republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 

Editors Notes: There is so much wrong with this copy and paste from Elizbeth Warren’s website that we can hardly begin to unpack all the things that are factually wrong, false or just flat out lies and mischaracterizations of the real world we live in. It is a shameful and shocking display of ignorance and hate for one of our most scared GOD-given rights.

Elizabeth Warren img elizabethwarrendotcomElizabeth Warren img elizabethwarrendotcom
Nevada – -(AmmoLand.com)- I apologize for the length of this, but Elizabeth’s Warns plan to take away your gun rights is over 3,000 words long and include new ways to take away your rights that even Mike Bloomberg hasn’t thought of yet, including limiting your free speech rights as gun owners to get involved politically and to speak out against bad and dangerous gun laws.
While NVFAC PAC is a state PAC and we don’t get involved in federal elections, it’s worth the time to read Elizbeth Warren plan because it includes every new anti-gun initiative we will be opposing over the next decade in Nevada.

Elizabeth Warren in her own words and what she vows to do to our right to keep and bear arms: (what follows is quoted directly from her website)

  • As president, I will immediately take executive action to rein in an out-of-control gun industry — and to hold both gun dealers and manufacturers accountable for the violence promoted by their products.
  • I will break the NRA’s stranglehold on Congress by passing sweeping anti-corruption legislation and eliminating the filibuster so that our nation can no longer be held hostage by a small group of well-financed extremists who have already made it perfectly clear that they will never put the safety of the American people first.
  • I will send Congress comprehensive gun violence prevention legislation. I will sign it into law within my first 100 days. And we will revisit this comprehensive legislation every single year — adding new ideas and tweaking existing ones based on new data — to continually reduce the number of gun deaths in America.
Reform advocates are engaged in a valuable discussion about gun reforms that can be achieved by executive action. We must pursue these solutions to the fullest extent of the law, including by redefining anyone “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms to include the vast majority of gun sales outside of family-to-family exchanges. This will extend requirements — not only for background checks, but all federal gun rules — to cover all of those sales. This includes:
  • Requiring background checks. We will bring the vast majority of private sales, including at gun shows and online, under the existing background check umbrella.
  • Reporting on multiple purchases. We will extend the existing requirement to report bulk sales to nearly all gun sales. And I’ll extend existing reporting requirements on the mass purchase of certain rifles from the southwestern border states to all 50 states.
  • Raising the minimum age. We will expand the number of sales covered by existing age restriction provisions that require the purchaser to be at least 18 years old, keeping guns out of the hands of more teenagers.
My administration will use all the authorities at the federal government’s disposal to investigate and prosecute all those who circumvent or violate existing federal gun laws. This includes:
  • Prosecuting gun traffickers. Gun trafficking across state lines allows guns to move from states with fewer restrictions to those with strict safety standards, and gun trafficking across our southern border contributes to gang violence that sends migrants fleeing north. I’ll instruct my Attorney General to go after the interstate and transnational gun trafficking trade with all the resources of the federal government.
  • Revoking licenses for gun dealers who break the rules. Only 1% of gun dealers are responsible for 57% of guns used in crimes. My Administration will direct the ATF to prioritize oversight of dealers with serial compliance violations — and then use its authority to revoke the license of dealers who repeatedly violate the rules.
  • Investigating the NRA and its cronies. The NRA is accused of exploiting loopholes in federal laws governing non-profit spending to divert member dues into lavish payments for its board members and senior leadership. I’ll appoint an attorney general committed to investigating these types of corrupt business practices, and the banks and third-party vendors — like Wells Fargo — that enabled the NRA to skirt the rules for so long.
To protect the most vulnerable, my administration will use ATF’s existing regulatory authority to the greatest degree possible, including by:
  • Protecting survivors of domestic abuse. We will close the so-called “boyfriend loophole” by defining intimate partner to include anyone with a domestic violence conviction involving any form of romantic partner.
  • Reversing the Trump administration’s efforts to weaken our existing gun rules. We will rescind the Trump-era rules and policies that weaken our gun safety regime, including rules that lower the standards for purchasing a gun, and those that make it easier to create untraceable weapons or modify weapons in ways that circumvent the law. This includes overturning Trump-era policies enabling 3-D printed guns, regulating 80% receivers as firearms, and reversing the ATF ruling that allows a shooter to convert a pistol to a short-barreled rifle using pistol braces.
  • Restrict the movement of guns across our borders. We will reverse the Trump administration’s efforts to make it easier to export U.S.-manufactured weapons by transferring exports of semi-automatic firearms and ammunition from the State Department to the Commerce Department, and we will prevent the import of foreign-manufactured assault weapons into the United States.
Structural Changes To Pass Gun Safety Legislation
The next president has a moral obligation to use whatever executive authority she has to address the gun crisis. But it is obvious that executive action is not enough. Durable reform requires legislation — but right now legislation is impossible. Why? A virulent mix of corruption and abuse of power.
Big money talks in Washington. And the NRA represents a particularly noxious example of Washington corruption at work. Over the last two decades, the NRA has spent over $200 million on lobbying Congress, influencing elections, and buying off politicians — and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The NRA spends millions poisoning our political discourse with hateful, conspiracy-fueled propaganda, blocking even modest reforms supported by 90% of American voters.
In the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, the American people rallied for reform. President Obama suggested several serious legislative changes. The Senate voted down an assault weapons ban. It rejected a background checks proposal, even though 54 Senators from both parties voted for it, because of a right-wing-filibuster. These were the bare minimum steps we needed to take. And six years later, Congress still hasn’t done a thing.
This pattern repeats itself throughout our government. When money and influence can override the will of a huge majority of Americans, that is corruption, pure and simple.
It’s time to fight back. I have proposed the most sweeping set of anticorruption reforms since Watergate — a set of big structural changes that includes ending lobbying as we know it and slamming shut the revolving door. My first priority when I’m elected President is to enact this package to get our government working for everyone again.
But anti-corruption legislation alone won’t be enough to get gun safety legislation done. After decades of inaction, Democrats have rallied behind a number of important gun reforms. If we continue to allow bought and paid for extremists in the Senate to thwart the will of the people, we will never enact any of them.
Enough is enough. Lasting gun reform requires the elimination of the filibuster.
Legislation To Reduce Gun Violence
When I am president, I will send Congress comprehensive legislation containing our best ideas about what will work to reduce gun violence. It starts by ensuring that safe, responsible ownership is the standard for everyone who chooses to own a gun. We’ll do that by:
  • Creating a federal licensing system. States with strict licensing requirements experience lower rates of gun trafficking and violence. A license is required to drive a car, and Congress should establish a similarly straightforward federal licensing system for the purchase of any type of firearm or ammunition.
  • Requiring universal background checks. I’ll expand background checks via executive action — but Congress should act to permanently mandate universal background checks. And I’ll push Congress to close the so-called “Charleston loophole” that allows a sale to proceed after three days even if the background check is not complete. Increasing taxes on gun manufacturers. Since 1919, the federal government has imposed an excise tax on manufacturers and importers of guns and ammunition. Handguns are taxed at 10% and other guns and ammunition are taxed at 11%. These taxes raise less in revenue than the federal excise tax on cigarettes, domestic wine, or even airline tickets. It’s time for Congress to raise those rates — to 30% on guns and 50% on ammunition — both to reduce new gun and ammunition sales overall and to bring in new federal revenue that we can use for gun violence prevention and enforcement of existing gun laws.
  • Establishing a real waiting period. Waiting periods prevent impulsive gun violence, reducing gun suicides by 7–11% and gun homicides by 17%. Over the past 5 years, a national handgun waiting period would have stopped at least 4,550 gun deaths. The federal government should establish a one-week waiting period for all firearm purchases.
  • Capping firearms purchases. About one out of four of firearms recovered at the scene of a crime were part of a bulk purchase. Congress should limit the number of guns that can be purchased to one per month, similar to a Virginia law that successfully reduced the likelihood of Virginia-bought guns being used in criminal activity.
  • Creating a new federal anti-trafficking law. Congress should make clear that trafficking firearms or engaging in “straw purchases” — when an individual buys a gun on behalf of a prohibited purchaser — are federal crimes. This would give law enforcement new tools to crack down on gun trafficking and help keep guns out of the wrong hands.
  • Raising the minimum age for gun purchases. I’ll extend existing age requirements to virtually all sales, but federal law is currently conflicting — for example, a person must be 21 to purchase a handgun from a federally licensed dealer, but only 18 to purchase a rifle. Congress should set the federal minimum age at 21 for all gun sales.
We can also do more to keep military-style assault weapons off our streets. We’ll do that by:
  • Passing a new federal assault weapons ban. The 1994 federal assault weapons ban successfully reduced gun deaths but was allowed to expire ten years later. Congress should again ban the future production, sale, and importation of military-style assault weapons, and require individuals already in possession of assault weapons to register them under the National Firearms Act. Just as we did successfully with machine guns after the passage of that law, we should establish a buyback program to allow those who wish to do so to return their weapon for safe disposal, and individuals who fail to register or return their assault weapon should face penalties.
  • Banning high-capacity ammunition magazines. High-capacity magazines were used in 57% of mass shootings from 2009 to 2015, allowing the shooters to target large numbers of people without stopping to reload. Congress should enact a federal ban on large-capacity magazines for all firearms, setting reasonable limits on the lethality of these weapons.
  • Prohibiting accessories that make weapons more deadly. Gun manufacturers sell increasingly deadly gun accessories, including silencers, trigger cranks, and other mechanisms that increase the rate of fire or make semi-automatic weapons fully automatic. Congress should ban these dangerous accessories entirely.
We should also do everything possible to keep guns out of the hands of those at highest risk of violence. We’ll do that by:
  • Passing extreme risk protection laws. Extreme risk protection orders allow families and law enforcement to petition to temporarily restrict access to firearms for individuals in crisis or at elevated risk of harming themselves or others. Congress should pass a federal extreme risk law and create a grant system to incentivize states to enact their own laws that clearly define extreme risk.
  • Prohibiting anyone convicted of a hate crime from owning a gun. Too often, guns are used in acts of mass violence intended to provoke fear in minority communities; more than 10,000 hate crimes involve a gun every year. Any individual convicted of a hate crime should be permanently prohibited from owning a gun, full stop.
  • Protecting survivors of domestic abuse. Domestic violence and gun violence are deeply connected — in an average month, more than 50 women are shot and killed by an intimate partner. I’ll close the boyfriend loophole, but Congress should make that permanent, and expand the law to include individuals with restraining orders or who have been convicted of stalking.
  • Securing our schools. Parents shouldn’t have to buy bullet-proof backpacks for their children — guns have no place on our campuses or in our schools. Congress should improve the Gun-Free School Zones Act to include college and university campuses, and apply to individuals licensed by a state or locality to carry a firearm.
If we want real, long-lasting change, we must also hold the gun industry accountable, including online sites that look the other way when sellers abuse their platforms. We’ll do that by:
  • Repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Nearly every other industry has civil liability as a check on irresponsible actions, but a 2005 law insulates firearms and dealers from civil liability when a weapon is used to commit a crime, even in cases when dealers were shockingly irresponsible. No one should be above the law, and that includes the gun industry. Congress should repeal this law, immediately.
  • Holding gun manufacturers strictly liable for the harm they cause through a federal private right of action. Gun manufacturers make billions in profit by knowingly selling deadly products. Then they are let completely off the hook when people take those deadly products and inflict harm on thousands of victims each year. State tort law already recognizes that certain types of products and activities are so abnormally dangerous that the entities responsible for them should be held strictly liable when people are injured. Congress should codify that same principle at the federal level for guns by creating a new private right of action allowing survivors of gun violence to hold the manufacturer of the weapon that harmed them strictly liable for compensatory damages to the victim or their family.
  • Strengthening ATF. The NRA has long sought to hobble the ATF, lobbying against staffing and funding increases for the agency and getting its congressional allies to impose absurd restrictions on its work even as the agency struggled to meet its basic responsibilities. Congress should fully fund ATF’s regulatory and compliance programs and remove the riders and restrictions that prevent it from doing its job.
  • Regulating firearms for consumer safety. Today there are no federal safety standards for firearms produced in the United States. We can recall unsafe products from trampolines to children’s pajamas — but not defective guns. Congress should repeal the provision of law that prevents the Consumer Product Safety Commission from regulating the safety of firearms and their accessories.
  • Tightening oversight for gun dealers. Today there is no requirement for federally-licensed gun shops to take even simple steps to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands. Congress should pass basic safety standards for federally-licensed gun dealers, including employee background checks, locked cabinets, and up-to-date inventories of the weapons they have in stock.
  • Holding gun industry CEOs personally accountable. I’ve proposed a law that would impose criminal liability and jail time for corporate executives when their company is found guilty of a crime or their negligence causes severe harm to American families — and that includes gun industry CEOs
Tragedies like the shootings we witnessed in El Paso and Dayton capture our attention and dominate the conversation about gun reform. But they’re just the tip of the iceberg of gun violence in America. Every day, we lose one hundred Americans to gun violence, with hundreds more physically injured and countless more mentally and emotionally traumatized. And Black and Latinx Americans have borne the brunt of the gun violence tragedy in our country.
In the past, those statistics have been used to justify increased policing and strict sentencing laws. Communities already traumatized by gun violence were doubly victimized by policies that locked up their young people and threw away the key. We’ve got a chance to show that we’ve learned from the past and to chart a new path. It starts by acknowledging that gun violence is a public health crisis, one that cannot be solved solely by the criminal justice system.
We can start to do that by investing in evidence-based community violence intervention programs. Federal grant funding today focuses significantly on law enforcement and incarceration, rather than interventions designed to stop gun violence before it occurs. The data in urban communities indicate that the majority of violence is perpetrated by a small number of offenders, and many cities have found success with programs that identify those at highest risk of becoming the victim or perpetrator of a violent gun crime, then employing strategies to interrupt the cycle of violence before it escalates. Programs that engage the surrounding community, employ mediation to prevent retaliation, build trust with law enforcement, and provide needed long-term social services have been proven to de-escalate tensions and dramatically reduce violence. As president, I’ll establish a grant program to invest in and pilot these types of evidence-based intervention programs at scale.
Annual Research And Annual Reauthorization
Historically, when Congress works to address big national issues, we don’t simply pass one law and cross our fingers. Instead, we continue the research — into new policies and around the consequences of our existing policies — and then come back on a regular basis to update the law.
We don’t do this with guns. Not only have we not passed meaningful legislation in almost a generation, but thanks to the NRA, for decades Congress prohibited federal funding from being used to promote gun safety at all, effectively freezing nearly all research on ways to reduce gun violence. Last year, Congress finally clarified that the CDC could in fact conduct gun violence research — but provided no funding to do so.
This ends when I’m President. My budget will include an annual investment of $100 million for DOJ and HHS to conduct research into the root causes of gun violence and the most effective ways to prevent it, including by analyzing gun trafficking patterns and researching new technologies to improve gun safety. These funds will also be used to study the reforms we enact — to see what’s working, what new ideas should be added, and what existing policies should be tweaked. And every year, I will send Congress an updated set of reforms based on this new information. That’s how we’ll meet our goal.
The conversation about gun violence in America is shifting — but not just because we’ve seen a spike in violence fueled by the NRA and the Trump administration’s dangerous policies and extremist rhetoric. It’s also because of the tireless work of activists, organizers, and community leaders who have been fighting for reform at the state and local level.
If you need proof that the majority of Americans support common-sense gun reform, look at what’s happening in state legislatures and city councils across the country. Moms, students, and faith leaders have been packing hearing rooms and taking back spaces formerly reserved for NRA lobbyists. Survivors of mass shootings are doing the critical work of turning our attention to daily gun violence in cities that don’t make headlines.
And it’s working. States that pass expanded background checks see lower rates of gun-related deaths and gun trafficking. States that disarm domestic abusers see lower rates of intimate partner gun violence. States with extreme risk laws have been successful in reducing gun suicides and have used them to prevent potential mass shootings. Community-based violence intervention programs are popping up in cities across the country.
Together, we can build on this momentum. We can build a grassroots movement to take back the Senate, eliminate the filibuster, and pass federal gun safety legislation that will save lives. And from the White House, I’ll make sure that the NRA and their cronies are held accountable with executive action. If we turn our heartbreak and our anger into action, I know we can take the power from the NRA and the lawmakers in their pockets and return it to the people.

