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
EVANGELIST EXPOSES “EVANGELICAL DEEP STATE” IN INTERVIEW WITH ALEX NEWMAN
OF THE NEW AMERICAN
Southern Baptist evangelist Thomas Littleton of Alabama joins The New American magazine’s Alex Newman to discuss the “Evangelical Deep State.” Among other topics, they talk about how false doctrines and dangerous heresies–especially on homosexuality and transgenderism (LGBT), as well as Social Justice, Critical Race Theory, and Cultural Marxism–are infiltrating even conservative evangelical churches in America. Part of it is funding from Deep State globalists hostile to the church and the Bible, and part of it is a lack of discernment among pastors and Christian leaders. Alex and Tom discuss the Southern Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Church, and others. Tom names Albert Mohler as one of the key figures facilitating this.
Richmond, VA –-(Ammoland.com)-The “Assault Firearms” bill (HB 961) in Virginia passed the Public Safety Committee on Friday.
On Monday, the legislature read the bill for the first time in the full House of Delegates. The full House of Delegates will vote on the bill before the annual crossover day. Crossover day is where the Senate sends all passed measures to the House and vice versa.
The bill will ban magazines that hold more than 12-rounds, Shotguns that hold more than seven shells, semi-automatic rifles with certain cosmetic features, suppressors, and trigger actuators. There are other things in the bill that gun owners are overlooking.
The bill reads:
“Assault firearm” includes any part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert, modify, or otherwise alter a firearm into an assault firearm, or any combination of parts that may be readily assembled into an assault firearm. “Assault firearm” does not include (i) a firearm that has been rendered permanently inoperable, (ii) an antique firearm as defined in § 18.2-308.2:2, or (iii) a curio or relic as defined in § 18.2-308.2:2.
This passage could potentially ban parts used to repair broken rifles. Banning the transfer of these rifles to anyone other than the government would mean once the rifle breaks, it is useless. If the owner repairs their gun or sells it, they are committing a felony.
Gun rights groups from around the country expressed concern about the passage of HB 961 out of the committee. One of these groups is Gun Owners of America that has been fighting hard alongside VCDL in the Commonwealth to defeat the attack on gun rights. Senior Vice President, Erich Pratt, is dismayed the bill has gotten as far as it has.
“The radical Democrats in Richmond are poking the proverbial bear. Gun owners have a long memory,” Pratt told AmmoLand. “And they are motivated more so than ever before to get involved politically. Over 98% of gun owners polled say they would NOT reelect a Delegate or Senator who votes for a ban on commonly owned firearms, such as what passed out of a House committee today. Gun owners will definitely “remember in November.”
Democrats hid another passage in the bill. It reads:
B. It is unlawful for any person to import, sell, transfer, manufacture, or purchase an assault firearm, provided that a person may transfer an assault firearm to another person if:
1. The transfer is a bona fide gift made by or to a member of a transferor’s immediate family as defined in § 6.2-1300;
2. The transfer occurs by operation of law;
3. The person receiving the assault firearm is an executor or administrator of an estate or is a trustee of a trust created by a will, and the assault firearm to be transferred is property of such estate or trust;
4. The transferor is an executor or administrator of an estate or is a trustee of a trust created by a will, and the assault firearm to be transferred is the property of such estate or trust;
5. The transfer is temporary and is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm;
6. The transfer is temporary and occurs within the continuous presence of the owner of the firearm;
7. The sale or transfer of an assault firearm is to an authorized representative of the Commonwealth or any subdivision thereof as part of an authorized voluntary gun buy-back or give-back program;
8. The transfer is of an antique firearm as defined in § 18.2-308.2:2; or
9. The transfer occurs at a shooting range, shooting gallery, or other area designated for the purpose of target shooting, for use during target practice, a firearms safety or training course or class, a shooting competition, or any similar lawful activity.
C. A violation of this section is punishable as a Class 6 felony.
D. The provisions of this section shall not apply to (i) any government officer, agent, or employee, or member of the Armed Forces of the United States, to the extent that such person is otherwise authorized to acquire an assault firearm and does so while acting within the scope of his duties; (ii) the manufacture of an assault firearm by a firearms manufacturer for the purpose of sale to any branch of the Armed Forces of the United States or to a law-enforcement agency in the Commonwealth for use by that agency or its employees, provided that the manufacturer is properly licensed under federal, state, and local laws; (iii) the sale or transfer of an assault firearm by a licensed dealer to any branch of the Armed Forces of the United States or to a law-enforcement agency in the Commonwealth for use by that agency or its employees; (iv) the purchase by any person of his service handgun pursuant to § 59.1-148.3.
