsom added.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, another California Democrat whose home town of San Francisco is a sanctuary city, attacked the Trump administration for its “cynicism and cruelty” in “using human beings … as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants.”
San Francisco’s current mayor, London Breed, said the plan “is just another in a long line of scare tactics and half-baked ideas.”
Oakland, California Mayor Libby Schaaf, called the plan “an outrageous abuse of power — using human beings to settle political scores.”
Schaaf has tipped off illegal aliens about approaching ICE raids to applause from the mainstream media. Schaaf piously insists her actions have not endangered ICE officers. “How can it be dangerous and illegal simply to tell people what the law is, what their rights are, what their resources are?” she said disingenuously. “That’s all I did.”
Except that Newsom, Pelosi, Breed, Schaaf, and their fellow Democrats have been using immigrants, or more precisely, illegal aliens, as pawns for decades in an effort to import an electorate more to their liking in what stubbornly remains a more or less right-of-center country.
Former President Obama even went further, sending busloads of migrants to law-and-order conservative cities that did not want them, to punish those jurisdictions for not being sanctuary cities, as Monica Showalter notes at American Thinker.
President Trump has tried to crack down on sanctuary cities.
An Obama-appointed San Francisco judge, U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick III, issued a permanent nationwide injunction against President Trump’s Executive Order 13768, which would have withheld federal funding from sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with ICE. That injunction remains in force.
Congressional Republicans have serially betrayed conservatives and handed Democrats victories over President Trump by refusing to cut off funding for sanctuary cities.
The sanctuary movement gave illegal aliens permission to rob, rape, and murder Americans by, among other things, stigmatizing immigration enforcement. Some left-wingers call sanctuary jurisdictions “civil liberties safe zones” to blur the distinction between citizens and non-citizens by implying illegal aliens somehow possess a civil right to be present in the U.S. Leftists also like to refer to all migrants, including illegal aliens, simply as “immigrants” in order to further muddy the waters. This helps the Left portray conservatives, who are generally not anti-immigrant –they’re anti-illegal immigration— as xenophobic bigots.
Sanctuary cities should be called traitor cities because they are in open rebellion against the United States just as much as the Confederate Army was when it opened fire on Fort Sumter.
President Trump, unlike Democrats and many in his own party, understands how dangerous sanctuary policies are.
And the Left’s extended freak-out over Trump’s new proposal suggests the president is on to something.

REP. ILHAN OMAR CLAIMS VICTIMHOOD, COMPLAINS ABOUT THE OUTRAGE OVER HER 9/11 COMMENTS

REP. ILHAN OMAR CLAIMS VICTIMHOOD, COMPLAINS ABOUT THE OUTRAGE OVER HER 9/11 COMMENTS 
BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
After insulting the memory of the thousands who lost their lives on 9/11, Ilhan Omar now plays the victim card. This is such a routine, overplayed tactic of Islamic supremacists that one wonders how it can be that many Westerners still haven’t caught on.
Omar says in response to the justified outrage over her remarks: “This is dangerous incitement, given the death threats I face. I hope leaders of both parties will join me in condemning it.”
This is Omar’s call for dhimmis to join her in accepting that Americans were wrong to be outraged over her abhorrent comments she made, and for the leaders of both parties to help her further undermine the security of the U.S. and the freedom of speech.
More on this story. “Ilhan Omar complains about outrage over her 9/11 comments,” by Mark Moore, New York Post, April 10, 2019:
Rep. Ilhan Omar went on Twitter Wednesday to complain that outrage over her comments describing the Sept. 11 attacks as “some people did something” was creating an unsafe situation for her.
“This is dangerous incitement, given the death threats I face. I hope leaders of both parties will join me in condemning it,” the Minnesota Democrat wrote on her account. “My love and commitment to our country and that of my colleagues should never be in question. We are ALL Americans!”
In her posting, she linked to comments made by Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw and Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade.
Crenshaw, a former Navy SEAL who lost an eye while fighting in Afghanistan, blasted Omar for her comments trivializing the terror attacks to a Muslim rights group.
“First Member of Congress to ever describe terrorists who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11 as ‘some people who did something,’” Crenshaw wrote Tuesday. “Unbelievable.”
During a segment of “Fox & Friends” about Omar’s speech, Kilmeade said: “Really? Some people did something? You have to wonder if she’s an American first.”
“As a Muslim American you should be more outraged because they sullied your religion,” Kilmeade continued. “In the name of religion they kill Americans and still do it on a daily basis.”….
______________________________________________________________

JAMIE GLAZOV TAKES ON REP. OMAR OVER 9/11

SEE ALSO:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/04/pelosi-orders-us-capitol-police-to-
ensure-omars-safety-omar-claims-criticism-of-her-is-endangering-lives
AND:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/04/nyc-yemeni-american-merchants-
association-boycotting-new-york-post-over-cover-criticizing-ilhan-omar

SURVEY: HALF OF AMERICA’S PASTORS ARE AFRAID TO SPEAK ABOUT CONTROVERSIAL TOPICS

SURVEY: HALF OF AMERICA’S PASTORS ARE AFRAID 
TO SPEAK ABOUT CONTROVERSIAL TOPICS
BY DR. DIXON
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Prophecy News Watch April 15, 2019
By Michael Snyder/Economic Collapse Blog
Most U.S. churches are shrinking, and more than 100 die every week.  In a day and age where pastors are judged by attendance numbers and budget levels, scaring people away is bad for business.
With all that in mind, the results from a recent Barna survey shouldn’t be surprising at all…
We wanted to know if pastors felt limited or pressured when it comes to speaking about controversial topics. Half of Christian pastors says they frequently (11%) or occasionally (39%) feel limited in their ability to speak out on moral and social issues because people will take offense. The other half of pastors say they only rarely (30%) or never (20%) feel limited in this way. 
When asked to identify the source of the concerns, pastors are much more likely to say that they feel limited by those inside the church than those outside. In other words, the reactions of those in the pews are most on the minds of today’s pastors.
And remember, these numbers just show the percentage of pastors that are willing to admit that they are afraid to speak out about controversial issues.
In reality, the percentage of U.S. pastors that actually hit the hard issues on a consistent basis is exceedingly low.
Not offending people is obviously a strategy that can work, because many of America’s largest churches today are pathetically shallow.  In fact, one of America’s most famous pastors absolutely refuses to ever use the word “sin” because it might offend someone.
But eventually people get tired of superficial religion that doesn’t have any substance, and nobody can deny that there has been a mass exodus from the Christian faith in this country.  In fact, the number of Americans with “no religion” has risen by 266 percent over the last three decades.
In particular, young people crave authenticity, and they can spot a fake a mile away.  They are leaving America’s churches faster than anyone else, and that is incredibly sad.
Some churches are attempting to reverse this trend, and many of them seem to think that being “hip” and “trendy” is the key to winning young people back.  For example, the following comes from a profile on C3 Church in New York City by Topic Magazine…
Have you ever been to a church where the Jesus music is so loud that some congregants–young, hip urbanites all–wear earplugs? Where the Christian pop-rock stirs people into such rapture that they jump up and down, both feet leaving earth, both hands raised ecstatically skyward, as if in a mild-mannered mosh pit? Where half the pastors, band members, and congregants have nose piercings and the other half have forearm tattoos, and a teeny-tiny beanie is the accessory du jour?
There is certainly nothing wrong with having good music and a modern presentation, but it must also be accompanied by truth if it is going to do any good.
In the profile, the reporter for Topic Magazine asked “Pastor Josh” about his stand on one of the most controversial issues of our day, and he did his very best to dance around it…
But Pastor Josh knows that some of his congregants are gay–or, in his words, “would say they’re gay”–and he’s happy to tell them where he feels “the truth lands on the issue.” He just doesn’t want “the conversation” to end the moment someone reads on C3’s website that gay marriage is an affront to God. 
“To me, that’s a shame,” he says. “I’m trying to show, ‘Hey, I’m not judging anyone. I’m not condemning anyone.’ We’ve all got our views and attractions and all those kinds of things.” He knows that young people, especially, inhabit a complicated, alienating world.
“I think every one of us is searching for love,” Pastor Josh says. “Even though we might disagree on where the best place to look for love is.”
I have read that quote several times, and I still don’t understand what he is trying to say.
Whether people agree with it or not, Pastor Josh owes it to all of us to tell us directly what he really believes.
Of course there are thousands upon thousands of other ministers just like “Pastor Josh” in America today.
The church business has become all about making people feel good, and in this type of spiritual environment even Kanye West can start a church…
Imagine stumbling into a church you’ve never seen on Sunday morning. As you approach you hear rapper DMX praying, “I have special privileges. I am God’s favored child.” In front of you sit Katy Perry and Orlando Bloom, who were both raised Christian but now consider themselves “spiritual.”
The prayer ends, and a gospel choir in matching Yeezy merchandise belts out rapper Kid Cudi’s “Reborn.” Presiding over it all is Pastor Kanye West.
It isn’t a dream. Kanye reportedly started his own church on the first Sunday of the year, and since then, he’s attracted celebrities to his entertaining, religion-laced gatherings.
Of course not all is lost.  There are some pastors out there that are doing a fantastic job, and all over the world God is raising up a Remnant.  But overall, the institutional church in America is failing to influence the culture because pastors are deathly afraid of scaring their customers away.
All that it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
And right now a whole lot of good men are doing precisely that.
(Publisher’s comments: This article misses another issue that some of us raised back in 1982 when we learned of the restrictions of the non-profit 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) contract that limits the stand that churches can take in the moral/political arena that has all but silenced most preachers for fear of losing their tax-exempt status. The church members have become so dependent on the tax-deductible gift that they actually believe it is embedded as a constitutional right. In my opinion there are two clear scriptures that describe these preachers. The first is found at 2Ti 4:3-4 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.
The next is found at Mt 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
I personally don’t believe that the Lord means by these words that these ministers are not true believers, I believe he means the word “know” is in the conjugal sense. Paul said, That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; (Ph 3:10.) Few have known Him like this. Oh that we might have a longing to know Him in this manner.

CANADA: MUSLIM PROFESSOR WHO CLAIMS SHE WAS ASSAULTED AT CONFERENCE HAS LONG RECORD OF “ISLAMOPHOBIA” PROPAGANDIZING

CANADA: MUSLIM PROFESSOR WHO CLAIMS SHE WAS ASSAULTED AT CONFERENCE HAS LONG RECORD OF “ISLAMOPHOBIA” PROPAGANDIZING
BY ROBERT SPENCER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Yesterday we brought you the news that a Muslim professor who says she has expertise in “Islamophobia” claims she was assaulted at a conference of Canadians for the Rule of Law. According to “journalist” Ron Csillag of the Canadian Jewish News, Jasmin Zine, the professor making the assault claim, “said she did not plan on speaking” at the conference. Csillag quoted Zine saying: “I went really just to hear the viewpoints that were being expressed and the kind of arguments that were being made to support them.”
Really? Let’s examine the likelihood of that claim.
Jasmin Zine is part of the “Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project,” an initiative designed to buttress the spurious claim that Muslims are targets of wholesale discrimination and harassment in the West.
In April 2018, Jasmin Zine gave a keynote speech on “Islamophobia, Anti- Muslim Racism, and the Weaponizing of Free Speech” at “The Road Traveled: 9th Annual International Islamophobia Conference,” held at the University of California Berkeley.
Jasmin Zine testified in support of the Anti-Islamophobia Motion 103 before a Canadian Heritage Parliamentary subcommittee. That motion has been used to shut down criticism of jihad terror and Sharia oppression of women and others.
Zine defines “Islamophobia” as “fear and hatred of Islam and Muslims that translates into individual, ideological and systemic forms of oppression.” In reality, “Islamophobia” is an intentional conflation of two distinct and unrelated phenomena: vigilante attacks against innocent Muslims, which are never justified, and honest, accurate analysis of the motivating ideology behind the jihad threat. The purveyors of “Islamophobia” propaganda are trying to shut down the latter by equating it with the former. A former member of the International Institute of Islamic Thought, Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, has stated that “this loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.” And it has been skillfully used to do just that.
Zine does want to restrict the freedom of speech. She has claimed: “As an academic, I support free speech as well as academic freedom. But these are not without limitations. Freedom of expression is limited by the consequences of that speech. Spreading hate is not free speech.” But who decides what is “spreading hate” and what is “enunciating unpopular truths”? She is essentially arguing for the extinguishing of the freedom of speech and the control of the public discourse by arbiters who would presumably stifle all criticism of Islam, jihad, and Sharia.
So Jasmin Zine went wanting to “hear the viewpoints that were being expressed”? Unlikely. What she did was ask Jihad Watch writer Christine Douglass-Williams a question and then talked over her answer, refusing to be silent until she was removed from the event. It is clear that she wanted to shut down the viewpoints that were being expressed and smear them with the false claims of “white supremacism” and “Islamophobia” that she makes in the Canadian Jewish News article.
That article also notes that the Canadians for the Rule of Law conference had “a large Jewish presence: sponsoring groups included B’nai Brith Canada, the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, Hasbara Fellowships, Shurat HaDin and Canadians for Israel’s Legal Rights. Kashrut was observed at the event.”
What might Jasmin Zine have thought of that? Let’s see:
Jasmin Zine signed this petition accusing Israel of “apartheid” and calling on the University of Toronto and York University to divest from companies doing business with Israel.
Zine also signed this call for the Canadian government to impose sanctions upon Israel for alleged war crimes in Gaza in 2009. During that conflict, Hamas used human shields in order to get civilians killed, whereupon they would accuse Israel of targeting civilians and get the UN and others to condemn the Jewish State.
Zine endorsed sending a boat from Canada to Gaza to end the Israeli blockade. Remember that the people on the most notorious of these forays to Gaza to end the blockade, the Mavi Marmara flotilla from Turkey, were genocidal Jew-hating jihadis, as you can see in the second video below: they were chanting a jihad war cry recalling Muhammad’s massacre of the Jews of Arabia: “Khybar, Khybar, O Jews, the army of Muhammad will return.” If the same chant had begun on a Canadian boat bound for Gaza, would Jasmin Zine have objected?

