A WordPress Blog-THE CHURCH MILITANT Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse. ALL CONTENT FROM HTTPS://RATHEREXPOSETHEM.BLOGSPOT.COM MOVED TO THIS NEW BLOG, MAY 2020
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
NY State Senator Zellnor Myrie introduced a bill last week intended to criminalize the sale and manufacture of firearms. IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- A politician in Brooklyn New York thinks he has come up with a brilliant solution to the crime wave currently sweeping through the Big Apple: Criminalize the sale and manufacture of firearms. New York City (among other urban areas controlled by anti-gun politicians) is facing a return to the bad old days of rising violent crime. It doesn’t take a sociologist or criminologist to see why.
Any reasonable person paying attention to these explosive trends could have predicted the deadly outcomes, as evidenced by the overwhelming demand for defensive firearms, particularly among first-time and non-traditional gun owners. But the politicians whose jurisdictions are descending into anarchy have a different explanation: you, the law-abiding citizen, and your guns. That’s why New York State Sen. Zellnor Myrie (D-Brooklyn) introduced a bill last week intended to criminalize the sale and manufacture of firearms.
Specifically, the bill would amend New York State’s public nuisance law to allow the state to prosecute the “sale or manufacture of products” as an activity considered to illegally or unreasonably “create or maintain a condition which endangers the safety or health of a considerable number of persons.”
While the language doesn’t mention firearms specifically, Myrie made clear in comments to the New York Daily News that guns are exactly the “products” he has in mind. “Every illegal gun on the street was a legally purchased gun at one time,” he said. Myrie continued: “In the wake of a gun violence epidemic plaguing the city, state, and nation, we have a duty to hold all responsible parties accountable.”
Yet while the bill amends a criminal statute, Myrie made clear that what he really hopes to do is to create a work-around to the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) in order to empower gun control advocates to sue the American firearms industry into oblivion in civil court.
The Daily News article notes the impetus for the bill was a New York City lawsuit that sought to hold several firearms companies liable for creating a public nuisance because unaffiliated criminals were using their products to harm third parties. That theory, however, did not hold up court.
A New York Times article on the lawsuit quotes none other than Michael Bloomberg – America’s biggest spending firearm prohibitionist – as characterizing the nine-year legal assault on firearm manufacturers as “one part of our strategy to fight against illegal guns.”
The PLCAA finally put an end to New York City’s attempt to drain the lifeblood from the firearms industry through litigation costs. Yet merely imposing those costs – even with a losing case – was a victory in itself for the anti-gun activists. Congress understood the existential threat these baseless suits posed to the American arms industry and enacted the PLCAA specifically so the suits could be disposed of as early in the proceedings as possible.
That is precisely why anti-gun activists are so focused on repealing the PLCAA that this goal has even made its way into the Democratic National Committee’s official platform. Meanwhile, the trial lawyers who comprise a significant part of that party’s base and donor class are salivating at the chance to reprise these suits, which pretend that violent criminals who misuse guns have no individual agency and that the true evildoers are legitimate makers and sellers of guns.
The PLCAA does not protect anyone who knowingly violates “a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product,” when “the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought … .” This narrow exception was meant to cover egregious violations of laws directed at firearm sales, such as deliberately falsifying firearm transfer records or selling a gun to someone who the seller knew or should have known was legally prohibited from receiving it.
Nevertheless, the game for anti-gun activists has been to try to shoehorn every questionable legal theory they can think of into this category.
As unlikely as this theory may be to prevail at trial, the mere continuation of these suits is enough to help drive some of America’s longest-lived gun makers into bankruptcy. And so it goes.
Even if Myrie’s amendments are enacted, it’s highly doubtful a plaintiff could prove that a company making or selling guns in otherwise perfect compliance with federal and state firearms laws was still somehow unlawfully or unreasonably causing third parties to commit violent crime. If that were so, then there would be essentially no way to engage in firearm-related commerce without running afoul of the law.
But just the fact that the law had changed might embolden a court to prolong a lawsuit long enough to accomplish its real aim, which is to drive the sued company out of business or force it to operate on the plaintiff’s term … for example, by refusing to sell guns to the general public.
The takeaway for gun owners could not be clearer: Firearm prohibition activists intend to weaponize the legal system against the industry that sustains their rights. And make no mistake, the same politically-motivated judges who once tried to abolish the Second Amendment’s protection for individual gun owners entirely would be only too happy to accommodate them.
About NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
A recently published Swiss Policy Research (SPR) protocol recommends people at high risk of COVID-19 or exposure to it use quercetin and zinc to treat the virus, in addition to other commonly available medications
Hydroxychloroquine studies with negative outcomes were marred by a delay in administering the drug, excessive doses of the drug, skewed data and contraindications that were not honored, according to SPR
Simple, safe and inexpensive COVID-19 treatments could render more complex medications and vaccinations obsolete
Swiss Policy Research (SPR), formerly known as Swiss Propaganda Research, which describes itself as “an independent, nonpartisan and nonprofit research group investigating geopolitical propaganda in Swiss and international media,” has published numerous articles on COVID-19 since the beginning of the pandemic.1
While SPR’s critics2 have accused it of promoting “unproven” theories, their work focuses on using published studies, case reports and actual physician testimonies for its reporting.
In regard to the pandemic, they have focused on the origin of COVID-19,3 the effectiveness of face masks,4 the lethality of an infection5 and misinformation from mainstream media sources.6 Most recently, SPR has released a summary of the scientific evidence they’ve found for treating COVID-19 with simple, safe and inexpensive ingredients.7
Zinc, quercetin, hydroxychloroquine, bromhexine, azithromycin and heparin are all treatments that scientific evidence or practical use by physicians have shown can be used successfully against COVID-19, SPR says. U.S. physicians, for example, using zinc, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin:
"… reported an 84% decrease in hospitalization rates, a 50% decrease in mortality rates among already hospitalized patients (if treated early), and an improvement in the condition of patients within 8 to 12 hours. Italian doctors reported a decrease in deaths of 66%."
Iranian doctors using bromhexine, a drug which breaks down mucus8 but is not available in the U.S., have:
"… reported in a study with 78 patients a decrease in intensive care treatments of 82%, a decrease in intubations of 89%, and a decrease in deaths of 100%. Chinese doctors reported a 50% reduction in intubations."
The Suggested Treatment Protocol
Reminding readers to be sure to check with their doctors before beginning any treatment, SPR chose the following protocols for early treatment of COVID-19 over a five- to seven-day regimen of:9
Zinc — 50 milligrams [mg] to 100 mg per day
Hydroxychloroquine — 400 mg per day
Quercetin — 500 mg to 1,000 mg per day
Bromhexine — 50 mg to 100 mg per day
Azithromycin — up to 500 mg per day
Heparin — usual dosage
The rational for the protocols is backed by data from prior research involving treatments that SPR said was found to be effective:10
"The efficacy of HCQ [hydroxychloroquine] against SARS coronaviruses was established in 2005 in the wake of the SARS-1 epidemic. The efficacy of zinc in blocking RNA replication of coronaviruses was discovered in 2010 by world-leading SARS virologist Ralph Baric.
The efficacy of HCQ in supporting the cellular uptake of zinc was discovered in 2014 as part of cancer research. The efficacy of the flavonoid quercetin in supporting the cellular uptake of zinc was also discovered in 2014. The efficacy of bromhexine in blocking cell entry of coronaviruses was established in 2017.”
The goal of treating COVID-19 with the six suggested supplements and medications is to nip the virus in the bud and avoid hospitalization, says the organization.11 Starting the protocol as soon as symptoms emerge may prevent progression of the illness.
Data Show Hydroxychloroquine Is Effective, SPR Found
Many people have heard about hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19 and much of what they’ve heard recently in mainstream news is negative. That's because the media have focused on negative outcomes from selected studies and subsequent warnings from the FDA.12
SPR contends, however, that those studies were marred by a delay in administering the drug, excessive doses of the drug, skewed data and contraindications that were ignored.13
According to notes which accompany the protocol, hydroxychloroquine and quercetin (which can be substituted for hydroxychloroquine) "support the cellular absorption of zinc and have additional anti-viral properties."
In treating COVID-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine and other common medications and supplements has become so politicized, patients may end up being denied inexpensive and effective treatments which have been studied and found to be effective in multiple investigations from around the world.
Even The Lancet, a well-respected medical journal, found itself embroiled in COVID-19 misinformation — possibly partisan — and had to retract research that claimed hydroxychloroquine had no benefit.
Still, top doctors have not been afraid to speak out about the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquinein treating patients who contract the virus. In an op-ed in Newsweek magazine, Dr. Harvey A. Risch from the Yale School of Public Health, wrote:14
"When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc.