This hidden provision would make it illegal for the manufacturing of “assault firearms” in Virginia unless the intent is to sell it to the military or the police. Several manufacturers in Virginia would be put out of business or forced to move out of Virginia. The people employed by these companies would lose their jobs and cause economic hardships on the very people Democrats claim they care about the most, the working class.
In fact, they showed how much they cared about the public by only giving them six minutes to express their opposition to HB 961. After the committee voted the public was kicked out of the room by Capitol police under threat of arrest on orders from the Democrats. Talking to long time observers none could recall that happening before.
The bill is far from passing. HB 961 will have to pass out of the House of Delegates before being sent to the Senate. There is already one Democrat on record stating he will not vote for the bill. If another Democrat Senator breaks with their party line over the bill, then the law will fail.
AmmoLand encourages all gun owners across the Commonwealth to contact their representatives and encourage them to vote no on HB 961. Bloomberg will not stop at Virginia, but we have a shot of handing him a defeat in his war against guns.
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. He is the former CEO of Veritas Firearms, LLC and is the co-host of The Patriot News Podcast which can be found at www.blogtalkradio.com/patriotnews. John has written extensively on the patriot movement including 3%’ers, Oath Keepers, and Militias. In addition to the Patriot movement, John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and is currently working on a book on leftist de-platforming methods and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, on Facebook at realjohncrump, or at www.crumpy.com.
I attended last Friday’s House Public Safety Committee’s hearing on HB 961, Governor Northam’s scary gun, magazine, and accessories ban, and I was disgusted by your management of the hearing in your respective capacities as Chair and Vice-Chair.
In the audience on either side of me were people that traveled several hours to attend that hearing. One gentleman was a business owner from a rural county who knew all too well that reliance on law enforcement to protect him is preposterous. The other was a retired officer of the Inspector General who said that law enforcement recognizes that the best deterrence to crime isn’t more law enforcement, but an armed population. As a forensic psychiatrist, I know that psychiatrists are the medical specialists that are most likely to be victims of homicide. We each have unique reasons to be armed, and because of that, we are willing to apply our time, talents, and treasure to the preservation of our rights.
Even with its current amendments, this bill turns the three of us into felons, overnight, for the possession of standard-capacity magazines and heavily, federally regulated suppressors that we purchased as law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. It shouldn’t surprise either of you that just proposing this bill is morally repugnant to us, especially when your party voted down both Project Ceasefire and bills calling for increased penalties for criminals who commit rape at gunpoint. Your party put its sights on us, insulted victims, and gave criminals a free pass.
Adding to our outrage were the incredible lies told during that hearing. One doesn’t need to be a lawyer to understand that the Heller decision protected our right to keep “weapons in common use.” The items this bill bans are all in common use. Vice-Chairman, as a former member of the Attorney General’s staff, were you unable to correct Delegate Levine, when he said that the Supreme Court of the United States upheld these bans? What stopped you from pointing out that the Federal Circuit Courts that have ignored Heller are lower courts, and that the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on these bans? You allowed Delegate Levine to continue the buffoonery he began when he pantomimed his laughably mistaken ideas for what constitutes an “assault weapon” by allowing him the additional opportunity to display his ignorance of our courts.
Furthermore, Vice Chairman, when you said that these weapons and magazines were made for the military and should only be present on battlefields, were you aware that the Capitol Police present at the hearing were carrying Sig Sauer P320 pistols with 16 round magazines plus one in the chamber? Are the Capitol Police intending to wage war, and are they planning on turning the Capitol grounds into a battlefield? Now that your party has made the Pocahontas Building a gun-free zone, even for those of us with concealed handgun permits, why do they continue to need military-grade firepower to keep the peace? If these magazines are so intrinsically dangerous why should the Capitol Police have them at all?
Chairman, given the historic significance of this bill, it is shocking that it wasn’t first heard in a sub-committee, and it was completely unacceptable that only six (6) minutes were allotted for public dissent.
