republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
Islamist groups, like many others, are doing what they can to adjust to life during the coronavirus. Conferences and fundraising dinners are off the table, so many are turning to online gatherings.
American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), a group that in many ways mirrors defunct Hamas-support network, is holding an "online gala" Saturday evening. Despite the rhetoric common at AMP events, the "Beyond Quarantine: Palestine Connects Us" event will feature two Democratic congresswomen.
Debbie Dingell of Michigan and California's Barbara Lee appear as speakers on AMP's promotions for the gala. Neither representative responded to requests for comment.
AMP has co-sponsored rallies featuring the chant, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." In that vision, Israel is erased from the map.
Its fall convention featured the head of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) equating "racism, Islamophobia and Zionism." Anti-Semitic political activist Linda Sarsour, who has blamed Jews for police shootings of unarmed black people, spread another lie when she told the same AMP convention that Israel "is built on the idea that Jews are supreme to everybody else."
A year earlier, CAIR San Francisco chapter director Zahra Billoo told the AMP convention she was, "not going to legitimize a country [Israel] that I don't believe has a right to exist."
This kind of rhetoric makes Dingell's appearance confusing. She withdrew her support last fall for HR2407, regarding the arrests of Palestinian children, saying the bill was "counterproductive to a peaceful, two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
Lee, on the other hand, has a clear anti-Israel voting record and is among the 23 co-sponsors of the resolution from which Dingell withdrew. Dingell and Lee have endorsed other anti-Israel groups, writing congratulatory letters, for example, for CAIR's 2018 fundraising banquet.
Both representatives joined U.S. Reps. Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in voting against a resolution last July condemning the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions ("BDS") movement targeting Israel. The resolution, which passed 398-17, criticized BDS for working against a two-state solution and trying "to exclude the State of Israel and the Israeli people from the economic, cultural, and academic life of the rest of the world."
It quoted BDS founder Omar Barghouti saying the movement rejects "a Jewish state in any part of Palestine. No Palestinian, rational Palestinian, not a sell-out Palestinian, will ever accept a Jewish state in Palestine."
The AMP gala also will hear from the group's national policy director, Osama Abuirshaid.
Abuirshaid has defended Hamas rocket fire at Israeli civilians and urged people "to challenge the legitimacy of the State of Israel."
He blamed Israel for the Syrian civil war and for the Egyptian military's 2013 ouster of a Muslim Brotherhood-dominated government. "Israel," he told the 2016 Muslim American Society/Islamic Circle of North America convention, "is a direct challenge to the entire region. Israel is risking the entire region ... remember that Israel was not created just to take and to swallow Palestine. It was created to divide and to weaken that part of the world."
Before there was an AMP, Abuirshaid edited a magazine called Al-Zaitounah, which was published by the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP). He also served on the board of the American Muslim Society (AMS), which was another name for the IAP. He is listed as "Research Fellow at the United Association for Studies and Research" (UASR) in a 1999 article published in the Middle East Affairs Journal.
Internal records seized in the early 2000s by the FBI during a terror-financing investigation show that the IAP and UASR were part of a Hamas-support network called the Palestine Committee. A committee report described its mission as "defending the Islamic cause in Palestine and support for the emerging movement, the Hamas Movement."
UASR was created by Mousa Abu Marzook, a senior Hamas political leader. While it presented itself as an academic outlet, prosecutors say it was "involved in passing Hamas communiques to the United States-based Muslim Brotherhood community and relaying messages from that community back to Hamas."
The IAP served a propaganda role, publishing Hamas communiques.
"In fulfilling that function," federal prosecutors wrote in 2008, the IAP published the Hamas charter in English and distributed Hamas communiques. The IAP also published, each month, Arabic language magazines called Al Zaytouna and Ila Falestine which focused on Palestinian issues with an emphasis on support for Hamas."
Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court in Illinois alleges that AMP is a continuation of the IAP, which shut down after a 2004 judgment held it liable for $52 million in damages connected to an American student's death in a Hamas terrorist attack. The move aimed to duck out on the court's judgment, the lawsuit claims.
AMP's record and rhetoric consistently steer in one direction – it doesn't seek peace. It opposes Israel's existence. Yet Reps. Dingell and Lee appear comfortable lending their names and credibility to help the organization raise money.
Research Analyst Teri Blumenfeld contributed to this report.
U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell (center) answers questions Saturday night during the American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) online fundraiser.
U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., helped American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) raise more than $20,000 Saturday by speaking to the group's "online gala."
Dingell, AMP, Craft Hamas-Free Narrative About Gaza Challenges :: The Investigative Project on Terrorism


Elizabeth Bartholet
Harvard Prof Who Wants to BAN Homeschooling HUMILIATED as WHOLE WORLD is HOMESCHOOLING!!!

The Harvard Professor Who called for Homeschooling to be BANNED is suffering from some serious humiliation as WHOLE WORLD begins HOMESCHOOLING; that’s what we’ll be talking about on today’s video. We’re going to look at the latest example of liberals embracing ILLBERALISM with this call to ban homeschooling, and how it actually ends up showing how much leftist liberals at war with reality; you’re going to love it!