After reading all of her plans to disarm and silence Americans, all I have to say is: she must be stopped.

Click here to join the Caliber Club to pledge a monthly donation or click here to make a one-time donation to help us continue to oppose these efforts in Nevada.
Thank you for your continued support of NVFAC PAC.
For freedom, Don Turner, President Nevada Firearms Coalition PAC
Nevada Firearms Coalition PAC
The Nevada Firearms Coalition-PAC was created as the political arm of the Nevada Firearms Coalition. Our mission is to support responsible, pro-gun policies and likeminded political candidates, and we will oppose all efforts to infringe on our 2nd Amendment Rights and candidates who support increased gun control. www.nvfacpac.org


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
We are used to seeing the suppression of our content here by Facebook using their selective bias. There are many examples of their actions against the freedom of speech and suppression of opposition to jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women, including their blocking our articles from being posted and their preventing people from sharing from our Facebook page. Facebook has also banned people for sharing material from Jihad Watch and shadowbanned the page itself. One of their favorite tactics is to suspend both me and Robert Spencer from posting every few days, requiring us to go through the same identity checks time after time in order to get the “privilege” to post restored. This prevents us from running our autoposts of Jihad Watch articles on Facebook.
So it has not been unusual for me to see block messages when doing anything on Facebook. Recently, however, Facebook deployed a new censorship tactic. A German Facebook user requested more information on Robert Spencer. When when I tried to respond, I used Google Translate to understand what he was saying, and was pleased that it was not another one of those “Allah will make you burn in hell” messages that waste my time. I put the URL for the About Robert Spencer page into Google Translate, and messaged the German user back. But then this came up. I was bit surprised, but not shocked to see it:
An error occurred while processing this request. Please try again later. If you think this doesn’t go against our Community Standards let us know.
“Not again,” I thought. I tried again, using the Jihad Watch homepage in Google Translate. That was blocked as well. I tried posting the link on my own profile. I got the same block every time.
Then I tried different translation combinations, thinking maybe the problem was that German authorities were not allowing Germans to read our site, yet always got the same result. However, this behemoth of a company, with unlimited resources, has tripped over itself this time. While the block is clearly intended to prevent material that violates Leftist orthodoxy from being translated, it has been applied in too careless and broad a fashion. I discovered this when I tried sharing a translated link from Disney.com. Yes, they were blocking that also. It seems as if that when you go to translate a website, Facebook flags it as going against their community standards. Clearly Facebook doesn’t intend to block either Disney.com or Google Translate as a whole. They just caught up these and others in their attempts to prevent people from seeing the truth about jihad.
Well I had a good laugh at this, anyway, and I don’t get many of those having to work with Facebook.