It was plainly obvious to you that the dissenters outnumbered the supporters many times over. The just and decent thing to do, prior to turning those dissenters into felons, would be to have at least let them speak. We came to change hearts and minds, but we recognize that most of the committee members arrived with orders from the Governor, who in turn appears to be taking orders from an out-of-state billionaire. At the very least, we came to bear witness to our process of government and hoped to leave assured that it continues to function as our Founders intended. What you presided over was a deliberate affront to the four hundred years of history of our Assembly. You should have been prepared to listen all day and night if necessary to ensure that every voice was heard. How great is the urgency to eliminate our rights that you couldn’t be bothered to listen to us speak? Had the two of you allowed those in attendance to speak, I doubt anyone in the audience would have said anything “disruptive” at the hearing’s conclusion. It is regrettable that they spoke out at the end, because it is as plain as day that you baited them into doing that.
What makes their “disruption” most regrettable, however, is that this monstrous bill has the fight of its life ahead of it. You rushed HB 961 through because you didn’t have the support you needed previously to get this to the Senate, and you were running out of time before next week’s crossover. It is likely to be further modified by the House. Even if the Senate Committee that receives it lets it pass, it is unlikely to pass the Senate. It certainly won’t pass unscathed, and so it will have to survive the wranglings of a conference committee. At each juncture, the few sane liberals in your party will have the opportunity to listen to their constituents and kill this bill.
Although you wouldn’t pause to let us speak, we haven’t stopped exercising our rights. Background checks for gun purchases doubled in the Commonwealth last month, and ammunition sales in deep-blue Arlington are up 339% compared to one year ago.
Do you think those Arlingtonians are only filling ten-round magazines? This bill, and its progenitor, SB 16, in turn, gave birth to the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement in Virginia. These bills mobilized many thousands who could not stand politics to become involved, because, to their amazement, rather than focusing on criminals, you chose to focus on them and their rights.
I can assure you and every member of the Assembly that we will not back down and we have the support of gun owners throughout the United States. The Second Amendment, our Commonwealth’s Constitution, the facts of civilian gun usage, and the Heller decision are on our side, not yours. When Secretary Moran greeted Philip Van Cleave (president of Virginia Citizens Defense League) and me at the NRA’s January 13th lobby day, he said that he’d see us again on the floor of the Assembly. I replied that we’d see him in court. The high court of the nation appears ready to restore the rights that have been wrongfully infringed upon by those of you who target the law-abiding and give aid to criminals. There is no shortage of your constituents that would happily be the plaintiff in … v Commonwealth of Virginia to set this right.
Dennis Petrocelli, MD email@example.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/doctorpetrocelli/
“A Muslim State Department ex-employee is suing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the agency for allegedly refusing to let her work from home on Ramadan….The suit alleges that after Zaki made her request, she was ‘subjected to ridicule’ and ‘harassing emails’ as well as ‘eye-rolling, dirty looks, huffing and puffing when she spoke [and] being overly criticized about her work product.’”
“Reps for Pompeo declined to comment, although an August filing from his attorneys insisted that the ‘defendant had legitimate, non-discriminatory, and non-retaliatory reasons for its actions.’”
The professional minefield is that if a Muslim of a victimhood mindset suffers any negative professional experience, he or she is liable to ascribe it to “Islamophobia.” Any employer is vulnerable to this kind of suit.
“Muslim State Department ex-employee sues Pompeo for discrimination,” by Jon Levine, New York Post, February 8, 2020:
A Muslim State Department ex-employee is suing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the agency for allegedly refusing to let her work from home on Ramadan.
Azza Zaki, 62, says she asked to telecommute twice a week during the Muslim holiday in 2017, according to the federal lawsuit she filed in June in Washington, D.C., seeking $500,000.
Zaki, who worked in the department responsible for handling complaints from foreign au pairs working in the United States, said she routinely made the request during Ramadan and had not had any issue for the previous seven years.
The suit alleges that after Zaki made her request, she was “subjected to ridicule” and “harassing emails” as well as “eye-rolling, dirty looks, huffing and puffing when she spoke [and] being overly criticized about her work product.” Zaki says she was also unfairly placed on “performance improvement plan,” something her attorney said was part of an effort to ultimately fire her.
“It was humiliating. It was insulting. It was something I have never experienced,” Zaki told The Post. “They are ignorant about the religion. This is discrimination and ignorance. Nobody bothered to come talk to me and ask why is this important. Why is it that you need to be at home. I would have explained.”
She retired in 2018 less than a year after filing an Equal Employment Opportunity complaint against her supervisors, saying tension at work had become too much.