On May 27, I published an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology (AJE) entitled, 'Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis.'
That article, published in the world's leading epidemiology journal, analyzed five studies, demonstrating clear-cut and significant benefits to treated patients, plus other very large studies that showed the medication safety."
In his op-ed, Risch cites hydroxychloroquine studies in U.S. nursing homes and clinics, and trials in Brazil and France that had positive outcomes with few to no deaths.15
Zinc Is an Important Part of the COVID-19 Fight
Zinc plays a vital role in immunity as well as in blood clotting,16 cell division,17 thyroid health,18smell and taste,19 vision20 and wound healing.21 It can effectively inhibit the replication of viruses in a cell, but it needs "ionophores"22 to shuttle it into the cell where it puts up its fight. You may also need to take zinc daily because the body does not store it.23
Luckily, both hydroxychloroquine and quercetin are ionophores that usher zinc into the cells where it is needed. Zinc is so basic to fighting infections, some research suggests that it is zinc rather than hydroxychloroquine or quercetin that does the "heavy lifting" of inhibiting viral replication when they are given together.
In research published in the International Journal for Infectious Diseases, both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin were effective and "associated with reduction in COVID-19 associated mortality."24 In a study of 2,541 patients with an average age of 64 and who spent an average of six days in the hospital, Michigan scientists found:25
"In this multi-hospital assessment, when controlling for COVID-19 risk factors, treatment with hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin was associated with reduction in COVID-19 associated mortality."
However, zinc was not included in this trial and most doctors fail to add zinc and an antibiotic for secondary bacterial infections in their hydroxycholoroquine regimens. Despite FDA warnings about hydroxychloroquine-related heart rhythm problems,26 the researchers in this study report that:27
"A review of our COVID-19 mortality data demonstrated no major cardiac arrhythmias … observed with hydroxychloroquine treatment."
In addition to strengthening your immune system through activating your body's T cells,28 zinc has cognitive29 and mood effects.30 It protects your hippocampus, which is involved in depression, emotion, memory and learning.31 It also helps your brain release brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) which counteracts brain inflammation and depression.
Signs that your zinc levels are low32 include loss of appetite, impaired immune system, sluggish metabolism and thinning hair.
Quercetin Helps Fight COVID-19
Quercetin is a natural antihistamine and anti-inflammatory plant pigment that boosts your immune system and may work to control viral replication, according to some research.33 It allows zinc to exert its proven antiviral properties; in treating COVID-19, quercetin may also lower inflammation, help clear mucus, prevent ventilator-induced damage and support immunity.
According to the research, quercetin has been shown to help fight obesity, Type 2 diabetes, circulatory dysfunction, chronic inflammation and mood disorders.34 It has even been found to help lower blood pressure.35
Researchers have found that quercetin can trigger tumor regression and begin the process of apoptosis.36 This is programmed cell death, without which cells can grow uninterrupted and develop into cancerous growths.
Protect Yourself With Facts From Sources Such as SPR
Operation Warp Speed, the fast-tracking of a COVID-19 vaccine to licensure and subsequent widespread use, is now in full operation. What we must remember here is that vaccine manufacturers are not liable for any damage their vaccines do. Since 2011, drug companies making and selling vaccines are even shielded from design defect lawsuits, which means they have absolutely no incentive for reducing the risks associated with the use of their products.
Vaccine makers and the health care practitioners who administer vaccines do not face any liability whatsoever if a new coronavirus vaccine turns out to be a catastrophe.
Worse, when a COVID-19 vaccine is ready to be marketed to the public, there likely will be little or no information about its long- and short-term side effects, because it will be so new and because it will lack the test of time for determining its efficacy and safety. Operation Warp Speed and fast-tracked vaccines may be largely unnecessary, as SPR writes:37
"It is conceivable that the above treatment protocol, which is simple, safe and inexpensive, could render more complex medications, vaccinations, and other measures largely obsolete."
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
The Republican National Committee (RNC) recently approved a resolution “refuting the legitimacy of the Southern Poverty Law Center to identify hate groups.”
The New American has published many articles about the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) over the years, (see “Related articles” below) variously describing the far-left organization as “an extremist anti-Christian hate group,” a “smear machine,” a “money-making scam,” and as “aggressively anti-Christian and morally bankrupt.”
The resolution adopted by the RNC supplemented The New American’s descriptions with damning charges of its own. A partial list includes:
• The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is a far-left organization with an obvious bias;
• The SPLC makes a practice of incorrectly labeling persons and organizations as “hate groups”;
• The actions of the SPLC have served to mobilize persons to act in hate and violence towards those on its “hate group” list;
• The Family Research Council suffered a violent attack due to its support of the traditional family, which the SPLC has deemed as hateful;
• Legitimizing the SPLC puts conservative groups or voices at risk of attack.
The resolution concluded: “RESOLVED, That the SPLC is a radical organization, and that the federal government should not view this organization as a legitimate foundation equipped to provide actionable information to DHS or any other government agency.”
Back in 2013, the SPLC released a so-called Intelligence Report warning of an alleged surge in right-of-center organizations concerned about an out-of-control federal government. Among the groups the SPLC attacked was The John Birch Society (with which this magazine is affiliated). An entire article was devoted largely to complaining about the JBS’s supposed growing influence in the conservative movement and the Republican Party.
In a published rebuttal to the RNC resolution, the SPLC described it as “an attack on the SPLC’s definition of hate groups in order to excuse the Trump administration’s history of working with individuals and organizations that malign entire groups of people — such as Black Lives Matter advocates, immigrants, Muslims and the LGBTQ community — with dehumanizing rhetoric.”
The SPLC continued, “From the moment that Donald Trump ran for president, he welcomed the support of hate groups like the Family Research Council and the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).”
As noted above, the Family Research Council (FRC) was specifically cited in the RNC’s resolution. On August 15, 2012, a man armed with a 9mm handgun, 50 rounds of ammunition, and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches arrived at FRC headquarters in Washington with the intent to “kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-Fil-A sandwiches in victims’ faces, and kill the guard.”
Later, the man told the FBI that he was targeting “anti-gay” organizations, as designated by the SPLC.
FAIR seeks a moratorium on net immigration by anyone other than refugees and the spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens because it believes that the economic and social growth in the United States are no longer sustainable at the current rate of immigration. That, according to SPLC, makes it a “hate group.”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have lengthy histories of hating guns and the Second Amendment. IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- It’s no secret that most in the legacy media do not support the Second Amendment; at least, not a proper interpretation of what that amendment actually protects. It’s also no secret that most of those same purveyors of “news” will do everything they can to attack President Trump, and defend the Biden-Harris ticket—now the official Democrat ticket for President in 2020—any chance they can get.
A recent USA Today “Fact Check” is a perfect example of this obvious bias.
The impetus of this “Fact Check” was that someone on Facebook posted what was said to be intended as a hypothetical statement by VP candidate Kamala Harris. Based on her history of proposing and supporting a litany of anti-gun schemes, the post attributed to Harris the statement, “If elected and you don’t surrender your guns, I will sign an executive order and the police will show up at your door.”
So, USA Today is now “Fact-Checking” random Facebook posts by private citizens? At least they haven’t delved into “Fact-Checking” satire.
Technically, USA Today is correct when it classifies the actual quote as “False.” As far as we know, Harris has never said these exact words. But if one believes the person who made the post—that it intended it as a hypothetical statement that “isn’t that much of a stretch” from Harris’s true feelings—it’s probably more true than “False.”
When Harris was an actual presidential candidate, she did clearly state that, should Congress not enact several of her gun control ideas within 100 days of her taking office, she “will take executive action.” At least USA Today acknowledges this, although they emphasize that she would, using Harris’s words, focus on “reasonable gun safety laws.”
But what, exactly, is a “reasonable” law, in the mind of someone like Harris, or her running mate, who is so unreasonably anti-gun?
She clearly supports gun bans, which are unreasonable to many Americans, and, more importantly, unconstitutional.
Harris is a co-sponsor of Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Cal.) legislation that seeks to ban countless semi-automatic firearms. This includes, of course, the most popular rifle in America, the AR-15, which has been available to the public for more than half a century. In total, there are tens-of-millions of firearms currently in the hands of law-abiding citizens that Feinstein and Harris would like to see banned by the federal government.
That hardly seems “reasonable,” unless you simply don’t like the idea of law-abiding citizens being able to exercise their right to self-defense with the firearm of their choosing.
But what about the hypothetical line that “the police will show up at your door”?
Well, Harris has made it clear that she doesn’t believe Feinstein’s ban goes far enough. It would allow those who currently own these firearms to continue to own them, as the ban would “just” be on the future manufacture, import, sale, and transfer of these guns. Harris, on the other hand, has stated her support for firearm confiscation.