MOTHER FACING MURDER CHARGE AFTER KILLING NEWBORN; BOYFRIEND CHARGED FOR DISPOSING OF SON IN DUMPSTER

MOTHER FACING MURDER CHARGE AFTER KILLING NEWBORN; BOYFRIEND CHARGED FOR DISPOSING OF SON IN DUMPSTER
BY HEATHER CLARK
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
ASBURY PARK, N.J. — A New Jersey mother is facing a first-degree murder charge and her boyfriend a desecration of human remains charge after the woman allegedly killed the baby shortly after birth and then later decided with her boyfriend to dispose of the baby in a dumpster.
According to reports, Jada McLain, 18, hid her pregnancy from her parents for months. A friend who turned McLain into police last week said that McLain had attempted a self-abortion by drinking, smoking marijuana and taking pills, but her efforts were unsuccessful.
She considered going to an abortionist, but thought parental notification was required and didn’t want her mother to find out.
McClain and her boyfriend, Quaimere Mohammed, 19, consequently discussed what they would do after the baby was born, with an option being to kill the child.
In the early morning hours of March 29, McLain gave birth to a baby boy in the bathroom, took a shower to clean herself and the infant off, and laid the newborn, who was alive and crying, upon her bed. She then allegedly pushed down on her son’s chest until he turned blue and died.
McLain named the child Legend, and sent her friend photographs of the newborn from her bedroom.
According to NJ.com, McLain wrapped her deceased son in a blanket and drove to her boyfriend’s house. The two went to the beach to talk the matter over, and then returned to Mohammed’s house.
After crying and talking for approximately two hours, they decided to place the baby in a bag and dispose of him behind an apartment complex in Asbury Park.
KFSN-TV reports that McLain showed police the dumpster where the baby had been discarded. Surveillance video also captured the car driving up to the dumpster, with Mohammed getting out of the vehicle and placing a blue bag inside.
The teen’s friend reported the incident to the police on April 4, and both McLain and Mohammed were arrested.
NBC New York reports that McLain’s parents were in shock, both that they had lost a grandchild and in witnessing their daughter being arrested. Family members held each other and cried as they gathered in the courtroom.
NJ.com states that Mohammed’s attorney told the court on Friday that the two were remorseful, as text messages from McLain to Mohammed stated, “I was the one that took his last breath. … I’m the one who heard him struggling to breathe when I was killing him.”
She said that the baby looked like Mohammed and his face was etched in her mind.
“I’m always going to regret what I did till the day I die,” McLain texted.
Assistant Monmouth County Prosecutor Stephanie Dugan told the court on Friday during a detention hearing that Mohammed should remain in jail because of the severity of “throwing an hours-old dead baby in a dumpster in Asbury Park, which was put into a garbage truck, compacted in a garbage truck, dumped out on the floor of the dump, where the garbage is sorted and compacted again.”
A statement from McLain’s parents reads, “The family prays that authorities find the infant’s remains so they can properly bury their grandson. They also want to express their love and support for their daughter. They ask the public for privacy during these troubling times.”
New Jersey has a Safe Haven law that allows for mothers to safely surrender their newborns at a local hospital, police station or fire station without prosecution.
_____________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
https://christiannews.net/2019/04/15/wisconsin-mother-to-face-murder-charge-after-strangling-newborn-son-beating-head-into-toilet/

LIBERTY COUNSEL ACTION VIDEO: LGBTQ EQUALITY ACT (HR5) “ATTACKS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY HEAD ON”

LIBERTY COUNSEL ACTION VIDEO: LGBTQ EQUALITY ACT (HR5) “ATTACKS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY HEAD ON”
BY PETER LA BARBERA
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The so-called LGBTQ “Equality Act” is the most dangerous piece of homosexual/transgender activist legislation every proposed. We thank Liberty CounselAction for producing this 3-minute video. Take Action: tell your Congressman (202-225-3121) to oppose HR5, the “Equality Act.”
SEE ALSO:

PETE BUTTIGIEG’S FAKE CHRISTIANITY: DEMOCRAT BLAMES GOD FOR HIS HOMOSEXUALITY


PETE BUTTIGIEG’S FAKE CHRISTIANITY: 
DEMOCRAT BLAMES GOD FOR HIS HOMOSEXUALITY
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
April 9, 2019
CONTACT: Peter LaBarbera: americansfortruth@gmail.com; 312-324-3787, or via Americans For Truth website HERE; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera_

Blaming God for his sin: Democrat Pete Buttigieg claims God made him homosexual.

CHICAGO — Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH.org), issued the following statement today about potential Democratic presidential candidate and former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s recent comments about God, homosexuality and Vice President Pence:

Mayor Pete Buttigieg is a living, walking and breathing example of the politicized sham that is religious-left “Christianity” today. He claims that God created him as a homosexual—a self-serving blasphemy as audacious as it is biblically nonsensical. (And science has refuted his “born gay” crutch.)
Buttigieg quotes Scripture even as he defies it with his very public, and very fake, “marriage” to another man (See in the Bible: Matthew 19:4-6Romans 1: 24-27Jude 7; 1 Timothy 1:8-10; Leviticus 18:22). (Redefining marriage to accommodate sexual perversion is beyond the Supreme Court’s pay grade.)
Predictably, “Mayor Pete” has quickly become the darling of a media who incessantly promote all things “gay” and “trans”—and who loathe socially conservative Christians who actually believe the Bible in humility, and fear God in reverence.
The simple truth is that homosexual behaviors are wrong, unnatural, and often unhealthy—yet can be overcome through the grace and power of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 6), as testified by countless ex-“gays” and former “transgenders.” No faithful Christian proudly identifies by his or her besetting sins, nor seeks to justify them before a holy God.
Vice President Mike Pence—a favorite target of Buttigieg and self-righteous LGBTQ political bullies—has been intimidated into silence, but he would do well to respond to the absurdities that flow out of Mayor Pete’s lips on a daily basis. Buttigieg claims that Pence has a “quarrel … with my Creator” because he opposes the aggressively anti-freedom, anti-Christian LGBTQ agenda. But it is Buttigieg himself who is defiantly living out his own quarrel with God every time he proudly celebrates his sexual sin and, worse, uses God to justify it—man’s ultimate folly.
Christians should pray that Pete Buttigieg repents of his proud homosexuality and dedicates himself to serving Christ in Truth—rather than mocking Him for political gain.

_____________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:

THE VIGILANTE FROM SOUTH BEND

Liar, character assassin, bigot – Pete Buttigieg is a natural leader for the Democrats.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273468/vigilante-south-bend-david-horowitz 


SEE ALSO:
https://www.newswars.com/us-ambassador-slams-mayor-pete-for-pushing-hate-hoax-about-mike-pence/

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/04/mayor-pete-crackup-christianity/

http://the-trumpet-online.com/pete-buttigieg-wrong-homosexuality/

DAVID CLOUD’S “WAY OF LIFE” NEWSLETTER ARTICLES

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
purposes:

U.S. UNIVERSITIES AWASH WITH CURRICULUM AIMED AT “QUEERING” STUDENTS (Friday Church News Notes, April 12, 2019, www.wayoflife.orgfbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) – The following is excerpted from “Queer and Trans Readings,” CBNNews, Feb. 19, 2019: “Many of America’s top colleges and universities are now offering courses designed to ‘advance a liberal agenda, malign conservatives and their values, and shut out ideological diversity,’ asserts a new report from Young America’s Foundation (YAF). YAF argues the curriculum at a wide range of American schools, from Harvard University to Columbia University to Swarthmore College, seems to target conservative and Christian values in some shocking ways. ‘Many of the courses and descriptions listed in this year’s report may seem comical at first glance, but the situation that continues to unfold on America’s campuses is hardly a laughing matter. Beyond the inane, identity- and intersectionality-obsessed topics, these classes advance a liberal agenda, malign conservatives and their values, and shut out ideological diversity,’ said YAF spokesman Spencer Brown, author of the 25th annual Comedy and Tragedy Report. The report examines the curriculum of approximately 50 top schools. … One of the most unsettling classes from a Christian perspective may be Swarthmore’s religion class called ‘RELG 033—Queering the Bible.’ Here’s the description: ‘This course surveys the queer and trans readings of biblical texts. It introduces students to the complexity of constructions of sex, gender, and identity in one of the most influential literary works produced in ancient times. By reading the Bible with the methods of queer and trans theoretical approaches, this class destabilizes the long held assumptions about the Bible—and religion—says about gender and sexuality.’ There’s a similar course at Pomona College called ‘RLST 184—Queer Theory and the Bible.’ Here’s what it teaches: ‘This course will look at how the Bible can be read productively through queer theory. We will examine biblical passages that are central to prohibitions on homosexuality and the larger discourses of heteronormativity (constructed around gender, sexuality, class, national identity, state formations, kinship, children, etc.) in which homophobic readings of the Bible emerge. We will also look at the ways in which these discourses and the identities they shore up can be queered, as well as at biblical texts that can be read as queer friendly. This process of queering will allow and require us to approach the biblical text in new ways.’ According to Brown, the schools’ goal in presenting such subject matter is clear—to indoctrinate the younger generation with left-wing ideology. ‘Peel back the shiny veneer colleges and universities place on themselves in the name of “higher” education to reveal a stark reality: campuses devoid of intellectual diversity populated with leftist professors, faculty, and administrators intent on indoctrinating the rising generation in the ways of the Left,’ he charged.”WIDE SUPPORT AMONG “FAITH GROUPS” FOR LGBT PROTECTION LAWS (Friday Church News Notes, April 12, 2019,www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) – The following is excerpted from “Survey: Faith groups maintain widespread support,” Religion News Service, Mar. 12, 2019: “A new report from the Public Religion Research Institute finds that strong majorities within all religious groups, including white evangelicals and Jehovah’s Witnesses, show sustained support for LGBT nondiscrimination policies. The newly released data from PRRI’s 2018 American Values Atlas, an annual survey of more than 40,000 Americans, showed that 69 percent of all Americans are in favor of enacting laws shielding LGBT people from discrimination in jobs, public accommodations and housing. The two faith groups least likely to support these policies, according to the survey, were white evangelical Protestants and Jehovah’s Witnesses, but even they were in favor of laws protecting LGBT people by small majorities, at 54 percent for white evangelicals and 53 percent for Jehovah’s Witnesses.”SOUTH CAROLINA MOVING TOWARD BANNING ABORTION WHEN UNBORN BABY’S HEARTBEAT BEGINS(Friday Church News Notes, April 12, 2019, www.wayoflife.org,fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) – The following is excerpted from “South Carolina Panel Passes Bill,” LifeNews.com, Apr. 4, 2019: “South Carolina lawmakers moved forward with a bill late Tuesday to ban abortions after an unborn baby’s heartbeat is detectable. Following the lead of Georgia and other states, the South Carolina House Judiciary Committee passed the heartbeat bill in a 15-7 vote Tuesday night, the AP reports. State House Bill 3020 would require abortionists to test for a fetal heartbeat before every abortion and prohibit abortions if a heartbeat is detected. Exceptions would be allowed for rape, incest and threats to the mother’s life. It also would require abortionists to offer the woman the chance to hear her baby’s heartbeat and see the ultrasound. An unborn baby’s heartbeat is detectable by about six weeks of pregnancy, though new research suggests the heartbeat may begin as early as 18 days after conception. If the bill becomes law and withstands a legal challenge, it could ban almost all abortions in South Carolina. WSPA 7 News reports the committee heard a number of heartbreaking testimonies prior to the vote. One came from a local chaplain who said she deeply regrets aborting her unborn baby. … About 5,100 unborn babies were aborted in South Carolina in 2017, and most were later than six weeks of pregnancy, according to the state Department of Health and Environmental Control. Pro-life Gov. Henry McMaster, who also is in a legal battle to defund the abortion giant Planned Parenthood, said he would support the legislation.” 
CATHOLIC CARDINAL SENTENCED TO SIX YEARS IN PRISON FOR MOLESTING CHOIRBOYS (Friday Church News Notes, April 12, 2019, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) – The following is excerpted from “Cardinal Pell sent to prison,” RNS, Mar. 13, 2019: “The most senior Catholic convicted of child sex abuse was sentenced Wednesday (March 13) to six years in prison for molesting two choirboys in an Australian cathedral in a crime the judge said showed ‘staggering arrogance.’ Cardinal George Pell must serve a minimum of three years and eight months before he is eligible for parole, according to the judge’s order. The five convictions against Pell carried a maximum possible sentence of 10 years each. ‘In my view, your conduct was permeated by staggering arrogance,’ Victoria state County Court Chief Judge Peter Kidd said in handing down the sentence. Pope Francis’ former finance minister was convicted by a unanimous jury verdict in December of raping a 13-year-old choirboy and indecently dealing with the boy and the boy’s 13-year-old friend in the late 1990s, months after Pell became archbishop of Melbourne. … the judge also said that Pell had abused his position of power and had shown no remorse for his crimes. Kidd described the assaults as egregious, degrading and humiliating to the victims.”