“I could not go through being sick all the time and stressed all the time. Not sleeping,” she said. “I was constantly thinking about all the problems at work and really doubting myself.”
Reps for Pompeo declined to comment, although an August filing from his attorneys insisted that the “defendant had legitimate, non-discriminatory, and non-retaliatory reasons for its actions.”…
REP. STEPHANIE BOROWICZ OF PENNSYLVANIA RESPONDS TO THE 2020-21 STATE BUDGET PROPOSAL FROM GOVERNOR WOLF
MORE SOCIALISM, GOVERNMENT CONTROL, SECOND AMENDMENT INFRINGEMENTS, & LGBTQ RIGHTS
THE GOVERNOR’S BUDGET SPEECH: LOTS OF FREEBIES WITH “NO TAX INCREASES”? BUT $200 MILLION FOR STUDENT GRANTS $435 MILLION FOR SCHOOL PROGRAMS $1 BILLION TO REBUILD SCHOOL BUILDINGS Governor Tom Wolf today called upon Pennsylvanians to imagine a better commonwealth – one with a stronger workforce, better schools, safer communities, and more opportunities for everyone – and then laid out an ambitious agenda for his 2020-21 budget that moves Pennsylvania toward that vision. (INTO MORE DEBT, HIGHER TAXES & TYRANNY) SEE BOROWICZ AT 12:30 MINUTE MARK
Governor Tom Wolf and First Lady Frances Wolf Share Their Support for Planned Parenthood
The Bridge Initiative’s Dr. John Esposito Speaks to UN Symposium on Religion &
Dr. John L. Esposito, Project Director of the Bridge Initiative, speaks at the 2016 United Nations Symposium on the Role of Religion and Faith-Based Organizations in International Affairs. Dr. Esposito’s remarks focused on Islamophobia and radicalization within the theme of religion, violence and extremism.
The topic is discussed with esteemed religious leaders, UN officials, university professors, and representatives of faith-based and civil society organizations.
The Bridge Initiative is a multi-year research project on Islamophobia housed within ACMCU
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY’S HAMAS-LINKED “BRIDGE INITIATIVE” WANTS TO RE-LITIGATE TRIAL OF HAMAS-LINKED CHARITY
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
Few people realize how severely America’s universities and colleges have degenerated.
“Hamas-linked ‘Bridge Initiative’ wants to re-litigate Holy Land Foundation trial,” by Kyle Shideler, Center for Security Policy, February 7, 2020:
The Bridge Initiative, a project of the Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim Christian Understanding, continues to embarrass its host, Georgetown University, this time by publishing a “factsheet” in defense of the convicted Hamas fundraising organization known as the Holy Land Foundation.
The sheet is short on facts, and long on emotional appeal. It distorts basic facts about the Holy Land Foundation case, in which the nation’s largest Islamic charity and five of its employees were convicted on 104 felony counts, including providing material support for the terrorist organization Hamas.
While the Bridge Initiative wants to relitigate the HLF case, wholly endorsing arguments made by the defense that were soundly rejected by judge and jury, ultimately what it seeks to do in their factsheet is argue that Hamas should not be designated as a terrorist organization at all. They likewise condemn U.S. Treasury Terrorism designation efforts in general, despite these efforts being a mainstay of the effort to combat terrorism since 9/11.
“The fact sheet says that Hamas ‘was founded in Palestine in 1987 as a political and social organization, with an armed wing aimed at resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestine.’ It acknowledges that the United States designated Hamas a terror organization in 1997, but then states that designating Hamas as a terror group “has been criticized by legal scholars as being politicized by the State Department, and as raising issues concerning due process, equal protection, judicial deference, the chilling of free speech, and having ‘disparate impact on the Arab Muslim community.’”
The defenders of Hamas have long relied on the false distinction that the group has an “armed wing” which engages in violence, claiming the majority of the group merely performs otherwise legal work in the social and political spheres. Ironically, Hamas’ own founder rejected the distinction between armed and unarmed wings, and the organization is tightly integrated. Terrorist activities take place under the direction of the group’s political leadership, as Matt Levitt, Author of “Hamas: Politics, Charity and Terrorism in Service of Jihad” has ably documented.
