CATHOLIC CHURCH & SOCIAL JUSTICE: MICHELLE MALKIN LAYS OUT WHO IS FUNDING OPEN BORDERS ACTIVISM
Michelle Malkin: Open Borders Inc.
The Eric Metaxas Radio Show
Follow the show: https://www.metaxastalk.com/
Rather Expose Them Christian News Blog
A WordPress Blog-THE CHURCH MILITANT Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse. ALL CONTENT FROM HTTPS://RATHEREXPOSETHEM.BLOGSPOT.COM MOVED TO THIS NEW BLOG, MAY 2020
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Thousands of parents and grandparents traveled to the California State Capitol Monday from all across California to protest SB 2761 which would disallow the vaccination medical exemptions parents were receiving from family physicians, and its companion bill SB 714,2 hastily gutted and amended, and disingenuously shoved through the Assembly and Senate without any policy hearings.Several protesters were arrested for blocking the entrance of the State Capitol parking garage.The bills would order the California Department of Public Health to investigate and discipline doctors who grant more than five medical exemptions in a year, in schools with immunization rates under 95 percent.Today’s headlines are misleading: Anti-vaccine activists arrested at CA Capitol over law and Anti-Vaccination Protesters Demonstrate At Capitol.California Globe interviewed many of these protesters. The majority are not anti-vaccination parents; they are protesting the State’s rigid mandatory vaccine schedule, and the attempt by the Legislature to disallow medical exemptions, even for already vaccine-injured children.Another sub-headline said: California’s governor signed bills intended to crack down on doctors who write fraudulent medical exemptions for school children’s vaccinations.Except, of the fraudulent exemptions3 cases that the Medical Board of California has investigated to date, there have been no fraudulent medical exemptions found.SB 276, by Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento), was jammed4 through the Legislature last week at record speed, despite Gov. Gavin Newsom saying he had his own set of amendments he wanted included.So SB 714, also by Sen. Pan, was gutted and amended (see graphic below) over the weekend to include the Governor’s changes. On Monday the bill was bypassed by the Assembly which had suspended the rules to do this, and voted on in the Senate within hours.Presenting SB 714, Sen. Richard Pan said it was “agreed to in the Assembly.” Sen. Jeff Stone (R-Temecula) asked for the bill to at least be heard in the Senate Health Committee prior to the Senate voting on it, warning “SB 714 is going to be a mockery of democracy,” to not have one policy hearing. His motion was shot down 27-11 along party lines. Following the vote, a man sitting up in the Senate gallery shouted, “You’re killing our children.” He was promptly removed by the Capitol police.“We are talking past each other,” Sen. John Moorlach (R-Costa Mesa) said. He noted that members of the Senate seemed more concerned about bobcats than children with anaphylactic shock received from vaccines. “This bill is now vindictive,” he added. “This Legislature is even scaring our medical community.”Sen. Moorlach spoke passionately about his cousin’s son Robby, who was developmentally disabled, never learned to talk or walk. “Having a disabled child is a full-time obligation… that’s what these people fear,” he said. He asked colleagues to consider the potential of allergic reactions infants and toddlers can have from vaccines, before they voted on SB 714.The Latin inscription emblazoned over the dais of the State Senate Chamber says, “Senatoris est civitatis libertatem tueri”—It is the duty of the senators to protect the liberty of the citizens, Sen. Brian Jones said. “This is an abuse of power, and an abuse of the legislative process. There is no impeding crisis today.”Jones asked Senate colleagues what the crisis was that required lawmakers to “ram through this process.”“A couple thousand people came to a hearing with their vaccine-injured children,” said Sen. Jeff Stone, a pharmacist. He said at the hearing in which he was the chairman, seeing the vaccine-injured children really resonated for him that while rare, there are children who suffer lifelong disabilities from reactions from vaccinations. “Allow the exemption process to continue,” he said. “It’s less than once percent… these parents are trying to protect their children.” He said the few vaccine exemptions granted would not have any impact on the herd immunity of communities.“The cure is worse than the disease itself for some,” Stone said. “Give parents a peace of mind. I’m begging you, vote no on SB 714.”Sen. Jones, pleading with Senators “to withdraw SB 714 and petition the Governor to veto SB 276,” quoted Thomas Jefferson to make his point: “A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego), a co-sponsor of SB 276, posted this tyrannical comment on Twitter Monday:Her Tweet elicited many responses, such as this one:Did you seriously just say “yet”?! I thought this bill was created because of all the fraudulent MEs?! I’m so glad the co-author of the bill has admitted that NO fraudulent MEs have been found!! @GavinNewsom . how much more do you need before you #VetoSB276Many of the parents protesting outside Gov. Newsom’s office asked aloud how many of the vaccines Gov. Newsom’s four small children have had. Others asked how many of the Legislators who voted to pass these two bills even know when they received their booster shots, and how many they received.I received four vaccines5 as a child. Today’s children receive6 50 doses by age six, and 69 by age 18. The Centers for Disease Control reports that one child in six in America suffers with learning and behavior disorders while millions more suffer with asthma, diabetes and other chronic allergic and autoimmune diseases, likely related to vaccinations.In 1953, the CDC recommended 16 doses of 4 vaccines (smallpox, DPT) between two months and age six. In 1983, the CDC recommended 23 doses of 7 vaccines (DPT, MMR, polio) between two months and age six. In 2013, the CDC recommended 50 doses of 14 vaccines between day of birth and age six and 69 doses of 16 vaccines between day of birth and age 18.Recently, in a California Globe op ed,3 Attorney Mary Holland asked, “When a physician decides that a child is too medically fragile to receive a vaccine, but is not allowed to submit a medical exemption because it is not a listed CDC contraindication, and that child suffers a life-threatening reaction, such as multiple seizures or encephalitis (both listed on vaccine manufacturer inserts), is the doctor liable, or the state official who denied the exemption?”Sen. Pan has not answered this question to date. However, he says his bills are needed to “keep children safe from preventable diseases.”Gov. Newsom signed SB 276 and SB 714.Newsom’s amendments will grandfather in all medical exemptions prior to January 1, 2020, when SB 276 goes in to effect. However, a student who previously received an exemption would need to obtain a new exemption before entering kindergarten or 7th grade, or when newly enrolling in a school district or school.“This legislation provides new tools to better protect public health, and does so in a way that ensures parents, doctors, public health officials and school administrators all know the rules of the road moving forward,” Newsom said in a statement.(photo credit: Kevin Sanders for California Globe)This article was reprinted with the author’s permission. It was originally published by the California Globe. Kate Grimes is the editor of the California Globe. She is a long-time investigative journalist covering the California State Capitol.References:1 Senate Bill No. 276. California Legislative Information.2 Senate Bill No. 714. California Legislative Information.3 Holland M. SB 276 Will Violate the Doctor-Patient Relationship by Eliminating Medical Exemptions. California Globe Aug. 26, 2019.4 Grimes K. LeaSen. Pan Jamming Gov. Newsom on Vaccine Exemption Bill? California GlobeSept. 4, 2019.5 Vaccine History: Developments by Year. Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.6 Vaccination. National Vaccine Information Center._____________________________________________________________Reality Check: Questioning Vaccines is a Public Health Threat? - The Vaccine ReactionSEE: https://thevaccinereaction.org/2019/09/reality-check-questioning-vaccines-is-a-public-health-threat/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:Not all vaccines are safe for all people at all ages in all quantities. Full stop. There is no question that, scientifically and medically, that statement can be proven with ample evidence. In fact, U.S. taxpayers have compensated the families of vaccine injured children to the tune of $4 billion in just the past 30 years. But, unfortunately, even a statement as common sense as that is treated by many online as dangerous. And now, tech companies like Facebook and Google, they have taken the stand to help “purge” the world of what they call vaccine denial. So, does that action make our society or world a safer place? No.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
In a Twitter post (that has since been removed), Marty claims that he is “not in anymore” and wants “genuine truth. Not the “I Just Believe It” kind of truth”. His list of reasons that Christianity is “not for me”, according to Sampson, read like a laundry list of teenage rebellions to Christianity during youth group:– Christians are judgmental– Science disproves Christianity– Preachers fail morally– The Bible has contradictionsMany Christians will read this news and wonder how God’s power fits in to a Christian leader walking away from the Faith. Christians may wonder how someone so influential to modern Christianity can reject the faith he led others through.Is God losing His elect to the powerful forces of modernity?In one of Marty’s most popular songs, Oceans, one lyric reads:“Spirit lead me where my trust is without borders”Did God fail to lead Marty into an unfailing trust?Not in the least.You see, its obvious from his recent apostasy announcement that Marty’s faith rested in a form of Christianity that reflects the spirit of our age, rather than a faith led by the Spirit of God.The Hillsong brand of Christianity is one marked with pursuing earthly treasures, entertainment, celebrity, and sensationalism.I like to call it “pop-Christianity”. Drawing from all the entertainment and commercial successes of the 21st century, pop-Christianity appeals to the temporal at the expense of the eternal.This, however, is not unique to Hillsong-Christianity. It was the sociologist Christian Smith in his book Soul Searching whose research formulated the most popular beliefs that today’s professing Christians hold to.Through interviewing hundreds of Christians, his research revealed that professing Christian’s most important