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — A Harvard law professor is coming under fire after she characterized homeschooling as parents having “authoritarian control” over their children and called for a “presumptive ban” on the practice.
Elizabeth Bartholet, a Morris Wasserstein public interest professor of law and founder of the Child Advocacy Program, recently told Harvard Magazine that while parents have “very significant rights to raise their children with the beliefs and religious convictions that the parents hold,” sending their children to school does not limit those rights.
“The issue is, do we think that parents should have 24/7, essentially authoritarian control over their children from ages zero to 18? I think that’s dangerous,” she stated. “I think it’s always dangerous to put powerful people in charge of the powerless, and to give the powerful ones total authority.”
The magazine pointed to her views as recently published in the Arizona Law Review, where Bartholet called for a “presumptive ban” on homeschooling and stated that it is “a realm of near-absolute parental power” and a “regime [that] poses real dangers to children and to society.”
In her 80-page piece, she characterized some homeschool parents as “extreme religious ideologues” who question evolution, suppress women and espouse racist views. Bartholet cited, for example, the “Quiverfull” and “Stay-at-Home Daughter” movements as concepts that deprive girls of opportunities by “confining” them to their homes and fathers/husbands.
“A very large proportion of homeschooling parents are ideologically committed to isolating their children from the majority culture and indoctrinating them in views and values that are in serious conflict with that culture,” she wrote.
“Some believe that women should be subservient to men; others believe that race stamps some people as inferior to others,” Bartholet claimed. “Many don’t believe in the scientific method, looking to the Bible instead as their source for understanding the world.”
In her remarks to Harvard Magazine, Bartholet further opined that it is a threat to democracy for homeschooling not to be regulated so as to ensure that the level of education is equivalent to that of public schooling, citing among other matters, teaching on “nondiscrimination” and “tolerance.”
“From the beginning of compulsory education in this country, we have thought of the government as having some right to educate children so that they become active, productive participants in the larger society,” she told the outlet. “But it’s also important that children grow up exposed to community values, social values, democratic values, ideas about nondiscrimination and tolerance of other people’s viewpoints.”
Bartholet also expressed concern that “people can homeschool who’ve never gone to school themselves, who don’t read or write themselves.” She said that the allowance of staying at home could hide child abuse cases whereas teachers would otherwise be on the lookout for signs of mistreatment.
While also conceding that some parents may be “capable of giving an education that’s of a higher quality and as broad in scope as what’s happening in the public school,” she still felt that the burden should fall on parents as to why they must homeschool.
However, homeschooling advocates are now pushing back against Bartholet’s views, including one Harvard graduate who was homeschooled herself.
“Homeschooling, and the lessons and characteristics I learned and honed during the first 18 years of my life, prepared me to succeed — no, excel — at one of the most difficult and prestigious universities in the world,” wrote Melba Pearson for the site Medium. “The idea that a government, already so inefficient and inadequate in so many areas, can care for and educate every child better than its parent is wrong.”
She noted that studies show that homeschoolers test as well or higher than their public-schooled counterparts and that public school students have higher rates of being bullies, drop-outs or suicidal.
“Statistics consistently demonstrate higher levels of abuse, bullying, suicide, and drop out rates in children and young adults who were educated in the public school system,” Pearson argued. “Homeschoolers are frequently more ‘community minded,’ ‘socially aware,’ ’empathetic,’ and ‘democratic’ than those publicly educated.”
“There are always outliers, but given the thousands of students in public schools who are bullied, abused, and end up committing suicide because of their educational atmosphere, I am shocked more isn’t being done to address those issues first,” she opined.
Mike Donnelly of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) likewise told Fox News that “Bartholet’s call for a presumptive ban on homeschooling because she considers American homeschooling parents too ignorant or too religious goes against the weight of decades of scholarly research on homeschooling which demonstrates positive academic, civic and social outcomes.”
Deuteronomy 6:6-9 reads, “And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart. And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house and on thy gates.”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
(Friday Church News Notes, May 1, 2020,,, 866-295-4143) - 
The following is excerpted from Erin O’Donnell, “The Risks of Homeschooling,” Harvard Magazine, May-June 2020: “A rapidly increasing number of American families are opting out of sending their children to school, choosing instead to educate them at home. Homeschooled kids now account for roughly 3 percent to 4 percent of school-age children in the United States, a number equivalent to those attending charter schools, and larger than the number currently in parochial schools. Yet Elizabeth Bartholet, Wasserstein public interest professor of law and faculty director of the Law School’s Child Advocacy Program, sees risks for children—and society—in homeschooling, and recommends a presumptive ban on the practice. Homeschooling, she says, not only violates children’s right to a ‘meaningful education’ and their right to be protected from potential child abuse, but may keep them from contributing positively to a democratic society. ... ‘From the beginning of compulsory education in this country, we have thought of the government as having some right to educate children so that they become active, productive participants in the larger society,’ she says. ... In a paper published recently in the Arizona Law Review, she notes that parents choose homeschooling for an array of reasons. ... surveys of homeschoolers show that A MAJORITY OF SUCH FAMILIES (BY SOME ESTIMATES, UP TO 90 PERCENT) ARE DRIVEN BY CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN BELIEFS, AND SEEK TO REMOVE THEIR CHILDREN FROM MAINSTREAM CULTURE. Bartholet notes that some of these parents are “extreme religious ideologues” who question science and promote female subservience and white supremacy. ... ‘But it’s also important that children grow up exposed to community values, social values, democratic values, ideas about nondiscrimination and tolerance of other people’s viewpoints,’ she says, noting that EUROPEAN COUNTRIES SUCH AS GERMANY BAN HOMESCHOOLING ENTIRELY and that countries such as France require home visits and annual tests. ... ‘The issue is, DO WE THINK THAT PARENTS SHOULD HAVE 24/7, ESSENTIALLY AUTHORITARIAN CONTROL OVER THEIR CHILDREN from ages zero to 18? I THINK THAT’S DANGEROUS,’ Bartholet says. ‘I think it’s always dangerous to put powerful people in charge of the powerless, and to give the powerful ones total authority.’”