It’s no surprise that Bridge Initiative would be playing the role of Hamas apologist, given that its founder, John Esposito, has a history with the very Hamas network of which the Holy Land Foundation was the prominent member. Esposito served as a member of the advisory editorial board for the journal of the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR). UASR, which the federal government described as a Hamas “think tank”, was founded by Mousa Abu Marzook, currently deputy chairman of Hamas’ political bureau. UASR’s executive director and the editor of the journal of which Esposito was an advisor, Ahmad Yousef, who went on to serve as a Hamas spokesman….
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
Red flag laws are supposedly implemented to take guns away from mentally disturbed gun owners, but they are based in fallacy and represent real losses of rights.
Proposals for the enactment of “red flag” laws, or “extreme risk protection orders,” as some call them, are at the top of the current list of demands by “progressives.” But two glaring fallacies underlie those proposals. One is that firearms are inherently evil, as are their owners, and catalysts for violence; while the other is the claim that such laws will not be misadministered and lead to endangering other rights.
Proposed red flag laws would allow police to violate both one’s Second Amendment rights and the rights of due process by confiscating one’s firearms based on a claim that the gun owner is unbalanced or prone to violence. The working details vary among the various state and federal versions, but their results are the same. One’s constitutional rights may be clipped on the mere fantasy allegation of anyone from an angry wife to a snooping do-gooder, thereby initiating a sequence of events that could lead, and already has led, to the deaths of police officers and gun owners.
The danger becomes all the more likely when a medical professional such as a psychiatrist claims a gun owner has gone off the rails. But is a psychiatrist’s claim truly an indication of real danger? Most people would likely believe it is. But tests of that belief conducted by Stanford University professor of psychiatry David Rosenhan and others in a landmark 1973 study indicate such an opinion is far from a slam-dunk fact. Rosenhan had sane people fake hallucinations in order to test the widely held belief that psychiatrists could reliably tell a truly mentally ill person from one who is not. The results showed “psychiatrists cannot reliably tell the difference between people who are sane and those who are insane.”
Though Rosenhan received much pushback from the psychiatric community, the essence of his conclusion was found as far back as 1887 by investigative journalist Nellie Bly. She successfully faked symptoms of mental illness to gain access to a lunatic asylum in order to expose its inhumane conditions. At the very least, Bly’s fakery and Rosenhan’s study bring into question the legitimacy of the psychiatric opinion, an opinion to which all red flag laws I’ve seen give added weight regarding who is sane and who is dangerous. Is that warranted?
It has been my observation that psychiatrists are far from objective about gun owners. For instance, almost all mental health professionals at Johns Hopkins, where my mother was a professor of epidemiology and public health, openly viewed gun ownership as a dangerous compensation for things like low self-esteem or sexual inadequacy. That bias, I noticed, often masked an elitist desire to restructure and control society to their liking and was expressed as objective fact in the famous 1960s study chaired by former Hopkins president Milton Eisenhower.
His National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence study recommended that private handgun ownership be banned. But the bias behind that and other recommendations was stripped away in a later study by the Carter administration that was intended to confirm the Hopkins findings and provide a launch pad for draconian gun laws. It didn’t. Carter researchers found the Hopkins study was “results oriented” and intentionally constructed to come to the conclusions it did. The surprise Carter conclusion, which was shoved under the proverbial publicity rug, stated: “It is commonly hypothesized that much criminal violence, especially homicide, occurs simply because firearms are readily at hand and, thus, that much homicide would not occur were firearms generally less available. There is no persuasive evidence that supports this view.” The lead researcher then delivered what remains the coup de grâce most have never heard: “A compelling case for gun control cannot be made.”
That should have pushed the red flag law idea over the precipice, but it didn’t. Gun-control activists keep making up “truths” that reflect their own irrational biases, without any regard to the likelihood that their new laws would bring about a legal and constitutional slippery slope and a descent into a police state of informers and arbitrary arrests.
Red flag law proponents dismiss that scenario and buttress their dismissal with the opinions of academics such as Diablo Canyon College philosophy professor Jacob E. Van Vleet. He and other elites generally maintain that the slippery slope concerns are fallacies “precisely because we can never know if a whole series of events and/or a certain result is determined to follow one event or action in particular. Usually, but not always, the slippery slope argument is used as a fear tactic.” Maybe so, but that’s a rhetorical cop-out, for there is an overriding reality about the type of constitutional-rights-busting power implicit in red flag laws that was stated by English Baron John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
That does not mean America would necessarily slide into an East German-style Stasi police state overnight. It might take a while. “There is no ‘slippery slope’ toward loss of liberties, only a long staircase where each step downward must be first tolerated by the American people and their leaders,” former U.S. Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming has said. But “once the down staircase is set in place, the temptation to take each next step will be irresistible,’ noted former New York Times columnist William Safire. The late U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas understood:
As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air — however slight — lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.