beliefs about their faith are:– God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other– The central goal of life is to be happy and feel good about one’s self– Good people go to heaven when they dieSmith coined the term Moralistic Therapeutic Deism (MTD) to describe this form of Christianity. It is moralistic, in that there are rules; deistic in that there is a god, and therapeutic because the goal of this faith is happiness.Just look at the title of Brian Houston’s (founder of Hillsong Church) book and you’ll see a form of Christianity overly concerned with the one’s material condition. Add to that the Hillsong worship experience that is more of a psychological experience than communing with the divine, and you have a faith that makes no sense to questions of morality, holiness, and truth.As if right on cue, I talked to a high school aged boy this week who grew up in the church. He chuckled as I suggested that God is not primarily concerned with us being happy, as if to say “you’re joking, right?”It is not difficult to see why a successful person like Marty Sampson would walk away from Christianity. His life is more secure than most; why wrestle with difficult topics like morality, which is essentially asking the question “how would God have me live” and “which actions are holy and good, and which are unholy and do damage”. He claims that the Bible has contradictions; why wrestle with the writings of 2000+ years of Christian thinkers who have made sense of it.The disheartening thing is that the sensational and prosperity-focused forms of Christianity are extremely prevalent. Even in historic churches and denominations, MTD is the result of modernity’s philosophies at work within the hearts of their parishioners.Making A Mockery Of ChristianityThe Hillsong phenomena may be a very visible and organized form of pop-Christianity, but any time you see a church losing focus on holiness, wisdom, truth, and beauty, and trade it in for entertainment, gimmickry, and focusing on the present world, it is making a mockery of Christianity. Unfortunately, our culture is full of pop-Christianity vying for members and donors instead of disciples.We mentioned here the mockery of Christian art, supported by the New York Cardinal. Hillsong Gold Coast might have been trying to top that when it literally turned its service into a circus.Hillsong Gold Coast has all the fun and fascination of a circus:Not to be outdone, the historic Norwhich Cathedral in England had a helter-skelter installed. The Rev. Jonathan Meyrick delivered a sermon atop the carnival ride, saying, “God is a tourist attractions,” and “God wants to be attractive to us… for us to enjoy ourselves, each other, and the world around us and this glorious helter-skelter is about just that”image: http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/images/recent/heltersept10.jpgA sacred cathedral becomes a jokeThis after the Anglican church also installed a mini-golf course in another UK cathedral.image: http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/images/recent/golfsept10.jpgBut perhaps the circus is too yesterday for you. Well, if games are your thing, the Roman Catholic Church has designed a PokemonGo-style app for you to play. With “Follow JC Go”, you can “catch” all the saints of the Church for your pilgrimage.image: http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/images/recent/followsept10.jpgAnd if electronics aren’t your thing, a church in Texas had a basketball theme for March Madness, where an entire court was installed on the altar — err… stage.If you are looking at these examples of pop-Christianity and wondering “what is wrong with making Christianity attractive?”, the answer is that Christianity is attractive. What is being done by pop-Christianity is clouding truth and beauty with sensation and indulgence. Pop-Christianity is to spiritual health what Fast Food is to physical health; a cheap alternative that simply appeases the appetites.The Christian faith rests upon the fact that God is beauty, and all His works and His ways are full of His beauty. The Christian is simply left to soak up that beauty; to bask in the light of God’s goodness. This requires obedience, relationship, reflection, and dedication to the God who dwells with His people. No amount of buzzing sounds and flashing lights will sustain a lifelong faith.Get In Or Get OutPop-Christianity does offer something that may seem appealing: a foot in both worlds. Pop-Christianity has all the sensation and spectacle of popular culture, which is inarguably dedicated to feeding whatever passions and desires one might have. Yet, simultaneously speaking the language of and seeking for the divine.But Christianity does not fill the same voids as popular culture. Pop culture fills desires for momentary pleasure. Christianity fills the desire for meaning. So like all popular culture fads, pop-Christianity fades away. Or its followers walk away.Pop-Christianity also leaves its followers open to ridicule even from those on the outside. The outsider observes that pop-Christianity is an attempt to live in two worlds; like one who says they are a “baller” (slang for “basketball aficionado”), yet never dedicates any time to improve the skills and knowledge needed for the game. In other words, its easy to see the attempt to live devoted to one’s professed lifestyle (pop-Christianity or being a “baller”) isn’t a serious one.Although the outsider may not agree and indeed detest ones disciplined obedience to the Christian faith, the outsider’s reaction is a validation that he is reacting to something genuine; a faith taken seriously.Abandoning Pop-ChristianityBy now we should see that Marty was a victim of the pop-Christianity that he facilitated for years. A faith that relies upon covering truth and beauty with sugar to make it more palatable is one that is easily given up in the face of adversity; even to the one’s pouring the sugar.What surprises me is how a person with such a limited understanding of the Christian faith gathers such a large following of people who desire that understanding. But if our culture is one that is desperately seeking moments of sensation and indulgence, then perhaps it is understandable that a figure with a talent for satisfying such appetites would ascend to such a position.The job of the Christian today is to see the Christian faith as more than a hobby or part-time job. It doesn’t just inform a person, it directs their every step and the paths they choose. The problem I see very often is that churches and ministries take their cues from the entertainment and commercial practices of pop-culture. And individual Christians try to fit cultural values into the way of Christ. It must be clear that the worlds ways are not Christ’s ways.Our faith directs what is valuable (sacrifice, servanthood, holiness), and so does pop-culture (fulfilling desires, having intense experiences).Our faith directs what is wise (living simply, unaffiliated with the world), and so does pop-culture (living lavishly, and taking cues from the world).Our faith directs what we use our time on (spiritual disciplines, serving one another, worship of Christ), and so does pop-culture (seeking sensational experiences, personal goals, making one’s life comfortable).Our faith directs which temperaments we should foster (meekness, patience, peacefulness) and which we should limit (selfishness, quick to speak, sporadic), while pop-culture encouragesChristianity and popular culture pull the individual in different directions. Its time to sever the ties. Its time to abandon Christian methods and ministries that are too entwined with the ways of pop-culture. Its time to stop letting fast-food Christianity be the main part of our diet.Lest we have more Marty Sampsons leading, then leaving our churches.Originally published at Post Christian Era – reposted with permission.By Chris SafenzProphecy News Watch Oct. 10, 2019
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Correction: U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders is from Vermont. An earlier version of this story incorrectly identified his home state. We regret the error.Bernie Sanders has made an odd calculation in his quest for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. He all-but-ceded support from Jewish Democrats during the weekend by announcing anti-Semitic activist Linda Sarsour again will serve as a campaign surrogate.When Sanders embraced Sarsour's support during the 2016 campaign, we showed how her rabidly anti-Israel views crossed into anti-Semitism. She views Zionism – the belief in a Jewish homeland – as "creepy." She spoke at Louis Farrakhan's 2015 Million Man March, where she called Zionists white supremacists.Her actions since then, in helping lead the national Women's March and in spreading a blood libel that blames Jews for police shootings of unarmed black people, have only made her hatred for the Jewish state and its supporters clearer.A Gallup report issued last month found that 95 percent of American Jews view Israel favorably and more than three-quarters "they were at least somewhat emotionally attached to Israel." In 2016, Jews voted for Hillary Clinton over President Trump by 71 percent to 23 percent, exit polling showed. All of this makes Sanders' partnership with Sarsour difficult to fathom.Is he confident that enough Jewish Democrats will overlook Sarsour and still support him? Or is the bet that the rest of the Democratic base – the primary voters – either agree with her or don't prioritize the issue, and that that is enough to compensate for the loss of Jewish votes? If he were to become the Democratic nominee, what happens to those voters in a general election? Do liberal Jews choose not to vote for president? Or do they switch to President Trump, whom they overwhelmingly opposed in 2016?Evidence of Sarsour's anti-Semitism is even deeper than it was in 2016:
- Anti-Semitic incidents within the Women's March leadership forced the movement's founder out. Sarsour was a national co-chair. The problem was so severe it prompted several big-name sponsors, including the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Emily's List and the National Organization for Women (NOW), to withdraw support.
- She reportedly has used Farrakhan's Nation of Islam for security, both personally and for the March.
- She's a strong advocate of the BDS movement, which seeks to isolate Israel economically, politically and socially. BDS founder Marwan Barghouti has admitted that "We oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine. No Palestinian, rational Palestinian, not a sell-out Palestinian, will ever accept a Jewish state in Palestine."
- One month after the 2016 election, Sarsour told an American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) gathering that her movement had no room for Jews who don't share her anti-Israel views, especially on BDS..