(USA Today) — Boy Scouts of America filed for bankruptcy protection this week amid declining membership and a drumbeat of child sexual abuse allegations that have illuminated the depth of the problem within the organization and Scouts’ failure to get a handle on it.
After months of speculation and mounting civil litigation, the Chapter 11 filing by the scouting organization’s national body was unprecedented in both scope and complexity. It was filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware Monday night.
The exact effects on Boy Scouts’ future operations are unknown, leading to speculation about the organization’s odds for survival, the impact on local troops and how bankruptcy could change the dynamic for abuse survivors who have yet to come forward. Some fear that at a minimum it will prevent survivors from naming their abuser in open court. …
In court filings, the Boy Scouts said it faces 275 abuse lawsuits in state and federal courts around the country, plus another 1,400 potential claims.
Boy Scouts Have Muslim Troops Who Don’t Pledge Allegiance to America
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
The organization once known as the Boy Scouts of America just filed for bankruptcy in court, but some would say it became morally and philosophically bankrupt quite a while back.
Some years ago it allowed openly homosexual boys in its ranks, then openly homosexual adult leaders; next came “transgender” kids and girls and the removal of “boy” from its name (it’s now technically SCOUTS BSA). Interestingly, though, most of these changes probably wouldn’t sit well with another scouting innovation: all-Muslim troops who pray to Allah five times daily and don’t pledge allegiance to our nation.
Their existence and practices again came to light when Whatfinger News sent a tweet (below), which in the original included a video of a Muslim troop in action.
Screen Shot 2020 02 19 at 3.55.44 PM
Claiming the Muslim Brotherhood “infiltrated” the BSA is strong language, and may or may not be entirely accurate. It’s not some new assertion out of left field, however, but is based on media reports dating back to at least 2011.
As WND.com revealed at the time:
The Boy Scouts of America maintains scouting partnerships with Islamic groups closely tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, WND has learned.
The Boy Scouts of America welcomes major religions, including Islam. It has incorporated under its banner a group called the National Islamic Committee on Scouting, or NICS, which provides Muslim scouts an opportunity to earn badges or emblems by participating in religious activities.
The NICS scouting emblems include an “Allahu Akbar” emblem, which means “Allah is greatest” in Arabic.
Formed in the 1920s after the demise of the Ottoman Islamic empire, the Muslim Brotherhood is the parent of most of the major jihadist groups in the world, including al-Qaida and Hamas. The prosecution of a terror-finance scheme in Texas presented evidence of the Brotherhood’s aim to destroy Western civilization and establish an Islamic society under the rule of the Quran.
There’s much more to WND’s report, too.
Just as telling, however, is a friendly, pro-Muslim-troop article from 2017 by mainstream media outlet WFAA 8 ABC. Entitled “All Muslim Boy Scout troop: What they want you to know” and featuring Troop 2690, “the first chartered Muslim troop in Northeast Ohio,” the piece starts out relating the group’s good works and touting its Americanism.
But after outlining what the boys do, WFAA informs about what “Islam is telling them NOT to do”: “say the Pledge of Allegiance.”
“We pledge our allegiance to God, not to a flag or a country,” Muhammad Samad, the troop’s chartered representative, is quoted as explaining.
WFAA then tells us that 12-year-old scout Mohammad Zoraiz has his own take. “Maybe even more than SAYING the pledge is ‘American’, is the basic tenet that we don’t HAVE TO ... BECAUSE it’s America,” the site writes. “‘Our founding fathers taught that and thought of that in our country,’ says Zoraiz.”
That a preteen provided this answer indicates that the Muslim troop put a lot of thought into their reasons — some would say rationalizations — for not reciting the Pledge. As for more evidence of this, WFAA continued:
“The military, even their motto is God and country. It’s not country first,” says Committee Chair, Kareem Samad.
It is right there in that order in the very Scout oath.
“On my honor, I will try to do my best to do my duty to God and my country,” scout Numayr Abdulalim reminds us.
… When Kareem Samad says, “For us, God is always first,” he says that goes for ALL MUSLIMS in ALL COUNTRIES.
So these scouts would submit it’s not “Anti-American.” It’s “Pro God.”
Perhaps. But do note that members of the military may have their motto and other scouts their oath, but they all say the Pledge.
But be not troubled. WFAA later pointed out that scouting isn’t “as American as apple pie,” anyway, because it originated in Britain. Besides, said a BSA representative, “Muslims make up, in fact, probably the majority of scouting when you consider the scouting organizations in the far east [sic].”
So there you have it, Islamophobes, it’s practically a Muslim organization! (Except for the sexual devolutionary policies.)
In fairness, I’ve no doubt that many Muslim scouts are well-meaning, and they are correct in saying God comes first. Any person with deep faith agrees, and it’s why Christians may resist the government when it tries to compel them to service faux (same-sex) weddings or facilitate prenatal infanticide.
So theists are right to put God first. They’re right to defy the government’s laws when the government defies God’s laws. They’re right to be willing to die for God. But there is a complicating factor: Before we can know with the given theists whether to stand in the phalanx with them or face off against them, two questions must be asked.
Who do you say God is?
What is your conception of what He demands of you?
And since true believers will die for — and perhaps kill for — their faith, getting the answers really matters.
Often forgotten here is that while doctrinal differences exist among different Christian sects and Jews, they all have the same basis for their moral law: the 10 Commandments.
Islam’s basis is different: It’s sharia law. Also note that “the Center for Security Policy released a 2015 poll of Muslims in the US showing that ‘a majority (51 percent) agreed that ‘Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah’” — as opposed to American civil law, as I reported in 2017.
But what of injunctions to commit violence? The New Testament contains no words at all devoted to political violence; the Old Testament contains 34,039 such words, though the enjoinments were generally only applicable in a certain historical time and/or place.
The Islamic canon, however — which comprises not just the Koran but also the Hadith and Sira — contains almost 10 times as many words devoted to jihad. Moreover, the injunctions often are eternal and universal. A good example is Koran (8:15): “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”
Yet far more significant than what’s taught is what’s more often caught: virtues (and vices). Remember that people don’t follow ideas; they follow people, which is why any good parent appreciates a good example’s importance. It’s also why Christians may ask, “What would Jesus do?”
Likewise, Muslims consider their prophet Mohammed “The Perfect Man,” the ultimate role model. Yet far from the prince of peace, Mohammed was a warlord, caravan raider (a bandit), and slave owner and trader. He ordered massacres, used torture, and had dissidents assassinated. He also was a polygamist and made it lawful for masters to have sexual relations with their female captives.
In other words, as with Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, and many others, Mohammed was very much a man of his time. But to more than a billion people, he’s also the perfect man even in our time. That’s the point, too. For if someone told you Attila the Hun was the perfect man and his role model, would you turn your back on that person?
So all this perhaps explains a very interesting German study involving 45,000 young people. Released in 2010, it found that while increasing religiosity made Christian youth less violent, it made Muslim youth more violent.
None of this involves casting judgment on individual Muslims any more than it involves doing so with individual Boy Scouts. But calling someone “a real Boy Scout” used to mean he was virtuous, honorable, and trustworthy. It’s hard to know what it means today.

Islamic Scouting In America

Muslim Scouting - National Association of Muslim Americans on Scouting (NAMAS)
https://ratherexposethem.blogspot.com/search/label/Boy Scouts
Boy Scouts of America File for Bankruptcy Amid Sexual Abuse, Homosexual, and Transgender Allowances
newsletter20200316.htm; republished below in full unedited for informational,
educational and research purposes:

LTRP Note: The following is a commentary by an out-of-house source, providing some insight into the demise of The Boy Scouts of America. We are posting this for informational and research purposes.
What Happened to the Boy Scouts?
By Madeline Fry Washington Examiner Commentator
The Boy Scouts of America is filing for bankruptcy in “what could be one of the biggest, most complex bankruptcies ever seen,” according to the Associated Press
What happened? The 110-year-old nonprofit organization has struggled with membership over the past few years due to two controversies: an apparent proliferation of sexual abuse cases and its recent acceptance of openly gay leaders, as well as transgender or female members. When the organization decided to accept girls and transgender boys among its members, it appeared the Boy Scouts couldn’t even tell you what a boy was. Click here to continue reading.
Related Articles:


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
From the print edition of The New American:
As the Left pushes harder and harder for civilian disarmament under the euphemistic title of “commonsense gun control,” individuals, communities, cities, counties, and entire states are pushing back. The result may be that liberal Democrats — who have enjoyed the media-inspired backlash against President Donald Trump — may soon find that they have been digging their own political graves.
In fact, Virginia — which is under Democratic control for the first time in a generation, thanks to the efforts of pro-Chinese communists — the pushback from citizens all over the state has led 91 out of 95 counties, 15 out of 38 independent cities, and 33 towns to declare themselves “Second Amendment Sanctuaries.” That amounts to about 95 percent of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Clearly, Governor Ralph Northam and his fellow Democrats in the General Assembly do not have the gun-control “mandate” they pretend.
As the main cover-story article shows, scores of thousands of Virginians from all over the state showed up in Richmond on Monday, January 20, to show Northam and the Democrat-led General Assembly that they expect the right to keep and bear arms to remain uninfringed. Many of them carried poster-board signs showing a map of Virginia with vast liberty-loving parts of the state highlighted in green. Residents of the Birthplace of a Nation are standing up to be counted. And while the state legislature is thus far ignoring them, their local officials are standing with them.
Almost as soon as the 2019 elections were over and it was clear that Democrats had taken control of Virginia, those Democrats began making it clear that they would follow through on campaign promises to dial back the right to keep and bear arms in the Old Dominion. As those bills started to come forward, local municipalities began responding to the threat of civilian disarmament. In one meeting after another, city councils, town councils, and county councils heard from residents about the idea of becoming a “Second Amendment Sanctuary.” 
Before the Democratic revolutionists could even take office, towns, cities, and counties across the state declared they would not recognize or enforce any unconstitutional gun laws passed by the General Assembly. Within a mere six weeks, more than 40 counties had adopted Second Amendment-protecting resolutions. That trend continued after those Democrats were sworn in, leading to the 95 percent mentioned above. A large number of Virginia’s sheriffs have made that same point.
One such sheriff, Scott Jenkins of Culpeper County, went so far as to say that, if needed, he will “properly screen and deputize thousands of our law-abiding citizens to protect their constitutional right to own firearms.” As deputies, those citizens would be considered “law enforcement” and would be exempt from the anti-gun laws.
And Virginia is far from alone on this issue. Nearly half the states in the nation have pockets of Second Amendment Sanctuaries, and several states are covered in them. And in past years, whole states have declared themselves Second Amendment friendly.
Colorado, for instance, is comprised of 64 counties. In response to anti-Second Amendment laws passed in that state — including so-called red flag laws that would strip the right to keep and bear arms from people not convicted of any crime — 38 of those have recently adopted resolutions declaring themselves “Second Amendment Sanctuaries.” Three cities and three towns have done likewise. 
Over the past two months, 24 of Florida’s 67 counties, one city, and one town have followed suit, with more counties, cities, and townships considering coming on board. Again, a major element fueling the movement is the passage of red flag laws. As gunrightswatch.com reported:
Florida’s Second Amendment Sanctuary movement has plodded on, county by county, since November 5th when Lake County became the first to declare. With red flag repossessions happening at a furious pace, the march doesn’t seem to be slowing.
The real issue at stake in Florida is the state’s egregious Red Flag law, which so far is responsible for the unconstitutional theft of thousands of firearms from gun owners across the state. These RPO’s have been granted for such crimes as posting a photo of a recently completed AR-15 on social media and criticizing teenage gun control activists, or for having an argument with a family member. Having your guns taken away in Florida means that you can’t obtain a court-appointed lawyer (since you’re not accused of any crime) and appealing the decision takes an average of 12 months or more.
To make matters worse, the system is rigged against gun owners, such that at least 95% of all RPO’s that get submitted wind up getting granted — typically within minutes and often with no questions asked. In the RPO-frenzy county of Volusia, one police officer reported that they take an average of only 20 seconds to go through.
As if that wasn’t bad enough, the Florida Senate, led by an anti-gun Republican Senate President, has just voted for universal background checks and a gun registry. The more sensible Speaker of The House and Governor are said to be alarmed by their actions.
And in response to similar anti-gun legislation in Illinois, 67 of the state’s 102 counties, two cities, and three townships have made themselves Second Amendment Sanctuaries.
The mention of Illinois brings up an interesting point. That state’s largest city, Chicago, holds two distinctions where guns are concerned: First, Chicago has historically had some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. And while that has changed over recent years, the process for legally obtaining a gun is still lengthy. Second, Chicago has the most shootings of any city in America. In fact, in 2018, the city congratulated itself on the decline in shootings, when that number dropped nearly 33 percent to a still-staggering 2,391.
If nearly seven people per day can get themselves shot in a city where the process for legally owning a gun requires a lengthy background check and paying fees for the right to keep and bear arms, this writer feels no risk in saying gun-control laws are not the answer. And to put in the for-what-it’s-worth column, the decline in gun violence in Chicago seems to coincide with the slight loosening of gun-control laws due to court decisions over the past few years. 
Due to pre-filed legislation similar to that in Virginia and other states, Kentucky has seen Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions passed in 47 of its 120 counties and two of its cities. The trend there was also on the fast track. In only the two and a half weeks between December 16 and January 3, 12 of those 47 counties passed their resolutions. 
The list goes on and on. Ten of Nevada’s 16 counties have joined the movement, with all 17 sheriffs (Carson City has its own sheriff, in addition to those of the 16 counties) signing a public letter saying they support the right to keep and bear arms. That letter begins:
The United States Constitution is the foundation upon which this great country of ours is built. It is what binds us together as one people. The Sheriffs of the State of Nevada are Constitutional Officers, sworn to uphold the Constitutions of this state and this country.
The letter goes on to address the issues raised by gun-control advocates before stating:
The Sheriffs of the State of Nevada do not believe that the answer to this issue includes making criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens. As the old saying goes, “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” The answer lies within a myriad of approaches including education, addressing violence, keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill, criminal gang members and illegal controlled substance users, as well as prosecuting and incarcerating those who use firearms to commit crimes.
While there are certainly those who believe these rights under the Constitution are soon to be lost, we believe a systematic, logical approach to the issue is warranted and will work to preserve these rights. The Sheriffs of the State of Nevada are here to enforce the laws and uphold the Constitutions of this state and this country. We will do so with all persons, while still protecting our Second Amendment freedoms.
The Second Amendment is important to us, and we as Sheriffs will uphold all that it stands for. We will work within the law and not succumb to perceived threats, rumor, false or malicious information to weight our decision-making process. We as Nevada Sheriffs support The Right to Bear Arms, and we will do all within our power to uphold and defend its principles.
In New Mexico, a substantial 26 of the state’s 33 counties were joined by one town in passing Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions to protect the rights of residents to keep and bear arms. Thirty of the state’s 33 sheriffs signed a public letter by the New Mexico Sheriffs Association promising to not assist in enforcing unconstitutional gun control.
Other states are quickly coming on board. In fact, things are moving so quickly that by the time this magazine goes to print and ships, these numbers will likely be outdated. North Carolina has 22 of its 100 counties as sanctuaries. In Oregon, it is 14 of 36. Tiny Rhode Island has 10 of 31. Sixteen of Tennessee’s 95 counties have done likewise, as has one town. In the state of Texas, the number is 58 out of 254 counties, one city, and one town.
As The New American covered in a previous article, Washington State was an early adopter. In the wake of the passage of Initiative 1639 — approved by a low-information majority of the state’s residents in a popular vote — one sheriff after another has stood up for the people, the federal Constitution, and the state constitution. They publicly declared that I-1639 was unconstitutional and that their oaths of office require them to ignore it. Period. In all, more than half of the sheriffs in Washington State declared I-1639 nullified in their counties. 
Those sheriffs were joined by one brave police chief, Loren Culp in the aptly named town of Republic, Washington, who is now running for governor. Because of his stand, Culp was also named “Police Chief of the Decade” by the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA), a pro-Constitution police group headed by retired Graham County, Arizona, Sheriff Richard Mack. 
In an interview for a previous article on this subject, Chief Culp echoed the sentiments of many others about gun-control laws disarming the law-abiding, telling The New American, “Gun-control laws infringe only on the law-abiding citizens. Criminals don’t obey laws; that’s what makes them criminals.” He also said his stand against unconstitutional anti-gun laws is based in the principle of America being “a republic, where the minority is protected by law.”
Besides the states listed above, others have had a smaller, but not insignificant turnout for the Second Amendment. One of Arizona’s 15 counties and one city have passed resolutions to declare the Second Amendment alive and well there. Two of Georgia’s 159 counties are on board. One of 92 counties in Indiana has stood up against the assault on the Second Amendment. In Maryland, two of 23 counties have done the same. 
Michigan has one of 83 counties and one township on board. Mississippi has seen three of its 82 counties pass resolutions. In West Virginia, six of 55 counties and one town have passed similar resolutions. And one county and one city in Wisconsin have done the same.
There are some surprise members of the Second Amendment Sanctuary club, as well. One county, four townships, and three boroughs in New Jersey have bucked the liberal establishment there to pass resolutions supporting the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms. 
And in liberal New York, one out of 62 counties and one town have adopted resolutions against some gun control in response to the 2013 passage of the misnamed SAFE Act. And while that legislation and the pro-Second Amendment reaction of that one county and one town predate the recent slate of Second Amendment resolutions, Wyoming County and Grand Island Town deserve their membership cards. 
Likewise Needles City, California, is the single city in that Left Coast state to stand up for the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Needles City passed its Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution back in June 2019, making it something like a charter member. 
Also predating the recent slate of pro-Second Amendment resolutions, there are several states that belong on the list as charter members of the Second Amendment Sanctuary club. Between 2009 and 2014, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, and Wyoming all passed state laws protecting the God-given, Second Amendment-protected right of the people to keep and bear arms. 
Alaska’s law — the Alaska Firearms Freedom Act (HB 186), signed by Governor Sean Parnell in July 2010 — declares certain firearms and accessories as exempt from federal regulation. It was amended in September 2013, when Governor Parnell signed HB69. That amendment expanded the law to prohibit “state and municipal agencies from using assets to implement or aid in the implementation of the requirements of certain federal statutes, regulations, rules, and orders that are applied to infringe on a person’s right to bear arms or right to due process” as well as “implementation of the federal REAL ID Act of 2005.”
Idaho’s SB 1332 — signed into law by Governor Butch Otter in March 2014 — along with 2009’s  HJM 3, also effectively nullifies federal laws that may infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. 
In Kansas, Governor Sam Brownback signed the Second Amendment Protection Act in April 2014, citing the 10th Amendment as granting Kansas the authority to nullify unconstitutional federal laws. It then goes on to apply that principle to federal laws infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. 
And in March 2010, Governor Dave Freudenthal signed the Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act. That law — HB0095 — provides “that specified firearms that are manufactured, sold, purchased, possessed and used exclusively within Wyoming shall be exempt from federal regulation, including registration requirements; providing exceptions; creating offenses; providing penalties; authorizing the attorney general to defend specified actions; providing legislative findings and declarations of authority; establishing conditions for the possession and purchase of specified firearms; and providing for an effective date.” 
The sum and substance of all of these laws, resolutions, and declarations by state legislatures; county, city, and town councils; and sheriffs is that though the anti-gun Left will continue to push for disarming the people, the right to keep and bear arms will not be allowed to be infringed. States, counties, cities, and towns will push back and defend that right. 
As policymakers on the left continue to make their push, they also reveal their bent toward the “Philosopher King” mentality of Plato’s Utopian city Kallipolis from his Republic. It is evermore clear that they see themselves as the “Ruling Elite” whose job it is to keep us mere mortals in our place. Given the rising tide of Americans who resist that thinking, this issue may prove to be a bridge too far, and those Americans may turn out en masse to turn Democrats out in upcoming elections.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes: 
Kaitlin Curtice spoke at Baylor University chapel on February 12 and prayed to “Mother Mystic.” Baylor, the world’s largest Baptist university, is affiliated with the Texas Baptist Convention at the state level and the Southern Baptist Convention at the national level. Curtice is a practitioner of New Age contemplative mysticism. She defines “contemplation” as “listening to the Divine/Mystery/Higher Power/God, and letting the overflow of that love stretch into other realms of life” (Curtice, “A Shared Vision of Contemplative Activism,” Sojourners, Sep. 4, 2019). She is an environmental activist and nature worshipper. In her speech at Baylor she said that she dipped a tobacco leaf into the water of Lake Michigan and “Mother Earth spoke to her” (“BU speaker’s prayer sparks campus controversy,” KWTX television, Feb. 13, 2020). Baylor University has been welcoming heretics since the early 20th century. In 1921, Baylor professor Grover Dow was teaching the evolution of man from apes with the textbook Introduction to Sociology. “As to his body we have very little exact knowledge, for the skeletons left by him are fragmentary, seldom amounting to more than one or two bones. But from these, by the use of our imagination, we have come to the conclusion that he was a squat, ugly, somewhat stooped, powerful being, half human and half animal who sought refuge from the wild beasts first in the trees and later in caves, and that he was half way between the anthropoid ape and modern man.”