(Friday Church News Notes, May 1, 2020,,, 866-295-4143) - 
The following is excerpted from Timothy Carney’s response to the Harvard Magazine rant against homeschooling, from the Washington Examiner, Apr. 22, 2020: “It is important to remember that there exist terrifying liberal authoritarians who think homeschooling is horrible and should be banned because it gives parents, particularly conservative Christians, too much control over their children’s education. Harvard Law School hosts a program called the ‘Child Advocacy Program,’ or CAP, which works on weakening ‘parent rights’ and diminishing the idea of ‘family preservation,’ done in the name of fighting abuse. Fighting abuse is good and important. Children often need protection from abusive parents. But the latest crusade by CAP’s director, Harvard law professor Elizabeth Bartholet, is basically to abolish homeschooling. ... based on this second-hand anecdotal evidence of some horrific cases, Bartholet tries to create a presumption that homeschoolers are abusers. ... Much of her argument is standard, paranoid ‘what’s to stop x from y’ reasoning. She argues that under current state laws and enforcement, there are all sorts of bad things some parents could be doing. ... But her real worry isn’t children getting no education. It’s children getting the ‘wrong’ education. ... she grants there are legitimate reasons to pull your children from school. But she is really worried about religious parents who don’t like public schools teaching their children transgender ideology, moral relativism, or radical feminism. To drive that home, Harvard Magazine had an insane picture illustrating the story. Public school children are all running around freely, while the homeschooled child is locked in a literal prison made of books--including the Bible. (Oh, and Harvard Magazine misspelled ‘arithmetic’ in the illustration.) ... This is Alice-in-Wonderland, truth-on-its-head stuff. ... The notion that public schools provide more meaningful education than the average homeschooler is also insane. The idea that homeschoolers are, de facto, not exposed to ‘community values, social values, democratic values’ is also totally unfounded. Unless, again, by ‘social values,’ she means the values of the secular Left. ... If you live in a state with a Democratic legislature, you need to worry about these people. They will craft an agenda to make it illegal to homeschool your children unless you can prove good reason. They will do this precisely because they don’t want conservative Jewish, Muslim, and Christian parents passing down their values. And while these activists will lead by focusing on the rare and horrific abuses, they clearly believe that religion and conservative values count as ‘maltreatment.’ These people have a dangerous agenda. We shouldn’t ignore their work.”

(Friday Church News Notes, May 1, 2020,,, 866-295-4143) - 
The following is excerpted from “Harvard to Host Pro-Homeschools,” Townhall, Apr. 24, 2020: “Amid outcry from homeschooling advocates and allies [against the ‘Homeschooling Summit: Problems, Politics, and Prospects for Reform’] Harvard announced on Friday that they would be hosting a virtual discussion that would effectively counter the suggestions being put forward by the original summit. Titled, ‘The Disinformation Campaign Against Homeschooling,’ the May 1 event will precede the summit hosted by Harvard Law and being presented by the Kennedy School of Government. The event is also organized by the student-run group, Ideological Diversity. ‘Speakers will discuss the dishonest attacks on homeschooling that have been pervasive in the media and academia and also address the failures of public education,’ the event website states. The discussion will take place via virtual call host Zoom and is open to all, no RSVP required.  Speakers include the Director of School Choice at the Reason Foundation Corey DeAngelis, author of Unschooled, Kerry McDonald, education scholar Peter Gray, homeschooling advocate Patrick Ferenga, and documentary filmmaker Cevin Soling.”

(Friday Church News Notes, May 1, 2020,,, 866-295-4143) - 
The following is excerpted from Michael Farris, “Harvard Law Professor Attacks Homeschoolers, as She Envisions Them,” Townhall, Apr. 22, 2020. Farris is president of Alliance Defending Freedom and founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association. “Should homeschooling be banned? Harvard Magazine and one of Harvard’s law professors, Elizabeth Bartholet, think so. This is despite the fact that Harvard University admits an appreciable number of homeschooled students to both its undergraduate and graduate programs every year. ... Bartholet argues that homeschooling denies children a meaningful education. In so doing, Bartholet fails to demonstrate any familiarity with valid social science research. The literature demonstrates that homeschooling works very well academically—including in some ways that many would find surprising. In public schools, family income is a strong predictor of a child’s academic success. In homeschooling, children from lower-income levels not only outscore their public school socio-economic counterparts, but they also score comparably to homeschool students from higher income levels. ... I personally know two homeschool students who are Harvard Law grads and clerked for the U.S. Supreme Court. Another Harvard alum is the current solicitor general of West Virginia. I taught constitutional law to all three at Patrick Henry College. And two more of my PHC students, who were also homeschooled, clerked for the Supreme Court after graduating from the University of Virginia Law School. Moreover, dozens of homeschooled students in my personal sphere of friends have been elected to state and local offices. ... Thousands of homeschooled students actively participate in the electoral process every cycle through a program called Generation Joshua. ... Perhaps the most troubling thing found in this article is a clear display of bigotry by Professor Bartholet. She argues that a chief evil at hand arises from the fact that as many as 90 percent of homeschooled children live with conservative Christian parents ‘who seek to remove their children from mainstream culture.’ ... Any form of bigotry coming from one of its professors should cause Harvard trustees to be concerned.”