These ideas may have some momentum with younger, more liberal Democrats, but remain far on the fringe of the party's establishment. The U.S. House voted in July to condemn BDS by a 398-17 vote. It criticized the movement for "encouraging the Palestinians to reject negotiations in favor of international pressure" and because BDS "does not recognize, and many of its supporters explicitly deny, the right of the Jewish people to national self-determination."By officially announcing Sarsour's role as a campaign surrogate, Sanders – an independent senator from Vermont – seems to see political gain in aligning with the 17 "no" voters.Sarsour and her allies say that they are merely criticizing Israeli policies, and that cannot be considered anti-Semitic. But rejecting Israel's existence is a form of anti-Jewish bigotry according to the State Department's definition of anti-Semitism."I am an unapologetic pro-BDS, one-state solution supporting resistance supporter here in the U.S.," Sarsour told an audience at the Islamic Society of North America's (ISNA) annual convention a year ago, the Investigative Project on Terrorism exclusively reported. It was there that she blamed an Anti-Defamation League program that takes American police leaders to Israel to learn about anti-terror and riot control methods. The program does not include any hands-on training. But that didn't stop Sarsour from falsely alleging that, as a result of the program, police "come back here and do what? Stop and frisk, killing unarmed black people across the country."Sarsour recently led a failed drive to get CNN anchor Jake Tapper fired after Tapper had the temerity to compare Palestinian rhetoric that incites violence to American political rhetoric and the role it may play in a spate of white nationalist violence in America. "Either tone matters or it doesn't," he said.Sarsour, through her political group MPower Change, launched a petition demanding Tapper's firing. Tapper's reference to Palestinian incitement and terror glorification, which is well documented, amounted to "the height of unethical journalism," she said.It wasn't. But the over-reaction says a lot about Sarsour's politics. A 2016 Sanders campaign ad concluded by showing Sarsour saying the candidate "sees all of me."If he really does, and still embraces Sarsour's support, that might be the most disturbing aspect of all.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
And here we are. CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. CAIR officials have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR’s cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements about how Islamic law should be imposed in the U.S. (Ahmad denies this, but the original reporter stands by her story.) CAIR chapters frequently distribute pamphlets telling Muslims not to cooperate with law enforcement. CAIR has opposed virtually every anti-terror measure that has been proposed or implemented and has been declared a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates. CAIR’s Hussam Ayloush in 2017 called for the overthrow of the U.S. government. CAIR’s national outreach manager is an open supporter of Hamas. Its research director has endorsed a jihad-supporting charity.That such a group would receive mainstream support while an event such as this one is condemned is a sign of how far we are from properly addressing what happened on September 11, 2001.“Church cancels 9/11 event under pressure from CAIR,” WND, September 10, 2019:_____________________________________________________________A Michigan church canceled a 9/11 event critical of the interfaith movement and Islamic supremacism after complaints from the Council on American-Islamic Relations and politicians.Bloomfield Hills Baptist Church was to host a two-day event called “9/11 forgotten? Is Michigan surrendering to Islam?” on Wednesday and Thursday.A former Muslim who has become a popular speaker, Shahram Hadian, was to speak Wednesday on “How the Interfaith Movement is Sabotaging America and the Church.” And on Thursday, Jim Simpson, a former Office of Management and Budget economist to three presidents and an investigative reporter, was to speak on “How Islam is Destroying America from Within.”The event was planned by a group called the Detroit Coalition for Freedom.In response to the cancelation [sic], the organization United West will feature the two speakers in a webinar on Wednesday at 7 p.m. Eastern time that can be viewed online through registration.‘We don’t hate Muslims’Last week, the Baptist church’s pastor, Donald McKay, defended the event in an interview with WJBK-TV.“Islam is a growing threat in the United States of America,” he said. “We don’t hate Muslims, we hate the ideology they are identified with.Hadian said on his website that his Sept. 11 discussion would “expose the growing deception of interfaith dialogue” and “explain how interfaith ‘dialogue’ is compromising the Gospel & our national security.”But the Council on American-Islamic Relations along with members of Congress and state representatives pressed the church to cancel the event, and its elders complied.The executive director of CAIR’s Michigan chapter, Dawud Walid, cast the event’s message as “anti-Muslim bigotry.”“Though we believe that houses of worship have the right to preach their doctrine, we find it incredibly irresponsible for a church to invite someone who has the objective of spewing clear anti-Muslim bigotry,” Walid told the Detroit Free Press.CAIR has been shown in court to be a front for the terrorist organization Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. It was designated by the State Department as an unindicted co-conspirator in a scheme to fund Hamas. And the United Arab Emirates in 2014 listed CAIR as one of 83 banned terrorist organizations, along with the Taliban, al-Qaida and ISIS.‘Toxic and bigoted events’Prior to the Bloomfield church’s cancelation of the event, two member of Congress from Michigan, Democratic Reps. Andy Levin and Debbie Dingell, said in a joint statement there is “no place for hate in Metro Detroit, in Michigan or anywhere in the United States.”“We implore the Bloomfield Baptist Church to forgo the anti-Muslim events planned for next week and instead recognize America’s rich cultural and religious diversity as we reflect on one of the most painful days in our country’s history and heal from recent acts of white supremacist violence,” Levin and Dingell said….
THE LIBERAL PRESS TEARS THIS PASTOR APART:
'No Place For Hate:' Pastor's Sept. 11 Event In Bloomfield Hills Sparks Offense, As Intended
http://www.deadlinedetroit.com/articles/23191/no_place_for_hate_pastor
_s_sept_11_event_in_bloomfield_hills_sparks_offense_as_intended
EXCERPTS:
"I am an Islamophobe, I wear that badge proudly," he tells Jessica Dupnack of Fox 2 News (video below). "We don't hate Muslims, we hate the ideology they are identified with."
To call McCay extreme is like saying the president seems a bit factually unreliable at times. "We believe that Muslims, committed Muslims that are familiar with their faith, are committed really to the overthrown of the United States and to world domination," he tells Fox 2.Critics of the unbridled bigotry include U.S. Reps. Andy Levin of Berkley and Debbie Dingell of Dearborn, who say in a statement: "There is no place for hate in Metro Detroit."________________________________________________________TIL Project Falsely Accused of Hate Crimes
Shahram Hadian exposes interfaith group "UniteCloud" https://unitecloud.org/,working with the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center), CAIR, Antifa, and otherliberal groups:November 30th St. Cloud, MN: Deceived MN interfaith group "Unite Cloud" joins with terrorist group CAIR (Hamas in America) to blatantly and falsely accuse Shahram Hadian of inciting violence against Muslims! Please watch this urgent video to find out about efforts to criminalize those who dare speak out against the dangers of Islamists (Muslim Brotherhood) and the deception of interfaith dialogue. Please share. America, we are losing our freedoms faster than most know.Antifa, CAIR & SPLC Join Forces to Silence Christians
Alert! Antifa, CAIR (Muslim Brotherhood) and SPLC join forces to cancel Shahram Hadian (The TIL Project Ministry) and WVW Christian conferences. Christian persecution is alive and well in America and we are no longer the land of the free. Compromise, silence and cowardice have allowed the Islamo-Marxist coalition to rule the day. Please share far and wide. Christians and conservatives, it is long past the time for us to wake up and push back. To learn more about the TIL Project Ministry, please visit www.tilproject.com. If you would like to support our ministry, please visit www.tilproject.com/donate.
Buy Judge Jeanine’s New Book “Radicals, Resistance, and Revenge”
For further reading on this topic please read:
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
“Nolte: New York Times Says ‘Airplanes Took Aim at World Trade Center’ on 9/11,” by John Nolte, Breitbart, September 11, 2019:______________________________________________________________The far-left New York Times reports it was “airplanes” that took aim at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 — not Islamic terrorists.No kidding, this is what the New York Times published on Wednesday, the 18th anniversary of that terrible day: “Eighteen years have passed since airplanes took aim at the World Trade Center and brought them down.”A tweet published by the Times on Wednesday announced the same bombshell: “18 years have passed since airplanes took aim and brought down the World Trade Center.”Without bothering to retract the extraordinary news nearly 3000 Americans were the victims of airplanes that had suddenly became sentient, the Times deleted the tweet and rewrote the article.Naturally, the article still withholds holds the crucial information about exactly who the terrorists were: “Eighteen years have passed since terrorists commandeered airplanes to take aim at the World Trade Center and bring them down,” it now reads.But nowhere in the piece will you read the words “Islam” or even “al Qaeda.”This is what Orwell called memory-holing, a deliberate act that involves the Powerful rewriting the past by erasing the past, all in the hope of controlling the future.You can bet that had white supremacists brought down the World Trade Center, “WHITE SUPREMACIST” would appropriately blaze in every headline.To point out just how dishonest the failing New York Times has chosen to be on this somber anniversary, try to imagine similar coverage on the anniversary of the 2015 massacre in that South Carolina church where a white supremacist murdered nine black Americans in cold blood.“Five years have passed since a gun took aim in a Charleston, South Carolina Church, and nine people died,” the Times story and tweet would read.Now let’s apply the Times’ so-called update to the 9/11 article to the Charleston shooting: “Five years have passed since a man used a gun to murder nine black Americans in a Charleston, South Carolina Church.”…‘Some People Did Something’:Son Of 9/11 Victim Addresses Ilhan OmarDuring Memorial Ceremony
9/11 VICTIM’S SON TAKES ILHAN OMAR TO WOODSHED AT GROUND ZERO COMMEMORATION
“Some people did something?”