____________________________________________________________

PETER LA BARBERA ON GAY ACTIVISM IN THE CHURCH

ARMED SWAT TEAM IN ARIZONA BREAKS DOWN DOOR OF FAMILY WITH UNVACCINATED CHILD

ARMED SWAT TEAM IN ARIZONA BREAKS DOWN DOOR OF FAMILY WITH UNVACCINATED CHILD 
BY BARBARA LOE FISHER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Just after 1 a.m. the morning of Feb. 25, 2019, a SWAT team with guns drawn broke down the door of a suburban home in Chandler, Arizona where parents were caring for an unvaccinated child with a fever. The armed policemen had a “temporary custody notice” from a judge to remove a two year old from the home after his mother refused to obey the order of a doctor to take the child to the hospital for testing earlier in the day. The child and his siblings, ages four and six, were taken into state custody and placed in foster homes and the mother and father both have been charged with child abuse.1 2 3 4 5
The story began that day when the mother, who is pregnant, took her toddler to Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine in Tempe, AZ after his fever rose to over 100 F. When the doctor asked the mother if the child was vaccinated and she said, “No,” the doctor told the mother to take her son to the emergency room at the Banner Cardon Children’s Medical Center in Mesa, AZ to be tested for meningitis.
According to The Arizona Republic, the mother said that after the doctor’s office visit, the child was laughing and playing with his siblings and, when she took his temperature again, it was near normal. She then called the doctor to say she would not be taking her son to the emergency room and also expressed worry that, because her son was not vaccinated, she would get in trouble with the Department of Child Services (DCS). When the mother did not follow the doctor’s orders to take the child to the hospital emergency room, the doctor contacted DCS.
DCS called the Chandler Police and “requested officers to check on the welfare of a two year old infant.” At 10:30 p.m., two police officers knocked on the family’s door but nobody answered. After a DCS caseworker arrived, a call was made to the doctor, who still insisted the child should be taken to the hospital. However, in a phone conversation between one of the police officers and the child’s father, who was inside the home, the father said that his son’s “fever broke and he was fine.” There are indications that the father was concerned about the high cost of an emergency room visit in light of the fact the child’s fever was down and he was acting normally.6
Just after midnight, the DCS caseworker obtained a “temporary custody notice” signed by a judge and police officers called the criminal investigations bureau. About 1:30 a.m., a SWAT team with guns drawn and yelling “Chandler Police Department” kicked down the family’s door. A video recorded by a security surveillance camera shows the father emerging walking backwards with his hands up and being immediately handcuffed, as the mother follows with her son in her arms.
The officers reported they found two other young children in their beds, one of whom was sick and had vomited, and that the home was “messy.” All three children were taken to the children’s medical center and then placed in foster care in separate homes.

Juvenile Court Hearing 10 Days Later

At a juvenile court hearing 10 days later, the parents asked for their children to be returned. Attending the hearing was state Rep. Kelly Townsend (R-Mesa) and members of Arizona DCS Oversight Group, which is composed of Arizona citizens concerned about abuse of power by DCS state government officials. According to The Arizona Republic covering the hearing, DCS was represented by a lawyer for the state Attorney General’s Office.7
The state’s attorney asked the judge to close the hearing to the public, commenting that members of the news media were in the audience and the family had spoken with the media, which he said was not in the “best interest” of the children. Judge Jennifer Green declined and pointed out that, in Arizona, “we like our courts to be open.”
The parents’ attorneys said they were unaware of restrictions about speaking with the media and that the parents had been allowed only one visit with their two older children since the night they were taken but had not seen their youngest child at all. Apparently, DCS officials told the parents they could not see their two year old son, who did not test positive for meningitis but had a common respiratory infection (RSV), because he was at a “medical appointment” the day of the scheduled visitation.
The state’s attorney opposed returning the children to their parents. He said the parents were “hostile” and not cooperating with DCS and they had brought members of the DCS Oversight Group to a DCS visit, while the grandfather had tried to videotape a meeting with DCS.
At the request of DCS, the judge approved psychological evaluations for both parents, ordered the father to continue drug and alcohol testing, and reminded the parents and grandparents that they were no longer in control of the children’s medical and health decisions, which were now being made by the state.

Doctor Professor: “I’ll Have to Call Child Protective Services”

New York Times article quoted Seattle Children’s Hospital emergency room doctor and University of Washington School of Medicine bioethics professor Douglas S. Diekema, MD, who commented on the case. He appeared to side with the doctor who reported the mother to DCS for failing to follow orders.
Dr. Diekema said he personally encounters parents refusing a recommended treatment plan and sometimes will get a second physician’s opinion to convince the parents to comply so he can “avoid coercion.” Still, he does recall having told parents:
I hate to say this, but I have to let you know that if you walk out of this emergency room department, without agreeing to something that makes me comfortable, I’ll have to call child protective services.8

Arizona State Rep: “We used A SWAT Team on a family with a child with a high fever”

According to The Arizona Republic, after the early March juvenile court hearing, Rep. Townsend was interviewed outside the courthouse and said she was disturbed by the case. “It was brought to my attention that these parents may have been targeted by the medical community because they hadn’t vaccinated their children,” but parents who don’t vaccinate their children because of medical concerns aren’t criminals and shouldn’t be treated as such.
She also questioned whether DCS labeling the family as “hostile” was appropriate. “It doesn’t say anywhere that after your kids are taken, after police bust down your door, that you have to be nice to DCS to get your kids back.” Critical of the use of force, Townsend added:
We’re not talking cartels holding someone who’s been kidnapped, we’re not talking about a drug bust, we’re not talking about a flight risk. We’re not talking about any of that. This was a family with a child who has a fever…We used a SWAT team on a family with a child with a high fever.
Rep. Townsend helped write legislation requiring DCS to obtain a warrant before removing a child from their parents or guardians in non-emergencies. She said, “It was not the intent of (the law) that the level of force after obtaining a warrant was to bring in a SWAT team. The imagery is horrifying. What has our country become that we can tear down the doorway of a family who has a child with a high fever that disagrees with their doctor?”
During discussions in the Arizona legislature this year about whether vaccine exemptions should be restricted or expanded, Rep. Townsend, who has a vaccine injured child, defended parents’ right to make voluntary vaccine use decisions for their minor children.  She said:
Our country is sovereign, our State is sovereign, our family is sovereign, our God is sovereign and the most holy and sacred last frontier of sovereignty is our own body. Dearest friends and people of Arizona, it seems we are prepared to give up our liberty, the very sovereignty of our body, because of measles. I read yesterday that the idea is being floated that if not enough people get vaccinated, then we are going to force them to…. I am going to ask you to educate your children, educate your family, educate those around you about the fundamentals of liberty and what that means. It seems we have lost those fundamentals along the way and are chasing our fears.9

Children Placed in Custody of Grandparents

On Mar. 15, DCS agreed to allow the three children to live with the children’s paternal grandparents but the state still retains custody. In a statement sent to The Republic, the children’s father said in part:
 We have been through a very traumatic experience with our encounter with DCS. We would like other parents out there to know and realize the amount of power DCS has over the welfare of your children.  Even though we remain confident in our innocence through our case, it is immediately an uphill struggle of what to do or not to do….The process of removal in our opinion was uncalled for and we would like to see the laws/process change when dealing with expedited removal of children. Our children have sure been through a traumatizing experience and hope they have not been harmed psychologically or emotionally as we are a very happy family who love each other and would do anything for each other.
On Mar. 28, 2019, the Chandler Police recommended the mother and father be charged with child abuse.10
References:
1 Nanez DM. A couple decided not to take their feverish child to the hospital. Hours later police kicked down their doorThe Arizona Republic Mar. 25, 2019.2 Navarro D. SWAT Team with Guns Drawn Raids Arizona Home for Toddler with Fever. ABC News Mar. 28, 2019.3 Farzan AN. Armed police bust down the door at Arizona home and seize unvaccinated toddlerThe Washington Post Mar. 29, 2019. 4 Hassan A. With Guns Drawn, Officers Raided Home to Get Feverish ChildThe New York Times Mar. 29, 2019. 5 Billeaud J. Police in Arizona Kick in Door to Bring Sick Boy to HospitalAssociated Press Mar. 30, 2019.6 See Footnote 3.7 See Footnote 1.8 See Footnote 4.9 Innes S. State Rep Kelly Townsend says mandatory vaccinations are ‘Communist.’ The Arizona Republic Mar. 1, 2019.10 Roberts L. Were Chandler police who raided a home of toddler with high fever wrong? No….and yesThe Arizona Republic Mar. 29, 2019.

NY JUDGE HALTS ACTION BY ROCKLAND COUNTY EXECUTIVE BANNING UNVACCINATED KIDS FROM PUBLIC SPACES

RETIRED NEW YORK CITY POLICEMAN ISSUES DRACONIAN ORDER, SIMILAR TO MAYOR DE BLASIO’S, VIOLATING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 
NY JUDGE HALTS ACTION BY ROCKLAND COUNTY EXECUTIVE BANNING UNVACCINATED KIDS 
FROM PUBLIC SPACES 
BY BARBARA LOE FISHER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
In response to more than 150 cases of measles identified in Rockland County since October 2018, on Mar. 26, 2019 Rockland County Executive Ed Day declared a 30-day public health emergency and banned healthy unvaccinated children under age 18 from entering schools and other public spaces.1 A retired NYPD policeman,2 Day warned that if unvaccinated children without state approved medical exemptions are found in schools, churches, synagogues, shopping malls, restaurants or using public transportation, their parents could face criminal charges and a $500 fine or six months in jail.3 4
On Mar. 28 and Apr. 4, New York legislators supporting a bill (S2994)5 to repeal the religious belief vaccine exemption announced their determination to end all non-medical vaccine exemptions filed by parents on behalf of children attending daycare or school.6 7 If the bill becomes law, New York would join Mississippi, West Virginia and California8 and penalize Americans residing in the state for following their deeply held religious or spiritual beliefs opposed to use of vaccines that can cause injury and death in healthy people.
On Apr. 3, civil rights attorney Michael Sussman filed a lawsuit on behalf of Rockland County parents of unvaccinated children, challenging Day’s “unprecedented declaration of a local emergency and a local emergency order” as “arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law.”9 On Apr. 5, Acting New York State Supreme Court Judge Rolf Thorsen issued a temporary injunction ending the state of emergency so healthy unvaccinated children could attend school and enter churches and synagogues during Easter and Passover this month.10
Attorney Sussman commented,
People’s lives are being affected even though they are not in any way themselves carriers of the disease, they are not affected by the disease. But the people who are affected by the disease are not being quarantined even though they are a much smaller number. That’s the way to proceed.11
Judge Thorsen set an April 19 hearing for the lawsuit. In invoking the temporary injunction, Thorsen pointed out that 166 cases of measles in the county did not rise to the level of an epidemic and could not be defined as a disaster justifying banning unvaccinated children from public spaces. He added that Rockland County’s action “may have been misplaced.”

Quarantine For Sick, Not Healthy People

Day’s use of police power to, in effect, quarantine healthy children by banning them from appearing in public spaces under threat of their parents being criminally prosecuted and punished appears to be the first time in U.S. history that this type of police action has been taken against healthy children and their parents. Historically, quarantine laws apply to actively, infected sick people who are isolated from healthy people until they are well.12 13
In the 18th and 19th centuries, travelers arriving on boats entering U.S. harbors were commonly quarantined for a period of time to make sure anyone infected with yellow fever, cholera, typhus, smallpox and other infectious diseases with high morbidity and mortality rates had recovered before disembarking.14

“We Don’t Want to Bite Anybody. We Just Want You To Obey the Law”

In a Mar. 26 press release, Day stated:
As this outbreak has continued our inspectors have begun to meet resistance from those they are trying to protect. They have been hung up on or told not to call again. They’ve been told “we’re not discussing this, do not come back,” when visiting the homes of infected individuals as part of their investigations. This type of response is unacceptable and irresponsible. It endangers the health and well-being of others and displays a shocking lack of responsibility and concern for others in our community.15
Day was quoted in a Mar. 30 New York newspaper stating that, “Parents will be held accountable if they are found to be in violation of the state of emergency and the focus of this effort is on the parents of these children… We are urging them, once again, now with the authority of law, to get your children vaccinated.”16 In another local paper, he was quoted as saying, “The teeth are there, we’re not biting. We’re showing you the teeth. We don’t want to have to bite anybody. We just want you to obey the law.”17
According to Day, more than 17,000 MMR shots had been administered in the county between October 2018 and the end of March.18

Rockland County Outbreak Began in Fall 2018

Rockland County is located about 15 miles from New York City with a population of around 311,000 and has the largest Jewish population per capita of any county in the U.S.19 The measles outbreak apparently began when a handful of international travelers with measles arrived in the county in September 2018 during Jewish High Holy Days. Subsequently, measles cases were identified among members of an Orthodox Jewish and Hasidic community in Rockland, where a number of residents had not been vaccinated.20
As of Apr. 5, 2019, the Rockland County Health Department officials stated there had been 167 confirmed reported cases of measles in the county, with 82 percent of those infected classified as having had no MMR shots; 8.4 percent having had one or two MMR shots; and 9.6 percent classified as “unknown status.” About 85 percent of the measles cases have occurred in children under 18 years old.21
Jewish Passover this year begins Apr. 19 and ends Apr. 27. Christian observances begin on Palm Sunday Apr. 14 through Easter Sunday and Good Monday Apr. 22. If the Rockland County ban had not been lifted by Judge Thorsen, unvaccinated children without a state approved medical exemption would have been barred from worshipping in synagogues and churches on days that Jews and Christians consider to be among the most holy of the year.