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
“We’ve been competing against other states, against other nations, against our own federal government for PPE — coveralls, masks, shields, N95 masks — and we’re not waiting around any longer. And we’re no longer interested in the progress that we were seeing in the past.”
That was California governor Gavin Newsom in an April 7 MSNBC appearance with Rachel Maddow.  As Newsom added, “In the last 48 hours we have secured –through a consortia of nonprofits and a manufacturer here in the state of California – upwards of 200 million masks on a monthly basis that we’re confident we can supply the needs of the state of California, potentially the needs of other western states.”
As it happened, the manufacturer wasn’t exactly “here in the state of California.”  The manufacturer was BYD, “Build Your Dreams,” a Chinese company not known for making personal protective equipment. Newsom wasn’t revealing details of the $1 billion deal, which as John Myers of the Los Angeles Times noted, “will cost taxpayers 30 percent more than the governor’s January budget allotted for infectious diseases for the whole fiscal year.”
The day after Newsom’s MSNBC appearance, San Francisco Democrat Phil Ting, chairman of the Assembly Budget Committee, told reporters, “We don’t have any information as to how many masks we’re buying, who we’re buying them from, at what price. What are we obligated? For how long are we obligated?” Los Angeles Democrat Holly Mitchell, chairwoman of the Senate Budget Committee, fired off an official letter demanding details. Newsom wasn’t talking, which prompted an escalation.
“Perhaps it’s time for legislative leaders to dust off their rarely-used subpoena power,” the Sacramento Bee editorialized on April 22. The administration feared that “Trump might steal California’s equipment,” but that did not justify Newsom’s decision “to hide a taxpayer-funded contract from legislative leaders.”  Neither did the obfuscation account for “other reasons why the administration may wish to shield the contract from oversight.” Journalists and legislators alike should have seen this coming.
In March, as CalMatters noted, legislators “made $500 million available immediately and allowed Newsom to spend up to $1 billion total,” and unanimously passed two bills “waiving a requirement that legislation must be in print for three days before lawmakers can act.” Legislators also suspended public hearings for at least a month and floor votes for at least a month. As Republican assemblyman Jay Obernolte explained,  “We are placing an extraordinary degree of trust in Gov. Gavin Newsom.” The governor took full advantage, opting for BYD despite serious issues with the Chinese company.
BYD has “glaring red flags on its record, including a history of supplying allegedly faulty products to the U.S., ties to the Chinese military and Communist Party, and possible links to forced labor,” reported Daniel Newhauser and Keegan Hamilton of Vice News. The federal Food and Drug Administration gave the company emergency approval, even though BYD had been prohibited by law from bidding for some federal contracts and is involved in lawsuits with several states.
Newsom was not forthcoming about the deal’s details but it did emerge that California already sent the first installment of $495 million to BYD.  When reporters approached BYD, the Chinese company referred all questions to Newsom’s office. The governor’s deal with BYD was not the first time California politicians rejected American products and American labor in favor of China.
“California Turns To China For New Bay Bridge,” noted Richard Gonzalez of NPR back in 2011. On this key infrastructure project, “California avoided legal requirements to use domestic steel by not using federal funds for the job.” Since politicians seldom if ever turn down federal funds, they must have been determined to outsource the job to “a state-owned Chinese company, Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries.” This was supposedly to save money, but it didn’t.
The bridge came in $5 billion over budget, a full 10 years late, and riddled with broken rods and faulty welds, all performed in China. Every one of the bridge’s 750 panels had to be repaired. The Grade BD Chinese steel was prone to embrittlement, and in 2013 dozens of the long metal rods on the project snapped. When apprised of the lingering safety issues, Gov. Jerry Brown famously said “I mean, look, shit happens,” with no second thoughts about California’s use of Chinese steel, faulty work by Chinese workers, fathomless waste and corruption, and the ensuing coverup by politicians.
Meanwhile, Jerry Brown’s successor Gavin Newsom rejects American products and labor to strike a $1 billion deal with BYD, a Chinese company with a record of faulty products, and as Oregon Democrat Peter DeFazio testified last year, “a company that is very heavily subsidized by the government of communist China.” If anybody believed Newsom should register as a lobbyist for BYD or an agent of China it would be hard to blame them.
Gov. Newsom told reporters his deal with BYD was “not political. This is not in any way, shape or form usurping or undermining.” If anybody believes that, Newsom has a bridge to sell them, not that anybody is buying these days.
The California economy is in freefall, and as Newsom said Wednesday, “there is no date for easing restrictions.”


Dr. Erickson COVID-19 Briefing, Part 1
Dr. Erickson COVID-19 Briefing, Part 2
Dr. Judy Mikovits BLOWS Whistle FBI Investigation TARGETED Dr. Anthony Fauci(REPORT)

Dr. Judy Mikovits – vaccines are driving these epidemics

Scientist Judy Mikovits Jailed After Discovering A Deadly Virus Delivered Through VACCINES.

Dr. Judy Mikovits – Part 1 | Vaccine Court Corruption, Damage, and the CDC

Dr. Judy Mikovits – Part 2 | Public Health Cover-Ups And Fraud Surround Vaccines

Dr. Judy Mikovits – Part 3 | How Vaccines are a “Sacrament” of Big Pharma

Dr. Anthony Fauci: ‘We Will Have Coronavirus In The Fall’
In the wake of CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield’s comments that a second wave of the coronavirus in the fall and winter could be even more challenging than the first, President Trump downplayed the possibility. But Dr. Anthony Fauci said “We will have coronavirus in the fall: I am convinced of that.”