While campaigning for president last year, during a stop in Londonderry, N.H., Harris told reporters that confiscation of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms was “a good idea.” Elaborating on her support for a compulsory “buyback” program, the senator added, “We have to work out the details—there are a lot of details—but I do… We have to take those guns off the streets.” She also called for a “mandatory buyback program” during an October 3, 2019, MSNBC gun control forum and again during a November interview with NBC Nightly News.
So, if she supports the ban and the “mandatory buyback” scheme, what if some people choose to not comply? How will she “take those guns off the street”? Perhaps police coming to your door is not out of the question. It seemed to be the plan for one of her fellow former presidential candidates, who her current running mate seems to want as his gun control czar.
USA Today’s “Fact check” conveniently avoids any mention of the VP candidate’s outspoken support of banning most semi-automatic firearms, which seems odd, considering that position is clearly what inspired the hypothetical quote. By avoiding her support of gun bans, the paper could also avoid her voicing support of a “mandatory buyback program,” and, thus, avoid discussing what such a program actually is.
But we are happy to fill in USA Today’s intentional blanks.
As we’ve said before, a “mandatory buyback” is simply an anti-gun euphemism for confiscation.
First, you cannot “buyback” something you never previously owned, and the government did not own the tens-of-millions of guns that would be targeted by this scheme.
Second, the term “buy” implies that both the seller and purchaser are willing participants in the transaction, and the ability to negotiate a price would, presumably, be involved. But if the “buyback” is “mandatory,” then it does not matter if the seller is willing; the government has dictated you will sell. And if the government has dictated the sale, there will be no possibility of negotiating price; the government will dictate the price.
Finally, if it is “mandatory,” and you don’t take part in the “buyback,” the next obvious step is confiscation, and perhaps jail time, and that would clearly be done by police. In fact, a more accurate term for “mandatory buyback” would probably be “compensated confiscation,” with the understanding that the “compensation” will likely be far less than what you originally paid. Or, to paraphrase Don Corleone, the government will simply make you an offer you cannot refuse.
And we really don’t have to speculate on how the scheme might play out, as we’ve seen it implemented in Australia.
In 1996, following a high-profile shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania, Australia’s states and territories adopted the federal National Firearms Agreement (NFA). The agreement set up stringent licensing requirements to possess firearms, requiring license applicants provide a “genuine reason” for owning a firearm; the agreement made clear that personal protection was not a genuine reason. The measure also targeted several types of commonly-owned firearms and included a near-total ban on civilian ownership of semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns.
With the ban, which did not allow for continued possession of firearms lawfully acquired before it went into effect, came an amnesty and compensation program. Through a massive public education campaign, gun owners were warned that they were required to turn their newly-prohibited firearms over to the government for a set price. Sounds exactly like what Harris supports.
We also don’t have to speculate on what would happen after, if a scheme like the one Harris supports were to be implemented. Australia has seen its ban fail, leading to new amnesty/confiscation schemes in spite of the growing understanding that such schemes don’t work. And because they don’t work, Australia continues to see efforts to push for more gun control laws—laws that Harris and USA Today would also likely consider “reasonable.”
So, we agree that Harris didn’t actually say what someone apparently hypothesized she might say, were she to tell the truth about her views on gun control. There is ample evidence to support the view that Kamala Harris does support the banning and confiscation of tens-of-millions of firearms from law-abiding citizens. After all, when discussing her support of a mandatory “buyback” scheme—which is confiscation—she did say, “We have to take those guns off the streets.” While they are generally in the homes of law-abiding gun owners, we understand what she means. She just hasn’t been honest enough to actually say such things.
So, kudos to USA Today for clearing up any confusion some may have had regarding a Facebook post by an individual who was, apparently, expressing her opinion of what Kamala Harris actually feels when it comes to gun bans. This was not an editorial, or a campaign ad, or a story from a news broadcast, or even a comment from a political candidate. Just a Facebook post.
That’s groundbreaking journalism. Look out memes, you’re next!
About NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Ammoland News recently reported on outside the USA forces partnering with FaceBook trying to spin the truth on Kamala Harris and The Second Amendment, telling us the flat-out opposite of what the facts report. Here is your comprehensive break down of Kamala Harris and your Second Amendment rights with links so you can fact check the “fact-checkers”. Please share this all over FB and push back against the lies.
Kamala Harris & The Second Amendment, Your Comprehensive Guide…It's Not Good
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- With her selection as the Democratic Party’s nominee for Vice President of the United States, Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) would be the proverbial heartbeat away from the presidency should Joe Biden win on November 3rd, 2020. So where does she stand on major issues surrounding the Second Amendment? This is no small matter – Harris could potentially be making decisions that would affect the rights of millions of law-abiding gun owners.
Kamala Harris and The Second Amendment – How She Went From A Career Prosecutor to the United States Senate
Senator Harris has touted her career as a prosecutor. According to the official site of California’s Office of the Attorney General, she spent eight years with the Alameda County District Attorney’s office (1990-1998) and six years with the San Francisco District Attorney (1998-2004). During her time in those offices, she also picked up two side gigs.
The Daily Mail noted that she was appointed to the California Medical Assistance Commission and the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. The two jobs had a combined salary of $169,088. At the time of those appointments, Harris was dating then-California Assembly Speaker Willie Brown. By the time she ran for District Attorney, she and Brown had split
From 2004 to 2010, she was the District Attorney in San Francisco, and used that as a launching pad to become attorney general of California. In 2016, she won the election to replace Barbara Boxer as California’s junior Senator.
On Interpreting the Second Amendment
There has been some recent controversy over Facebook proclaiming AmmoLand’s coverage of Senator Harris’s positions on the Second Amendment as fake news. The social media giant cited reporting from Agence France Presse, per AmmoLand Author John Crump’s reporting here.
Here’s the straight scoop: As the landmark Heller case, in which Washington D.C.’s handgun ban was challenged on Second Amendment grounds, was being heard by the Supreme Court, Harris, as District Attorney of San Francisco, sought to have the court uphold the ban.
In a brief filed by a number of district attorneys from big cities across the country, Harris was among those who stated, “the three D.C. Code provisions at issue in this appeal do not violate the Second Amendment, thus necessitating a reversal of the lower court’s decision.”The Supreme Court did not agree, striking down D.C.’s onerous laws in a 5-4 ruling.
Amici Curiae Brief by Kamal Harris
In the McDonald case, which resulted in the Supreme Court invalidating Chicago’s handgun ban when it held the Second Amendment applied to the states under the terms of the 14th Amendment, Harris was not among the district attorneys who urged the high court to invalidate the onerous provision. Again, the Supreme Court’s decision came by a 5-4 margin.
On her campaign website for President, Harris boasted about how “she stood up to the gun lobby and successfully defended California’s gun violence prevention laws to legal challenge.”
Background Checks and Waiting Periods
Harris has supported more onerous burdens on those seeking to purchase firearms. During her time as Attorney General, she defended the state’s 10-day waiting period in the Silvester case. The Ninth Circuit upheld the limits, while the Supreme Court refused to review that decision.
As a Senator, Harris has co-sponsored a number of bills that sought either “universal” background checks, to extend the amount of time someone could potentially have to wait, or to retain records.
This included the Background Check Completion Act in 2017 and 2020, which would have eliminated any deadline to transfer a firearm when the National Instant Check System called for a delay. She also backed the Background Check Expansion Act in 2017 and 2019, which would have mandated background checks on all firearms transfers.
On her campaign site, Harris stated that one of the executive actions she would take if Congress didn’t pass new gun laws in 100 days would center on background checks.
Microstamping and Other “Back-Door” Gun Bans
During her time as Attorney General, Harris did take an action that points to her threats of using executive action to ban firearms. According to Reason magazine, in 2013, she triggered provisions of California’s microstamping law that in effect, banned new models of semi-automatic pistols.
The Truth About Guns also reported that on Harris’s watch, the Handgun Roster was also used to effectively ban new models of handguns, turning the state into “a testbed for the forces of civilian disarmament.”
“Assault Weapons” and Standard-Capacity Magazines
Harris has long pursued bans on modern multi-purpose semiautomatic firearms, which she and other anti-Second Amendment politicians have labeled as “assault weapons.” These efforts date back to at least 2004, when she supported efforts to keep the 1994 legislation from expiring.
After Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced a new ban on modern semiautomatic firearms in the wake of the December 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Harris released a statement saying:
“Senator Feinstein's renewed call to reactivate the federal assault weapons ban and to ban high-capacity magazines is in the best interest of public safety. These weapons of war are too often used to take innocent lives and do not belong on our streets. I was proud to stand with Senator Feinstein when she fought to restore the ban in 2004, and I am proud to stand with her again today.”