And victims we will be.
The urge to destroy our Second Amendment will require that other rights against abusive government, such as search-and-seizure protections, will have to be weakened as well. As the Sir Thomas More character in the movie A Man For All Seasons asked a zealot who wanted to knock down all the laws of England to find the devil, “Do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then — the laws all being flat?”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
The White House is releasing its budget proposal for fiscal year 2021 (starting on October 1) today, February 10, and administration officials have confirmed some key figures from the document over the weekend.
Fiscal conservatives will be dismayed by the total amount of the budget — $4.8 trillion —and will be taking a close look at it to see how much it adds to the federal debt, which has increased by $2.8 trillion since the start of the Trump administration and is projected to increase by $4.7 trillion through the end of the decade because of spending increases and tax cuts.
While fiscally conservative Republicans are likely to raise concerns over the national debt and deficits, Reuters reported, Democrats are expected to object to the deep spending cuts on domestic programs.
The budget proposes a 21 percent cut in foreign aid, reducing it down from $55.7 billion enacted in fiscal year 2020 to $44.1 billion for 2021. It proposes cutting spending on safety net programs, including $130 billion in Medicare by means of drug pricing reforms, $292 billion to food stamp and Medicaid programs, by enacting new work requirements for beneficiaries, and $70 billion through a clamp-down on eligibility for federal disability benefits.
Reuters reported that last year Trump compromised with Congress and signed a two-year budget deal that increased federal spending on both defense and several domestic programs, adding to a growing government debt.
One item that Trump has battled with Congress over is securing funding for his border wall with Mexico, one of his signature promises from his 2016 presidential campaign that is especially popular with his political base. A report in USA Today noted that the president is asking Congress for $2 billion in new funding for construction of the wall.
The New York Times observed that the amount Trump is asking for the wall is far less than the $5 billion that he sought a year ago, which resulted in a five-week government shutdown. Congress previously agreed to appropriate $1.375 billion for wall construction, much less than the $18 billion Trump asked for in 2018. When the standoff with Congress could not be resolved, the Trump administration diverted about $6.7 billion from military construction funds and illicit drug enforcement funding to pay for the wall. It plans to use $7.2 billion derived from similar funding this year.
A senior Defense official told CNN that a major announcement about the border will made this week. CNN noted that the administration appears to be increasingly relying on Pentagon funds to meet its goal of constructing additional barriers on the border.
Though all revenue bills must originate in the House, budgets must also be approved by the Senate and signed by the president. Though many people still believe that practically all Republicans are fiscally conservative, we reported in an article last October that the Senate rejected, by a vote of 24-67, an amendment by Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) that would have begun to put federal spending on a path to balance by cutting two percent in spending for FY2020 from the FY2019 enacted level.
No Democrats voted for the amendment and only 24 Republicans voted for it, while 25 voted no.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
Bernie Sanders is as transparent about his health as he is about his economic plans. At least he's consistently deceptive and dishonest.
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday balked at releasing medical records in the wake of a heart attack that briefly took him off the campaign trail last fall — insisting that he is “in good health.”
Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” the Democratic presidential hopeful said his campaign has “cardiologists who are confirming that I am in good health.”
Unfortunately, they're all Cuban cardiologists.
Todd had noted that in a Sept. 14 interview — prior to the heart attack in October — Sanders promised to release his medical records “before the first votes are cast.”
“The American people have a right to know whether the person they’re going to be voting for for president is healthy,” Sanders said at the time. “And we will certainly release our medical records before the primary.”
But he was singing a different tune Sunday, two days before the New Hampshire primary.
“I mean, you can start releasing medical records and it never ends,” he told the host. “We’ve released a substantive part — all of our background. We have doctors who have, cardiologists confirming that I am in good health. I am in good health.”
Why won't Bernie release his medical records? The question answers itself. But then again, the Russian people weren't told that Stalin was sick until he was brain dead.
Commie history repeats itself. ________________________________________________
Muslim voters gathered at a local mosque in Iowa's Des Moines on Monday, where mosques were used as official caucus locations for the first time in the state's history.