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
Preparation failures combined with the fast spread of the COVID-19 virus have exposed America's vulnerabilities to terrorists, several bioterrorism specialists told the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT).
These failures have included an inadequate inventory of ventilators, personal protective equipment such as face shields, gloves and gowns, and an inability to handle the patient onslaught in cities like New York that have been in the terrorists' crosshairs for decades.
"I think that people are certainly observing what is happening with COVID-19 and how it is spread, and thinking about how to use that [information] tactically," said Asha George, executive director of the Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense. "ISIS and al-Qaida, and presumably other terrorist organizations, they are pursuing biological agents, and they are pursuing chemical weapons for terrorist purposes."
Pandemic and bioterrorism preparedness are inseparable, Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and infectious diseases, told the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in 2013.
The U.S. Intelligence Community's January 2019 threat assessment warned of the "potential for adversaries to develop novel biological warfare agents."
George attributes the current lack of preparedness to "apathy" on the policymakers responsible for funding and implementing bioterrorism and pandemic countermeasures. who never thought a pandemic like COVID-19 would happen.
"From the standpoint of risk analysis, recency bias—that is, an overwhelming focus on events that have happened most recently—is one of the most nefarious psychological blinders," an October Security magazine article warned. "It nudges us toward considering what is important now but can prevent both a thorough review of the past and an imaginative look into the future. Our immediate past has elevated issues such as cybersecurity and drones to the top of risk forecasts. These are critical, but biological threats (or 'biothreats') deserve our attention more than ever."
The failure of prior 21st century pandemics, including SARS, the bird flu, H1N1 and Ebola, to live up to fears lulled security professionals into a state of complacency, the article said.
"As a culture, we're good at saying, 'Well, we're really good responders, and so we'll just respond.' What we're finding out now is that it just doesn't work," George said.
Terrorists sought chemical and biological weapons long before COVID-19.
In 2014, journalists recovered an ISIS operative's laptop containing information on bioweapons and documents justifying their use. Some of the files detailed how to weaponize the bubonic plague from infected animals.
"If Muslims cannot defeat the kafir [unbelievers] in a different way, it is permissible to use weapons of mass destruction," one of the documents said.
A 2018 ISIS propaganda video called on Muslims living in Western countries and Russia to carry out biological attacks, noting that biological weapons are silent killers in contrast with bombs or the airliners used in the 9/11 attacks. It discussed using inhaled viruses and bacteria.
"Islam prohibits the use of this type of mass terrorism and allows it in the exception of repelling aggression and reciprocity," the video said. "With simple equipment extract harmful viruses and bacteria then release them."
Several ISIS-linked plots involving biological weapons have been foiled.
Kenyan authorities broke up a 2016 anthrax attack plot by an ISIS-linked group.
A Wisconsin woman, Wabeha Dais, pleaded guilty last year to providing ISIS supporters with a recipe to produce the toxic chemical ricin, which the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) lists as a bioweapon.
Al-Qaida attempted to create biological weapons in Afghanistan prior to the U.S. invasion in 2001.
"You can spread [some biological agents] the same way that this particular organism is spreading whether it is natural or otherwise just by human-to-human transmission, where it infects a lot of people," said former CIA operative Sam Faddis, who headed the agency's counterterrorism unit that tracked weapons of mass destruction. "Why would a group like ISIS care? If you use tactics routinely where you strap explosives to your body and blow yourself up and are willing to blow up synagogues, churches and mosques, why would you not be willing to infect your own people?"
Diseases such as the pneumonic plague that are spread by coughing could have a similar impact because it's spread by droplets transmitted by coughing, Faddis said.
Using an infected person on a suicide mission of infecting others is not out of the question, George said, if the person is infected with a disease with a long incubation period.
Some biological agents are available on the Dark Web. Utah authorities arrested a Salt Lake City woman, Janie Lynn Ridd, in December on charges she attempted to obtain a bioweapon. She used $300 in bitcoin to buy an antibiotic-resistant bacterium that causes staph infections.
"That sort of stuff has been going on forever on a scale that most people aren't aware of and is going on now at an even greater rate," Faddis said. "If you are looking at biological warfare and you are looking at the kind of crude mechanisms that terrorists use ... it's not that hard to work with biological organisms and all you really need is a good lab tech."
RAND Corporation bioterrorism scholar David Gerstein, who served as acting undersecretary of Homeland Security in the Obama administration, shares concern that terrorists could use the Dark Web to facilitate a bioterrorism plot.
"I think anytime you've got the Dark Web and you've got information that's out there and becomes available to people who might misuse it, that's a concern," Gerstein said. "I think we know that many of these capabilities are becoming more available and more democratized, hence their chance of misuse".
However, research has shown that creating designer viruses is harder than many people think.
"In bioterrorism there are some nuances that make it complex for a terrorist to do," Gerstein said. "Could you create a biological mess? Yes. But you may kill yourself in the process, so there are some disincentives along the way."
Lab security has come under scrutiny in recent years. The U.S. intelligence community is investigating the possibility that COVID-19 originated in a Wuhan research lab.
A security breach may have been linked to the 2001 anthrax attack against Senate offices, the Supreme Court and NBC News. FBI investigators concluded that Bruce Ivins, a microbiologist at United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMARIID), was responsible. He committed suicide in 2008 before he could be charged.
In 2004, the World Health Organization (WHO) cited China for allowing SARS to escape a government lab in Beijing on two separate occasions.
Failings exposed by the COVID-19 crisis have long been known to bioterrorism researchers.
The BushObama and Trump administrations all developed detailed bioterror action plans, but this current pandemic shows they were not implemented.
"The government comes up with these strategies, and some of them are pretty good," Gerstein said. "But what happens is that they sort of put out these strategies but forget that a strategy is not just the objectives; it's also the resources to accomplish the objectives.
"So, most of these strategies simply do not come to fruition."
A shortage of surgical masks occurred during the 2009 H1N1 Swine flu pandemic just as it has in the current COVID-19 outbreak. In 2010, a Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism report card gave U.S. bioterrorism preparedness an F. There was "no national plan to coordinate federal, state, and local efforts following a bioterror attack, and the United States lacks the technical and operational capabilities required for an adequate response," it said.
Obama-era budget battles resulted in a failure to replenish the surgical masks that contributed to the current lack of preparedness.
"We weren't prepared the day Donald Trump came into office. We weren't prepared at any time during the Obama administration," Faddis said. "This is not a political thing. This is not a somebody else got it right and somebody else screwed it up kind of a thing. We have focused on this the way we have focused on so many things in Washington. We build a bureaucracy. We draw a line diagram. We throw a lot of money. And that's just kind of assumed therefore that equals accomplishment."
COVID-19 presents a call for planners and policymakers to shift to being proactive to save lives during the next bioterrorist attack or pandemic, George said.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
Despite the fact that the Scriptures are clear that women are not to teach, progressive churches continue to rebel against God by handing the pulpit over to women — like Beth Moore — and give God the proverbial middle finger by insisting that God doesn’t really mean what he says.
While most Southern Baptist Churches still hold to the biblical teaching on complementarianism and biblical gender roles, several notable Southern Baptist Churches are now defying and questioning this. And while there has been much debate on the issue including allowing women to teach other women, there is no argument from Scripture — or the Baptist Faith and Message, the standard confession Southern Baptist Churches must adhere to — that women should be teaching men or hold the function or title of pastor.
Nonetheless, Newspring Church in Anderson, SC — formerly pastored by Perry Noble who was fired due to alcoholism — has now named a woman as “teaching pastor” in defiance of the denomination’s minimum requirements for fellowship.
Meredith Knox, along with others, has been named “teaching pastor” in the Church.