In 2016, while in the midst of her run for the United States Senate, she teamed up with Assemblyman David Chiu on a tightening of California’s already onerous semiauto ban. According to a release from the California attorney general’s office, the legislation would have banned so-called “bullet button” modifications.
When elected to the Senate, Harris has co-sponsored Feinstein’s legislation to create a stricter version of the 1994 semiauto ban in 2017 and 2019. She also co-sponsored legislation by Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) to ban many standard-capacity magazines in 2017 and 2019.
Harris has also not been above the use of emotional blackmail to overcome logic, at one point saying that Senators should have to view autopsy photos of the victims of school shootings like Newtown and Parkland before voting on semiauto bans.
Firearms Accessories
In addition to magazine bans, Harris has also targeted other firearms accessories. In 2017, she signed on to Feinstein’s legislation targeting certain stocks and trigger modifications. The “assault weapons” legislation she has co-sponsored also would ban firearms based on the use of certain accessories.
Concealed Carry
As California’s top lawyer, Harris defended its “may issue” laws in court – even as those laws became “non-issue” in several jurisdictions. In 2014, she condemned the district court’s ruling in Peruta v. California.
“Local law enforcement must be able to use their discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon,” she said in the statement. “I will do everything possible to restore law enforcement's authority to protect public safety, and so today am calling on the court to review and reverse its decision.”
Upon the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in 2016, she called the preservation of California’s “may issue” law “a victory for public safety and sensible gun safety laws” that “ensures that local law enforcement leaders have the tools they need to protect public safety by determining who can carry loaded, concealed weapons in our communities.”
Gun Owner Privacy
Harris has also deemed those who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights as not deserving privacy. In 2020, she co-sponsored the Senate version of the Tiahrt Restrictions Repeal Act. In a press release issued by her office, she claimed, “Access to gun data is vital to law enforcement’s ability to solve gun crimes and keep our communities safe.”
Targeting Firearms Manufacturers and Dealers
Harris’s assaults on the Second Amendment have not been limited to those law-abiding citizens who wish to own firearms. She has also targeted firearms manufacturers and dealers.
Kamala Harris and the Second Amendment, Harris supported legislation to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2017 and 2019. This would enable big cities to file lawsuits against firearms manufacturers over the criminal misuse of firearms – and open them up to blackmail in the form of being bankrupted by legal expenses unless they agree to an anti-Second Amendment agenda that has been rejected by voters numerous times. She also laid out repeal of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act as part of her agenda should she become president.
In 2018 and 2019, Harris also backed legislation that would increase red tape for firearms dealers.
Targeting Firearms Hobbyists
Hobbyists who like to build their own firearms for personal use have also been targeted by Senator Harris over her career. She co-sponsored the 3D Printed Gun Safety Act in 2018and 2019, which not only affected those who wish to manufacture their own guns or parts, but which also carries significant First Amendment implications as well.
Harris also co-sponsored the Senate version of the Untraceable Firearms Act in 2020, which targeted other home manufacturers of firearms for their personal use.
First Amendment
Senator Harris has also backed legislation that would restrict the ability of those who support the Second Amendment to make their voices heard. In 2019, she signed on to the “For the People Act,” which seeks, among other things, a constitutional amendment to overturn some of the free speech protections reaffirmed in the Citizens United ruling. During her presidential campaign, she vowed to appoint federal judges who would overturn the Citizens United ruling.
Her efforts when granted power to enforce laws were aimed at political opponents. During her tenure as attorney general in California, she also targeted a prominent conservative group, seeking information on its donors according to Breitbart News. The court battle is currently pending.
Senator Harris also co-sponsored the Senate version of legislation to punish some criminal actions more harshly based on the views of the offender in 2019.
Harris has also supported efforts to resume taxpayer-funded anti-Second Amendment propaganda, co-sponsoring bills in 2019 and 2017 to allow the Centers for Disease Control to push flawed and biased research.
Due Process
Senator Harris has also favored legislation that would seize firearms while trampling all overdue process protections for those who would be subjected to a loss of their rights. In 2017 and 2019, she co-sponsored a “red flag” law that denied basic protections to those who would be ordered to give up their firearms. A number of other bills she co-sponsored like 2017’s Protecting Domestic Violence and Stalking Victims Act (also introduced in 2019), would add penalties to people who were convicted of crimes prior to the date of the law’s enactment.
It should be noted that Senator Harris has co-sponsored a number of other bills with similar provisions, including the 2019 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.
Summary
In short on the subject of Kamala Harris and The Second Amendment, when Senator Harris claims to support the Second Amendment, she is not telling the truth. The facts show that she has been an avowed enemy of the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Whether it is supporting bans on firearms, denying people the ability to carry firearms for personal protection, depriving gun owners of privacy and due process, or targeting manufacturers and dealers, she has not been on the side of freedom.
Quite frankly, Harris has one of the most anti-Second Amendment track records we at AmmoLand News have ever seen for a person on a major party’s presidential ticket. She will be a heartbeat away from the presidency should Joe Biden win. Second Amendment supporters should cast their votes accordingly.
About Harold Hutchison
Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics, and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
I called for the revocation of her medical license back in January 2019. In the Hippocratic Oath, doctors pledge that they will “do no harm or injustice” to their patients. Kollab not only repeatedly expressed her vehement hatred for Jews, but actually stated explicitly that she would give them the wrong medicine in order to do them harm. Her license should have been revoked immediately. But better late than never.
“Ex-Cleveland Clinic resident makes antisemitic posts, has license revoked,” by Rachel Wolf and Marcy Oster, JTA, August 22, 2020:
Lara Kollab, a former Cleveland Clinic resident, had her certification permanently revoked by The State Medical Board of Ohio on August 12 after making antisemitic social media posts, Cleveland.com reported. She is now “permanently prohibited from practicing osteopathic medicine or surgery in the state of Ohio, or from participating in another medical training program,” the website added.
In revoking her certificate, the board cited 11 posts she wrote from August 2011-September 2013, and a January 2012 tweet in which she wrote that she would give Jewish patients the wrong medication, Cleveland.com reported.
“hahha ewww.. ill purposely give all the yahood [Jews] the wrong meds…,” Kollab tweeted in January 2012.
When she was accepted to Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine, a private Jewish university in New York City, she deleted the tweets and comments, but some were already preserved as screenshots.
In an August 2013 post, Kollab wrote in Arabic, “May Allah take back [end the lives] of the Jews so we stop being forced to go to those unclean ones.”
In December 2018, after the posts were discovered, Kollab was fired.
“This individual was employed as a supervised resident at our hospital from July to September 2018. She is no longer working at Cleveland Clinic. In no way do these beliefs reflect those of our organization. We fully embrace diversity, inclusion and a culture of safety and respect across our entire health system,” the Cleveland Clinic said in a statement at the time.
Kollab later apologized, saying that the posts “do not represent who I am and the principles I stand for today.”…
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
A leftist teacher has complained that ‘virtual classrooms’ as a result of coronavirus will allow parents to witness the ‘woke’ indoctrination their child is receiving and that this is a bad thing.
If there was one silver lining to coronavirus, it’s that many more parents are now becoming familiar with what their child is actually being taught.
That worries Matthew R. Kay , “educator” and author of Not Light, But Fire: How to Lead Meaningful Race Conversations in the Classroom.
According to Kay, having parents overhear what politically correct, self-hating drivel their children are being subjected to means, God forbid, that it might be challenged.
“So, this fall, virtual class discussions will have many potential spectators — parents, siblings, etc. — in the same room. We’ll never be quite sure who is overhearing the discourse. What does this do for our equity/inclusion work?” asks Kay.
“How much have students depended on the (somewhat) secure barriers of our physical classrooms to encourage vulnerability? How many of us have installed some version of “what happens here stays here” to help this?”
“While conversations about race are in my wheelhouse, and remain a concern in this no-walls environment — I am most intrigued by the damage that “helicopter/snowplow” parents can do in honest conversations about gender/sexuality,” he concludes.
The “damage” actually being done is kids being exposed to the kind of extremist, anti-American, white-hating Black Lives Matter racism espoused by Kay and his ilk.
“Teaching children to hate themselves for being Caucasian and to embrace harmful alternative sexualities becomes more challenging with someone who means the child well scowling in the background,” comments Dave Blount.
Maybe schooling never returning to “normal” thanks to COVID-19 will end up being a good thing.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the COVID-19 pandemic is being used as a propaganda ploy to empower government to seize control of the most elemental life choices of the American people.