Caucus-goers were seen gathering at the Islamic centre, with many showing support of Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders, after the Democratic party allowed the mosque to become a 'satellite site' in an effort to include muslims in the caucus process.
Local imam Jaffar Habid praised the initiative as an "opportunity" for members of the community to make their choice, and be prepared to vote in the next presidential election.
"It's not easy for someone to be a Muslim in America but once you do something like that to make you feel like you part and parcel of this country," he said.
Muslims make up about 1 percent of the nearly 3.2 million people who live in Iowa.
“Allahu akbar, Allahu akbar.” The Muslim call for prayer, known as adhan, echoed through the Muslim Community Organization in Iowa as voters stood in a registration line outside the prayer hall, waiting to attend the Democratic Party’s caucuses at the mosque.
Rows of worshippers, surrounded by campaign signs, performed evening prayer before the electoral process began late on Monday.
The Muslim Community Organization was one of five mosques in the Des Moines area to turn into a caucus site, as the Democratic Party kicked off its contest to pick the nominee who will try to unseat President Donald Trump in November.
“This is truly a historic moment for you as Muslims in Iowa and Muslims across the country,” Ghazala Salam, president of the Muslim Caucus of America, told voters midway through the process.
“They’re watching you. You’re laying the path forward on how Muslims should be engaging in the political process in this country.”
Near unanimous support for Sanders
In caucuses, participants vote publicly by standing – or sitting in the case of the mosque – in a designated area for the supporters of their favoured candidate. The procedure also involves convincing other caucus-goers to join one’s group.
But there wasn’t much wooing to be done at the Muslim Community Organization on Monday.
Almost all caucus-goers were supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders.
When the caucus chair asked Sanders’ supporters to sit in an area to the left of the mihrab – a hollow section in the wall that points towards Mecca – every attendee moved towards that section.
The initial vote was: 115 for Sanders, two for Andrew Yang, two for Elizabeth Warren and one for Pete Buttigieg….
In a letter sent to the heads of Pitzer College and Pomona College in Southern California, the David Horowitz Freedom Center, acting with the Dhillon Law Group, put the Claremont Consortium of Colleges on notice that their promotion and funding of anti-Semitic speakers and events is a violation of federal law and will no longer be tolerated.
Over the past several years, Pitzer, Pomona, and the other Claremont Colleges have repeatedly funded anti-Semitic rhetoric and displays on campus—largely organized by the Hamas-funded campus hate group Students for Justice in Palestine—which contribute to a hostile environment for Jewish students.
The letter cites Executive Order 13899 which was signed by President Trump on December 11, 2019. The Order directs executive agencies to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against all prohibited forms of discrimination rooted in anti-Semitism just as vigorously as against all other forms of discrimination prohibited by Title VI. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.
This is not the first occasion on which the Freedom Center has challenged the Claremont Colleges over their funding and promotion of Jew hatred. Last fall, the Freedom Center named Pitzer as one of the “Top Ten Colleges that Promote Jew Hatred and Incite Terrorism.” Over a thousand printed newspapers containing the report on the prevalence of anti-Semitism at Pitzer were distributed by the Freedom Center on Pitzer’s campus.
Instant reaction to the newspapers proved that they had hit their mark. The president of Pitzer College, Melvin Oliver, released a public statement labeling the Freedom Center’s newspapers exposing Jew hatred on his campus as “attack speech or hate speech so extreme that it requires our response” and claiming that the report’s allegations were “demonstrably false and intentionally incendiary”—without citing a single example of these alleged falsehoods.
Freedom Center founder David Horowitz responded by thanking President Oliver for his “Orwellian smear against our Freedom Center” and stating that in fact “Hate speech is calling a legitimate, fact-based critique of your support for a Jew-hating terrorist support group like Students for Justice in Palestine hate speech.”
Horowitz concluded his response to Oliver with this thought: “Some of the students participating in this campaign of Jew-hatred are simply ignorant. You don’t have that excuse. You are a disgrace – an all too typical disgrace among your academic colleagues which is why Jew-hatred is rife on our campuses today.” The war of words was covered in the local and national press.
With the delivery of the Freedom Center’s legal missive to Pitzer and the Claremont Colleges last week, these institutions have been put on notice that their funding and support for Jew hatred will no longer be tolerated.
Read the full letter to the Presidents of Pitzer College and Pomona College HERE.