Knox does not just teach women, she preaches to the entire congregation as can found in the sermon search on the church’s website. The question is now, will the Southern Baptist Convention finally disfellowship this rogue church? Or will they continue — like they do with Elevation Church — to accept dirty money from a church that teaches falsely and defies biblical standards?


Senior Shia cleric asks Pope to intervene to end US sanctions on Iran
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
The Pope has decided to do Iran’s bidding, after Ayatollah Mostafa Mohaghegh Damad “wrote to Pope Francis in mid-March appealing to him help end U.S. sanctions on Iran.” In response, “Pope Francis called for relaxed international sanctions during his Easter message.” Yet more money flowing into Iran means more murder, more threats to the region, and more jihad terror internationally.
Like others of similar mind who have called for the U.S. to ease sanctions, the Pope believes that Iran will prioritize funds for domestic purposes during the coronavirus pandemic. Not so. It should be well known by now that the Iranian regime cannot be trusted to act for the benefit of its own people. The country used $1,700,000,000 Obama gave it to finance jihad terrorists, and was lying all along about its nuclear weapons cache in order to secure and maintain the Iran deal. It was also recently found to be diverting funds away from helping its citizens to fund its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
There is no shortage on trickery from Iran and no shortage of complicity from infidels in aiding this jihadist regime.
“Pope Francis Calls for Relaxed Sanctions at Iran’s Behest,” by Thomas D. Williams, Breitbart, April 12, 2020:
ROME — Pope Francis called for relaxed international sanctions during his Easter message Sunday after receiving a request from officials in Iran asking him to intervene.
According to Mehr News Agency (MNA), a news service based in Tehran, a senior member of the Academy of Sciences of Iran, Ayatollah Mostafa Mohaghegh Damad, wrote to Pope Francis in mid-March appealing to him help end U.S. sanctions on Iran.
During his solemn Urbi et Orbi blessing Sunday, Pope Francis appeared to comply with the ayatollah’s request, calling on nations to lift sanctions in this difficult period of coronavirus lockdown.
“In light of the present circumstances, may international sanctions be relaxed, since these make it difficult for countries on which they have been imposed to provide adequate support to their citizens,” the pope said, before also suggesting a reduction of international debt.
On March 20, International Christian Concern (ICC) also reported that Ayatollah Damad had written a letter to the Vatican appealing for diplomatic assistance to reduce the effects of U.S. sanctions. ICC also criticized Iranian officials of mismanaging the coronavirus pandemic due to their “strict interpretation of Islam.”
In his letter to the pontiff, the ayatollah underscored the suffering of the Iranian people from the coronavirus outbreak, insisting that U.S. sanctions against the country “have increased their suffering and closed doors to solving many problems,” MNA reported.
The International Quran News Agency (IQNA), another Iran-based service, said that Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin had responded to the academy’s letter, saying that the Pope has expressed sympathy with the people of Iran for the outbreak and wishes a speedy recovery for all affected….


China Threatens Free Constitutional Republic: Attack to our Nation from Without, iStock-1202233296
China Threatens Free Constitutional Republic: Attack to our Nation from Without
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
U.S.A. –-( There is a viral plague in our midst. It is a thing both tenacious and relentless; implacable and ruthless; furtive and evasive; grievously painful and deadly. It is a scourge, spreading rapidly across our Nation, suffocating the very life out of Americans, and crippling our Nation. What is this debilitating virus?

No, we are not talking about the Chinese Coronavirus.