Potawatomi Christian chapel speaker Kaitlin Curtice draws ire of Baylor student group

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
(RNS) — A week after Potawatomi Christian author and speaker Kaitlin Curtice spoke in chapel at Baylor University, people are still talking about it.
Although perhaps not for reasons the school or speaker would hope.
Curtice’s remarks during the school's three chapel services about her journey of “decolonizing” her faith drew pushback from a student group at the private Christian university in Texas, and her message was reportedly interrupted by a shouting student.
The incident has drawn public apologies from at least one faculty member and an alum and brought back memories of a chapel service last year in which Kathy Khang, another progressive Christian author and speaker who is Korean-American, was heckled.
“I challenged some of them on a deep enough level that it rattled the walls of patriarchal white supremacy that they hide behind, and, well, I’ve done my job,” tweeted Curtice, who has declined interviews about the incident.
In the video of one Feb. 12 service posted on Baylor’s website, Curtice was introduced by Ryan Richardson, associate chaplain and director of worship and chapel at the school.
Richardson referenced an Air Force chaplain who had spoken in chapel the week before and said some people had disagreed with the chaplain’s comments. Similarly, some people might feel triggered by Curtice’s comments, he said, and he invited those people to come to the chapel table in the lobby and discuss what made them uncomfortable.
“This is a place that we’re going to bring diverse ideas and understandings of what it means to be a Christian in the world,” he said.
The chapel table always is available to students, Baylor told Religion News Service.
In her message, Curtice described her upbringing in a Southern Baptist home, the daughter of a mother of European descent and a father who was Potawatomi.
Kaitlin Curtice, Native American author, speaker and worship leader. Photo by Amy Paulson, courtesy of Kaitlin Curtice
After her family moved from Oklahoma and New Mexico to Missouri and her father left, she said, she lost her connection to her Potawatomi identity. Her journey as a Christian and as a member of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation has been one of “disconnect and reconnect” she said.
Part of that, she said, has been recognizing how colonization and the forced removal of Indigenous people from their homelands have left many disconnected from their identity, culture and spirituality. The Potawatomi were forced from Indiana to Kansas in 1838 on the Trail of Death.
“For me, as a mixed European and Potawatomi woman whose inner and outer voice has been silenced, especially by the church, I am reclaiming who I am, wrestling with all parts of my identity, my white privilege, my Native feminism, my spirituality,” Curtice said during the service.
“I’m questioning the systems that I participate in. I’m challenging myself to understand all the aspects of myself and the world around me.”
She encouraged students to “envision a decolonized spirituality” with her, calling out “white supremacy,” “toxic patriarchy,” “settler colonialism” and “capitalist greed.”
When the speaker said women are told they aren’t valued as much as men in society, a male student reportedly shouted, “Nobody says that!”
Curtice later tweeted she actually was interrupted twice by the same student — both times while talking about women.
The outburst was not part of the service that Baylor recorded and posted on its website.
After Curtice’s chapel message, a student group called Baylor Young Conservatives of Texas posted a statement on Twitter disavowing the service, where the group said it was met by “the liberal agenda.” It called on the university to apologize “for breaking with their mission to provide an unapologetically Christian chapel experience and for allowing a speaker with pagan sympathies to mislead students once again.”
One member of the group, Jake Neidert, told a local news outlet what was “most offensive” was that Curtice had not prayed to God, but to “Mother Mystery.”
Burleson Quadrangle, the heart of Baylor University's campus in Waco, Texas. Photo courtesy of Baylor University/Robert Rogers
On Tuesday, Baylor confirmed in an email to RNS that it had reviewed video of all three chapel services in which Curtice spoke. At no time did she refer to “Mother Mystery,” the school concluded.
“We would apologize for reporting that incorrectly, but the rest of our statement still stands,” Baylor YCT said in an email to RNS. 
Curtice noted in a tweet she’s never used “Mother Mystery” in a talk — but she’s “definitely going to now.”
In the video, the speaker begins her prayers by addressing God as “Mystery,” as she does in several prayers in her first book, “Glory Happening: Finding the Divine in Everyday Places,” published by Christian publisher Paraclete Press in 2017. That’s not without precedent in Christian tradition, according to Christian publication Relevant Magazine, which pointed to the ancient Latin text “O Magnum Mysterium,” or "O Great Mystery."
Curtice's second book, “Native: Identity, Belonging, and Rediscovering God,” will be released May 5 by Brazos Press, a division of Baker Publishing Group that publishes books by Christian thinkers.
Baylor told RNS it had spoken with Curtice before she came to chapel and expected her to speak from “Glory Happening.”
The college seemed to imply in a statement sent to those who had questions about chapel that it was surprised by her message. That statement reads in part: “On occasion, a speaker may veer away from our understanding of the message they planned to convey. When this happens, we address the matter with our Chapel students and invite them to come talk to us after Chapel.”
Curtice responded on Twitter, “The Baylor chapel leaders knew exactly what I was speaking on before I came.”
“We can pretend that what happened at Baylor is about me praying to Mystery, or we can recognize that based on the onslaught of anti-native attacks and accusations of being a pagan I’ve received since speaking there, it’s about something else,” she tweeted.
The episode follows a similar disruption during chapel almost exactly one year ago at Baylor when Khang said she ended a message on several of Jesus’ healing miracles in the Gospel of Mark with a list of things that were breaking her heart and making her “desperate for Jesus.” Among them was the arrest of an 11-year-old Florida boy who had refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
Author Kathy Khang. Photo courtesy of Kathy Khang
That’s when she said a man yelled back, “That’s a lie. He made terrorist threats!”
The boy had no tie to terrorism. Florida police said he was arrested on charges of disrupting the classroom after an altercation with a substitute teacher over his ongoing refusal to stand for the pledge, according to reports at the time.
“This has never happened when a white male was speaking. This has never happened when a white woman was speaking,” student Meg Peck wrote in the Baylor Lariat.
“The common denominator in the equation? Both speakers were minority women," wrote Peck. "This is white supremacy occurring in the exact place it should be combated, and this record of how Baylor students treat women of color who come to speak is not only shameful, but it says, to all speakers of color, they are not welcome here.”
Khang said she felt unsafe when she was heckled during Baylor’s chapel.
“If you are inviting me to talk about and call out institutional racism, if you are asking and inviting me to talk about what justice looks like and how that is drawn out and addressed in Scripture, I will do that. And organizations need to know, institutions need to know that sometimes their audiences are not as prepared as you think they are,” she said.
“And so I think that the safety concern has always been an honest and real one, but not taken very seriously.”
It’s not just Baylor, said Khang, who authored the book “Raise Your Voice: Why We Stay Silent and How to Speak Up.”
Just last week, panelists at Brigham Young University reportedly were bombarded with anonymous, racist messages as they discussed their experiences as people of color and immigrants at the Utah school, which is owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
That reflects shifts in society and culture, she said. And it touches on all kinds of topics that are uncomfortable to discuss, like power dynamics and disagreement.
“I think what is happening is that well-intentioned folks on the spectrum of politics within Christianity are not actually having the conversation around free speech and accountability … and how do we do that honoring the Imago Dei in one another?” Khang said.
On Twitter, Curtice pointed to the land acknowledgement she gave at the beginning of her message, a practice gaining popularity in the United States that names and honors the people indigenous to the land where the acknowledgement is delivered.
“If they reject everything else, at least every student at Baylor who walked into chapel heard that they were on Kickapoo/Tonkawa land, and they can never un-know that,” she said.
“I've done my job. I hope they do theirs, too.”

Accusations of bias follow Chapel speech

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
The Chapel guest speaker Wednesday sparked controversy with a speech some in the Baylor community have criticized for being political and un-Christian.
Kaitlin Curtice, Christian, author and member of the Potawatomi Nation, spoke on politically charged topics. In her speech, Curtice said fighting for “true justice” means undoing the historical effects of colonialism.
“For the world to survive, for true justice to take place among us, decolonization must be a goal,” Curtice said. “We must fight against systems of oppression, systems like toxic patriarchy and capitalist greed that give no care to the land, and we must do it for the sake of all of us.”
Curtice also began her prayers with “oh mystery” rather than addressing them toward God or Jesus Christ.
In response, Baylor Young Conservatives of Texas (YCT) issued a statement lambasting Curtice and the Chapel organizers who invited her.
The statement said Curtice’s understanding of Christianity was “surface level at best” and said Baylor allowed “a speaker with pagan sympathies to mislead students.” The YCT statement also said Baylor Chapel pushes a left-wing agenda.
“It has once again come to our attention that Baylor’s university chapel has taken on the political agenda of the progressive wing of the Baylor Faculty,” the statement said. “This morning, several of our members attended university Chapel and were met again with the liberal agenda.”
Reflective of the political tone of Curtice’s speech, Baylor Democrats conversely issued a statement defending Curtice. The statement said inviting a speaker with different views of Christianity could help students grow in their own faith.
“We support Baylor’s decision to have the inclusion of someone who shares a view of Christianity that is strongly shaped by the cultures and ideals of the Potawatomi Nation of which she is a member of, and providing a new perspective for students to have a personal relationship with their own faith,” the Democrats’ statement said.
Denison sophomore Jake Neidert, vice president of Baylor YCT, said he was particularly offended by the apparent lack of Christianity in Curtice’s prayers.
“I have no idea what she was talking about but it seemed to be very pagan, not very Christian, and I really had no respect for it whatsoever,” Neidert said.
Neidert also said he likely would have “just laughed about” the political aspects of Curtice’s speech had her prayer followed a more conventionally biblical template.
Shreveport, La, freshman Veronica Penales, Baylor Democrat’s vice president, said she didn’t see anything wrong with Curtice’s prayer.
“I think she was right in praying the way she wanted to pray, it was her chapel service to lead. I don’t think she crossed the line in that sense,” Penales said. “I support her, everything she did in that Chapel service including praying to Mother Mystery.”
The phrase “Mother Mystery” was never said by Curtice, but has been incorrectly used by others referencing her Chapel speeches.
In a response to parents’ concerns, Baylor said instances such as this can be seen as “problems – or as learning opportunities.” The university said while Baylor works with its chapel guests to plan material ahead of time, speakers may go off-script on occasion.
“Every Chapel speaker works with us ahead of time on what message they will be sharing, but on occasion, a speaker may veer away from our understanding of the message they planned to convey,” the response said. “When this happens, we address the matter with our Chapel students and invite them to come talk to us after Chapel.”
An earlier version of this story incorrectly said Curtice addressed her prayers to “Mother Mystery.” Potawatomi Nation was also misspelled.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
(Friday Church News Notes, February 21, 2020, www.wayoflife.org [email protected], 866-295-4143) - 
The following is excerpted from “Protestants and Catholics,” Reformation Charlotte, Feb. 17, 2020: “Ecumenism is ripe and real and many apostate Protestant denominations and churches are headed right back to the harlot they were born from — Rome. On February 29 in Calvin’s Cathedral in Geneva, Switzerland, Protestants and Catholics for the first time will celebrate mass together after the mass has been banned from the Cathedral for centuries. The following was translated from protestinfo.ch. In August 1535, the mass was abolished in Geneva after iconoclasts devastated Saint-Pierre cathedral by breaking statues and slashing images that were not in accordance with the newly reformed ‘cult.’ Since then, no mass has taken place in the building, used for Protestant worship. [This] long dearth will end on Saturday, February 29, 2020, with a mass celebrated, at 6.30 p.m., by Pascal Desthieux, episcopal vicar for the canton of Geneva. ... ‘There was no opposition, which is significant. The idea appealed because it corresponds to our desire to make the cathedral a meeting place for all Geneva Christians. A space that transcends confessional boundaries,’ says Daniel Pilly, president of the Parish Council. ... ‘It is a signal that the climate in Geneva is extremely favorable and fertile with the Roman Catholic Church. We have made notable progress in terms of ecumenism, in particular with the Joint Declaration, signed in 2017, which recognizes our respective ministries,’ specifies Emmanuel Fuchs, president of the Protestant Church in Geneva.”