New York City Mayor Declares Emergency, Demands Vaccination in Williamsburg

In nearby New York City, as of Apr. 8, 2019, 285 cases of measles had been confirmed by the health department in Brooklyn and Queens,22 with 228 cases occurring in the Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn, where thousands of Jewish families live.23 There are reports that continuing publicity about measles cases occurring in Jewish communities has resulted in an increase in anti-semitism and prejudice against Jewish people in the city.24
However, on Apr. 9, 2019, Mayor Ed DeBlasio declared a state of emergency and the Health Commissioner ordered “every adult and child who lives, works or resides in Williamsburg” and has not received the MMR vaccine to get vaccinated unless they can demonstrate “they are immune from measles or should be medically exempt.”25 According to the New York City Health Department bulletin, even though it is routinely recommended that children receive the first MMR dose after one year of age and the second dose between ages four and six:
  [Vaccine] providers serving the Orthodox communities in Bourough Park and Williamsburg should administer an additional early dose of MMR vaccine to all patients aged 6 to 11 months during the current outbreak. This dose should not count toward the routine, two-dose vaccine series. Also providers may give children younger than 4 the routine second dose of MMR, provided it has been at least 28 days since the child received a previous dose of MMR, varicella or live intranasal influenza vaccine.26
In a Newsday article, a local medical doctor, who is also a rabbi, was quoted as saying there is nothing in Jewish religion that prohibits vaccination. “The religion was in place long before vaccines were developed,” said Dr. Aaron Glatt.27

States Cannot Discriminate Against Religious Beliefs Not Affiliated with Organized Religions

The seminal 1905 U.S. Supreme Court decision affirmed the authority of state legislatures to enact smallpox vaccination laws during smallpox epidemics.28 29 State legislatures also have the authority to include exemptions to vaccine mandates and, currently, 47 states have religious belief vaccine exemptions and 16 states have conscientious or philosophical belief exemptions.30
In 1987, a U.S. District Court in New York ruled that the state could not force residents to belong to an organized religion or specific church in order to exercise sincerely held religious beliefs and qualify for a religious exemption to vaccination because it violates both religion clauses of the First Amendment:
The United States Constitution mandates that, if New York wishes to allow a religiously-based exclusion from its otherwise compulsory program of immunization of school children, it may not limit this exception from the program to members of specific religious groups, but must offer the exemption to all persons who sincerely hold religious beliefs that prohibit the inoculation of their children by the state.31
References:
1 Rockland County, NY Office of County Executive. Declaration of Local State of Emergency for Rockland County Mar. 26, 2019. Amended Mar. 28 and Apr. 3, 2019.2 Rockland County, NY Office of County Executive.  Ed Day Bio. 2019.3 Tampone K. Rockland County’s Ban on Unvaccinated Minors from Public Carries Fine, Jail. Post Standard Mar. 27, 2019.  4 Powell A. With Rockland measles emergency in place, reluctant parents take children for vaccinationsRockland/Westchester Journal News Mar. 27, 2019.5 New York Senate Bill 2994: An Act to repeal exemption to vaccination due to religious beliefs. 6 Dunne A. Some Lawmakers Support Vaccine Bill Amid Rockland’s Ongoing Measles OutbreakWAMC Radio (NPR-NY) Mar. 28, 2019.7 Fox A. Amid measles outbreak, lawmakers renew push to end religious exemptions for vaccinesAM New York Apr. 4, 2019.8 National Vaccine Information Center. State Law and Vaccine Requirements. 2019.9 Sussman & Associates. Lawsuit against County of Rockland, New York. Filed with Rockland County Clerk Apr. 3, 2019.10 ABC7. Judge Rules Against Rockland County’s State of Emergency Over Measles Outbreak. Apr. 5, 2019. 11 The USA Feed. New York county’s emergency order halted by judge. Apr. 5, 2019.12 Cetron M, Maloney S et al. Isolation and Quarantine: Containment Strategies for SARS. In Learning from SARS: Preparing for the Next Disease Outbreak (Workshop Summary). National Academies Press 2004.13 Reed M. Quarantine: Ethical Considerations for Public Health Officials. Mar. 6, 2015.  14 CDC. Quarantine and Isolation: History of Quarantine. July 31, 2014.15 Rockland County Executive Press Release Mar. 26, 2019.16 Tampone K. Rockland County’s Ban on Unvaccinated Minors from Public Carries Fine, Jail. Post Standard Mar. 27, 2019.17 Kramer PD. Measles outbreak: How Rockland County became ground zero – then hit the ‘third rails’ with emergency declarationRockland/Westchester Journal News Mar. 30, 2019.18 Welch A. Hundreds vaccinated since measles emergency declared in Rockland CountyCBSMar. 29, 2019.19 New York State: Rockland County. 20 Kramer PD. Measles outbreak: How Rockland County became ground zero – then hit the ‘third rails’ with emergency declarationRockland/Westchester Journal News Mar. 30, 2019.21 Rockland County Health Department. Measles Information. April 5, 2019.22 New York City Health Department. Measles: Recent Infections in Brooklyn and Queens. Apr. 8, 2019.23 The Brooklyn Jewish Historical Initiative. Williamsburg. 24 Fox M. NY Supreme Court Justice Halts Measles Ban in Rockland County, Calling It ‘arbitarary and capricious.’ PJ Media Apr. 5, 2019.25 Associated Press. NYC orders mandatory vaccines for some amid measles outbreak. Apr. 9, 2019.26 New York City Health Department. Measles: Recent Infections in Brooklyn and Queens. Apr. 8, 2019.27 Ricks D. DeBlasio declares measles health emergency for parts of New York City. Apr. 9, 2019.28 Jacobson v. Massachusetts. 197 U.S. 11(1905). Cornell University Law School.29 Fisher BL. Forced Vaccination: The Tragic Legacy of Jacobson v. MassachusettsNVIC Newsletter Nov. 2, 2016.30 National Vaccine Information Center. State Law and Vaccine Requirements. 2019.31 Sherr v Northport – East Northport U. Free Sch. D.United States District Court, E.D. New York. Summary. Oct. 21, 1987.
 ______________________________________________________________
SEE OUR PREVIOUS POST:
NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: 
MANDATORY VACCINES OR PAY $1,000
https://ratherexposethem.blogspot.com/2019/04/new-york-city-mayor-
mandatory-vaccines.html

DEMOCRATS INTRODUCE LEGISLATION TO REPEAL TRUMP’S “MUSLIM BAN”

LIBERAL DEMOCRATS ATTEMPT TO UNDO TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION BANS
DEMOCRATS INTRODUCE LEGISLATION TO REPEAL TRUMP’S “MUSLIM BAN” 
BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The Democrats have introduced a bill to end President Trump’s temporary ban on visa from several Muslim countries, to which they falsely refer as a “Muslim ban.”
“The legislation, known as the National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants (NO BAN) Act, “repeals the three versions of President Trump’s Muslim ban, strengthens the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion, and restores the separation of powers by limiting overly broad executive authority to issue future travel bans.”
The ban has nothing to do with discrimination on the basis of religion. The countries specified under Trump’s executive order were those identified as “countries of concern” by the Obama administration. The Democrats had no problem with it then.
Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country, was not on that list. Neither was Saudi Arabia and Turkey. This measure was about national security, not about banning Muslims as such. The countries on the list could not provide adequate information about people asking to enter the U.S. Trump stated: “Making America safe is my number one priority. We will not admit those into our country we cannot safely vet.”
There is no targeting of Muslims by the Trump administration. Due diligence was applied. Vetting and border protection is needed in America, and all of the West.
“Dems introduce bill to repeal Trump ‘Muslim ban,'” by Rachel Frazin, The Hill, April 10, 2019:
Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.) and Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) on Wednesday introduced legislation to end President Trump’s ban on travelers to the United States from five Muslim-majority countries.
The legislation, known as the National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants (NO BAN) Act, “repeals the three versions of President Trump’s Muslim ban, strengthens the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion, and restores the separation of powers by limiting overly broad executive authority to issue future travel bans,” its sponsors said in a statement.
They added that the measure is supported by more than 90 lawmakers and hundreds of civil rights, faith, national security and community organizations, as well as private companies.
“President Trump’s Muslim Ban is a hateful policy, born from bigotry, that denies both our country and millions of aspiring Americans a better future,” Chu said in the statement.
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), a co-sponsor of the bill, first referenced the legislation Tuesday on Twitter.
“I ran on a promise to end the President’s hateful Muslim ban,” said Omar, one of the first two Muslim women elected to Congress. “No one should be denied basic rights because of their religion, race or national origin. #NoBanAct.”
The measure is also co-sponsored by all the senators in the Democratic field of presidential candidates.
Coons said Wednesday on MSNBC “Morning Joe” that the legislation “would prevent this president or a future president from imposing a similar religiously based ban on folks coming into this country, narrowing his powers.”
Trump and the White House argue the travel ban is not a Muslim ban. The policy prevents travelers from Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia and Yemen from entering the U.S., and the administration argues it is necessary to protect national security.
Trump’s third executive order issuing the ban was upheld in a 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court last year.
The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, said Trump was well within his authority to impose the ban based on the president’s judgments about national security. Roberts wrote that it was not the court’s place to criticize or pass judgment on comments Trump made on the campaign trail about a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” and that the executive order was neutral in not targeting travelers of a specific religion…..
______________________________________________________________ SEE ALSO:

PRESIDENT TRUMP DELIVERS REMARKS AT THE 2019 NATIONAL PRAYER BREAKFAST~SENATORS COONS & LANKFORD BLESS TRUMP WITH PRAYER~COONS' PRAYER INEFFECTIVE

https://chu.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-chu-sen-coons-lead- bicameral-push-repeal-muslim-ban-prevent-future  https://www.newsweek.com/ilhan-omar-introduce-bill-end-donald-trumps- hateful-muslim-ban-no-one-should-1391628

TEXAS CHAIRMAN KILLS BILL TO OUTLAW ABORTION FOR “CRIMINALIZING WOMEN” INVOLVED IN MURDERING THEIR BABIES~FORMER SBC PRESIDENT JACK GRAHAM PRAISES CHAIRMAN AS COURAGEOUS

TEXAS CHAIRMAN KILLS BILL TO OUTLAW ABORTION FOR “CRIMINALIZING WOMEN” INVOLVED IN MURDERING THEIR BABIES 
BY HEATHER CLARK
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
AUSTIN, Texas — Despite testimony from hundreds on Monday that went on for hours into the night, Republican House Committee Chairman Jeff Leach has decided to kill a bill that would outlaw abortion altogether in the state of Texas because it “subjects women who undergo abortions to criminal liability.”

Click to enlarge.