BY JAMIE WHITErepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
A man whose mother died on 9/11 tore into Rep. Ilhan Omar for describing the terror attacks as “some people did something,” during a memorial service at Ground Zero on Wednesday.Nicholas Haros Jr. wore a black shirt emblazoned with the phrase “Some People Did Something?” to single out Omar and the Squad while reading out names of the victims, including his mother Frances Haros.“’Some people did something,’ said a freshman congresswoman from Minnesota,” said Haros about Omar. “Today I am here to respond to you exactly who did what to whom.”Son of 9/11 victim sends a powerful message to Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar:"'Some people did something,' said a freshman congresswoman from Minnesota… Today I am here to respond to you exactly who did what to whom." pic.twitter.com/BWH6zE8CVe— The Rebel (@RebelNewsOnline) September 11, 2019“Madam, objectively speaking, we know who and what was done. There is no uncertainty about that. Why your confusion?” Haros asked. “On that day, 19 Islamic terrorist members of al Qaeda killed over 3,000 people and caused billions of dollars of economic damage. Is that clear?”“But as to whom,” Haros continued, “I was attacked, your relatives and friends were attacked, our constitutional freedoms were attacked and our nation’s founding on Judeo-Christian principles were attacked.”“That’s what some people did,” Haros added. “Got that now?”Omar had made the callous remarks downplaying the 9/11 attacks during a Council on American-Islamic Relations event in March.“CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something, and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties,” Omar, a Muslim congresswoman, had said.President Trump tweeted out a video railing Omar for her comments, driving home the point that there was nothing ambiguous about the Islamic attacks on the Twin Towers in 2001 that killed over 3,000 people.WE WILL NEVER FORGET! pic.twitter.com/VxrGFRFeJM— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 12, 2019Twitter: Follow @WhiteIsTheFuryThe lack of criticism from the left of Ilhan Omar and AOC is evidence of the left’s double standards. Paul Joseph Watson joins Alex to discuss how conservatives are being persecuted, yet MSM remains silent.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
This essay was first written 19 years ago, in 2000. I have expanded, edited, and updated it.Gun Registration is Gun Confiscation – Updated 2019 EditionU.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- The holy grail of those who wish us disarmed is gun registration. Once your guns are required to be registered, they are, in effect, already confiscated. A little thought will reveal to you why this is so.The Government will know who has legal possession of each firearm. They will know where the firearm is stored. When physical possession of the gun is desired, they can order you to turn it in. This has happened repeatedly.
The historical examples include NAZI Germany, Soviet Russia, Red China, and Cambodia. Recent examples include Kosovo, Great Britain, Australia, New York, and California. Not having possession of the firearm registered to you can be grounds for prosecution. If you have reported the gun stolen, and it is found in your possession, you can be charged with obstruction of justice, filing a false report, or perhaps a newly created crime for “gun criminals.”Once all guns are required to be registered, the only people who will legally possess guns will be those who have registered them, a truism, but necessary to state the case clearly.If you choose to follow the course of civil disobedience, and not register your firearms, mere possession of an unregistered gun will put you at grave legal risk. Civil disobedience has been the most common course of action in California and Canada, in Maryland and Connecticut, where it has proven impossible to enforce the laws requiring registration.If you choose this course of action, you would be at the mercy of any informant who discovers you possess a gun illegally. Children are being trained in public schools to inform authorities if there is a gun in the house. Doctors are urged to ask children if there are guns in their home. A warrant was issued in California for a SWAT raid based on the mere picture of people holding unidentified guns which were legal.Social media is being used to find gun owners. If you are not on the list of those who have registered, you have become a criminal. If you are forced to use the gun for self-defense, you will have committed a serious crime. It will become difficult to train your children in firearms safety or to bring friends or relatives into the gun culture. Any use of the now illegal gun will risk exposure, confiscation, arrest, and other penalties. With digital recording devices in nearly every pocket, in most businesses and homes, this becomes a serious threat. This essay explains how it could work.New Zealand passed a ban on whole classes of guns recently. There has been massive non-compliance. The proponents of the ban admit gun registration is necessary to effectively confiscate the banned guns. Those pushing disarmament are now pushing for mandatory gun registration.The theory to produce gradual disarmament is to slowly destroy the gun culture by administratively reducing the number of people who legally own guns. The people who urge gradual or immediate gun registration are attempting cultural genocide of the gun culture.The practice, once guns are required to be registered, is to incrementally tighten the requirements of registration to reduce the number of gun owners. When the number is low enough to limit effective political action, the remaining legal guns can be confiscated with little political cost. The purpose is not to reduce the number of guns, precisely. It is to reduce the number of legal gun owners, to make sure all those who have guns are politically reliable. All societies have some gun owners. The political elite can always obtain guns. The political elite in San Francisco considers the National Rifle Association to be a terrorist organization. 32% of Democrats agree with them.Gun registration has proven ineffective in reducing crime. Those who wish us disarmed often cite European countries' crime rates. But crime rates in European countries were low before gun registration was implemented. The did not change much, up or down with gun registration. Under registration systems, crime may increase because of the transfer of police resources from crime-fighting to administer and police the political requirements of the gun registration scheme, and because of the number of people willing or able to use their firearms for self-defense will be reduced. There is no relationship between legal gun ownership, illegal gun ownership, and violent crime.Self-defense is never acknowledged by those who wish us disarmed because it trumps their arguments for disarming the people. In those groups, it is a crime speak to admit the utility of guns for self-defense. The primary purpose of gun registration has always been to reduce the political power of the people rather than reduce the crime rate.There have been three significant attempts to require gun registration in the United States. The first attempt was during the regime of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR). In the original bill, all handguns were to have been registered, with a $200 ($3,800 in today's dollars) federal tax. The provision was defeated by the NRA. FDR got the booby prize of requiring registration of a few seldom used or owned firearms and accessories. The people were saddled with the ineffective National Firearms Act of 1934, which registered machine guns, short-barreled shotguns and rifles, and silencers.The second attempt at requiring gun registration started in 1968. Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) tried to pass a bill requiring all handguns to be registered. It was opposed by the NRA, and the registration requirement taken from the bill. As a compromise, Congress required gun dealers to obtain a federal license. Purchasers of guns from federally licensed dealers were required to fill out a form 4473 to take possession. Congress forbid the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms from constructing any national gun registration list from this data.The third, ongoing, scheme was initiated in 1994. Congress passed the Brady Bill, which required handgun purchasers to undergo an instant check or a five-day wait to purchase a handgun. While parts of this act were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, a little known part of the bill went into effect in 1998, requiring all purchasers of firearms from licensed dealers to undergo an “instant check” before taking possession.Two safeguards were built into the bill to ensure it would not be used to develop a national registration of firearms. First, the FBI is forbidden to keep any records of instant checks that allow the purchase. Second, the instant checks only applied to dealers, not to private sales. Since gun owners could sell their firearm without government permission, no registration list could effectively be developed. Effective gun confiscation was prevented.Both of these safeguards have been under attack. The FBI refused to immediately destroy the instant check information, although required to do so by law. Their refusal was struck down in court. There is an ongoing campaign to eliminate the other safeguard, private sales. The campaign has been pushed as a requirement for “universal” background checks. Once private parties are forbidden from selling guns without government permission, universal registration comes from making those records permanent. The final step is to make possession of a gun that is *not* registered illegally.Particularly troubling is the emphasis on guns seldom used in a crime, but which are very useful in militias. Groups who promised they only wished to limit handguns, now call for limiting the ownership of semi-automatic rifles and standard capacity magazines.Many models of guns which are rarely used in a crime, are now required to be registered, or illegal for people to own, in some states. Those laws are being challenged in court.This desire to remove power from the people is reflected in the push to place severe restrictions on the sale of .50 BMG caliber rifles. The authors of the legislation don't claim these guns are significant in crime.Only one homicide in the United States appears to have been committed with a .50 caliber rifle, in the case of Adam Wickizer, in Moosic, Pennsylvania. The case likely involved a muzzle-loading rifle, not a .50 BMG caliber. The murderer was a convicted felon. Articles about the case do not identify the rifle.The people who want to ban .50BMG caliber rifles wish to ban them because they have military purposes. One argument frequently heard by those pushing for gun registration, is to ban “weapons of war.”The most explicit reason for the Second Amendment is to ensure the people retain a large measure of military power, to balance the power of the government. It is stated in the present participle of the Second Amendment, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” The people are to have the right to keep and bear arms, in part so that they can form militias. The Republic is in grave danger when congressmen openly state they fear military power in the hands of the people. Gun registration is advocated by people who want the power of government to be unlimited.The only practical effect of gun registration is gun confiscation, whether it is done individually and piecemeal, as legal requirements to own a gun become more and more difficult, or en mass, when politicians feel the necessity to disarm citizens to further the politicians' control, consolidate their, power, or prevent insurrection.Governments that push for gun registration distrust their people and have earned the people's distrust.
About Dean Weingarten:Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The New York Times was forced to delete a tweet that praised Communist dictator Mao Zedong – who was responsible for the deaths of around 45 million people – as a “great revolutionary leader.”Under Mao’s Great Leap Forward policy, over the course of just 4 years between 1958-1962 some 45 million people starved to death, making it the biggest episode of mass murder ever recorded.Countless other victims also lost their lives as a result of Mao’s ruthless oppression, incarceration and execution of political adversaries who stood in his way.That historical context was noticeably absent when the NY Times effusively tweeted about how Mao, “died one of history’s great revolutionary figures.”The newspaper was forced to walk it back after a huge online backlash.“We’ve deleted a previous tweet about Mao Zedong that lacked critical historical context,” the Times tweeted.We’ve deleted a previous tweet about Mao Zedong that lacked critical historical context.— NYT Archives (@NYTArchives) September 9, 2019This is by no means the first time the New York Times has run defense for the most genocidal leader of the entire 20th century.In a 1973 op-ed, globalist David Rockefeller praised Chairman Mao for leading “one of the most important and successful” social experiments in “human history.”