First, the lockdowns let governors, mostly Democrats and RINOs, determine who was “essential” and who wasn’t, and gave them the opportunity to force the latter to stay in their homes and close their businesses, among other tyrannies large and small.
Next came the madness of masking mandates that force people to wear masks whenever they need to conduct business. Neither lockdowns nor masks do anything to stop the spread of a virus, but they do psychologically condition Americans to be controlled and subjected to heightened tyranny over nothing less than the most fundamental activity necessary for life itself: breathing.
It seems clear that these two examples of deranged despotism were only to set precedents that would allow our “leaders” to impose mandatory vaccinations with whatever half-baked and dangerous concoction the FDA is so eager to approve.
Virginia has now become the first state to openly begin preparations to force the needle, at the point of gun, into the bodies of what used to be free American citizens.
Speaking to the ABC news affiliate channel in Richmond, Dr. Norman Oliver, the state’s health commissioner, promised he would mandate the jab.
“Dr. Oliver says that, as long as he is still the Health Commissioner, he intends to mandate the coronavirus vaccine,” Richmond’s 8News reported.
Commenting on his coercive plan, the megalomaniacal “doctor” said: “It is killing people now, we don’t have a treatment for it and if we develop a vaccine that can prevent it from spreading in the community we will save hundreds and hundreds of lives,” Oliver said.
Of course, much of what Oliver says isn’t completely true. There are treatments for COVID-19, not the least the inexpensive hydroxychloroquine based treatment. There are others besides. As for COVID killing people — it’s mostly not doing that either. In Virginia, so far 2,443 COVID deaths are listed on the state’s dashboard. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are 8,535,519 residents of Virginia. This means that 0.028 percent of the population of Virginia has died of COVID-19. That’s considerably less than one percent. And, of course, those numbers may be inflated. As Dr. Deborah Birx admitted in April: “The intent is ... if someone dies with COVID-19 we are counting that.”
Compared to COVID, other health problems are far more dangerous to Virginians. According to the CDC, in 2017 cancer, the leading cause of death in the state, claimed 15,064 lives. Heart disease caused 14,861 deaths that year. Other causes of death:
Accidents: 3,922
Stroke: 3,555
Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease: 3,363
Alzheimer’s Disease: 2,549
Diabetes: 1,967
Kidney Disease: 1,618
Drug Overdose: 1,507
Septicemia: 1,249
Flu and pneumonia: 1,245
COVID is less deadly than many other causes of mortality in Virginia, and about the same as some others. Yet there are no full-blown statist overreactions to these other conditions. French fries and cheeseburgers have not been banned (yet). Moreover, one wonders how big the increase in death and suffering from these other conditions might be as a result of patients suffering these other diseases foregoing doctors’ visits over COVID fear, or outright being restricted from accessing healthcare during the lockdowns?
Regardless of whether mandatory vaccinations can be justified on some abstract public-health basis, where the needle meets the skin it becomes a matter of fundamental personal freedom. No person may make a claim to another person’s body or life. Doing so is the very definition of tyranny, and it was foundational to such monstrosities as Mengele’s “experiments” and the Holocaust — not to mention all the other state-run socialist/communist genocides of the last 150 years or so. This pernicious philosophy has rivaled war as a direct cause of bloodshed (though this is not to give a pass to war, as that is usually a statist project also).
Speaking of Mengele, read this short summary of the public health “work” done by this devil’s spawn and weep.
Perhaps we’re not quite to Mengele yet with mandatory vaccination. But we are standing on the philosophical precipice looking down at a very slippery slope.
Meanwhile, the very idea that the vaccine must be mandated tells you all you need to know about the expected desirability, safety, and effectiveness of the coming vaccines. In the face of disease, a safe and effective vaccine would hardly even need to be advertised. It would be, indeed, a “better mousetrap,” and the world would beat on big pharma’s doors to get access — much like the world beats today on the doors of the world’s papermakers in an attempt to purchase paper towels.
A purely voluntary vaccination program does not destroy freedom and, if based on a vaccine of proven safety and usefulness, would lead to rapid and widespread adoption — and would be much more effective than a mandatory campaign that amounts to a war on the citizenry.
Of course, bleats the chorus of pathetic quisling sheeple now overrunning the nation, Virginia’s Norman Oliver and his public health colleagues and their largely Democrat enablers just have our best interests at heart. They know best and we pitiful, dimwitted Americans should just let them run our lives. It’s for the best, after all.
On this point, Americans should turn to C.S. Lewis.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” Lewis wrote in God in the Dock. “It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
What Lewis here describes fits some of our present overlords quite precisely, among them Virginia’s Norman Oliver.
He and his ilk must be opposed, or any semblance of freedom Americans think they have remaining will wind up in the trash heap of history.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
It was another “don’t start nuthin’, won’t be nuthin'” clash in Portland on Saturday. Antifa and Black Lives Matter protesters crashed a pro-police Back the Blue rally downtown. True to form, antifa and BLM went from counter-“protesting” to violently attacking people.
We’ve seen it before.
The Back the Blue rally included members of Proud Boys, a multi-racial (yes) group of America-loving and antifa-hating tough guys and gals, who will fight back if the Leftist mob starts something. They come prepared to do battle.
And guess what? That’s exactly what happened. If antifa doesn’t start the violence then no violence happens.
Proud Boys are defined by the mainstream media and the Left (but I repeat myself) as “white supremacists,” but they appear to be a much more ethnically diverse group than antifa is. The local leader is Hispanic.
One black woman demonstrating with Back the Blue had a jar of urine poured on her by antifa.
As they often do, the Portland Police watched while the melee ensued.
A black bloc-outfitted antifa member hit a guy walking away from the mob and got instant retaliation from the guy she hit. Listen to the antifa woman “press” screech while the cops do nothing about it.
Antifa complained that the riot was declared after Proud Boys and the Back the Blue rallygoers left.
You can count on Mayor Ted Wheeler to denounce the violence against antifa by the right-leaning group.
Mayor Ted Wheeler Raises Alert that Rally Supporting Cops Is Planned
He announced the free-speech Back the Blue rally on his Twitter feed.
Newly installed Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt has already announced that he will not prosecute most charges against antifa – even for rioting.
The same is not the case for a member of Patriot Prayer, which is a Portland-area Proud Boys offshoot.
Joey Gibson was assaulted by antifa and was later arrested and charged with felony riot for an incident at a now-defunct cider bar, “Cider Riot!” It’s known as an antifa hangout.
Portland’s Two-Tiered System of Justice
Gibson’s attorney, James Buchal (who is also the Multnomah County GOP Chair) says the DA refuses to drop charges against his client, though he has let hundreds of antifa rioters go free.
Buchal told me in an email that it’s clear Multnomah County has a two-tiered system of jurisprudence and those who defend themselves against antifa are treated as the criminals.
Those who would dare to use force or display weapons to defend themselves against Antifa violence will face the full force of Portland law enforcement, but outside extreme cases, the District Attorney deems Antifa’s victims to be second-class citizens not worthy of protection.
Mr. Gibson suffered repeated assaults from Antifa on May 1st at Cider Riot, but responded only by livestreaming and calling out the Antifa misconduct, and even prevented an all-out brawl by discouraging violence among anti-Antifa demonstrators.
The Circuit Court of Multnomah County has already confirmed that Mr. Gibson did not personally engage in conduct that “went beyond Constitutionally protected speech or demonstration.”
Videographer Mike Strickland can attest to the two-tiered justice system in Portland. In 2016, antifa protesters chased him out of a Black Lives Matter rally and roughed him up. When they noticed he was still covering the event, a large group came back to inflict more punishment. Strickland pulled his legally-possessed gun and held back the crowd. No shots were fired and Strickland was the only one hurt that day.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Getting a jump-start on Monday night’s start of the Republican National Convention, the Trump White House has announced an “aggressive” agenda for President Donald Trump’s second term.
Fox News’ Steve Hilton was given an exclusive look at the multi-point policy plan, revealed earlier today.
Trump’s agenda is chock full of specifics, unlike Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s “plan” from last week’s acceptance speech.
The Big Four of concern to most Americans might be these:
• Create ten million jobs in ten months
• Bring back one million manufacturing jobs
• Eradicate the China virus (with a vaccine by the end of this year)
• Hold China accountable
Overall, today’s big reveal consists of specific policies in nine areas: Job creation, COVID-19, healthcare, education, “drain the swamp,” policing, immigration and worker protection, economic innovation, an “America first” foreign policy.
Trump’s second-term jobs program is indeed aggressive. The policies outlined include tax cuts, a “Made in America” tax credit, continued deregulation, and expanding the economic “opportunity zones” Trump authorized in his first term. The hope would seem to be spurring a V-shaped recovery resulting in the announced 10 million new jobs and a million new small businesses for 2021.