The two-paragraph statement released by Leach, who leads the House Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence, outlined that he does not believe women who seek to have their babies murdered by an abortionist should be criminally responsible for their actions.
Therefore, he said, he cannot in “good conscience support House Bill 896.”
“I have always been on the front lines in the fight for the sanctity of life, both personally — through my active involvement with pregnancy resource centers and pro-life ministries — and as an elected official, where I have authored and supported some of the nation’s strongest laws,” he said.
“My commitment to advancing the pro-life cause is stronger than ever, and that’s why I cannot in good conscience support House Bill 896 — legislation that subjects women who undergo abortions to criminal liability and even the possibility of the death penalty,” Leach continued.
“Trusted pro-life legislators and advocates agree with me that this bill moves our state and the pro-life cause in the wrong direction and it will not be advanced from the House Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence.”
The bill, also known as the “Abolish Abortion in Texas Act” and introduced by Rep. Tony Tinderholt, R-Arlington, declares that life begins at conception, and grants the unborn the same rights that are entitled to born children.
“A living human child, from the moment of fertilization upon the fusion of a human spermatozoon with a human ovum, is entitled to the same rights, powers, and privileges as are secured or granted by the laws of this state to any other human child,” it reads in part.
The legislation would also have removed an exception from current Texas criminal homicide law, which states, “This chapter does not apply to the death of an unborn child if the conduct charged is (1) conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child; (2) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent, if the death of the unborn child was the intended result of the procedure … ”
The law would have instead read, “Notwithstanding any other law, this chapter applies to the death of an unborn child regardless of whether the conduct charged is (1) conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child; (2) a procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider …”
THE HEARING
During Monday’s hearing for the bill, Rep. Victoria Neave, D-Dallas, remarked that the legislation would result in women being convicted of murder, and they would thereby face the death penalty. She characterized the bill as killing women, and found it to be counteractive to the goal of ending murder.
Neave had been among other Democrats who released a statement opposing a separate bill not relating to Tinderholt’s offering that requires abortionists to provide care for aborted babies born alive. According to the Statesman, Neave and others skipped the March 25 hearing for the Texas Born-Alive Infant Protection Act altogether.
“While some members of the Texas Legislature insist on attacking as well as offending women directly and indirectly, we will not join this charade by participating in this political grandstanding on issues which are already codified in Texas and federal law,” they wrote. “We refuse to offend our fellow Texas women, their families, and licensed physicians by wasting time on unnecessary legislation designed to intimidate and restrict women’s access to health care.”
Neave did attend Monday’s hearing for the Abolition of Abortion in Texas bill, but asked Mark Lee Dixon of Right to Life of East Texas, “You’re okay with killing somebody for [killing someone else]?” and “You’re okay with killing a woman?”
“I’m okay with justice being served in a court of law,” he replied.
Chairman Leach stated that he opposes abortion, but indicated that he was similarly wrestling with the idea of punishing the woman, especially in regard to whether women who are pressured to obtain an abortion should face punishment.
“I hate abortion. I hate it. I’m agreeing with everything that’s been said here,” he said. “To me, it is absolutely, unequivocally murder. It’s the taking of a life.”
Leach quoted from the Book of Jeremiah, which states that God knew Jeremiah in his mother’s womb.
But he also pointed back to testimony delivered that stated that women are being “lied to,” and said that he “wanted to be honest” with those in the room that “what I’m struggling with from a policy perspective, is what is the best way to meet those women who have been lied to at the point of their need.”
Leach also read from Dixon’s website and pointed to a ministry that Right to Life of East Texas supports, which offers post-abortion assistance.
“All these services that CARE is offering — confidential post-abortion recovery — I don’t want those recovery efforts to take place with a woman who’s behind bars,” Leach stated. “And that’s what I fear this bill does at this point.”
He asked Dixon how he could support H.B. 896, which would make the commission of abortion a crime, and yet refer women to CARE for post-abortion counseling services.
“When we’re on that sidewalk and we’re trying to save lives, we don’t say, ‘Go ahead and have your abortion and God will forgive you,’ but we plead with them not to have that abortion,” Dixon replied. “And the reality is … these women, if it was illegal for them to have an abortion, then they wouldn’t even get there (to an abortion facility).”
“And if we actually treat abortion as murder — which it really, really is … then we’ve got to say that the killing of baby Legend or the killing of Baby Charis (two babies he had helped spare from abortion) should be treated just like the killing of myself or anyone else in this room,” he continued. “Are they equal or are they not equal? That’s what it’s about.”
“What about women who are trafficked and coerced into having abortions?” Leach asked moments later.
“What do we do with those women? Because under the bill, a woman who is coerced and trafficked and driven by her pimp to an abortion clinic without a cell phone, with no freedom whatsoever, and is walked into an abortion clinic and said, ‘You will get an abortion,’ [she would be charged],” he claimed.
“For a woman who is coerced into having an abortion … The text of the bill is very clear: A woman who ends the life, which is recognized under this bill is — as Representative Neave has correctly pointed out — potentially liable for capital murder,” Leach continued.
It is not clear where Leach obtained the notion that the woman would be charged in such an instance, or how the situation would occur. Under the bill, abortion would be illegal, and there would be no abortion facility for the woman to enter. She would have nowhere to go and no abortionist to turn to.
The bill also states that the homicide charge would apply to the mother if there was murderous “conduct committed by” the woman — in other words, the commission of a self-abortion, where she personally kills her own baby.
WOMEN CHARGED IN TEXAS FOR KILLING NEWBORN, BUT NOT UNBORN

Click to enlarge.

In Texas, women who kill or commit crimes against their newborn baby may be, and have been, charged with murder.
As previously reported, in February 2018, a young mother was charged with capital murder after stabbing her newborn daughter multiple times and leaving her body in a storage shed, where she was later discovered by the neighbor boy. The baby’s death was found by the medical examiner to be due to “homicidal violence.”
Months later, another mother was charged with attempted capital murder after giving birth at her place of employment, placing her newborn son in a garbage bag and walking him out to the dumpster to leave him for dead.
Headlines surrounding cases in other states have included, “‘I Just Got Rid of It’: Colorado Woman Accused of Tossing Newborn Over Fence Onto Neighbor’s Deck,” “Florida Mother Facing Murder Charges for Allegedly Killing Newborn Twins,” and “Abortion Activists Want Attempted Murder Charge Dropped From Woman Who Used Coat Hanger to Kill Son.”
Read the reports herehere and here.
According to a report from the Texas Policy Evaluation Project, a number of women within the state have “attempted to end a pregnancy on their own without medical assistance.”
While a mother may be charged for killing their child even seconds after exiting the birth canal, Texas law prohibits women from facing any criminal penalties for intentionally harming or killing their baby in utero.
The 2003 Prenatal Protection Act criminalizes those who would harm an unborn child, but includes a “certain conduct excepted” section, which states, “This subchapter does not apply to a claim for the death of an individual who is an unborn child that is brought against the mother of the unborn child.”
Tinderholt’s bill sought to correct this allowance, as well as that under current criminal homicide law, and a number of residents who testified on Monday urged Leach to let the bill advance as is.
“These exceptions where a mother can do something a father can’t do [they need to be removed],” a police officer declared. “A father, if he doesn’t want to accept responsibility of his child and slips pills into a drink, and takes the life of his child, that’s capital murder. A mother, [if] she slips a pill [and] doesn’t want to accept responsibility — down her throat, takes the life of an individual, it’s fine, pat on the back.”
“In law enforcement, how can we say this is just?” he asked. “Our hands are tied where we’re forced to be unjust in our dealings.”
One woman stated that years ago, mothers did coat-hanger abortions because they knew would not be charged for committing the act.
“In 1973, before Roe v. Wade, abortion was illegal, except that a mother could not be prosecuted. This caused the coat-hanger abortions because it was illegal for the doctors but not the mother, and they thought they should get away with this,” she said. “HB 896 is rightly not retroactive.”
“A trafficked woman who is literally coerced into an abortion has zero culpability compared to the pimp or the abortionist,” a third commenter explained. “But, if this bill is passed, pimps would no longer have legal, nice looking facilities to hide their atrocities.”
TINDERHOLT SPEAKS
Rep. Tinderholt posted a statement to social media on Wednesday outlining that he believes his bill is being “mischaracterized,” as all his bill does is close up the current allowance for doctors or mothers to perform an abortion without penalty.
“Section 1.07, Subsection 26, of the Texas Penal Code already defines an individual as ‘a human being who is alive, including an unborn child from fertilization until birth.’ However, Texas law provides two exceptions to homicide for a mother or a medical professional who performs an abortion,” he noted.
“Some think we should exempt mothers, but that would inherently treat unborn children differently than other people who are murdered,” Tinderholt said.
He also noted that there are protections in existing state law for mothers “in the case of a medical emergency or if they are coerced or under duress.”
“None of those instances would result in any penalties whatsoever,” Tinderholt stated.
Christian News Network reached out to Chairman Leach’s office earlier today, but was not able to obtain comment prior to the release of his statement, nor has a response been received by press time.
Among the questions sent to Leach were whether or not he considers a baby in the womb as a person deserving of the same rights and protections under the law as a born child, and why he believes that there should not be any criminal culpability for a mother taking the life of her unborn child as opposed to a newborn.
Leach attends Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, Texas, led by Jack Graham, and is active in the Young Families Ministry. Graham, known for his PowerPoint radio and television broadcast, shared Leach’s statement Wednesday evening, writing on Twitter, “I support @leachfortexas 1000 percent. He is a caring and courageous congressman who is leading Texas citizens with grace and truth.”
Leach shared other tweets on his page, including one from Brian Fisher of Human Coalition, which read, “I do not support Texas #HB896, as it imposes a criminal penalty on women who get abortions. In my experience, many women get abortions out of fear, coercion, misinformation, or desperate circumstances. Women need compassionate and immediate care, not jail. #TXlege”
PUBLIC RESPONSE
A number of residents have now left messages of deep disappointment under Leach’s announcement and elsewhere.
“It’s not graceful to say abortion is murder and then turn right around and demand that an exemption from punishment be granted to the murderer. That would literally be delusional,” wrote Polk County GOP.
“Please clarify how you will end abortion without criminalizing women. We cannot criminalize the makers of coat hangers. All this does is perpetuate the exploitation of women because they’re exempt from the law,” also remarked Bruce Kendrick.
“[U]nder this law, if he had the guts to pass it, then there would BE NO facilities for the filthy dogs who are trafficking women and coercing the abortions to take them,” wrote Craig Licciardi.
“HB 896 criminal liability is the same as HB 948 in that YOU CO-AUTHORED in 2017! Now you alone have the opportunity to advance a bill that you [sponsored] 2 years ago and you simply wilt under the fear of man,” lamented Mark Einkauf.
Leviticus 19:15 teaches, “Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment. Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty, but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor.”
Isaiah 1:7 also declares, “Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.”
_____________________________________________________________
Former SBC President Jack Graham Praises Chairman Who Killed Bill to Outlaw Abortion as ‘Courageous’ 
BY HEATHER CLARK
SEE: https://christiannews.net/2019/04/11/former-sbc-president-jack-graham-praises-chairman-who-killed-bill-to-outlaw-abortion-as-courageous/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
PLANO, Texas — Despite the mass outcry to outlaw abortion in Texas and grant the unborn equal protection under the law, megachurch pastor and former Southern Baptist Convention President Jack Graham has praised his church member and Republican House Chairman Jeff Leach after he decided that he could not support House Bill 896 because it subjects women to “criminal liability.” Leach’s rejection of the bill, which would have protected babies in the womb in the same manner as newborns, has left many stunned, hurt and angry, with some vowing to vote him out of office.
“My pastor and friend, Jack Graham, pastor of Prestonwood and former SBC Baptist president, is strongly in support of my position,” Leach, chairman of the House Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence, wrote in response to a social media post on Thursday.
According to the church website, Prestonwood Baptist Church has more than 42,000 members and is one of the largest churches in America. Graham is known for his PowerPoint national television and radio broadcast, as well as his books “Man of God” and “Unseen: Angels, Satan, Heaven, Hell and Winning the Battle for Eternity.”
Graham was the president of the Southern Baptist Convention from 2002-2004, and in 2015 he served as the honorary chairman of the National Day of Prayer. He is also a member of President Trump’s Religious Advisory Board.
As previously reported, Graham retweeted Leach’s statement on House Bill 896 Wednesday night, standing behind the chairman’s opposition to charging mothers who seek out others to illegally kill their child if abortion became unlawful in the state.
“I support @leachfortexas 1000 percent. He is a caring and courageous congressman who is leading Texas citizens with grace and truth,” he wrote.
Leach shared Graham’s words, writing, “Thank you, pastor. Blessed to have your support and to follow in your footsteps boldly fighting for life and serving & meeting women at the point of their need. God is doing great things and the tide is turning!”
As previously reported, Leach said in his statement that he has been active with pregnancy resource centers on a personal level and has “authored and supported some of the nation’s strongest laws.” But, he asserted that because of this and his stance on life, he cannot support the “Abolition of Abortion in Texas Act.”
“My commitment to advancing the pro-life cause is stronger than ever, and that’s why I cannot in good conscience support House Bill 896 — legislation that subjects women who undergo abortions to criminal liability and even the possibility of the death penalty,” Leach wrote.
“Trusted pro-life legislators and advocates agree with me that this bill moves our state and the pro-life cause in the wrong direction and it will not be advanced from the House Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence,” he stated.
Leach had asserted during a public hearing on Monday that continued well into the night— as hundreds of residents flocked to the capitol in support of the bill — that women who are driven to abortion facilities by pimps would be charged with a crime.
“[U]nder the bill, a woman who is coerced and trafficked and driven by her pimp to an abortion clinic without a cell phone, with no freedom whatsoever, and is walked into an abortion clinic and said, ‘You will get an abortion,’ [she would be charged],” he claimed.
“For a woman who is coerced into having an abortion … The text of the bill is very clear: A woman who ends the life, which is recognized under this bill, is … potentially liable for capital murder,” Leach stated.
It is not clear where Leach obtained the notion that the woman would be charged in such an instance, or how the situation would occur. Under the bill, abortion would be illegal, and there would be no abortion facility for the woman to enter. She would have nowhere to go and no abortionist to turn to.
The bill also states that the homicide charge would apply to the mother if there was murderous “conduct committed by” the woman — in other words, the commission of a self-abortion, where she personally kills her own baby.
The legislation would also have removed an exception from current Texas criminal homicide law, which states, “This chapter does not apply to the death of an unborn child if the conduct charged is (1) conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child; (2) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent, if the death of the unborn child was the intended result of the procedure … ”
The law would have instead read, “Notwithstanding any other law, this chapter applies to the death of an unborn child regardless of whether the conduct charged is (1) conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child; (2) a procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider …”
In Texas, women who kill or commit crimes against their newborn baby may be, and have been, charged with murder.
As previously reported, in February 2018, a young mother was charged with capital murder after stabbing her newborn daughter multiple times and leaving her body in a storage shed, where she was later discovered by the neighbor boy. The baby’s death was found by the medical examiner to be due to “homicidal violence.”
Months later, another mother was charged with attempted capital murder after giving birth at her place of employment, placing her newborn son in a garbage bag and walking him out to the dumpster to leave him for dead.
Headlines surrounding cases in other states have included, “‘I Just Got Rid of It’: Colorado Woman Accused of Tossing Newborn Over Fence Onto Neighbor’s Deck,” “Florida Mother Facing Murder Charges for Allegedly Killing Newborn Twins,” and “Abortion Activists Want Attempted Murder Charge Dropped From Woman Who Used Coat Hanger to Kill Son.”
Read the reports herehere and here.
According to a report from the Texas Policy Evaluation Project, a number of women within the state have “attempted to end a pregnancy on their own without medical assistance.”
While a mother may be charged for killing their child even seconds after exiting the birth canal, Texas law prohibits women from facing any criminal penalties for intentionally harming or killing their baby in utero.
The 2003 Prenatal Protection Act criminalizes those who would harm an unborn child, but includes a “certain conduct excepted” section, which states, “This subchapter does not apply to a claim for the death of an individual who is an unborn child that is brought against the mother of the unborn child.”
Tinderholt’s bill sought to correct this allowance, as well as that under current criminal homicide law, and a number of residents who testified on Monday urged Leach to let the bill advance as is.
“These exceptions where a mother can do something a father can’t do [they need to be removed],” a police officer declared. “A father, if he doesn’t want to accept responsibility of his child and slips pills into a drink, and takes the life of his child, that’s capital murder. A mother, [if] she slips a pill [and] doesn’t want to accept responsibility — down her throat, takes the life of an individual, it’s fine, pat on the back.”
“In law enforcement, how can we say this is just?” he asked. “Our hands are tied where we’re forced to be unjust in our dealings.”
One woman stated that years ago, mothers did coat-hanger abortions because they knew would not be charged for committing the act.
“In 1973, before Roe v. Wade, abortion was illegal, except that a mother could not be prosecuted. This caused the coat-hanger abortions, because it was illegal for the doctors but not the mother, and they thought they should get away with this,” she said. “HB 896 is rightly not retroactive.”
However, Leach retained his position that it would not be right for the woman to be criminalized. He shared two other tweets of support from stated pro-life groups that also opposed charging the mother should she kill her own child.
“I do not support Texas #HB896, as it imposes a criminal penalty on women who get abortions. In my experience, many women get abortions out of fear, coercion, misinformation, or desperate circumstances. Women need compassionate and immediate care, not jail. #TXlege,” wrote Brian Fisher of Human Coalition.
“We agree with Chairman Jeff Leach 100%, and we thank him for his leadership. Women were NEVER prosecuted for abortion in Texas or in any other state before Roe. Not right to start now. We need to focus on stopping abortion doctors, not prison cells for women,” also remarked the Texas Alliance for Life.
However, others disagree that if a woman commits a self-abortion and kills her child that she should face no consequences.
“It’s not graceful to say abortion is murder and then turn right around and demand that an exemption from punishment be granted to the murderer. That would literally be delusional,” wrote Polk County GOP in response to Leach’s post.
“This is horrible. You authored an identical bill last time. All murderers should be charged,” wrote West Texans for Life. “The post-abortive women who testified before you made clear how important it is to allow the prosecution of women. We endorsed you in 2018. That will not happen again until you repent.”
“Jeff, by doing this you are sentencing almost 120,000 innocent babies to death because of the fear that our justice system would wrongly rule on very few, if even 1 case of a forced abortion. You are wrong,” also remarked Jonathan Murdock, pastor of First Baptist Church of Briar. “As I stated Monday, a bill has not been passed because men fear not God.”
Since 1973, 60 million children and counting been aborted in the United States. Out of the seven justices on the U.S. Supreme Court that ruled in favor of Roe, five were Republican-appointed.