Warren B. Smith – Resources
Deceived on Purpose: The New Age Implications of the Purpose Driven Church
A “Wonderful” Deception: The Further New Age Implications of the Emerging Purpose Driven Movement
False Christ Coming: Does Anybody Care?: What New Age Leaders Really Have in Store for America, the Church, and the World
Light That Was Dark: From the New Age to Amazing Grace
“Another Jesus” Calling – 2nd Edition: How Sarah Young’s False Christ is Deceiving the Church
RECOMMENDED READING:
BOOK – “Another Jesus” Calling – EXPANDED 2ND EDITION
BOOKLET – 10 Scriptural Reasons Why Jesus Calling is a Dangerous Book
BOOKLET – Changing “Jesus Calling” – Damage Control for a False Christ
BOOKLET – The New Age Implications of Jesus Calling
New Age Implications: Ten Examples
1) The New Age Book God Calling
2) Channeled “Messages” from “Jesus”
3) Visualization
4) Meditation
5) New Age Terminology
6) Divine Alchemy
7) Co-creation
8) God’s Dream
9) God “in” Everything
10) Sarah Young’s New Agey Mystical Moonlight Conversion
RELATED TOPICS:
Are the Jesus Calling communications a form of spiritism?
Is Jesus Calling spirit channeling, like A Course In Miracles?
Is Sarah Young, through Jesus Calling, promoting “listening meditation”?
Is Sarah Young, through the Jesus Calling material, hearing actual voices?
Are Jesus Calling videos endorsed by Sarah Young’s publisher?
Is the Jesus Calling podcast a safe way to endorse the Bible?
Is the Jesus Calling devotional an actual spirit guide speaking through the author?
Are subliminal images embedded in the Jesus Calling artwork and study guides?
SUGGESTED READING:
BOOK – “Another Jesus” Calling EXPANDED 2ND EDITION
BOOKLET – Leonard Sweet (A More Magnificent Way of Seeing Christ?)
NEW AGE MOVEMENT –
https://www.lighthousetrails.com/2028…BOOK – False Christ Coming: Does Anybody Care?: What New Age Leaders Really Have in Store for America, the Church, and the World
WARREN B SMITH RESOURCES
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Since the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe Vs. Wade, the abortion debate has been a controversial battleground met by a host of philosophies, religions, and science.But while the dispute raged on, an underground industry of the sale of fetal body parts grew until it reached discovery and prosecution.New investigations have uncovered horrific middlemen procurement businesses selling baby parts like you would sell a cow or a pig.The left has proudly championed the right to accelerate the demise of the innocent while continuing to sell the public on the facade that its party protects those who cannot speak for themselves.But nothing could be further from the truth.
________________________________________________________
“RIPPING BABIES STRAIGHT FROM THE MOTHER’S WOMB”: TRUMP BLASTS DEMOCRAT SUPPORT FOR INFANTICIDE
“Virtually every top Democrat… now supports late-term abortion,” President noted
BY ADAN SALAZARSEE: https://www.infowars.com/ripping-babies-straight-from-the-mothers-womb-trump-blasts-democrat-support-for-infanticide/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:President Trump on Monday slammed Democrat support for infanticide during a rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina, Monday night, specifically calling attention to Gov. Ralph Northam’s (D-Va.) despicable comments about post-birth abortions.“Virtually every top Democrat also now supports late-term abortion,” the president said. “Ripping babies straight from the mother’s womb, right up to the moment of birth.”Trump added that Gov. Northam’s comments about post-birth abortions were indicative of how far-left the party has gone on the issue.“And if you look at Virginia, the governor of Virginia, he was even talking about essentially, you would say an execution. He was talking after the baby is born, the doctor will talk to the mother and they’ll make a decision as to whether or not that baby lives. This is a radical Democrat idea! That’s why I’ve asked Congress to prohibit extreme late-term abortion because Republicans believe that every child is a sacred gift from God.”Northam back in January went on radio station WTOP and defended a 40-week abortion ban proposed by the state’s Democrats. 40 weeks is typically considered the end term of a pregnancy, but Northam offered an example in which a baby would be brought to term, delivered, then parents and doctors would decide whether it would stay alive.“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”On Tuesday, fact-check site Politifact deemed President’s Trump’s comments correctly reflecting Gov. Northam’s statements “false.”Trump says VA gov Ralph Northam talked about “after the baby was born the Dr will talk to the mother and make a decision about whether the baby lives.” We rated his similar claim about abortion False. https://t.co/Z0um1PLY1j pic.twitter.com/GkBFqEHxX4— PolitiFact (@PolitiFact) September 10, 2019Follow the author on Gab: https://gab.ai/adansalazarOn Twitter: Follow @AdanSalazarWinsOn Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/adan.salazar.735On Minds: https://www.minds.com/adan_infowars_______________________________________________________________Death on Demand: The New Democrat Position on Abortion
BY JAMES MURPHYSEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/33375-death-on-demand-the-new-democrat-position-on-abortion; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:For Democrats, the days of “safe, legal and rare” on the abortion issue are in the distant past. Perhaps, their new motto should be, “whenever, wherever and however.” In the new Democrat Party, abortion is being touted as not only an effective and even preferred method of birth control, but also as a primary component in their plan to fight climate change.Asked whether he would be “courageous enough” to address population control as it relates to climate change, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was more than ready to connect climate change to abortion/population control. “So, I think, especially in poor countries around the world, where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies and where they can have the opportunity to birth control to control the number of kids they have is something I very, very strongly support.”Sanders also ranted about the Mexico City Agreement, a government policy that denies funding to non-American NGOs that perform abortions or offer counseling for them. Republican administrations typically follow the policy, while Democrat presidents do not. “And the Mexico City Agreement, which denies American aid to those organizations around the world that are — that allow women to have abortions or even get involved in birth control is totally absurd,” Sanders said.It seems to me that Sanders is not only proposing abortion as a means of population control in “poor countries” but is suggesting that we use U.S. taxpayer funds to do so. Yet, he has the gall to call Donald Trump a racist?And just so you don’t think that Senator Sanders is the only Democrat who has dived into the issue, Mayor Pete Buttigieg has gone on record declaring that abortions should be allowed until a baby takes his or her first breath. Buttigieg also absurdly claims that his position is biblical.“There’s a lot of parts of the Bible that talk about how life begins with breath,” Buttigieg said in an interview on The Breakfast Club radio show. “No matter what you think about the cosmic question of how life begins, most Americans can get on board with the idea of, ‘I might draw the line here, you might draw the line there.' The most important thing is the person who should be drawing the line is the woman making the decision.”With his “life begins at breath” pronouncement, Buttigieg is signaling his support for extreme new abortion laws such as the New York law signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo in January. That law, the so-called Reproductive Health Act, allows abortion up until the moment of birth in the Empire State.States' laws about abortion have seen drastic changes in 2019. Depending on the state, those laws have been both good and bad news, depending on which side of the life debate you fall on. Pro-lifers scored a huge victory in the State of Alabama when Governor Kay Ivey signed the Human Life Protection Act, which prohibits abortion in the state unless there is a serious threat to a pregnant woman’s health; if the fetus were to be stillborn or die shortly after birth or if the pregnant woman is diagnosed with a serious mental illness. The law is scheduled to go into effect in November but lawsuits by pro-abortion groups may delay it.Other states that have passed significant pro-life legislation this year include Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, and Ohio. Most of these laws are being challenged in court by pro-abortion groups.On the other end of the spectrum, states such as New York have passed laws assuring that babies are at risk of abortion up until the time they’re born — perhaps even after they’re born if you ask Virginia Governor Ralph Northam.The New York Law, the Reproductive Health Act, made abortion legal at any time “when necessary to protect a woman’s life or health,” which, basically, gives women the right to ask for and abortionists the right to perform abortions at any time up until the moment of birth. The law also repealed aspects of the New York criminal code pertaining to abortion.Democrat Governor Cuomo was so happy with his new “death bill” that he ordered the One World Trade Center lit up pink to celebrate the bill’s passage.Vermont, Nevada, Illinois, Maine, Washington, and Virginia have all passed pro-abortion laws this year.So, as usual, the country is split on the issue of abortion. But 2020 Democrats are staking out the most extreme pro-abortion stances they can in preparation for the coming election.As Democrats struggle and strive to gain the acceptance and the votes of their far-left “woke” base, they risk losing ordinary citizens who struggle with issues such as abortion. While this is possibly good news in the short-term, the move to more extreme positions signals an ever-more leftward tilt in the national discussion on abortion. The GOP and pro-life advocates must be careful that they are not pulled to the left as well.