Deregulation is probably the easiest of those to get done, but that V-shaped recovery is going to depend in large part on Democratic governors unshackling their states from coronavirus restrictions. And of course, tax cuts and credits would have to originate in the House, currently under Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s heel.
Trump’s coronavirus-fighting agenda looks like so:
(Chart via Twitter.)
A working and reliable vaccine by the end of this year might be a bit optimistic, but getting the weight of the Executive Branch behind a lofty goal certainly doesn’t hurt. “Returning to normal” in 2021 is also going to rely on the cooperation of some power-drunk Dem governors. But Trump’s longer-term plans to bring the PPE supply chain back into this country and to refill our stockpiles (thanks, Obama!) are both smart and necessary.
Healthcare is a tough nut to crack, given that our hybrid public/private system has a lot of interest groups all feeding at a very large trough financed by government spending. The one area where a president can move — and where Trump has moved — is in making prices more transparent. On that score, Trump just got a big win.
In a victory for consumers, D.C. District Court Judge Carl Nichol just upheld a Trump administration executive order requiring doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies to be transparent about the prices they negotiate for health care services. Previously, those prices were closely held secrets. The lack of transparency contributed to the relative dysfunction of the health care market.
Four more years of moves like that ought to be a big selling point in Trump’s reelection campaign.
There are only two items on Trump’s second-term education agenda, but they both look custom-built to make all the right heads explode. His promise to “teach American exceptionalism” is a dagger aimed right at the heart of America’s largely America-hating K-12 educational system, which has been adopting the America-hating (and debunked) 1619 Project in recent months. Trump also wants to expand school choice to “every” child. In the long-term, that’s a dagger aimed at the leftist slush fund that passes for so much of our education spending.
“Defend Our Police” is a longer and more detailed list of proposals.
(Chart via Twitter.)
Most of these items are actually state issues, and best left to the voters at that level. But going after antifa as a terrorist organization is past due, given that George Soros-owned district attornies in places like Portland and St. Louis are acting against the laws of their own cities and states.
“Draining the Swamp” always sounds nice, but is easier said than done. Trump promises:
• Pass congressional term limits
• End bureaucratic bullying
• Expose Washington’s money trail
• Take on International Organizations
Term limits would have to come by a constitutional amendment that there’s never been enough appetite to get moving. Maybe now our mood has changed, but probably not within the next four years. The other three items are all things Trump can push from right behind the Resolute desk. But come to think of it, a Trump second term all by itself might go a long way toward draining the swamp.
P.S. Mr. President, keep harping on Washington’s ties to China, and I don’t care what party any particular person belongs to. If they’re making money from or with China, they might as well be CCP instead of D or R.
Trump’s immigration plan is more of the same, and that’s not a bad thing. Politically, he just needs to make the case that a Biden administration would undo — almost immediately – everything Trump was able to accomplish in four years.
Rounding things out, Trump’s policy proposals for economic innovation and foreign affairs are more extensions of the policies he pushed in his first term.
If you like that Trump has reduced our footprint in the Middle East and Afghanistan, if bolstering the NATO countries on Russia’s doorstep (to Germany’s chagrin) seemed like a good idea to you, if you’re happy that Trump hasn’t involved us in any new fighting, then “four more years” must sound awfully good to your ears.
For his part, Steve Hilton sounded ecstatic about the big policy reveal on his show.
Here’s the clip.
First, however, Trump needs to win reelection. But that’s something Team Biden seems almost eager to help along with its platform that is weak on both substance and inspiration.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Patriot groups such as the Proud Boys and Troops for Trump came together to back law enforcement in front of the Portland Justice Center. ANTIFA and BLM groups were there to counter protest and the day descended into violence as fed up Americans pushed back against the domestic terrorist ANTIFA and BLM groups.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
If you’ve been following the saga with Jerry Falwell Jr., now-resigned president of Liberty University, you’re probably aware that he has been caught up in a number of controversies over the years, including the most recent controversy where inappropriate pictures of Falwell and another woman were posted with their pants unzipped on a yacht.
Over the course of this saga, Falwell resigned from his post at Liberty University and has released a statement blaming his erratic behavior and mental health issues on an inappropriate relationship he says his wife had with a young man eight years ago.
“During a vacation over eight years ago, Becki and I met an ambitious young man who was working at our hotel and was saving up his money to go to school. We encouraged him to pursue an education and a career and we were impressed by his initiative in suggesting a local real estate opportunity,” Falwell writes. “Shortly thereafter, Becki had an inappropriate personal relationship with this person, something in which I was not involved – it was nonetheless very upsetting to learn about.”
Last year, the Miami Herald reported on a “strange financial dealing” between Falwell Jr., and a young man who is identified as a “personal trainer” named Giancarlo Granda. Essentially, Falwell was threatened with the release of racy photos of his wife after he endorsed President Trump. Prior to that, Falwell had a similar dealing with a “pool boy” which, incidentally, was about eight years ago. It seems as though Falwell Jr. is throwing his wife under the bus for an affair she had with this kid.
“It was like living on a roller coaster,” he said in the statement. “While completely dedicating ourselves to Liberty, we were also suffering in silence during our personal time together, while simultaneously trying to manage and deal with this increasingly threatening behavior, which only worsened over time. We were doing our best to respectfully unravel this ‘fatal attraction’ type situation to protect our family and the university.”
He continues,
“Even though I continued successfully working with our entire Liberty team to achieve so many of our goals, I am now dealing with things in a way that I should have done before – including seeking to address the emotional toll this has taken. I shouldn’t have been afraid to admit my vulnerabilities and to reach out for assistance from the mental health professionals who could have alleviated this pain and stress. I am committed to speaking out and sharing with others at Liberty the importance of seeking counseling instead of thinking you need to be tough and try to bear these burdens on your own. I am in the early stages of addressing these issues.”
Falwell says that he lost 80 pounds after he found out about the affair, but that he and Becki had forgiven each other “because while her indiscretion may have been more obvious and apparent, I realized that there were important smaller things I needed to do better too.”
JERRY Falwell Jr's wife Becki told a former pool boy she was left "in tears" over his dating stories during their affair, explosive audio released on Monday revealed.
The recorded phone call between Giancarlo Granda and the Falwells offers an insight into how closely intertwined the trio became, adding weight to Granda's claims that he had a years-long sexual relationship with Becki Falwell, 53, while her husband supported it - and allegedly watched as they had sex.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
John MacArthur has been almost single-handedly taking the heat from both the right and the left for his stand for religious liberty. As the California government has unleashed its wrath upon MacArthur, he and his congregation have stood strong in the midst of what is clearly a power grab by tyrants.
To be fair, MacArthur is not the only pastor who has stood up against the tyranny — there are countless others. But, because of his notoriety, his stance has received the most attention and has been targeted for the most attacks — even from other Evangelical leaders.
MacArthur discusses how Donald Trump called him to thank him for his stand and then talks about how no Christian should ever vote Democrat. It should be noted that Donald Trump has been much more supportive of the Christian community than most of our Evangelical leaders have been. For more on MacArthur and this situation, see this link.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
(August 24, 2020 – Sun Valley, California) Los Angeles County is returning to court this morning, August 24, 2020, attempting – for the fourth time – to get a court order to shut down indoor worship services at Grace Community Church.
As the judge noted last week, the County simply refuses to accept the reasoned decisions of the California court. Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff, who will preside over today’s hearing, told Los Angeles County attorneys from the bench on August 20, “As I see it, Judge Chalfant said ‘No’ to you and the Court of Appeal declined to make the order that you requested.”
MacArthur’s declaration to the court states in part:
“Worship-bans appear to take the position that we should lock our doors and force our congregants to gather to worship the Lord in parking lots, in parks, or perhaps beaches—but never in any church. From Grace Community Church’s perspective, this is nonsensical, and we view it as a direct ban on engaging in the worship which our faith requires. The size of our congregation means that there is no place for it to meet outdoors; the summer heat makes meeting outdoors unhealthy and even dangerous; our experts have refuted that meeting indoors significantly aids in the spread of the coronavirus; and most principally, Grace Community Church’s sanctuary itself is a spiritual refuge for our congregants—a refuge of which the county has no right to deprive them.”
“Thus, the county’s and state’s July 13 and 14 worship-bans burden my and Grace Community Church’s free exercise of religion by criminalizing activity directly required by our faith. As a church, we have a moral and religious obligation to continue allowing our congregants to gather in our sanctuary to worship the Lord.