THREE NEW GUN CONTROL LAWS GO INTO EFFECT IN PITTSBURGH~OREGON: COMMITTEE PASSES INSANE 45 PAGE GUN CONTROL PACKAGE

THREE NEW GUN CONTROL LAWS GO INTO EFFECT 
IN PITTSBURGH 
BY JOHN CRUMP
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Red Flag Laws – Should Constitutional Rights be so easily infringed?
Pittsburgh, Penn. –-(Ammoland.com)- Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto signed three new bills that restrict the use of some semi-automatic such as the AR15 within the city limits, limit magazine size, and enacts a “Red Flag Law” this past Tuesday.
The city deems these laws necessary after the Tree of Life Shooting. In that shooting, a Nazi walked into a synagogue and killed eleven unarmed people. Investigators determined that the killer’s motive was Antisemitism.
The city admitted that they could not outright ban the popular rifle, but the attorneys for Pittsburgh believe that they can legally bar the use of the gun. This ban would also affect gun owners using their rifles at shooting ranges.
After signing the bill Mayor, Bill Peduto said, “If we didn't challenge laws, women wouldn't be able to vote.”
The Democrat didn't elaborate on how banning the use of semi-automatic rifles is related to women's suffrage. The media present did not challenge the Mayor on this point. AmmoLand reached out to Peduto's office in a request for clarity on the comment, but the office did not respond to our request.
“Change doesn’t happen on its own, change only happens when you challenge the status quo,” Mayor Peduto said before signing the bills. “We have tried to get that change through Harrisburg, we have tried to get that change through Washington, and we have taken steps backward, not forward. So what we’re saying is in communities across this state … in cities around this country, we will take action.”
The bill would also prevent a gun owner from having their rifle loaded. The city strategy is to try to make owning a semi-automatic rifle useless since if the owner shoots and even chambers a round they would be in violation of the law and face a heavy legal penalty of up to a $1000 fine.
Twenty years ago, the city of Pittsburgh tried to ban semi-automatic rifles, but the courts ruled that only the state had the power to ban a certain type of gun. The city sees this bill as a workaround to that ruling
A second bill would also make it illegal for Pittsburgh residents to have a loaded magazine if that magazine is capable of holding more than ten rounds. The City incorrectly labels these as “large capacity” magazines. This ban means residents can still own the magazines but can't load them thus making them useless. This bill seems like another workaround to the current law.
Stack Pile Ammunition Gun Magazines High Capacity StandardStock Pile Ammunition Gun Magazines High Capacity Standard
The NRA and four residences have already filed a civil suit titled “Anderson v. City of Pittsburgh.” The lawsuit claims that “by banning the public possession and transportation of loaded standard-capacity firearm magazines that can carry more than ten rounds of ammunition, Pittsburgh has violated the rights of its citizens and exceeded its authority under Pennsylvania law.”
“Pittsburgh residents have a right to carry the self-defense tool that best suits their needs, and the NRA is proud to support this challenge to the city’s magazine ban,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. “Restricting law-abiding citizens from exercising their constitutional rights will do nothing to stop violent criminals.”
The third bill is a Red Flag law. These Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO) allows police to confiscate a person's guns without due process. If a family member, friend, or roommate report to the police that you are a risk to yourself or others they can go to a secret court to get an ERPO to take all your firearms.
Gun rights and civil liberties advocates point out that the burden of proof to get an ERPO issued is very low. The target of the order is also not present to defend themselves in front of the judge. It could take months and thousands of dollars for the gun owners to get their firearms back after being a victim of an ERPO.
One person died in Maryland when police tried to serve an ERPO to take his firearms. In that case, the victim's niece said her uncle was not a danger to anyone. She said her aunt took out the order because it was “just a family thing.”
In January, hundreds of protesters with the same firearms the city was looking to ban protested outside the city council meeting. Many were chanting “we will not comply. It is clear that there is widespread opposition to the bills, but the pressure was put on the city by groups such as Moms Demand Action to enact the legislation. In the end, the council gave into their Democratic base.
It is unclear how the city plans to enforce the laws because enforcement will be dangerous for gun owners and law enforcement alike.
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 leftist deplatforming methods and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, on Facebook at realjohncrump, or at www.crumpy.com.
_____________________________________________________________

Oregon: Committee Passes Insane 45-Page Gun Control Package

BY NRA-ILA
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

Opinion Update: Oregon Firearms Federation Calls for OR Republicans to WALK OUT Over SB 978, read more.

Take Action OregonTake Action Oregon
Fairfax, VA – -(Ammoland.com)- On April 9th 2019, the Oregon state Senate Judiciary Committee voted to approve Senate Bill 978 with the -5 Amendment.  This legislation is an omnibus gun control package that, among other things, would require firearms be kept unavailable for self-defense and would also expand gun free zones where law-abiding individuals would be left defenseless.  It will now go to the Senate floor for further consideration.  Please contact your state Senator and urge them to OPPOSE SB 978.  Click the “Take Action” button below to contact your state Senator.
Take Action Button
Senate Bill 978 as passed out of committee would:
  • Legalize age discrimination for firearm dealers to allow them to refuse service to young adults for no reason other than being under the age of 21.
  • Impose a one-size-fits-all government solution for firearm storage and require them to be made unavailable for self-defense.
  • Further victimize gun owners who have suffered a loss or theft of their property with criminal penalties if they fail to follow certain requirements when reporting them, including holding the gun owner strictly liable for the future illegal acts committed by criminals using the stolen firearm.
  • End the centuries old practice of home manufacturing firearms for lawful, personal use.
  • Allow local governments to create “gun-free zones” in public buildings, colleges, and airports where law-abiding citizens are disarmed and left defenseless against criminals who ignore such arbitrary boundaries
  • Increase the fee to apply for a Concealed Handgun License.
Again, please click the “Take Action” button above to contact your state Senator and urge them to OPPOSE SB 978.
National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)
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

NEWSWEEK FEATURES ANTI-SEMITIC REP. ILHAN OMAR ON ITS COVER: “CHANGING THE CONVERSATION ON ISRAEL”

NEWSWEEK FEATURES ANTI-SEMITIC REP. ILHAN OMAR ON ITS COVER: 
“CHANGING THE CONVERSATION ON ISRAEL” 
BY ROBERT SPENCER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Ilhan Omar has shown herself to be deeply anti-Semitic and has spoken for the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations. In a sane political and media culture, she would be shunned by the Democrat leadership and harshly criticized in the media. Instead, she is lauded and celebrated, as by Newsweek here. Why? Apparently their objective is to normalize and mainstream her anti-Semitism, which is already the dominant view among Leftists.
“Rep. Omar Featured on Newsweek Cover: ‘Changing the Conversation on Israel,’” by Aaron Bandler, Jewish Journal, April 9, 2019 (thanks to the Geller Report):
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) is being featured on the cover of Newsweek’s April 19 issue, with the story talking about how she is “changing the conversation about Israel.”
The Newsweek story, which was published online on April 9, states that Omar was frequently targeted by Republicans in speeches during the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs) conference in March for “using language easily regarded as anti-Semitic.” The article refers to AIPAC has having a “formidable political operation” that has promulgated “a decidedly unequal view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
The article goes on to describe Omar “as the most voluble—and visible—of Israel’s critics.”
“She appears to embrace the role of a political provocateur, particularly when it comes to foreign policy,” the article states. “Omar articulates a view that is rarely heard from a sitting member of Congress, one that has been forged from her first-hand experiences of war and exile.”
Among those coming to Omar’s defense in the piece are Nihad Awad, the executive director of Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), stating that Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) are “not trying to fit into the historical Washington mindset, which has been unjustly pro-Israel for decades. And they represent a whole new generation of progressive activists nationwide.”
Some Democrats are concerned about Omar, as the Newsweek article notes that the Democratic Majority for Israel was recently formed by veteran Democrats to support pro-Israel Democrats in response to concerns “that the influence of Omar and other progressives will erode support for Israel within the Democratic Party.”
The Newsweek article touts “Omar and her progressive supporters” as “the first credible challenge to” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies and the “occupation of the West Bank.”
“Their successful effort to produce a resolution that condemns all forms of bigotry, instead of only Omar and anti-Semitism, was no small accomplishment, given the strength of Israel’s supporters among Democrats,” the article states, referencing the March resolution condemning various forms of bigotry….

GERMANY: MUSLIM WOMAN GOES ON TRIAL FOR THE DEATH OF HER FIVE YEAR OLD YAZIDI SLAVE GIRL WHILE IN ISIS DOMAINS

GERMANY: MUSLIM WOMAN GOES ON TRIAL FOR THE DEATH OF HER FIVE YEAR OLD YAZIDI SLAVE GIRL WHILE IN ISIS DOMAINS
BY ROBERT SPENCER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Slavery is acceptable in Islam. The Qur’an has Allah telling Muhammad that he has given him girls as sex slaves: “Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty.” (Qur’an 33:50)
Muhammad bought slaves: “Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported: There came a slave and pledged allegiance to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man).” (Muslim 3901)
Muhammad took female Infidel captives as slaves: “Narrated Anas: The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, ‘Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.’ Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives. She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet. The Prophet made her manumission as her ‘Mahr.’” (Bukhari 5.59.512) Mahr is bride price: Muhammad freed her and married her. But he didn’t do this to all his slaves:
Muhammad owned slaves: “Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah’s Apostle was on a journey and he had a black slave called Anjasha, and he was driving the camels (very fast, and there were women riding on those camels). Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Waihaka (May Allah be merciful to you), O Anjasha! Drive slowly (the camels) with the glass vessels (women)!’” (Bukhari 8.73.182) There is no mention of Muhammad’s freeing Anjasha.
“German Woman Goes on Trial in Death of 5-Year-Old Girl Held as ISIS Slave,” by Melissa Eddy, New York Times, April 9, 2019:
BERLIN — While devoted followers of the Islamic State, a man and woman bought a 5-year-old Yazidi girl in Iraq to use as a slave, then let her die of thirst in the scorching heat, the German authorities contend. The trial of the woman began on Tuesday — one of the highest-profile cases against a female member of the terrorist group.
The prosecution stems largely from the words of the defendant, who was desperate to return last year to the Islamic State, or ISIS, and found someone willing to drive her to the Middle East. Unknown to her, the driver was working with the German security services, and he recorded their conversations as she told him all about her life in the organization.
The 27-year-old German woman, identified only as Jennifer W. in keeping with German privacy law, showed no emotion during the 15 minutes it took a judge in Munich to read out the charges against her, which include murder, war crimes, membership in a foreign terror organization and weapons violations.
No pleas are entered in German courts and the defendant, wearing a white blouse, black slacks and a black cardigan, declined to make a statement. Her lawyer did not say whether she would say anything during the proceedings, which are scheduled to continue until September.
But the Yazidi girl’s mother, whose identity has not been released, is expected to testify, providing both key evidence and the emotional heart of the case. The mother, who says she was also held as a slave by the German woman and her husband, is serving as a co-plaintiff in the trial but was not in court for the opening proceedings….
According to the indictment, Jennifer W. and her husband “bought a 5-year-old girl in summer 2015 from a group of prisoners of war and kept her in their home as a slave.”
“After the girl fell ill and wet her mattress, the defendant’s husband punished the girl by chaining her up outside in the searing heat and leaving her in great agony to die of thirst,” prosecutors said. “The defendant let her husband do as he liked, and took no action to save the girl.”…
In the case of Jennifer W., prosecutors were helped by her own eagerness to tell the man who offered to drive her as far as Turkey about her life in ISIS. American intelligence officials had tipped off their colleagues in Germany about the woman, allowing the Germans to set her up with a driver, whose car was bugged, German news media reported.
She told the driver about leaving her home in northwestern Germany in August 2014, and making her way through Turkey and Syria to Iraq. Once she arrived, prosecutors said, she joined the Islamic State and swiftly rose through the ranks, becoming a member of the Hisbah, the morality police, patrolling the parks of the Iraqi cities of Falluja and Mosul.
“Her job was to make sure that women were upholding the terror organization’s dress and behavior codes,” they said. “To intimidate them, she carried an AK-47 machine gun, a pistol and an explosive vest.”
In January 2016, she visited the German Embassy in Ankara, Turkey, and the Turkish authorities arrested her. They deported her to Germany, where she was allowed to go free.
According to prosecutors, she spent the next two years working to return to ISIS-controlled territory, and found someone to take her most of the way there. She and the driver set out, and she was arrested last June, after telling her story but before they had left Germany.