_______________________________________________________________
PETE: BIBLE SAYS LIFE STARTSWHEN BABY BREATHES AFTER BIRTH:Pete Buttigieg's 'Brother-in-Law' Says Candidate Has 'Manipulated' the Bible, Calls on Him to RepentBY HEATHER CLARKSEE: https://christiannews.net/2019/09/10/pete-buttigiegs-brother-in-law-says-candidate-has-manipulated-the-bible-calls-on-him-to-repent/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:CLIO, Mich. — Rhyan Glezman, an evangelical pastor who is also the “brother-in-law” of Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, has been speaking out after Buttigieg recently used the Bible to support his views in favor of abortion “rights,” suggesting that the Scriptures can be read by some to say that life doesn’t begin until one takes their first breath.“My brother-in-law needs to repent from this radical false teaching,” Glezman, the senior pastor of Clio Community Church of God in Michigan, posted to social media on Friday. “God does not endorse this nonsense. Only false religion does.”Glezman was referring to Buttigieg’s interview with “The Breakfast Club,” in which he discussed various issues, from homosexuality to religion in politics. Buttigieg is a homosexual and is “married” to Glezman’s brother, Chasten.“[Republicans] hold everybody in line with this one piece of doctrine about abortion, which is obviously a tough issue for a lot of people to think through morally. Then again, there’s a lot of parts of the Bible that talk about how life begins with breath, and so even that is something that we can interpret differently,” Buttigieg said at one point during the radio show.“No matter what you think about the kind of cosmic question of how life begins, most Americans can get on board with the idea of, ‘Alright, I might draw the line here; you draw the line there.’ But the most important thing is the person who should be drawing the line: … the woman making the decision,” he continued. “Since when should men be dictating what women ought to be able to do?”Glezman says that he feels compelled to speak out about the matter in light of what Buttigieg suggested, which he believes is a “manipulation” of the Bible.“God places a very high value on all human life,” he told the Washington Examiner. “Everyone is created fearfully and wonderfully in the image of God with intrinsic value. That doesn’t start at the first breath. It starts when we enter our mother’s womb.”“If we’re going to say we’re for all people and we love all people, but we don’t value human life in the womb, that’s being a hypocrite,” Glezman said. “You’re hypocritical if you don’t stand up for all life. So that’s why I’m speaking out.”Minutes after making his abortion remarks during the “Breakfast Club” interview, when asked if he believes if God cares about politics, Buttigieg said that God cares about how men treat each other. He pointed to the words of Abraham Lincoln, who said that men should seek to be on being on God’s side rather than working to get Him on their side.“Lincoln talked about — I think during the Civil War — [how] everyone wants to call God onto their side, but we should spend less time praying to get God on our side and more time figuring out if I can get on God’s side,” Buttigieg noted. “And that’s how I come at this.”“The funny thing about praying is that sometimes we do it in the sense of telling God what to do,” he also remarked moments later. “I think it ought to be more a process where we’re deciding how to align ourselves, how we tune our own hearts. If we’re going to pray for our politics, let’s pray for ourselves to walk in a way that is better for humanity on all sides of our politics.”Glezman said that he loves Pete, but is concerned with Buttigieg’s use of Christian terminology to justify his liberal policies, such as those on abortion and homosexuality.“Anyone who makes those claims, anyone who’s going to weaponize the [Bible] in that way, I would say to anyone that you need to repent. This is leading people astray and it’s very, very dangerous,” he stated.Buttigieg commented during the interview that he believes Republicans have used “faith as a way to order people into living their lives a certain way.”Conversely, Glezman, who suffered division in his family when he became a Christian, said that it is the liberals who are rather pressuring people of faith. He compared those such as Buttigieg to the Pharisees of Jesus’ time, as they came up with their own human rules and traditions, which superseded God’s commands and made the Word of God “of no effect” (Mark 7:13).“In their eyes, if we don’t celebrate or endorse their marriage views or their abortion views, then all of a sudden we become the homophobic bigots, which is just not true. You can love people and have a disagreement,” he told the Washington Examiner.“And that’s what I’m seeing with this false religion,” Glezman stated. “That’s why I compared them to the Pharisees of today, with their new laws that they’re trying to instill. And they’re saying, ‘If you don’t believe the way I do, then you’re a hateful, bigoted person; you’re homophobic, you’re anti-woman.’ It becomes this hostile division.”He urged followers on Friday to pray for Buttigieg, and posted a Scriptural reminder on Sunday from 2 Timothy 4:3, “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions.”______________________________________________________________New Sexual Fetish; Couples Getting Pregnant andHaving Multiple Abortions
“My girlfriend enjoys her pregnancies and she enjoys the abortion.”BY PAUL JOSEPH WATSONSEE: https://summit.news/2019/09/11/new-sexual-fetish-couples-getting-pregnant-and-having-multiple-abortions/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:A new sexual fetish has emerged where couples repeatedly get pregnant then have multiple abortions.Every day we stray further from God’s light.In a Reddit post entitled ‘Question regarding abortion and breeding fetish’, one user reveals how she has “a female friend who has a really powerful fetish for breeding” and never used birth control.“She is with a male partner currently who is just like her, into breeding and they have been practising their fetish for quite a few abortions,” the post reads.We live in hell. pic.twitter.com/ULorUPa2X3— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) September 11, 2019Another male respondent then shared details of his own abortion fetish lifestyle.“I know this fetish. My girlfriend and me have the same fetish. My girlfriend enjoys her pregnancies and she enjoys the abortion. Her preferred date to abort is between 20 and 24 weeks of gestation. I enjoy making her pregnant. And I enjoy the time of her pregnancy. She has no menstrual period and she is sexually very active,” he writes.“In the last ten years in our relationship we have done seven abortions and my girlfriend is pregnant again with a little girl,” he adds.Another respondent then praises him for sharing his fetish, writing, “It is good (and rare) to hear of a couple (both man and woman) where both members are into abortion and pregnancy. This is a wonderful and potent example of personal power, where sex meets violence and creation combines with destruction.”Truly sick.Given that the left has turned abortion from something that used to be a shameful last resort into a celebrated virtue, it becoming a sexual fetish was always the next (il)logical step._______________________________________________________________NURSE JILL STANEK, FIRED FOR EXPOSINGLIVE BIRTH ABORTIONSCHRISTIAN NURSE TELLS HER STORYIllinois Hospital Created ‘Comfort Room’ For Aborted Babies to Die InInfants remained alive for hours after abortion procedure“Before the Comfort Room was established, babies were taken to the Soiled Utility Room to die,” Stanek added in her article.BY PAUL JOSEPH WATSONSEE: https://summit.news/2019/09/11/illinois-hospital-created-comfort-room-for-aborted-babies-to-die-in/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:An eyewitness nurse revealed how a hospital in Illinois has a “comfort room” in which aborted babies who survive for hours outside the womb are left to die.Jill Stanek told a hearing on the Born Alive Act in Washington, D.C. that doctors at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn perform “live birth abortions” where the baby is allowed to die during or after the abortion procedure.The hospital provides “comfort care” for the babies for hours after the procedure by wrapping the infant in a blanket and keeping it warm until it dies. Parents of the baby are also allowed to hold it during this time.“If staff did not have the time or desire to hold the baby, she was taken to Christ Hospital’s Comfort Room, which was complete with a First Photo machine if parents wanted professional pictures of their aborted baby, baptismal supplies, gowns and certificates, foot printing equipment and baby bracelets for mementos, and a rocking chair,” Stanek said.She also revealed how once she witnessed a nurse deliver a live baby but then fail to clamp the severed umbilical cord, causing the baby to begin bleeding. The infant was then placed in a bag and thrown in the trash.Stanek also related how she held a 22 week old down syndrome baby for the last 45 minutes of his life because his parents did not want to hold him.“Toward the end, he was so quiet I could not tell if he was still alive,” Stanek said. “I held him up to the light to see through his chest wall whether his heart was still beating. After he was pronounced dead, I folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken.”Stanek subsequently quit her job at the hospital.Meanwhile, as I explain in the video below, a new sexual fetish involves couples repeatedly getting pregnant and aborting multiple babies.SEE VIDEO IN POST ABOVE._______________________________________________________________SEE ALSO: Pro-Life Nurse Fired from Christ Hospital
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Many Americans, especially young people, want to get rid of capitalism — because of its inequality — and install socialism as a replacement. But such a plan has been tried all over the world, with disastrous results.Today, if you are a young adult, finishing high school or making your way through college, or maybe even just entering the workforce, you have been made keenly aware of inequality by your teachers, your guidance counselors, and by nearly everything you see and hear in the media.You have been told, repeatedly, and may even believe, some of the following: The one-percent exploit everyone else; white people have an unfair advantage over everyone else; workers are exploited by business owners; the justice system only works for the rich; conservatives and/or Republicans are Nazis; freedom of speech is a cover for intolerance and hate; it’s unfair that some people have more wealth than others, and they got that wealth by cheating, lying, and deceiving others, or by using their unearned “white privilege.”If you believe these things, and others like them, then you likely believe that there is only one valid solution to the problem. And that is, we must get rid of capitalism, overthrow any whiff of privilege, and institute a fair system of socialism that takes care of the underprivileged and takes away any unfair advantages that others seem to enjoy.If this were attempted, would it work? Would such a system actually result in a better society, one that offered greater but more-evenly distributed prosperity?Well, there is no need to guess or speculate. In fact, over the last 10 to 12 decades there have been many nations that have tried to implement just the type of socialist system that is now so widely recommended for America. How did those efforts turn out?The short answer is: not very well. Let’s examine some of the outcomes.GermanyIn the 1930s and 1940s, until the destruction of the Hitler regime in 1945, Germany was a socialist nation. No doubt, you’ve heard that this isn’t true, that Germany was a fascist nation or a Nazination. Moreover, you’ve been told, repeatedly, that Nazism is an ideology of the politics of the Right. More bluntly, you have been told, or at least you’ve heard repeatedly, that conservatives and Republicans are today’s modern, racist Nazis.Let’s clear