“This church is the core of life for thousands from nursery to seniors. Our church is not an event center. It is a family of lives who love and care for each other in very intensely personal ways. So essential to personal well-being that people rushed back as soon as they could. The utter unnecessary deprivation of all our people by completely shutting down the mutual love and care that sustains our people in all the exigencies, pressures and challenges of life, was cruel. And after 63 years of sacrificial, kindness to our city, to be repeatedly threatened with court-ordered efforts to shut Grace Community Church down when no one is sick, reveals an inexplicable preference for a mostly harmless virus over the life-enriching and necessary fellowship of the church. Our leaders and congregation see no real health threat to warrant such restraint. We see this action against us as an illegitimate misuse of power.”
Read the full Declaration of Pastor John MacArthur, filed on his behalf by Thomas More Society attorneys on August 23, 2020, in Superior Court of the State of California – County of Los Angeles – Central District in County of Los Angeles et al. v. Grace Community Church et al.here.
About the Thomas More Society
The Thomas More Society is a national not-for-profit law firm dedicated to restoring respect in law for life, family, and religious liberty. Headquartered in Chicago, Omaha, and Fairfield, NJ, the Thomas More Society fosters support for these causes by providing high quality pro bono legal services from local trial courts all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. For more information, visit thomasmoresociety.org.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
The below article about Marxist economics professor Don Harris, Kamala Harris’ father, was posted at the Stanford University newspaper on May 13, 1975, when his daughter was just 10 years old.
The Stanford Daily article laughably claims that economic students at Stanford in 1975 were clamoring to learn more about Marxist economics, so the university accommodated them by offering Kamala’s father a position. Don Harris was referred to glowingly by fellow Marxist Economics Professor John Gurley as “one of the leading young people in Marxist economics.”
The 45-year-old Stanford Daily article, titled “Marxist Offered Economics Post,” was posted first on Trevor Loudon’s website Keywiki.org, where more information is posted about the father of the Democrat Party’s Vice Presidential Candidate. See Loudon’s articles at the Epoch Times about Kamala Harris’ own socialist ties, as well as a prophetic article from August 2019 about the forces surrounding Kamala Harris and why she was chosen to be the Democratic nominee for President.
According to the Stanford article:
“New course offerings in radical economics for 1975-76 are expected to include seminars in “Imperialism and Dependency,” “Marxian Social Change,” and “Marxist Economic Theory.'”
By comparison, a bland article published today at Marie Claire refers to Don Harris as “a prominent former economics professor at Stanford and an immigrant from Jamaica.”
The economic polices of Kamala Harris from her now-archived website are hard left in nature: raising taxes, class war, pro-welfare state, etc. “As president, she’ll mandate equal pay for women, promote policies that build wealth in communities of color, and crack down on corporations that exploit vulnerable Americans for profit,” the article reads in part. Like Joe Biden, Kamala Harris is on board with getting rid of the tax cuts that, along with cutting unconstitutional regulations, led to the pre-pandemic economic boom in America.
Don Harris, a prominent Marxist professor, has been offered a full professorship in the Economics Department here, Department Chairman James Rosse confirmed yesterday. Rosse said Harris has not yet accepted the offer, but he “expects to hear from him this week.” Harris, who still holds a tenured position at the University of Wisconsin, has served as a visiting professor here, and is currently teaching at the University of the West Indies in Kingston, Jamaica.
The appointment is the direct result of student pressure in recent years to hire more faculty who favor an “alternative approach” to economics, said Economics Prof. John Gurley, who now teaches the only undergraduate course in Marxist economics. Gurley said the appointment of Harris was the culmination of a six-month “round-the-world” search for the most qualified Marxist professor available. ‘Exceptionally Good’ Gurley called Harris “an exceptionally good teacher, outstanding researcher and one of the leading young people in Marxist economics.”
One knowledgeable source told the Daily that some senior faculty members were very hesitant about hiring Harris, but that they gradually yielded to student pressure. A conservative economics faculty member, who wished to remain anonymous, said he was “not part of the decision and it would thus be fair not to say anything.”
He also added that “as far as I’m concerned, [Harris] is not in the same field I’m in.” Alternatives The department, Gurley said, looked for economists who espoused not only Marxist viewpoints, but other alternative perspectives as well. Libertarian economists, who advocate untrammeled laissez-faire capitalism, for example, also were considered in the selection, he claimed. Gurley said the search included those knowledgeable about socialist economies, even if they didn’t sympathize with a Marxist system.
Search Continues
He admitted, however, that for most of the students involved in the struggle for an alternative economist, “alternative meant Marxist.” The search will continue for qualified non-traditional economists, Gurley said. With the addition of Harris, the department would be able to offer a much greater number of courses taught from a Marxist viewpoint. Harris is expected to be a popular choice among students who have fought for more alternative economists.
“When the students were looking for someone last year, they wanted him,” said SWOPSI Director Andy Panies, a Marxist economist recently fired from San Jose State University. New course offerings in radical economics for 1975-76 are expected to include seminars in “Imperialism and Dependency,” “Marxian Social Change,” and “Marxist Economic Theory.” Two sections of Economics 120 will be offered, and a new undergraduate course taught by Harris may be added.
How many communists did you know growing up? It is amazing how many just happen to land in the vicinity of the Democrat Party. Where is the GOP?
Support our work at RAIR Foundation USA! We are a grassroots activist team and we need your help! Please consider making a donation here: https://rairfoundation.com/donate/
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
If Biden and Harris win, history will require each of us as gun owners to make a terrible choice.(Giffords/Facebook)
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Democrats [are showing an] unprecedented embrace of gun control,” The Atlantic noted Thursday. “The party is betting that support for restrictions is more likely to attract moderate voters than turn them off.”
If nothing else, this shows the goalposts are continuously being moved to the left. If the “centrists” of the party are all in for eviscerating a keystone right and ignoring the crystal clear mandate of “shall not be infringed,” you know what those pulling sentiment in that direction intend to end up with. That also allows those previously considered “moderate” to now be smeared as “extremists,” with accusations of being haters not far behind.
It wasn’t always this way, of course – at one point within the lifetimes of many of us, even Democrat “liberals” were on record expressing belief in the Second Amendment and demonstrating that they understood founding intent in a way that today would have them condemned as insurrectionist traitors.
Two cases in point:
“By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,' the ‘security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy,” John F. Kennedy responded to GUNS Magazine’s inquiries in the April 1960 issue’s “Know Your Lawmakers” feature. “Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”
“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms,” then-senator, soon-to-be vice president, future presidential candidate and “liberal” icon Hubert Humphrey had asserted in the February issue. “This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.”
“While conventional wisdom suggests that an individual’s right to bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution, it is, in fact, a relatively recent interpretation, according to New Yorker writer and legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.”
It’s fair to wonder what it was Toobin “analyzed.” It certainly wasn’t the clear record left by the Framers or prior Supreme Court cases including Scott v. Sanford, Cruikshank, and Miller. Then again. Perhaps he’s just an apparatchik advancing an agenda regardless of the truth, which my looking into past asinine assertions he has made appears to corroborate.
Meanwhile, back at The Atlantic, meet the new exemplar of “moderation”:
“He’s laid out an assault-weapons ban for new purchases,” a man named Bill, a managing partner at a small investment firm and a former intelligence officer, told me excitedly, when I asked why he backed Bloomberg for president. (Bill declined to give his last name for privacy reasons.) “And there absolutely should be universal background checks,” he continued. “It’s like, that’s a no-brainer—come on.”
“This is the new normal in the Democratic Party: Moderate voters not only support gun-control legislation, but have begun to use the issue as a litmus test,” The Atlantic advises.
So “Bill” is a Democrat? Having an intelligence background, I don’t suppose he actually did any pertinent data collection before deciding that trying to force millions of his armed countrymen to surrender their rights and bend to the will of the collectivists was a “no-brainer”?
Threatening infringements on the right to keep and bear arms did not work for Al Gore (who ended up losing his home state) or Hillary Clinton. Now the Democrats are betting the electorate has changed enough for denial of rights to be a winning issue. That makes fair the question: Has it? Virginia gives us some clues:
“Gun control was indeed a core campaign message for Spanberger, the Democratic representative who defeated the Republican incumbent Dave Brat two years ago in a suburban district near Richmond, Virginia, that had long been represented by the GOP. It was also central to the campaign platform of Jennifer Wexton, Spanberger’s fellow Virginian and fellow freshman, who flipped her D.C.-adjacent district from red to blue. By 2019, polling showed that gun control was the top issue for voters in their home state; that fall, Democrats managed to gain control of the state legislature and immediately passed a huge slate of gun reforms.”
“Unlike three decades ago, the residents are often from other places, like India and Korea. And when they vote, it is often for Democrats.