(Friday Church News Notes, February 21, 2020, www.wayoflife.org [email protected], 866-295-4143) - 
David Hughes, pastor of Church by the Glades in Coral Springs, Florida, is scheduled to speak at the Southern Baptist Pastors’ Conference 2020. Church by the Glades is a Southern Baptist congregation that used to be First Baptist Church of Lake Worth. They have performed a variety of filthy secular rock productions, including the “Stormtrooper Dance,” “Calling All the Monsters” by A.N.T. Farm, “Freedom” by Beyonce, scenes from the sexually-explicit television show Games of Thrones, and the wicked song “Bad Guy” by Billie Eilish, the lyrics of which are too vile to quote. All of this filth was performed live during Sunday services in a Southern Baptist church by the church members. David Hughes is not qualified by God’s standards to be a pastor. “For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God ... sober, just, holy, temperate” (Titus 1:7-8).

(Friday Church News Notes, February 21, 2020, www.wayoflife.org [email protected], 866-295-4143) - 
The following is excerpted from “WSJ: No Sex ‘Spectrum,’” Breitbart, Feb. 14, 2020: “The Wall Street Journal has issued a throwdown to the gender lobby, insisting in an op-ed Thursday that sex is binary and there is no ‘spectrum.’ ‘In humans, reproductive anatomy is unambiguously male or female at birth more than 99.98% of the time,’ note biologists Colin M. Wright and Emma N. Hilton. ... ‘No third type of sex cell exists in humans, and therefore there is no sex spectrum or additional sexes beyond male and female. Sex is binary,’ they assert. As the American College of Pediatricians concurred in 2016, the exceedingly rare disorders of sex development ‘are all medically identifiable deviations from the sexual binary norm, and are rightly recognized as disorders of human design. Individuals with DSDs do not constitute a third sex.’ The WSJ writers are responding to what they call a ‘dangerous and anti-scientific trend toward the outright denial of biological sex,’ which sees male and female as ‘arbitrary groupings.’ While sexual ambiguity does occasionally occur, the authors note, ‘intersex individuals are extremely rare, and they are neither a third sex nor proof that sex is a spectrum or a social construct.’ The WSJ essay echoes concerns increasingly being voiced that modern society has rushed into a dangerous social experiment based on less than flimsy scientific foundations. ‘The concept of changing one’s biological sex is, of course, nonsense, as sex is determined by unalterable chromosomes,’ wrote researcher Jane Robbins for Public Discourse last October. ‘An individual can change his hormone levels and undergo surgery to better imitate the opposite sex, but a male on the day of his conception will remain a male on the day of his death.’ ... The American College of Pediatricians has pulled no punches in condemning this behavior, calling hormone treatment and surgical operations on children with gender dysphoria ‘child abuse.’ ‘The time for politeness on this issue has passed,’ the authors conclude. ‘Biologists and medical professionals need to stand up for the empirical reality of biological sex.’”

(Friday Church News Notes, February 21, 2020, www.wayoflife.org [email protected], 866-295-4143) - 
The following is excerpted from “Silicon Valley Is Building,” FastCompany.com, Aug. 29, 2019: “Have you heard about China’s social credit system? It’s a technology-enabled, surveillance-based nationwide program designed to nudge citizens toward better behavior. The ultimate goal is to ‘allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step,’ according to the Chinese government. ... It aims to punish for transgressions that can include membership in or support for the Falun Gong or Tibetan Buddhism, failure to pay debts, excessive video gaming, criticizing the government, late payments, failing to sweep the sidewalk in front of your store or house, smoking or playing loud music on trains, jaywalking, and other actions deemed illegal or unacceptable by the Chinese government. ... Punishments can be harsh, including bans on leaving the country, using public transportation, checking into hotels, hiring for high-visibility jobs, or acceptance of children to private schools. It can also result in slower internet connections and social stigmatization in the form of registration on a public blacklist. ... A parallel system is developing in the United States, in part as the result of Silicon Valley and technology-industry user policies, and in part by surveillance of social media activity by private companies. ... Airbnb—a major provider of travel accommodation and tourist activities—bragged in March that it now has more than 6 million listings in its system. That’s why a ban from Airbnb can limit travel options. Airbnb can disable your account for life for any reason it chooses, and it reserves the right to not tell you the reason. The company’s canned message includes the assertion that ‘This decision is irreversible and will affect any duplicated or future accounts. Please understand that we are not obligated to provide an explanation for the action taken against your account.’ The ban can be based on something the host privately tells Airbnb about something they believe you did while staying at their property. Airbnb’s competitors have similar policies. It’s now easy to get banned by Uber, too. Whenever you get out of the car ... the driver now also gets an invitation to rate you. Under a new policy announced in May: If your average rating is ‘significantly below average,’ Uber will ban you from the service. ... you can be banned on WhatsApp if too many other users block you. You can also get banned for sending spam, threatening messages ... Not being allowed to use WhatsApp in some countries is as punishing as not being allowed to use the telephone system in America.”


Video: Raymond Ibrahim, Robert Spencer, and Caroline Glick on the Mideast Test-

Muslim Persecution of Christians

Truth gets last laugh in battle with CAIR
SEE:https://cms.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/02/victory-raymond-ibrahim-speak-us-army-war-college-raymond-ibrahimrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Raymond Ibrahim, a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, will be speaking about his book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West, at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, next week. 
This is significant: the War College first invited Mr. Ibrahim to speak last year; however, one week before his scheduled appearance in June, 2019, a number of politically active Islamists—including CAIRLinda Sarsour, etc.—protested wildly, including by presenting Mr. Ibrahim as a “white supremacist” who if allowed to speak would incite an “already racist and nationalist” American army to start randomly killing Muslims in the street (for background, click here).  Due to the hysteria created by CAIR and allies, the event was subsequently canceled/postponed.
It is, therefore, a very welcome development to see Mr. Ibrahim re-invited to lecture about the long but suppressed history of conflict between Islam and the West before what will no doubt be an even larger military audience—thanks to the previous controversy created by CAIR.
The description and flyer of the event, as they appear on the U.S. Army Heritage & Education Center, a branch of the War College, follows.  FrontPage readers who live locally are encouraged to attend this free event:
Wed, February 26, 2020
Sword and Scimitar
On Wednesday, February 26 at 6:30 p.m., at the U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center (USAHEC), author Raymond Ibrahim will address the historical roots of the Christian-Islamic rivalry in, “Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West.” From the birth of Islam and the long forgotten battles leading to the present day conflict, Ibrahim will provide historical and religious context to understand the current relationship between Islam and the Western world. He will draw on his research of original Greek and Arabic sources used for his 2018 book. The lecture will be followed by a moderated discussion.
Raymond Ibrahim is a book author and speaker on Middle East and Islamic topics. He is currently the Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute, and Judith Friedman Rosen Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum. Ibrahim’s presentation is part two of the Controversies second theme “Historical Underpinnings of Conflict between Islam and the West,” and the fourth in the “Controversies in Military History Lecture Series.” This series provides an educational forum for our audience to examine provocative topics in the interest of academic growth and promoting communication. This series is designed to serve as an important step in evaluating differing perspectives, while encouraging open, professional dialogue on potentially opposing opinions. Lectures and topics do not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of the USAHEC, the U.S. Army War College, or the U.S. Army.
DATE: Wednesday, February 26, 2020
TIME: Building Opens at 6:00PM, Lecture Begins at 6:30PM
PLACE: U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center, 950 Soldiers Dr., Carlisle, PA 17013,
Visitor and Education Center, Multipurpose Room. For updates and any last-minute changes on lectures, please check: www.USAHEC.org, our Facebook Page, or call the Information Desk: 717-245-3972.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
Four stabbings in four East London locations within ninety minutes and it doesn’t even make the news. That tells you a lot about the state of London (or Stab City, as it is increasingly known).
The British Capital is witness to daily violence that is as unrelenting as it is overwhelming. Under the Muslim mayor Sadiq Khan, homicides are the highest in a decade and knife crime offenses are at record highs.
It is against this backdrop that these horrific stabbings have become something of everyday life for Londoners, too mundane to trouble a newsdesk and too routine for a reader to care.
Sunday’s victims were all found in East London: Barking, Dagenham, Hackney and Ilford (shown on the map below). Not the sorts of places you’ll find tourists taking selfies, but all in the vice-like grip of powerful gangs, organized by postcode (zip code) controlling the supply and distribution of drugs on their patch.
Being part of a gang is a way of belonging for young lads brought up on inner-city estates, often without a father figure, desperate to find a way to belong. For many, being part of a gang is a tenuous means of survival.
Stabbings are meted out as a mechanism of initiation, retribution or control, as ubiquitous as the mopeds used to courier their drugs, or the drill music that forms a soundtrack to their lives.
One gang member said: “I don’t even know what this war is about anymore. All I know is if I step out of my territory people want to kill me, and if people come into mine, I want to kill them. It’s as simple as that.”
And it is not just gang members or their rivals being killed. In November 2019, Jodie Chesney, a 17-year-old Girl Scout, was sitting in the park near her home with a group of friends. Two teenage boys unknown to the group, walked up and stabbed Jodie in the back in an unprovoked attack.The seven-inch wound passed straight through her body and she died screaming where she sat.
At the sentencing of her murderers, Prosecutor Crispin Aylett QC told jurors these young gang members took a "casual approach to violence" in a world where knife crime was “routine.”
“The drug dealing world is one of turf wars, rivalries and pathetic claims for ‘respect'. When drug dealers fall out, they do not take their problems to the police. Instead, they take matters into their own hands.”
And so the violence continues, one death necessitating the next, like some ghoulish relay race in which the baton is replaced with a knife.
If we overlay the area of London where four stabbings happened (on Sunday 16 February) with the gangs alleged to operate there, the scale of the problem becomes clear. Each colored block represents a gang and its territory. These demarcations are invisible to a stranger in the street, but a kind of no man's land for rival gangs just the same.
Map: Known Gangs and Locations in East London where stabbings occurred
Which begs the obvious question; if kids are being stabbed in the street because of the gangs and we know where the gangs are located, why isn’t something being done?
There is a simple answer, but no one dares say it.
These gangs are mostly young black men; some of their foot-soldiers are as young as ten. But because they are mainly killing each other, isolating the problem to their own kind, no one in power needs to care.
Politicians know these black lads are not voters. They have no voice in the media. No one is howling with indignant rage. Even the mothers of the slain are silenced by the gangs they fear. Those who should be held to account can look the other way.
And they do. Sadiq Khan (who is about as effective as Mayor Bernard Young of Baltimore) is desperate to talk about anything other than the young black lads being knifed on his streets.
Khan has obstructed the Metropolitan Police in their efforts to grip the gang problem in London.
Elected into office on the promise of reducing stop-and-search in London playing on his BAME (black African minority ethnic) credentials, he reduced the abilities of officers on the street to check suspects for weapons. The sharp fall in stop-and-search corresponds with an equally steep rise in knife crime.
When the Metropolitan Police created a Gang Matrix as part of its War on Gangs, Sadiq Khan set up a task force to review whether this matrix was racist in its intent.
The Met claims the matrix, informed by intelligence, helps identify and assess the most harmful gang members in each of London’s boroughs, based on violence and weapon offenses.
Individuals are classified – given a computer-generated harm rating of red, amber or green, meant to reflect the risk an individual poses to others.
So far, so sensible. But of course, the left, Amnesty International, and other bleeding-heart liberals were outraged by this sensible approach, calling it: “Racist policing in its purest form. Of the almost 4,000 names on the matrix at any given time, 78% are black and 9% are other ethnic minorities.”
They demand to know why this shocking disproportion exists.
And there is no answer to give, because the numbers are not disproportionate. They are representative. They are an accurate picture of the demographic makeup of gangs.
In London, two-thirds of knife offenders under 25 were black or minority ethnics. Almost half of murder victims and murder suspects in the capital are young black men -- way out of proportion to London’s population, in which 13% are black.
Fearful of this truth, Sadiq Khan demanded gang names be removed from the matrix, obstructing the work of the Met Police, enabling the gang leaders. The Metropolitan Police have been forced to remove 374 names after the UK's data watchdog found they breached data protection laws.
It is a measure of the madness in which we live. While black lads as young as twelve are being stabbed to death in London, the Muslim mayor is more concerned with the privacy rights of members of the gang.
No one dares speak the truth of this slaughter for fear of being called a racist. It's racist to say these London gangs are mostly young black men. It is racist to say most don’t have a father figure. And it is racist to point out most have no education or qualifications. It is racist to say it is young black men killing each other. Even when the statistics prove this to be true.
Until you can be honest about a problem you cannot begin to solve it. And until a leader is willing to defy the racist label and speak the truth, the stabbing will continue.
In the words of one young gang member from South East London: “This is the only life we know, we just have to keep doing it -- there’s nothing else for us to do.”
And while Sadiq Khan knows he can rely on the votes of others voting by religion, the death of children, young black children, is no cause for alarm. It looks like Stab City is here to stay.