Sure, Premier Xi Jinping’s Coronavirus is horrific. And, it has become a useful, effective bioweapon of war for Xi, whether the unleashing of the viral plague on the U.S. and the world was the Regime’s intention or not.
There is much speculation about the movement of the Chinese Coronavirus plague in our Nation and much disagreement as to the best ways to deal with it and to protect our people and also to get our economy up and running. But one thing is clear and indisputable: The Chinese Coronavirus has ravaged our land and our people. And it is devastating our economy. It is everything loathsome, vile, disgusting, and deadly. Because of this “Gift” from China, our lives are changing, perhaps forever.
But as dreadful as the Chinese virus is, there is another virus in our midst that is more horrific; more rapacious and voracious; more ferocious and tenacious; and more noxious, and it has been with us much longer than the Coronavirus. It is a parasitic virus, a silent plague; carefully cultivated and nourished, right here at home. It doesn’t attack and destroy the body. It latches onto and destroys the mind; the spirit; the soul. Many Americans have a natural immunity to it. Most, unfortunately, do not. It is endemic to our Nation but rarely mentioned. There is no known cure for those who contract the disease. And, for those who succumb to it, the virus turns a person into a numb, unthinking automaton, an obedient drone.
And this parasitic virus has a vile, odious feature the China Coronavirus doesn’t have. It is seductive.
This parasitic virus in our midst is the mainstream Press. It is a plague upon us; one that has been with us for decades.
Where did this plague come from? Disturbingly, it arose from and took root in the U.S. Constitution itself through a corruption of the First Amendment.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The freedom of speech is, of course, a fundamental, unalienable, immutable right: a right that exists intrinsically in man, bestowed by a loving Creator in man. Is freedom of the Press distinct from the freedom of speech? Legal thinkers in the past didn’t think so. In fact——
“Through most of our history the distinction has not seemed important because the terms freedom of speech and freedom of press have been used more or less interchangeably. In the last decade, however, the press has begun to assert rights arising specifically from the press clause—the right to maintain the confidentiality of sources, the right of access to prisons and courtrooms, the right to keep police from searching newsrooms, and the right to prevent libel plaintiffs from inquiring into journalists’ thought processes. Thus far the Supreme Court has declined to give independent significance to the phrase ‘freedom of the press.’ It has refused to give the press any more protection than an individual enjoys under the speech clause.” The Origins Of The Press Clause., 30 UCLA L. Rev. 455, February 1983, by David A. Anderson, Professor of Law, The University of Texas at Austin.
If the freedom of the Press exists implicitly in the freedom of speech, why did the founders reference it in the Constitution? We guess they did so to emphasize the import of “free Press Speech,” apart from general public “free Speech,” evidently assuming that the energies of a free Press would be directed to safeguarding the Nation. Many of the founders therefore trusted in an unencumbered, unrestrained, unconstrained free Press. Many did; but not all.
But the founders did, as one, foresee the innate tendency of the federal Government to accumulate power unto itself. And that concern informed the founders’ blueprint for the Nation. They concluded an unshackled free Press, in tandem with the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, were two effective guardians against a tyrannical Government. But did the founders misapprehend the Press? Did they fail to see that an unrestrained Press, far from safeguarding a free Constitutional Republic, would endanger it?
The founders correctly deduced the tendency of the federal Government to unlawfully amass power, even as the Constitution's first three Articles, carefully delineated the powers and authority that each Branch may lawfully wield. The founders also correctly deduced that an armed citizenry would effectively counter encroaching tyranny. But the founders evidently did not believe a Press, far from serving as a mechanism to ward off tyranny, might one day become the agent of it, even as some, notably Thomas Jefferson, harbored serious misgivings about Press Freedom as reflected in his writings. In those writings Jefferson expressed uncertainty, even equivocation, despite the fact that many commentators, today, deny this, arguing Jefferson unequivocally supported Press Freedom. He did not.
John Norvell, U.S. Senator from Michigan, January 26, 1837 – March 4, 1841, wrote to Jefferson, explaining how he would one day wish to enter the field of newspaper publishing:
“It would be a great favor, too, to have your opinion of the manner in which a newspaper, to be most extensively beneficial, should be conducted, as I expect to become the publisher of one for a few years.
Accept venerable patriot, my warmest wishes for your happiness.”
Jefferson composed a stern letter to Norvell, warning him of the dangers of the Press.
“To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted, so as to be most useful, I should answer, ‘by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only.’ Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of its benefits, than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief, that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time; whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables. General facts may indeed be collected . . . but no details can be relied on. I will add that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.” —Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 14 June 1807
And, 200 years after composing his cautionary letter to John Norvell, the fear that Jefferson expressed has come to pass as many academicians hold to the theory that Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press are two conceptually distinct freedoms; one accorded to the body politic generally, and the other accorded to mainstream “professional journalists.”
The schism has resulted in the false idea that Press Free Speech is of a higher order of Right than the general Free Speech Right accorded the ordinary masses'; that “professional journalists” should be designated a privileged group; that Press freedom should be accorded more deference than speech freedom. This is a dangerous idea, not only detrimental to First Amendment Free Speech but to the very sanctity of a free Constitutional Republic. And the danger isn’t theoretical; it is actual. The Press is not content simply to report the news and to critique the Government. No! The Press has itself become an instrument of repression as it strives to constrain our fundamental rights and liberties, to overthrow a duly elected President, and to undermine a free Constitutional Republic.
Arbalest Quarrel
About The Arbalest Quarrel:
Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel' website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.
For more information, visit:


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
(Friday Church News Notes, April 24, 2020,, 866-295-4143) - 
Bitter Winter, a human rights magazine, reports the following: “Even the deadly coronavirus outbreak did not reduce the speed of the cross-demolition campaign sweeping through China. In mid-March, crosses were removed from multiple churches in the eastern provinces of Jiangsu and Anhui. In the neighboring Shandong, the prefecture-level city of Linyi is no exception: On top of at least 70 crosses removed from churches since last spring, more have been taken down during the epidemic. ... Last December, numerous crosses were removed from Three-Self churches in Hegang, a prefecture-level city in the northeastern province of Heilongjiang. A member of a church in the city’s Dongshan district told Bitter Winter that a local official threatened to close down the church if the cross was not removed because ‘it was higher than the national flag’” (“Crosses Removed from Numerous State-run Protestant Churches,” Bitter Winter, Apr. 11, 2020). This reminds us of two Bible prophecies. The first is in the Psalms: “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion” (Psalm 2:1-6). The second prophecy is in Isaiah: “Enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty. The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day. For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low” (Isaiah 2:10-12).

(Friday Church News Notes, April 24, 2020,,, 866-295-4143) - 
The following is excerpted from, Apr. 7, 2020: “Day-to-day online activities by Christians also are monitored. Members of a Three-Self church in the province of Henan received a notice from their pastor in January demanding they dissolve their groups on We Chat, a social media app. In February, a village official forced a Christian resident to ‘change his We Chat account profile picture’ because it contained an image of a cross, Bitter Winter reported. Churches and their members are prohibited from saying anything negative about the government or spreading information about the pandemic that isn't government-approved. ‘The Public Security Bureau has information on all members of every We Chat group, and network inspections are carried out, especially strict during the pandemic,’ a Three-Self pastor from Shandong told Bitter Winter. Persecution has worsened during the pandemic. ‘Encouraged by the government, many factories and public venues have been re-opened, but religious venues are still barred,’ a Three-Self believer from Henan province said. ‘Religious meetings are forbidden, and all channels of religious communication are blocked.’”