THE ISLAMIZATION OF EUROPE & THE EUROPEAN CALIPHATE

THE ISLAMIZATION OF EUROPE & 
THE EUROPEAN CALIPHATE 
BY RAMI DABBAS
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
In the 20th century, the world’s population increased four times and exceeded 6.5 billion people. the demographic change in the recent decades has seen a rapid growth in the number of Muslims. Since 1990, the number of Muslims in the world has increased from 880 million to 1 billion people. Islam became the fastest growing world religion in terms of the number of adherents, and according to current forecasts, by 2030 there will be at least two billion Muslims on earth out of a total population of 8 billion.
Currently, Islam is already the second largest religion in terms  of followers (after Christianity). More than two thirds of Muslims live in Asia, where they constitute over 20% of the population, and almost 30% in Africa (half of the continent’s population). Muslim communities exist in more than 120 countries of the world, in 35 of them they constitute over 80% of the population (most of them are in the countries of North Africa and West Asia). The largest absolute Muslim communities reside in Indonesia, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Sociologists predict that by 2025 in the US, the Islamic community will become the second largest after Christians, overtaking the Jewish one.
Especially rapidly increasing is the number of Muslims in Europe. The largest Muslim community is in France: from 5 to 7 million (up to 10% of the total population), Islam became the second largest religion in the country after Catholicism. Numerous communities of followers of Islam were formed in Germany (4 million), Great Britain (1.7 million), Italy and Holland (1 million each). Significant Muslim communities are scattered throughout all Western European countries.
It should be noted that no one knows the real number of Muslims in Western Europe, since along with the legal immigrants and their descendants, there are many millions of illegal immigrants who are absent in official statistics. According to various estimates, between 15 and 24 million Muslims now live in Western Europe. Demographers predict that by 2025  the number of Muslims in Europe will double due to the high birth rate and mass immigration from North Africa and the Middle East.
Islam came to Western Europe just a few decades ago. Until the end of the 1940s, there were very few Muslims. (most in France – 120 thousand in the mid-1920s). The first mass migration was associated with the war in Algeria (1954-1962). After the forced consent of France to the declaration of independence of this North African states, hundreds of thousands of local Muslims took advantage of the opportunity to move to their former metropolis.
As a result of mass migrations from developing countries, the level of ethnic and denominational fragmentation of the population of those European states that were quite homogeneous a few decades ago is constantly increasing. It is fundamentally important that, unlike in past years, a significant part of Muslim migrants and their descendants now do not show a desire to integrate into a new environment for themselves.
The former European model of building a single civic nation within the framework of a national state (like the “melting pot” in the USA) in modern conditions ceases to work. Consequences of this are the concepts of building multicultural, multi-religious, and more recently, multilingual communities within individual states of Western Europe. For adherents of liberalism, these concepts seem to be a logical development of democracy, where minority rights are guaranteed and protected by the state. At the same time, no distinction is made between the “old” and the “new” population: their rights to an original existence are equally protected by a democratic state.
Muslim areas and suburbs appeared in Paris, Berlin, London and many other major European cities. Most modern French Muslims are descendants of the Arab Maghreb (Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco). In Germany, Netherlands, Austria and Denmark, the Muslim community is mainly represented by descendants of Turkish immigrants. British Muslims – most descendants of immigrants from British India (Pakistan and Bangladesh).
The increase in the number of European Muslims is promoted by the high fertility rate encouraged by state social programs. In Muslim families, the average number of children is usually not less than four. Large Muslim families contrasts with the small families and the crisis of traditional family values ​​among the indigenous Europeans. The most important democratic achievement of modern Western civilization proclaimed freedom of homosexual relations, and in a number of countries (Holland, Belgium, Canada, Spain and Switzerland, as well as a number of US states) same-sex marriages were legally allowed.
Along with the increase in the number of sexual minorities, the reduction of the indigenous (atheistic or nominally Christian) population of Western Europe is promoted by the conscious rejection of the birth of children, as many Europeans believe that children will interfere with their careers or simply interfere with their usual and comfortable life. Families that have one child, rarely decide on the birth of the second. For simple reproduction of the population, the average birth rate should be 2.1 children. But women in Western Europe, on average, give birth to only 1.4 children. And in the conditions of a progressive decline in the indigenous population of Europe, Muslims successfully fill the demographic vacuum that has formed.
This plays into the feminist propaganda, which asserts that children prevent women from occupying a worthy place in society. The rejection of traditional family values ​​and the moral crisis of society contribute to the growth of the popularity of Islam, even among the indigenous people of Europe. In France, the number of white French Muslims already exceeds 50 thousand, and this far exceeds, for example, the number of Russian Muslims in Russia.
For several decades, the difficulties of a demographic and economic nature have forced the EU countries to legalize and even promote immigration from Muslim countries. European politicians considered it indecent even to ask the question, is modern Europe and Islam compatible in principle? Both did not preached the ideas of tolerance and multiculturalism as for Islam for example unlike what Islam Claims, incompatible with the views of Samuel Huntington, who in his sensational book “The Clash of Civilizations” claimed that Europe and Islam are two antipodes, two initially hostile antagonistic civilizations. On the contrary, the prevailing view was that the integration of the Muslim diaspora into European society would contribute to the rapprochement of Christian and Islamic civilizations.
The rationale for such optimistic ideas were examples when yesterday’s illiterate migrant workers or their descendants successfully fit into European reality, made a successful career, and even became members of the European Parliament. But widely propagated examples of this kind were sporadic; they did not reflect the real picture and only disoriented society, and indeed the political elite of Western Europe.
It is characteristic that, unlike the first wave of immigrants, the rejection of the surrounding reality among Muslims of the second and third generation constantly increased and acquired more and more radical forms. Already in the second half of the 1990s, young Muslims in Europe began to become increasingly intolerant of such European values ​​as sexual equality, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, ensuring the rights of sexual minorities, etc. In schools that were attended by young Muslims, it became increasingly difficult to teach certain subjects. Over the years, in many schools it has become impossible to teach the history of the Holocaust, the theory of the origin of life, the development of species and humanity, as well as a number of other subjects that seemed completely unacceptable for young Muslims and their parents.
Gradually, in schools with Muslim students, sexual segregation was established: the boys sat down in one part of the class, and the girls – in the other, in hospitals the refusals of treatment by a male doctor or a man – by women became more frequent. Only ten years ago, only old women wore Muslim headscarves. Now they are worn by half of the female Muslim population of France, and in some municipalities of France this figure reaches 80%. Hijabs are increasingly common in other European countries.
Young Muslims in Europe no longer limit themselves to living under the laws of the land. In most cases, Muslim girls and women were not free to choose: many were forced to wear hijabs under the pressure of relatives or the community. According to special studies conducted by the French authorities, in some European cities, a Muslim girl who refuses to wear a headscarf “risks exposure to insults, physical aggression, sexual abuse and even collective rape.” In France, such acts of aggression against dissenters within the Muslim community occur regularly. The growth of Islamic fundamentalism among European Muslims created favorable conditions for the politicization of Islam in Europe.
Until the late 1990s Islamist political parties did not exist in Europe. Now they have appeared in France and Belgium. While these parties are not numerous and are not represented in parliament,  they already have their first successes: in Belgium in May 2003, “Parti de la Citoyennete et Prosperite” (PCP, Citizenship and Prosperity Party), which preaches radical Islam, gained more than 8 thousand votes in the Brussels elections.
Over the past four years, hundreds of acts of aggression by Muslim youth have been witnessed  in European cities, and the number of anti-Semitic demonstrations is constantly growing. According to sociologists, European Muslims do not show tolerance for their fellow citizens in precisely those countries that are most tolerant.
As shown by a sociological study conducted by the pew Washington Research Center in 13 western states, in the UK, while there is the most tolerant attitude of indigenous people towards Muslim immigrants in Europe, there is the most open dislike of Muslims towards Europeans.
In most countries, suspicion and contempt for each other, Muslims and non-Muslims are mostly mutual. But in the UK there is a huge gap in this regard. 63% of Britons treat Muslims positively, this figure has only slightly decreased since 2004 due to explosions in the London Underground. In France, such an attitude can be seen among approximately 60% of citizens, while in the USA, Germany and Spain this figure does not exceed 29%.
Only a third of Britons consider Muslims as cruel and hostile, whereas in Spain about 60% of indigenous people hold this opinion, in Germany – 52%, in the US – 45%, in France – 41%. At the same time, it is in Great Britain that the most negative attitude of local Muslims towards European values ​​is noted in the West. Most of the representatives of the British Ummah consider the people of the Western world to be selfish, arrogant, greedy and immoral. In the rest of the countries, the majority of Muslims share the respect for Europeans towards women, but in the UK, less than half of Muslim citizens agree with this.
In the UK, only 32% of Muslims are tolerant towards the Jewish community, whereas, for example, in France this figure is 71%. Finally, it is British Muslims who less than others believe in the possibility of their existence in Western society while maintaining the traditional way of life and adherence to conservative values.
At the same time, citizens of Great Britain showed the greatest sympathy, in contrast to other states, for Muslims in the context of a “caricature” scandal. Only 9% of the British respondents believe that the conflicts between Islam and the West that arose on this ground were the result of “Muslim intolerance towards Western freedom”, but about three-quarters of the respondents blamed “disrespect of the West towards Muslims” The same is believed in Muslim countries. 55% of Americans and 2/3 of Germans and French believe that relations between people of the West and Muslims in general leave much to be desired. Some optimism can be had only by the fact that, as studies have shown, in the Muslim communities of Europe,  Muslim attitude to the Europeans are still better than in Muslim countries.
At the beginning of the third millennium, European Muslims became an active political force. In the spring and summer of 2001, mass rallies were held by British Muslims in the factory cities of central England. In 2002, during the parliamentary elections in France, mass demonstrations of French Muslims greatly paralyzed the activity of right-wing Populist National Front. European Muslims in many respects contributed to the development by Europe of an independent position on the issue of the war in Iraq in 2003. In the winter of 2003/2004. large-scale actions of European Muslims were held, which were directed against the ban by the French Ministry of Education on wearing the hijab in schools. In European cities, mass marches are constantly taking place in support of the Palestinian people, against the policies of the United States and Israel.
Some Islamic leaders demanded autonomy for European Muslims. Thus, the director of the Muslim Institute Kaleem Siddiqi (one of the leaders of Islamic radicals in the UK) in his “Muslim manifesto” demanded that British Muslims be given the status of an “autonomous community”.
Europe has become an arena for the activities of Islamic terrorists who organized the bombings in Madrid and London, as well as the murder of the Dutch director Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam. At the same time, terrorism is generated not only by internal causes, but also by the processes that occur within the Muslim communities of Europe. Many Muslims who participated in the terrorist attack on the USA on September 11, 2001, were Muslims from European countries. Their worldview was shaped in Europe, where favorable conditions were established for the dissemination of the ideas of radical Islam, which rejects liberal and democratic values.
The majority of those who committed the terrorist attacks on March 11, 2004 in Madrid were also young Muslims belonging to the second or third generation of immigrants. They were not associated with foreign terrorist organizations, although they claimed to be al Qaeda followers. The group included residents of Madrid and full-fledged citizens of Spain (mostly of Moroccan origin), who were inspired by the ideas of jihad, influenced by the information they gathered on the Internet on radical Islamic websites. The same picture was observed in the UK, where the London attacks of July 7, 2005 were also carried out by young Muslims – full-fledged British citizens.
Islam has become a major factor in European public life. Without taking this factor into account, no serious forecast of the future development of Europe, or of the entire modern world, is possible. A significant part of the Muslims of Europe did not integrate into European reality and consciously refuses to accept the Western European way of life, morality and values. Refusing European identity, they make a choice in favor of “pure” Islam in its Arabian variety and feel themselves primarily as part of the global Muslim community.
The current demographic situation strengthens Muslims in the belief that sooner or later Western Europe will become part of the Islamic world. Among them there is the conviction that the womb of a Muslim woman has become the most effective means of Islamizing Europe and the whole world. Some analysts claim that in the very near future, France will become the first Islamic country in Western Europe, from which Islam will begin its triumphal march through the rest of the continent.
European states have achieved great and unconditional success in defending the democratic rights and freedoms of their citizens. This fully applies to the rights of minorities living in them: religious, ethnic, sexual. The result of this liberal policy was the growing ethno-confessional fragmentation of Europe. But after all, such ethno-confessional fragmentation has always been one of the main features of developing countries. In most of them, such a mosaic caused a heightened conflict in society. The internal political instability caused by it still remains the most important cause of socio-economic stagnation, even social degradation, which are observed in many developing countries.
An increasing number of Muslims prefer to live within their own community, solely by their own laws, and not even speak the languages ​​of their countries of residence. It is precisely this behavior of Muslims that is fundamentally different from the behavior of other minorities (Chinese, Indian, Eastern European, etc.), who, while preserving their cultural traditions and identity, still strive to adapt and integrate into the society where they now live.
Obviously, the more numerous the Islamic segments that are not integrated into the local society, the higher the potential for conflict of the society and the more favorable the ground appears for the activities of radical Islamist groups.
It must be emphasized that Islam, like any other religion, does not in itself pose a threat to the world and society. The threat arises only when Islam ceases to be a religion and begins to be used as a political ideology that is designed to seize power in individual countries, regions or on a planetary scale by the name of creating the future World Caliphate.
In the conditions of the development of a special policy towards Muslims built on the liberal values ​​of European society, their very isolation from the number of other minorities seems to be an absolutely unacceptable violation of democracy. The persistent desire to ignore the specifics of Muslim problems led to the fact that such extremists as Egyptian Abu Hamza, without any problems, received British citizenship and for many years lived quietly in the UK, engaging in terrorist activities.
For European liberalism, it would be unthinkable to enact legislation similar to, for example, the recently adopted Australian decree on Arab-Muslim immigrants, from which “the government feels threatened by terrorist attacks.” This decree states that “Muslims who want to live in Australia under Sharia law will have to leave this country.” In Europe, the statements that Islam is a threat to society entail accusations of racism and prosecution.
Catholic priest pere Samuel, popular in Belgium, the rector of the church of St. Anthony of Padua in Charleroi, was accused by the authorities of racism for pointing out the threat of Islamic expansion in Europe in his sermon. “There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim,” said this priest, who was born in the family of Syrian Christians in Turkish Kurdistan. In his speech on local television, he called every Muslim child born in Europe “a time bomb for children of European culture who will soon become a minority here.”
It is noteworthy that the initiators of the prosecution of pere Samuel were not Islamic organizations, but the Belgian government human rights organization Center for Equal Opportunities and Resistance to Racism, which qualified his statements as “incitement to racial hatred” and even recommended that Father Samuel be detained until a court verdict was rendered.
Will the growth of the Muslim population lead to the Islamization of Europe? Many radical Islamic leaders no longer doubt this. As one of them said after the death of Pope John Paul II, “Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and winner after he was twice expelled from the continent.” After that, “only one choice will be presented to Christians – to accept Islam or pay jizya (i.e., a tax levied on non-Muslims for the right to reside in an Islamic country).
European politicians may continue to pretend that Muslims are no different from other minorities. But further mechanical following along the path of liberalism cannot solve the problem, the existence of which is obvious. It leads only to the further isolation of local Muslims, the growth of the influence of radical political Islam in their midst, which may soon become a real threat to domestic political stability and the very existence of modern European civilization. And the longer the local authorities turn a blind eye to the Islamic problem, the more difficult it will be to find adequate methods for the solution.
The future prospects of Europe will primarily depend on whether European states are able to develop an adequate policy in relation to the growing and less and less integrated society of Muslim communities. Such a policy should not only guarantee all rights, preserve the religious and cultural identity of European Muslims, but also harmonize their relations with society and ensure the integration of Muslims into modern European civilization.
If a still prosperous Europe does not find an adequate way out of this difficult situation, then its development can be reversed and take the path of degradation. In this case, it is not at all the current developing countries that will catch up with the developed ones, but, on the contrary, Europe will be at the level of developing states. At present, such a development is still not fatally inevitable, and one would like to hope that Europe (like all humanity) will not be discarded during the darkest Middle Ages and religious wars.