Creator of US BioWeapons Act Says Coronavirus 

is a Biological Warfare Weapon

https://thevaccinereaction.org/2020/02/creator-of-us-bioweapons-act-says-coronavirus-is-a-biological-warfare-weapon/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
[Dr. Francis Boyle] has been making headlines recently concerning the coronavirus outbreak. [Dr.] Boyle is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law and is the man who drafted the U.S. domestic implementing legislation for biological weapons convention known as the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, which was unanimously approved and signed into law. [Dr.] Boyle, thank you for taking the time to join me today. You are considered to be an expert on the topic and the man who wrote the book, so to speak… You have recently come out and stated that you believe the coronavirus outbreak, which the corporate media is saying originated from a food market in Wuhan, China, is actually man-made and originated from a bioweapons lab.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
Responding to the coronavirus outbreak in China, where tens of thousands of citizens suspected of being infected with coronavirus (COVID-2019) have been detained and involuntarily taken to quarantine camps,1 on Feb. 1, 2020 an executive order was issued by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, directing the U.S. Northern Command to implement the DoD’s Global Campaign Plan for Pandemic and Infectious Diseases.2 On Feb. 12, 2020, orders were sent to the U.S. Marine Corps3 and Navy4 directing “geographic combatant commanders to execute their pandemic plans in response to the NCOV outbreak.”
The U.S. Marine Corps directive told combat commanders to “review, update and validate existing disease containment plans and policies in order to implement procedures for response, isolation, quarantine, restriction of movement and community-based intervention” and to “become familiar with authority to declare a public health emergency, restrict movement, quarantine and isolate [and[ coordinate with Federal, State, local, and military treatment facilities and public health emergency officials…” The U.S. Navy directive stated, “DoD will continue to follow CDC guidance and comply with local public health authorities during this outbreak.”
As of Feb. 18, 2020, there had been 75,198 cases of COVID-2019 detected globally and 2,009 deaths, with all but 1,013 cases and 5 deaths occurring in China.5 The U.S. now has 29 confirmed cases being treated on military bases or in a biocontainment facility.

Reports by Chinese Scientists Raise Questions About Origin of Coronavirus

At the same time, over the past week new questions have resurfaced about whether the novel coronavirus (COVID-2019) can be traced back to scientific research conducted in Wuhan labs, a subject that has been widely discussed since January after the outbreak in China emerged.6 According to a Feb. 16 report in the Daily Mail, scientists at the South China University of Technology have written a paper questioning whether research on bats and respiratory diseases at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Wuhan Centers for Disease Control (WCDC) created a new chimeric coronavirus capable of infecting humans. The WCDC is located just 300 yards from the fish and wildlife food market thought to be the origin of the coronavirus and is adjacent to the Union Hospital where the first group of doctors were infected.7
On Feb. 15, a paper was published in The Lancet by Chinese scientists, “Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China.” The authors stated, “In December, 2019, a series of pneumonia cases of unknown cause emerged in Wuhan, Hubei, China, with clinical presentations greatly resembling viral pneumonia” and they described 41 cases hospitalized by Jan. 2, 2020, of which 66 percent (27 people) had been exposed to the food market and 15 percent (6 people) died:
Most of the infected patients were men (30 [73%] of 41); less than half had underlying diseases (13 [32%]), including diabetes (eight [20%]), hypertension (six [15%]), and cardiovascular disease (six [15%]). Median age was 49·0 years (IQR 41·0–58·0). 27 (66%) of 41 patients had been exposed to Huanan seafood market…Complications included acute respiratory distress syndrome (12 [29%]), RNAaemia (six [15%]), acute cardiac injury (five [12%]) and secondary infection (four [10%]). 13 (32%) patients were admitted to an ICU and six (15%) died.8
The World Health Organization (WHO) continues to maintain that the new virus spontaneously jumped from animals, most likely bats, to humans in the Wuhan market selling seafood and wildlife animals and that online speculation to the contrary is “misinformation.” In early February, International Business Times reported that WHO had teamed up with Google to battle online “misinformation” about the epidemic.9 A Feb. 14 CNBC report revealed that the WHO hosted a meeting at Facebook’s Menlo Park, California campus with Google, Amazon, You Tube, Twitter, Verizon and other big tech companies to discuss how to “tamp down on misinformation about the coronavirus.10

CDC Preparing for Novel Coronavirus to “gain a foothold in the U.S.”

According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, on Feb. 12 Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, told media during a conference call “we can and should be prepared for this new virus to gain a foothold in the U.S.”11
On Feb. 14, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) announced that in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago and New York City, the agency had begun monitoring Americans with flu-like symptoms, who test negative for influenza, by additionally lab testing them for coronavirus. According to CNBC, the CDC intends to add more cities in the coming weeks in an effort to achieve a “national surveillance” system that would act as an early warning that COVID-2019 is spreading, which would “trigger a change in our response strategy,” said Messonnier.12
A report by Reuters stated:
The CDC’s current strategy to fight the virus includes quarantines and travel restrictions, but that may change if the virus takes hold in the United States and begins to spread. In that scenario, the CDC will put in place “social distancing” strategies such as cancelling mass gatherings, using telemedicine, tele-schooling and remote working to try to disrupt the spread of the virus.13[xiii]

Americans on Diamond Princess Cruise Ship Test Positive

More than 600 Americans, who were evacuated from Wuhan, China in early February, have been in quarantined in the U.S. and some have already been released. Other Americans suspected to have come in contact with COVID-2019 have been quarantined on cruise ships.  On Feb. 16, about 380 U.S. citizens on the Diamond Princess cruise ship quarantined in a Japanese harbor, who had not tested positive for coronavirus and were symptom-free, were offered seats on U.S. State Department chartered flights transporting them back to quarantine centers on military bases in California and Texas. According to CNBC, about 300 Americans accepted the State Department’s offer to fly back to the U.S., while nearly 100 others with no symptoms of illness decided to stay on the ship.14
On Feb. 17, the U.S. State Department and Department of Health and Human Services issued a joint statement acknowledging that 14 asymptomatic American evacuees from the Diamond Princess cruise ship were allowed to fly on the chartered flights despite testing positive for coronavirus before getting on the planes.15 According to USA Today, when the planes landed at military bases in Texas and California, 13 passengers who had tested positive for the virus were flown to the University of Nebraska Medical Center and Nebraska Medicine quarantine and biocontainment facility in Omaha for treatment. All of the Americans returning from the Diamond Princess will remain in quarantine for 14 days. 16
By Feb. 18, there had been 542 cases of COVID-2019 diagnosed among the cruise ships’ 3,700 passengers and crew. 17 Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, told USA Today that, “The quarantine process failed.”18

Posse Comitatus Act of 1878

The scope of the mission of the U.S. Marines and U.S. Navy’s involvement in implementing the DoD’s Global Campaign Plan for Pandemic and Infectious Diseases in a civilian population is not clear as that Plan does not appear to have been publicly released by DoD. In general, however, the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) prohibits the carte blanche use of military forces in civilian law enforcement in the U.S.19
According to an essay for the Encyclopedia Brittanica:20
The willful use of the army or air force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws is a felony, unless the use is expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress. The PCA directly applies only to the army and air force, without mentioning the navy, the Marine Corps, the Coast Guard, or the National Guard. The National Guard is subject to Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” The National Guard is under state control until called into federal service, and is authorized to enforce the laws upon the request of a governor. Because the Coast Guard has a law enforcement function and is not under the control of the Department of Defense, it is not subject to the PCA. Although the naval service is not mentioned in the PCA, Department of Defense regulations extend the PCA to the navy and Marine Corps.