up this foggy notion straight away. “Nazi” is an acronym for the full name of the party in question: the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP. In English that is the National Socialist German Workers Party. Let’s put a fine point on this: In Nazi-era Germany, the plan was to build a socialist nation favoring ethnic Germans by ending the supposed privileges others, such as the Jewish minority, were imagined to have.This tells you something very specific about socialism in general that we will see played out again and again everywhere socialism is implemented. While the prevailing belief today is that socialism is about fairness for everyone, the reality is that socialism is really about favoring some group or groups over all others. In Nazi Germany, the group to be favored was the ethnic Germans.Now, socialism, when instituted, has both economic and social consequences. These may appear unevenly, depending on the means and areas of emphasis of socialist strategies of implementation. In Nazi Germany, the most immediate and obvious impacts were in the area of social consequences.It’s all well and good to speak in theoretical terms, but let’s make this personal. Suppose you are a young high-school aged person in 1938 Germany. You are and have been close friends with the boy or girl next door, who, like you, is ethnically German. Unfortunately, your neighbor, while just as German as you, is also Jewish. And his father, who for years worked hard to build up the success of a clothing factory, was no different than your father who worked hard leading a local chemical factory. While your father, proud of his red Nazi arm band, prospered and his factory grew large selling the ingredients of war and death to the regime, your neighbor’s father was forced to sell his clothing factory to an “Aryan” for pennies on the dollar. Then, one day not long after, you noticed that local family had disappeared, carted off to a concentration camp.Lest you think this is fiction, be assured that it is not. It is, in fact, the story, in broad outline, of a young man named Gert Silberbart. Interviewed after the war about his experience when he was only 18 years old, he recalled how his family was arrested in Berlin early in March 1943. Soon thereafter, the family was loaded into cattle cars for the three-day journey to the Auschwitz death camp. After that, Gert never saw his family again. He survived unimaginable conditions including slave labor, death marches, beatings, starvation, and much more, until the American armies reached nearby. At that point, a concentration camp commander promised that all prisoners would be peacefully and quietly handed over. Gert didn’t believe this, and rightfully so, as tens of thousands who were unable to hide were killed.Gert described the ordeal at length: “I had hidden in several blocks, in basements, partly in the sewers ... in holes in the sewage system, in attics, in short, in every hideout where I could disappear,” he recounted of his survival tactics. “Thus I was hiding for about a week. Constantly there was the call for the Jews to come out [‘Juden raus,’ literally ‘Jews out’] and when the largest part of the Jews were gone, they went after the Christians. There were daily transports from the camp, so that in the camp that had held 100,000 people a week before, at the point of liberation by the Americans on April 11, there were only 22,000 people left.”Because the Nazis wanted to have “fairness” for “Aryans,” they persecuted and murdered most everyone else. Does this strike anyone as fair? Of course not. Yet to many Germans of the era, and especially to the fervent followers of the NSDAP, their victims received what they had coming to them for being hitherto thought to be unfairly advantaged compared to the average German worker. It doesn’t matter that there wasn’t any actual advantage enjoyed by the Silberbart family or by those other millions of men, women, and children whose lives were destroyed by the Nazis. Facts, in socialist systems, don’t matter. Only feelings matter. Only outrage matters. Only propaganda matters. To socialists, the individual lives of those outside of the favored group don’t matter.What was the result of this, in Nazi Germany? Millions were enslaved. Millions were murdered in cold blood.There is much that can be said about the specifics of Nazi Germany. But the salient point, the most important point, and one that you will see repeated with so many socialist efforts, is that millions of people who did not deserve to be killed were murdered by the socialist government.Keep in mind, also, that the blood-drenched Nazi government came to power legally. Moreover, Germany before the Nazis was hardly a backwater. It was the most advanced nation in Europe, with the world’s best scientists in physics and chemistry, a robust and prosperous industrial economy, and a centuries’ long history as a leader in the arts, in literature and in philosophy.After the war, Germany was divided between the armies of the Allies and the Soviet Union. Thus split in two, Germany now became two nations, a free Germany in the west, and, in the east, a communist gulag state.Both versions of Germany started from the same point economically and socially. Devastated by war, their housing stock, factories, distribution networks, communications channels, and, above all, their people, were in shambles. In one part of the country, growth and development would take place under the free, Western model. In the east, growth and development would take place under the communist-socialist model. This gives us a perfect opportunity to understand if the socialist theory is correct: that under the socialist system people are happier, healthier, and wealthier than under the Western system of freedom.From the Cold War Western point of view, it’s long been obvious which version of Germany was more successful. In the West, the damage from the war was quickly repaired. The West German economy rapidly became the most successful in Europe, and goods and services were readily available. In East Germany, by contrast, damage from the war lingered for decades. Cars were rare and uniformly horrible. Travel was heavily restricted and the population was kept in check by the Stasi, the much-feared secret police.As with the Nazi regime, we again have eyewitness accounts of conditions in East Germany. Among the best of these are the letters from East Germans that American German-language teacher David F. Strack received over several decades from ordinary East Germans that detailed aspects of their lives.Strack, himself, had had occasion to visit East Germany, starting in the mid-1960s. Recounting his first visit to East Berlin in the opening pages of his book Letters Over the Wall: Life in Communist East Germany, he told of seeing extreme battle damage to buildings that still hadn’t been repaired even two decades after the end of World War II. Astonishingly, there were even piles of human remains near one bombed out church. “An experience I’ll never forget,” he recounted. “After taking a picture (35mm slide!) of the still to be rebuilt roof structure of a large building — the German Cathedral on Gendarmen Square — I looked down from the pile of rubble where I was standing. To my shock, lying on the rocks, bricks and debris, were human bones!”“And yes, I did take pictures of them.” The grisly photos are reproduced in his book.The East Germans whom Strack met during his visits, and who corresponded with him afterwards over the decades, were quite well aware of the disparity between their lot behind the figurative Iron Curtain — and the all-too-real Berlin Wall — and their German counterparts in West Germany and West Berlin.In one letter from East Germany, “Gerard” (Strack changed the names of his correspondents to protect their privacy) described his living conditions:We live here in a strange country and in an even stranger city. Especially here in the city, the division between East and West is just crazy. Railroad, streetcar lines and streets end suddenly at the border, many houses are even divided. When I stand at the border and look at the people and buildings on the other side — it’s a very strange feeling. And they are Germans — even my relatives — and I’m not allowed to visit them. If I were to illegally go over the border I would be shot or would spend two years in prison. I’m not allowed at all to travel to a capitalistic country; therefore I can never visit you. In West Germany the people live better, and if the border were open, many people would leave this country and want to live there. In the GDR [German Democratic Republic], workers are needed, and if all of them left, who would then do the work?Indeed, so many East Germans “voted with their feet” and sought asylum in the West that the government of East Germany built a wall, the Berlin Wall, to keep people from leaving. According to CNN, from 1949 to 1961, more than 2.7 million people escaped East Germany, fleeing to the West. Once the East German government cracked down on travel and built the wall, such escape became nearly impossible to accomplish. Border guards, in fact, were authorized to shoot to kill.This raises the question: If the socialists of East Germany had built a utopian paradise, why were so many so eager to risk their lives to escape it?Mao’s ChinaThe reason why everyone frantically attempts to escape socialism once it’s shackled upon them is because it does, in fact, bring equality to the people — by making them equally unfree, equally poor, equally miserable, and very often, equally dead.The formula for the ideal socialist “paradise,” a formula that has since been tried in one form or another in every socialist state, was proposed during the era of the French Revolution by François-Noël “Gracchus” Babeuf.A socialist revolutionary, Babeuf was eventually arrested, tried, and executed for his attempts to foment revolution. During his defense, he elaborated on his social program.“The products of industry and of genius also become the property of all, the domain of the entire association, from the very moment that the workers and the inventors have created them,” he argued.Elaborating further, he continued:To be more specific, it is necessary to bind together everyone’s lot; to render the lot of each member of the association independent of chance, and of happy or unfavorable circumstance;to assure to every man and to his posterity, no matter how numerous it may be, as much as they need, but no more than they need; and to shut off from everybody all the possible paths by which they might obtain some part of the products of nature and of work that is more than their individual due.The sole means of arriving at this is to establish a common administration; to suppress private property; to place every man of talent in the line of work he knows best; to oblige him to deposit the fruit of his work in the common store, to establish a simple administration of needs, which, keeping a record of all individuals and all the things that are available to them, will distribute these available goods with the most scrupulous equality, and will see to it that they make their way into the home of every citizen.Babeuf lost his head to the guillotine before he could see his plan put into action. But has it ever been tried? And, how does it work in practice?In fact, it has been tried, and the results have been miserable, bloody failure and genocide.Mainland China fell to communist domination in the years following World War II. Under the dictatorial control of the Communist Party, led by “Chairman” Mao Tse-tung, the regime set about implementing Babeuf’s plan to the letter.Final implementation came in the form of the not-so-aptly named “Great Leap Forward.” Through enslavement of the people as described by Babeuf, Mao intended to force China’s economy to match and then exceed the production capacity of England within just a few years.By now, you can likely guess what happened. Frank Dikötter, a Hong Kong-based historian who has had access to a wide range of Chinese communist archives and has done groundbreaking work in removing the veil from decades of Chinese communist tyranny, put it succinctly in his 2010 book, Mao’s Great