TRUMP PROMISES JUSTICE AGAINST DEEP STATE: ‘THIS WAS AN ATTEMPTED COUP’

Breaking News: DOJ AG Barr 

Has The Democrats In a Rage!!

TRUMP PROMISES JUSTICE AGAINST DEEP STATE: 

‘THIS WAS AN ATTEMPTED COUP’

‘And they got caught. And what they did was treason,’ says president

BY JAMIE WHITE
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
President Trump responded to Attorney General William Barr’s assertion that the Obama administration spied on his 2016 presidential campaign, claiming that it was part of an “attempted coup.”
“This was an attempted coup. This was an attempted takedown of a President and we beat them. We beat them,” Trump told reporters outside the White House on Wednesday. “So the Mueller report, when they talk about obstruction, we fight back.”
“You know why we fight back? Because I knew how illegal this whole thing was – it was a scam. And what I’m most interested in is getting started – hopefully the Attorney General, he mentioned it yesterday, he’s doing a great job – getting started on going back to the origins of exactly where this all started.”
“Because this was an illegal witch hunt, and everybody knew it, and they knew it too. And they got caught. And what they did was treason,” Trump added.
Barr confirmed during a congressional hearing Wednesday that the Obama administration “conducted unauthorized surveillance” against Trump’s campaign leading up to the 2016 election, and that he assembled a team to investigate all the aspects of the FBI’s counterintelligence operation against Trump and Mueller’s Russia probe.
“I think spying did occur,” Barr said. “But the question is whether it was adequately predicated and I am not suggesting that it wasn’t adequately predicated…I am not suggesting those rules were violated, but I think it is important to look at that. And I am not talking about the FBI necessarily, but intelligence agencies more broadly.”
______________________________________________________
AG Barr Confirms: Obama Admin Did Conduct 'Unauthorized Surveillance' of Trump Campaign

AG BARR CONFIRMS: OBAMA ADMIN DID CONDUCT ‘UNAUTHORIZED SURVEILLANCE’ OF TRUMP CAMPAIGN

‘I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal – it’s a big deal,’ he says
Former President Obama’s administration did in fact spy on the Trump campaign according to testimony from Attorney General William Bar before Congress.
Owen Shroyer breaks down this “shocking” news to the Democrats.
Alex Jones discusses Devin Nunes presenting eight criminal referrals to the Justice Department in what will lead to Deep State indictments.

CANDACE OWENS CONDEMNS SMEAR & DISHONEST POLITICS ON RACE

CANDACE OWENS CONDEMNS SMEAR & 
DISHONEST POLITICS ON RACE
BY STEVE BYAS
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
In typical leftist fashion, Representative Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) attempted to ambush conservative activist Candace Owens (shown) during a congressional hearing on Tuesday, playing selected audio of part of some recent remarks by Owens. Lieu’s ploy was intended to leave the false impression that Owens was defending Adolf Hitler.
Owens did not sit idly by and let Lieu’s unjustified accusation go unanswered, responding, “I think it’s pretty apparent that Mr. Lieu believes that black people are stupid and will not pursue the full clip in its entirety.” Owens is a noted black conservative who has compared the slavish devotion of most African-Americans to the Democratic Party to “the Democratic plantation.”
The House Judiciary Committee hearing was ostensibly about online hate speech, concentrating on “white nationalism,” “white supremacy,” and racism. During the hearing Lieu shared the clip, in which Owens responded to a question at a conservative event in London on December 11. Lieu then asked Eileen Hershenov, the senior vice-president for policy at the Anti-Defamation League (an organization that focuses on allegations of anti-Semitism), if Owens’ effort to “legitimize” Hitler, history’s most notorious anti-Semite, fed into “white nationalist ideology.”
Lieu launched a vicious personal attack against Owens, attempting to leave the impression that she supported the “nationalism” of Hitler, because Owens had been invited by the Republican minority to be one of its eight witnesses during the hearing.
While Democrats posture themselves as champions of minorities like blacks, Democrat attacks on blacks are nothing new. The truth is that Democrats are prepared to unleash vitriolic attacks on any black person who dares to deviate from the strict liberal line — witness the treatment of notable black political figures such as Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, and Dr. Ben Carson.
It is an obvious political tactic of the Left to tar the desire to maintain American national sovereignty as “nationalism,” then add adjectives such as “white” to that word, and implying that any person who describes himself as a “nationalist” (as opposed to a “globalist”) like President Donald Trump, is just like Hitler, who was supposedly another “nationalist.”
In fact, the idea that nationalism is bad was the basis of the question that Owens was asked in London late last year — that the growing movement toward nationalism and away from globalism was somehow something to be concerned about.
Owens responded, “I think that the definition [of nationalism] gets poisoned by elitists that actually want globalism. Globalism is what I don’t want. Whenever we say ‘nationalism,’ the first thing people think about, at least in America, is Hitler. You know, he was a national socialist, but if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, OK, fine.”
“The problem is that he wanted — he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German, everybody to be speaking German. Everybody to look a different way. That’s not, to me, that’s not nationalism.” She concluded that she really did not have an issue with nationalism, as she defined it.
Clearly, only a person who is desirous of wanting to smear Owens can read her remarks and conclude that she supported what Hitler did inside of Germany. She explicitly said that if Hitler “just wanted to make Germany great,” she was OK with that. Of course, as history records, Hitler wanted to do more than that — he wanted to have a totalitarian dictatorship inside of Germany. As Owens later added, Hitler was “a homicidal, psychotic maniac,” and that there was “no excuse or defense ever for … everything that he did.”
After Lieu’s attempt to leave the impression that Owens would have been fine with Hitler had he just not invaded other nations like Poland, Owens was visibly angry. “I think it’s pretty apparent that Mr. Liue believes that black people are stupid and will not pursue the full clip in its entirety.… He is assuming that black people will not go and pursue the full two-hour clip. He purposefully cut off — and you didn’t hear the question that was asked of me. He’s trying to present as if I was launching a defense of Hitler in Germany, when in fact the question that was presented to me was pertaining to whether I believed in nationalism, and that nationalism was bad.”
Owens continued, “And what I responded is that I do not believe we should be characterizing Hitler as a nationalist.… A nationalist would not kill their own people.… That was unbelievably dishonest, and he did not allow me to respond to it.”
But Owens was not finished in her blistering response to Lieu. She addressed the insinuation that she was pro-Hitler. “By the way, I would to also add that I work for Prager University, which is run by an Orthodox Jew. Not a single Democrat showed up to the embassy opening in Jerusalem. I sat on a plane for 18 hours to make sure I was there. I am deeply offended by the insinuation of revealing that clip without the question that was asked of me.”
The response of Owens is a textbook example of how conservatives should challenge the dishonesty of the Left. The manner in which Hitler is usually characterized as some kind of a “right-winger” should also be challenged. His political party is almost always called the “Nazi” Party. That is like calling the Communist Party the “Commie” Party — Nazi is just a shorthand for National Socialist. In other words, Hitler and his henchmen were not right-wingers, but rather socialists, men of the Left.
The hearing had little to do with protecting minorities from “hate crimes,” and more to do with partisan politics, as Owens put it well, noting that words such as white supremacy and white nationalism are little more than “election strategies.… The hearing today is not about white nationalism or hate crimes — its about fear-mongering, power, and control,” adding, “The goal here is to scare blacks, Hispanics, gays, and Muslims into helping [Democrats] censor dissenting opinions, ultimately into helping them regain control.”

REP. ERIC SWALWELL: CONGRESSMAN WHO THREATENED TO NUKE GUN OWNERS RUNS FOR PRESIDENT

REP. ERIC SWALWELL: CONGRESSMAN WHO THREATENED TO NUKE GUN OWNERS 
RUNS FOR PRESIDENT
BY DANIEL GREENFIELD
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
How is he not the front runner?
Forget Cuban-Medicine-for-All, banning cows and planes, and universal free speech bans for all. This is a truly big idea.
Rep. Eric Swalwell, who always looks like he came to MSNBC directly from a Hitler Youth rally, is running in 2020. Him and everybody else.
On Colbert, Rep. Eric Swalwell announced that he was running for president to an audience of people wondering who he was. He promised to go big, but he didn't roll out his signature policy which would have gone over big with the smirking prep school host and his audience.
Rep. Eric Swalwell, California Democrat, warned gun owners Friday that any fight over firearms would be “a short one,” because the federal government has an extensive cache of nuclear weapons.
After Joe Biggs tweeted that Mr. Swalwell “wants a war” over the Second Amendment, Mr. Swalwell responded, “And it would be a short war my friend.”
“The government has nukes.Too many of them. But they’re legit,” the congressman tweeted. “I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.”
Mr. Swalwell quickly added that “No one is nuking anyone or threatening that,” but by then it was too late.
At least not until he's in the White House.
I can't wait until the media starts urging 2020 candidates to take a stand on whether they're ready to nuke Republicans or will settle for rounding them up into gulags via Dick's and Amazon warehouses.
_______________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:

Swalwell Swagger: California Dem Running on Gun Control Platform


1 2 3 4 5