Establishment of the U.S. Northern Command After 9/11

After terrorist attacks on the U.S. mainland on Sept. 11, 2001 (9/11), the U.S. Northern Command was established Oct. 1, 2002. According to a 2008 report to Congress by the Congressional Research Service, “In 2002, President Bush signed a new Unified Command Plan (UCP) establishing United States Northern Command (NORTHCOM) to provide command and control of the Department of Defense’ (DOD’s) homeland defense efforts and coordinate military support to civil authorities.”21
NORTHCOM’s area of responsibility includes the continental United States, Alaska, Canada, Mexico, and surrounding waters out to approximately 500 nautical miles, including the Gulf of Mexico and the Straits of Florida. Headquartered at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado, the NORTHCOM Commander also commands North American Aerospace Defense Command.22
U.S. Northern Command’s mission is to deter, prevent and defeat threats and aggression aimed at the United States, its territories, and interests. To this end personnel from the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard are assigned to coordinate the protection of North America from external threats, drawing on the full capabilities of all U.S. military services, including the National Guard and Coast Guard, as necessary.  Additionally, the command is charged with providing defense support for civil authorities when approved by the President or Secretary of Defense. U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) also provides military resources and support to federal, state and local authorities.23
According to the USNORTHCOM website, so far it “has not had to respond to a large scale threat calling for military intervention” in U.S. territory. It has primarily been used to respond to natural or manmade disasters, such as hurricanes, floods, wildfires, earthquakes and a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, emphasizing that “the philosophy behind USNORTHCOM’s participation in defense support for civil authorities was to be prepared at all times but only to act when requested and to depart just as soon as their support was no longer required.”24
The Feb. 12 DoD directives to the Navy and Marine Corps indicated that officials of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made the request to DoD and USNORTHCOM to get involved in anticipation of widespread coronavirus infections in the U.S. and that combatant commanders implementing DoD’s Global Campaign Plan for Pandemic and Infectious Diseases would be following directions from HHS and state and local public health officials.

Post 9/11 Model State Emergency Health Powers Act

After terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001 (9/11), and subsequent reports of biological warfare threats against U.S. citizens, federal health officials immediately began preparing for mass anthrax and smallpox vaccination campaigns in the U.S. At the same time, model state legislation entitled the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA) was introduced in multiple states to rewrite state public health laws and give federal and state public health officials sweeping new power over citizens when public health “emergencies” were declared by the Secretary of HHS and state governors.
The CDC had given Professor Lawrence Gostin, PhD, of the Center for Law and the Public’s Health at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins University, funding to develop the model legislation, which is why MSEHPA could be quickly introduced in the states the month after 9/11.25 Among its provisions, MSEHPA gave power to public health officials to:
  • take control of all roads leading into and out of cities and states;
  • seize homes, cars, telephones, computers, food, fuel, clothing, firearms and alcoholic beverages for their own use (and not be held liable if these actions result in the destruction of  personal property);
  • arrest, imprison and forcibly examine, vaccinate and medicate citizens without consent (and not be held liable if these actions result in death or injury).
The ACLU and other NGO’s defending civil liberties,26 27 including the National Vaccine Information Center,28 29 opposed the MSEHPA for giving too much power to government health officials to detain, isolate and force vaccination and other medical interventions on citizens without their voluntary informed consent.30 The ACLU described the proposed model legislation as being “replete with civil liberties violations” and failing to “adequately protect citizens against the misuse of the tremendous powers that it would grant [government health authorities] in an emergency.”31
In August 2002, Professor Gostin and his colleagues at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities argued for compulsory quarantine and treatment of individuals in an article for the Journal of the American Medical Association:32
Coercive powers are the most controversial aspects of any legal system… There similarly may be a need to exercise powers over individuals to avert a significant threat to the public’s health. Vaccination, testing, physical examination, treatment, isolation, and quarantine each may help contain the spread of infectious diseases. Although the vast majority of people probably will comply willingly (because it is in their interests and/or desirable for the common welfare), some compulsory powers are necessary for those who will not comply.
In 2003, Gostin replied to critics of the MSEHPA, pointing out that “The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in Healthy People 2010, similarly argued that strong laws are a vital component of the public health infrastructure and recommended that states reform their outdated statutes.” He defended restraint of individual liberty in service to the public health: “When government acts to preserve the public’s health, it can interfere with property rights (e.g., freedom of contract, to pursue a profession, or to conduct a business) or personal rights (e.g., autonomy, privacy, and liberty). The history of public health is littered with illustrations of trade offs between public health and civil liberties.” 33
Gostin questioned American values about “personal and proprietary freedoms” at the turn of the 21st century that opposed “substantial government presence in social and economic life,” and he expressed the opinion that 9/11 “reawakened the political community to the importance of public health:”
American values at the turn of the 21st century fairly could be characterized as individualistic. There was a distinct orientation toward personal and proprietary freedoms and against a substantial government presence in social and economic life. The attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon and the anthrax outbreaks reawakened the political community to the importance of public health. Historians will look back and ask whether September 11, 2001 was a fleeting scare with temporary solutions or whether it was a transforming event.
By 2011, 44 states had passed some form of the MSEHPA.34

After 9/11 Congress Gave More Power to Executive Branch

After 9/11, immediately there were allegations that terrorists possessed weaponized smallpox and anthrax that could be used against the U.S. mainland population. Pressure was placed on Congress to create legislation to protect the American public from future bioterrorism attacks. Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed a series of new laws between 2002 and 2006 that gave expanded powers to the Executive Branch of the federal government and especially strengthened the authority of HHS during declared public health emergencies that involve disease control.
The Homeland Security Act of 200235 created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which assumed authority over existing federal agencies, including the U.S. Coast Guard, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Immigration and Customs Service (ICE), U.S. Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), among others. DHS works closely with HHS to respond to public health emergencies.
The National Vaccine Information Center opposed certain provisions in the Homeland Security Act of 2002.36
The Project Bioshield Act of 2004 (“Bioshield 1”)37 38 and Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Act of 2006 (“Bioshield 2”)39 40 set up and funded a public-private financial partnership between private pharmaceutical companies and HHS to research and develop bioterrorism and pandemic vaccines for use by U.S. civilian populations. The 2006 Act amended the Public Health Service Act to require the Secretary of HHS to lead all federal public health and medical response to public health emergencies.
The National Vaccine Information Center opposed sections of the 2004 and 2006 Bioshield legislation, calling for responsible congressional oversight on expanded authority granted to federal public health officials by Congress after 9-11.41 42
In the 2004 Bioshield Act, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was given an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)43 that allows experimental drugs and vaccines designated as medical countermeasures (MCM) to be fast tracked to licensure during a federally declared public health emergency. The Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Act of 2006 established the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) under HHS as the central point of authority within the federal government responsible for conducting advanced research to develop civilian medical countermeasures in collaboration with the pharmaceutical industry.
BARDA is shielded from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Drug companies are shielded from liability if the drugs or vaccines developed for and used in HHS declared public health emergencies cause injury or death and so are persons forcing civilians to use the products.44
In 2019, Congress passed The Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act, strengthening the original 2006 Act.45 This new law increased funding for HHS programs and BARDA research to develop genetically engineered vaccines to respond to emerging pandemics and antimicrobial resistance.46
In addition, the government’s official “isolate and quarantine” list was expanded between 2003 and 2014 to include Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers, such as Ebola, and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS),47 adding pandemic influenza in 2005.48 In 2014, the Presidential Executive Order did not name a specific disease that would warrant detention and quarantine, it simply described “diseases associated with fever and signs and symptoms of pneumonia or other respiratory illness” that have “the potential to cause a pandemic” or are “highly likely to cause mortality or serious morbidity if not properly controlled.”49
In 2016, using rule making authority to amend the Public Health Service Act, HHS expanded their police powers to apprehend individuals or their minor children entering the U.S. or traveling across state borders by airplane, ship, bus or train, and isolate or involuntarily quarantine them if they have minor symptoms of illness that could indicate “they are or may become infected with quarantinable infectious diseases.”50 In a public comment to HHS, the National Vaccine Information Center opposed sections of the proposed amendment giving HHR more power to detain, involuntarily quarantine and compel individuals to submit to vaccination as condition for release:51
Health officials in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), have more than enough authority under the U.S. Constitution and the Public Health Service Act to prevent the introduction, transmission and spread of a short list of serious communicable diseases with very high mortality rates, such as hemorrhagic fevers. However, this NPRM makes a point of equating non-quarantinable vaccine-targeted diseases, such as measles and chickenpox, with quarantinable diseases, such as tuberculosis and smallpox. It expands the list of minor illness symptoms that could trigger the use of police power by government health officials to apprehend and involuntarily quarantine individuals, who can be asked to consent to vaccination as a condition of release from government custody.

Microsoft News: Coronavirus Vaccine Will Eliminate Need for Quarantines

On Feb. 6, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation announced that it is pledging up to $100 million to combat coronavirus and “help find a vaccine for the virus, limit its spread and improve detection and treatment of patients.” Immediately, $20 million will go to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and World Health Organization.52 Since the Gates Foundation was established in 2000, with a primary goal of funding global public health initiatives, more than $3 billion has been given to fund global vaccination programs.53
Microsoft News, which is owned by Microsoft, a corporation co-founded by Bill Gates, stated that a coronavirus vaccine would end quarantines:
First appearing late December of 2019, the new coronavirus (called the COVID-19) managed to kill almost 1,400 people and infect several thousands more in Mainland China alone in a mere two months, putting people to pin their hopes on one of the most effective disease-fighting tools: a vaccine. Having one would mean that there would no longer be a need to quarantine people nor close off cities and monitor airports because people would be protected from the virus even before they get exposed.54