(Friday Church News Notes, April 24, 2020,, 866-295-4143) - 
The following is excerpted from “In China,” Bitter Winter, Apr. 11, 2020: “The death of Li Wenliang, the doctor who raised concerns about the dangers of the coronavirus and was silenced by the government, ignited a wave of anger among China’s population. On the night of his death, February 6, a protest started online, a rarity in the country governed by an authoritarian regime. Wearing face masks with ‘can’t’ and ‘don’t understand’—in reference to ‘Can you manage? Do you understand?’ from Dr. Li’s forced confession, asking if he could behave and understand what he did wrong—people took to the internet to express the pent-up distrust and despair at the government for concealing information about the virus and its dangers. They also accused the authorities of suppressing free speech. Among them was a man from eastern China. He agreed to talk to Bitter Winter on the condition of anonymity, so we’ll call him Mr. Cheng. ‘When Li Wenliang died, I wanted to do something to commemorate him,’ Mr. Cheng told Bitter Winter. ‘So, I sent a message on my WeChat group, suggesting that the group members change their profile picture to the photo of Li Wenliang and demand to thoroughly investigate why the coronavirus whistleblowers were persecuted, find out who is to blame, and ask for a public apology.’ ... That same day, the local police stormed into his house, took away his cellphone, and arrested him on suspicion of ‘disturbing public order.’ ‘The police claimed that my message was intended to subvert the state power. I could be imprisoned for ten years,’ Mr. Cheng continued. ... Before he was released, Mr. Cheng was asked to sign a statement promising not to post any more ‘improper remarks.’ ... Many other netizens joined the online protest, demanding freedom of speech. They were reprimanded and silenced by the police, and nothing has changed—business as usual in China.”
(Friday Church News Notes, April 24, 2020,, 866-295-4143) - 
“Marx took Hegel’s idea of change through confrontation and accommodation and placed it in the material world. This gives us the basic communist idea of change through destruction and reorganization. Communism thrives on turmoil because, to their way of thinking, anything which upsets order is an aid in movement toward their ultimate synthesis. In communism, the ruling class is the thesis, the working class the antithesis, and the ultimate synthesis will be a state controlled by the people living in complete equality. ... Many Christians have been amazed at the sympathy and comradeship liberal theologians feel for the godless communist movement. But it is not really surprising since they are both, in different areas of life, searching by the same methods for the same end” (Daniel J. Ebert, Will Our Sons Defend the Faith, 3rd edition, 1994, p. 36).


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
The grim news on the American job market kept coming this morning with the U.S. Labor Department’s announcement that another 4.42 million Americans applied for unemployment last week.
The figure is a slight dip from the 5.2 million two weeks ago, but the number is still another major blow to the economy.
The latest numbers mean more than 26 million Americans have applied for unemployment since March 1, just after the Chinese Virus landed in the country and began spreading.
At this writing, infections in the United States are nearing 850,000, with fatalities closing in on 50,000.
Slight Decline Bad as the news is from the week ending April 18, it’s not as bad as it was the week before.
Though 4,427,000 Americans applied for unemployment benefits, the Labor Department reported, the figure is 810,00 less, or 15.5 percent less, than the week ending April 11. That number was 5,237,000.
The unemployment rate for the week ending April 11 was 11 percent, a 34-percent increase from the week ending April 4, when it was 8.2 percent.
The insured unemployed for the week ending April 11 numbered nearly 16 million, the department reported.
That week’s increases in claims were just as staggering. Colorado suffered the most, with 58,246; while New York added 50,250; Missouri, 10,668; and Florida, 10,534.
The largest decreases, the department reported, were in California, which enjoyed 263,342 fewer claims, Michigan with minus 166,347, New Jersey with minus 73,416, Georgia with minus 70,551, and Ohio with minus 66,874.
The department also reported unemployment rates for a number of states for the week ending April 4:
• Michigan: 17.4
• Rhode Island: 15
• Nevada: 13.7
• Georgia: 13.6
• Washington: 13.2
• New Hampshire: 12.2
• Minnesota: 11.9
• New York: 11.9
• Montana: 11.7
• Ohio: 11.6
Adding last week’s 4.4 million claims to what came before, the number of unemployment claims filed since March 1 is nearing 27 million, an average of roughly 3.85 million claims per week for seven consecutive weeks.
More than 10 million filed for unemployment in the two weeks ending March 28.
Real Unemployment Rate Though the unemployment rate for March was just 4.4 percent, two professors are tracking the downturn in the jobs market and estimate that the real figure is 20 percent, as The New American reported last week.
On April 15, Alexander Bick of Arizona State University and Adam Blandin of Virginia Commonwealth University reported that the nation’s employment rate had dropped from 72.7 percent to 60.7 percent, which translated into a staggering 24 million jobs lost.
But even worse, elected officials and labor-market experts are dealing with numbers that are increasing at an almost incomprehensible pace.
“The April 2020 Employment Situation report will reflect labor market outcomes from the third week of April, but is not scheduled for release until May 8,” the professors wrote. “The gap between the data needs of policymakers and the time lag of traditional data sources has left policymakers ‘flying blind’ to a significant degree.”
The Bick-Blandin estimate of 20 percent unemployment, which came from respondents who answered an online survey, is likely higher given last week’s 4.4 million new unemployment claims.
A bright spot in the number, the professors wrote, was that “more than half of the unemployed in our sample are temporarily laid off. Somewhat less than 3/4 of the laid off have been either given a concrete date of return or the indication to be called back within 6 months. This suggests that large share of the unemployed might be quickly recalled to their previous jobs once the economy is opened up.”
Help From the White House Policymakers, as the professors wrote, might be flying blind, but the country’s top policymaker has at least partly seen the light on one issue: cheap foreign labor.
Yesterday, President Trump closed the border to legal immigrants to stop them from taking jobs that otherwise would go to Americans, although some foreigners will be permitted to enter the country.
Among them are the foreign spouses and children of citizens, tycoons who enter on investor visas, and medical personnel who can help fight the pandemic.
As for illegal immigration, last month, as TNA reported yesterday, border agents apprehended almost 34,000 illegal aliens who tried to jump the U.S. border with Mexico or were stopped at ports of entry.
That brought the total this fiscal year to more than 234,000.
Border authorities began immediately deporting illegals pursuant to Trump’s order of March 17 and have sent more than 10,000 back across the border to Mexico since then.
Those deporations will stop unscrupulous American employers from hiring cheap, illegal-alien labor.