Famine. “Between 1958 and 1962,” he wrote, “China descended into hell.”Summarizing his findings in the book, Dikötter wrote:The peasant masses were mobilised to transform both agriculture and industry at the same time, converting a backward economy into a modern communist society of plenty for all. In the pursuit of a utopian paradise, everything was collectivised, as villagers were herded together in giant communes which heralded the advent of communism. People in the countryside were robbed of their work, their homes, their land, their belongings and their livelihood. Food, distributed by the spoonful in collective canteens according to merit, became a weapon to force people to follow the party’s every dictate. Irrigation campaigns forced up to half the villagers to work for weeks on end on giant water-conservancy projects, often far from home, without adequate food and rest. The experiment ended in the greatest catastrophe the country had ever known, destroying tens of millions of lives.Supposedly for the good of all, the central planners determined what work needed to be done, who should do it, and how much should be produced. That, in turn, determined how long people should work, and where they should work. In addition to sending tens of thousands away from home to work on water control projects (such as dam building), others were forced to work the fields on massive collective agriculture projects, and most were required also to set up backyard iron smelting operations.Now, anywhere in the West, if dams are to be built or other massive construction projects are undertaken, heavy equipment is used. Not so in Mao’s communist China, where laborers were forced to use hand tools (if they were lucky) or their bare hands. In the West, for iron production, iron ore is smelted — heated in a furnace until the iron separates from the impurities. Raw materials were scarce in communist China, so to maintain and reach production quotas, the “smelters” just melted down any metallic item that could be found, including axes, shovels, hammers, nails, pots and pans, and everything else. As a consequence, soon there were no tools to use for any job, including cooking.Finally, in agriculture, again without tools, pressure was deployed to use techniques that did not actually work, and production plummeted. Meanwhile, with fertilizers nearly impossible to find, houses were torn down and their materials used to build communal canteens and even to fertilize the ground instead. Error compounded mistake and engendered increasing brutality.While the socialist program in China was supposed to be for the benefit of all the people, if you believed the propaganda, the reality was that state power was being used to oppress and destroy people. In fact, outright economic and physical war against the people was openly demanded by communist officials.Discussing agricultural production and the impact on the majority of poor Chinese citizens, historian Dikötter noted that the communists wildly overestimated actual production and then punished the people for failing to achieve in reality the fantasies of the planners.“The actual grain output for 1958 was just over 200 million tonnes, but on the basis of all the claims made about bumper crops the leadership estimated that it was close to 410 million tonnes,” Dikötter wrote. “Punitive extractions based on entirely fictitious figures could only create fear and anger in the villages. The stage was set for a war on the people in which requisitions would plunge the country into the worst famine recorded in human history. [High-ranking party official] Tan Zhenlin was blunt, addressing some of the leaders of South China in October 1958: ‘You need to fight against the peasants.... There is something ideologically wrong with you if you are afraid of coercion.’”Chairman Mao was even more blunt in response to the vast amount of death and suffering he was inflicting on the country. “When there is not enough to eat, people starve to death,” he said in a speech in 1959. “It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill.” Of course, there would have been plenty to eat if it hadn’t been for Mao and his attempts to realize Babeuf’s twisted vision of Utopia.Instead, villagers starved to death. Some were forced to eat their own children. Relating what he had been told by survivors of the “Great Leap Forward,” Wei Jing-sheng wrote: “Mao Zedong and his henchmen, with their criminal political system, had driven parents mad with hunger and led them to hand their own children over to others, and to receive the flesh of others to appease their own hunger.”There was even a black market for human meat. “Human flesh, like everything else, was traded on the black market,” wrote Dikötter. “A farmer who bartered a pair of shoes for a kilo of meat at the Zhangye railway station found that the package contained a human nose and several ears.... To escape detection, human flesh was sometimes mixed with dog meat when sold on the black market.”Lest it be thought that these are just ugly and sensational anecdotes, Dikötter quoted from official reports.It’s hard to conceive of the scale of Mao’s destruction. According to Dikötter, his research “shows that at least 45 million people died unnecessarily between 1958 and 1962.” To put this into perspective, there are approximately 42.5 million people living in the three largest metropolitan areas of the United States combined (New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago). Thus, in just four years, the Chinese Communists wiped out the equivalent population of our three largest cities.But even this horrible statistic doesn’t fully capture the scale of Chinese communist bloodlust. The authors of The Black Book of Communism, the pre-eminent scholarly catalogue of communist mass murder and atrocity, estimate that 65 million died or were killed as a result of communist policy and atrocity in China.Famine and Genocide in the Soviet UnionMarxists, communists, socialists — whatever you choose to call them — these followers of Babeuf’s vision tried repeatedly to nationalize and collectivize the societies that they enslaved, always with the same result.In the former Soviet Union, after the Bolshevik Revolution, Lenin first, then Stalin sought to collectivize agriculture and nationalize industry on the Babeuf plan. Not surprisingly, this ran into opposition from those who didn’t want to see the hard-won fruits of their labor stolen from them by the new state authorities. Thus, as is often the case in hard-core socialist states, ideological “enemies” had to be hunted down and destroyed.The team of French historians who catalogued the many and varied egregious crimes of communism in their invaluable Black Book of Communism noted that Lenin and his henchmen in the USSR wasted no time in hunting down their “class enemies.”“Lenin and his comrades initially found themselves embroiled in a merciless ‘class war,’ in which political and ideological adversaries, as well as the more recalcitrant members of the general public, were branded as enemies and marked for destruction,” they wrote. Lenin and his fellow communists “had decided to eliminate, by legal and physical means, any challenge or resistance, even if passive, to their absolute power.”One group that came in for especially harsh treatment were the Cossacks, an ethnic group with a long tradition of independence and a fierce reputation as skilled warriors. Many Cossacks had been anti-Bolshevik.The communists, as a result, began an explicit policy of “de-Cossackization” in about 1920, which resulted in widespread genocide. The “Cossacks ... were exterminated, the men shot, the women, children and the elderly deported, and the villages razed or handed over to new, non-Cossack occupants,” wrote the authors of The Black Book of Communism.A few years later came the campaign of “dekulakization,” which applied the earlier strategy of de-Cossackization on a larger scale. The Kulaks were a class of independent farmers in Russia and Ukraine who had gained a bit of wealth through their hard work. Naturally, this was intolerable to the communists now ruling from Moscow, and so the order came down “to exterminate the kulaks as a class.”This deadly campaign was conducted simultaneously with state restriction on the food supply, resulting in one of history’s most deadly famines, one that would foreshadow the famine of Mao’s Great Leap Forward, the mass deaths under Cambodia’s brutal Pol Pot, and the starvation of millions in socialist Ethiopia in the 1980s.In the first decades of the Soviet Union’s bloody history, millions lost their lives in the communist pursuit of Babeuf’s Utopia. But even in the 1970s, when Soviet bloodlust had begun to ebb, the socialist system was still incapable of providing anything but a miserable, poor life for the average citizen.In his book on life in Soviet Russia, Washington Post reporter Robert G. Kaiser pointed out the challenges that the average resident of Moscow faced in the 1970s in acquiring the basics of life that people in the free world, even those of the poorest conditions, took for granted.“‘If you wanted to have potatoes every day,’ a young man responsible for the family shopping explained, ‘you would have a hard time getting them,’” he told Kaiser. “‘Some parts of Moscow just don’t have potatoes on some days, you might have to go way across town. And you wouldn’t know which direction to set off in, because there’s no telling where potatoes might be. So you don’t have potatoes every day, you buy them when you can.’”Meanwhile, in the free nations of the West, anyone could (and still can) enter any grocery store at any time, even in the middle of the night at 24-hour retailers, and buy potatoes for what amounts to pocket change. Moreover, tens of thousands of other items are simultaneously on sale, a vast cornucopia readily available. None of this was possible in the Soviet Union, a “super power” that couldn’t readily provide even basic staples on a continuing basis to its unfortunate citizens.This was the reality of socialism. It’s no better today in those socialist nations that remain. Such a statement seems counterintuitive — after all, there does not seem to be mass murder and assorted other mass atrocities, as were so prevalent in the past, occurring in these nations at the moment.The lack of present-day tyrannical bloodlust in the remaining socialist nations of our world does not mean that socialism no longer poses a threat. Indeed, the threat of atrocity remains latent within.Socialism requires at its very core that the state, representing the collective, supersede in all ways the rights and dignities of the individual. It is not possible within the scheme of socialism to speak of the natural rights of individuals. As such, the state represents a concentration of power — of force — within the few hands of the socialist ruling cadres. Nothing intrinsically restrains the tyrannical exercise of this force in a fully socialist nation. No individual rights are recognized; therefore, there are no individual rights to infringe. In the name of enforcing “fairness,” anyone, for any arbitrary reason, may be suppressed.Whether it be called communism, Nazism, socialism, or even progressivism, the kernel of absolute tyranny lies within the heart of the socialist doctrine. It cannot be expunged. It is intrinsic to the ideology, as the history of socialism amply demonstrates.Socialists promise to deliver a better world that provides equality of outcomes for everyone. But that is only an illusion, a bit of propaganda aimed at the gullible. Those who really want to see an improved world, with greater prosperity for all and respect for the individual, need to look elsewhere. They need to look to limited government, diffusion of power, and respect of individual natural rights.If you really want a better world, then fight not for socialism; fight for freedom.This article originally appeared in The New American’s September 2, 2019 special report on socialism. To order the full report, click here. The New American publishes a print magazine twice a month, covering issues such as politics, money, foreign policy, environment, culture, and technology. To subscribe, click here.