“’Guns, that is the most pressing issue for me,’ said Vijay Katkuri, 38, a software engineer from southern India, explaining why he voted for a Democratic challenger in Tuesday’s elections.”
We will see in November if the demographics have changed enough nationally to give the House-holding Democrats the win for the White House and Senate, and for upcoming federal/Supreme Court appointments. If it is, that “history” the above feature photo predicts, with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris leading the charge against our guns, will prove catastrophic.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Fox 2 Detroit claims, without evidence, that “some of the past opposition” was “sparked by islamophobia.” But in reality, “some residents previously cited zoning rules and the residential nature of the neighborhood.” However, Osama Siblani, publisher of The Arab American News, said: “I do not buy that, I think they were using it as an excuse.” For “Islamophobia,” that is.
Well, maybe they were using it as an excuse, and maybe there weren’t. But now the precedent has been set, with the help of the Justice Department: Muslims can build a mosque absolutely anywhere they want, including in quiet residential neighborhoods, and obliterate all concerns about zoning and parking and the character of the neighborhood by charging that all such concerns are just cover for “Islamophobia.”
Also, it wasn’t the racist, redneck, “Islamophobic” yahoos of Leftist media myth who were opposing this mosque. It was Iraqi Christian refugees, who know very well from bitter experience what a mosque in the neighborhood means for non-Muslims. But their concerns were also brushed aside. It was all “Islamophobia,” you see. The Justice Department said so.
“After years of roadblocks, ground finally broken on mosque in Sterling Heights,” FOX 2 Detroit, August 20, 2020:
STERLING HEIGHTS, Mich. (FOX 2) – It has been a point of contention for years, but now a new mosque is under construction in Sterling Heights.
“My mother, her father is a World War I veteran and we love this country and everyone is entitled to freedom of religion,” said Faye Hashem. “As long as there is peace and love – that is all that matters.”…
Erecting a place of worship isn’t necessarily something you would gather media together for, but in this case controversy has surrounded building a mosque for years wiht [sic] some of the past opposition sparked by islamophobia….
“This is not about an Islamic center or a mosque it’s about our freedom of religion,” said Osama Siblani, publisher of The Arab American News.
Some community members have used every legal tool at their disposal to block the building. They were upset that Sterling Heights struck a deal with the US Justice Department to allow the mosque after the DOJ sued the city for not allowing the plan to proceed.
Some residents previously cited zoning rules and the residential nature of the neighborhood.
“I do not buy that, I think they were using it as an excuse and the federal government intervened and the victory here today, is that we’re building a mosque,” Siblani said.
The city manager, police chief, some city council members and Congressman Andy Levin (D-9th Congressional District) were in attendance.
“The story of AICC, is no different than my Jewish family’s story,” said Levin. “Sometimes there was controversy and sometimes we were not welcome, but in the end we all came together as Americans.”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
On Sunday evening, President Trump is expected to announce a “major therapeutic breakthrough” for COVID-19, according to a tweet by White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany.
“News conference with President @realDonaldTrump at 6 pm tomorrow concerning a major therapeutic breakthrough on the China Virus,” she tweeted. “Secretary Azar and Dr. Hahn will be in attendance.”
The news comes on the cusp of the 2020 Republican National Convention, which starts Monday evening.
President Trump made headlines Saturday morning by suggesting that the deep state was suppressing progress on vaccines until after the election.
No other details about the “major therapeutic breakthrough” were provided.
Time will tell just how the media will respond to the news of a “major therapeutic breakthrough,” but considering how they reacted to hydroxychloroquine, my money is on Trump’s announcement being immediately dismissed by the media and the Democratic Party as a political stunt to “save his reelection.”
When Trump first touted hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine as potential game-changers in the fight against the coronavirus, the media went to war against the decades-old anti-malaria drugs.
“To fight the coronavirus, President Donald Trump is adopting the audacity of false hope,” CNN declared after Trump announced he’s pushed the FDA to fast-track the approval of the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine to treat patients with the coronavirus. The USA Today editorial board accused Trump of “peddl[ing] snake oil and false hope.” Salon’s rhetoric was even worse. “Trump was at the White House podium peddling a fake cure for a virus that could kill hundreds of thousands of Americans in a way that would have gotten him kicked off the Home Shopping Network and potentially invited federal prosecution for false claims and fraud.” A Democratic state lawmaker in Ohio said that Trump should be tried for “crimes against humanity” for touting the drug’s potential, and the New York Times even alleged that Trump’s motivation for touting it was financial because he holds “a small personal financial interest” in Sanofi, even though the drug is out of patent, and he only owned $29 – $435 in the stock as part of a mutual fund.
The media instead focused on a small number of studies that suggested that hydroxychloroquine was linked to higher mortality—but those studies were flawed. In the Veteran’s Affairs study published in April, for example, which wasn’t peer-reviewed, the sickest patients were disproportionately administered the drug. Two other studies linked hydroxychloroquine to higher mortality, but those studies were based on faulty data, and two well-respected medical journals had to retract one of them.
The media and the Democratic Party have done everything they can to scare the public about hydroxychloroquine. But countries that are widely using the drug to treat coronavirus patients have had significantly lower death rates than those that aren’t:
It seems likely to me that whatever therapeutic breakthrough announced Sunday evening will get the hydroxychloroquine treatment. The left doesn’t want success in treating the virus to happen until after the election. Democrats seem more than happy to let people die needlessly in their quest for power.
The book-burning culture of the Left is continuing its march.
As everyone knows, Amazon has achieved a virtual monopoly on the book industry. It has vast powers to decide what books people can read – and what they can’t read.
After 3½ years of publishing our groundbreaking 600-page book, The Health Hazards of Homosexuality: What the Medical and Psychological Research Reveals, Amazon has suddenly notified us that it has banned it from being printed or sold on its site. Amazon is also refusing to allow us to print any more copies for our own use and has even blocked us from accessing our account records. The book was printed (and also posted as an eBook) through Amazon’s Kindle Direct Publishing subsidiary.
Why this book is important
The mainstreaming and normalization of homosexuality has created a public health crisis affecting us all. This book documents in detail the enormous public health problems – both medical and psychological – associated with homosexual behavior.
The book took several years to compile. It brought together information from the federal Centers for Disease Control, major medical professional groups, and other mainstream medical sources, as well as LGBT medical and advocacy groups – all documented in 1,800 endnotes with up-to-date links. In today’s society, this is critical information everyone should know, especially given what’s being pushed on young children in schools across the country. Read more about it here, including reviews and excerpts from the book.
Although the scourge of political correctness has taken over much of the medical establishment, the book has gotten rave reviews from the conservative medical community. Some of those include:
Michelle A. Cretella, MD, Executive Director of the American College of Pediatricians, called the book a "tour de force" and added: “This book is the single most comprehensive collection of scientific data from authoritative scientific sources on this topic. Our youth have the distinction of being among the most lied-to generation. For this reason alone, this book should be required reading for all health professionals, educators, legislators, graduate students, and parents."
Paul A. Church, MD, urologist, former Assistant Clinical Professor of Surgery at Harvard Medical School: “It is an excellent go-to reference for those seeking accurate, truthful information on the health risks of certain sexual behaviors. I recommend this book highly."
Dr. Paul Church holds up a copy of the book.
A prominent cardiologist: “I think this book should be on the shelves of medical school bookstores as it is one of the most comprehensive tomes on the subject that I have seen.”
The book has sold throughout the United States, Canada, the UK, and around the world. We have been approached by people in Hong Kong who want to re-publish it in Chinese and in Egypt who want to re-publish it in Arabic.
Mainstream media linked the book to Pres. Trump!
Of course, the national LGBT movement and their allies in the media despise this book – though they have never been able to claim that the information is incorrect.
In 2017, when we sold the book at our table at the Family Research Council’s national Values Voter Summit in Washington, DC (where President Trump spoke), the liberal mainstream media went ballistic. NBC News linked the book to Trump. USA Today, Yahoo News, and the Huffington Postfumed about it. In the UK, The Independent and The Guardian newspapers covered our book’s appearance! But at the Values Voter event itself, the book was a big hit!
The Health Hazards of Homosexuality got the attention of conservative media at the Values Voter Summit. Above, Dr. Robert Oscar Lopez (left) is being interviewed by radio host Kenneth McClenton who is holding the book.
Former presidential advisor Dr. Sebastian Gorka has his copy of "The Health Hazards of Homosexuality" with him as he does a radio interview at the Values Voter Summit.
Last year the book even made an appearance on Laura Ingraham's show on the Fox News channel!
Suddenly Amazon claims the book is “against our content guidelines”
Putting together and marketing a 600-page book with 1,800 footnotes on Amazon was not easy. In 2017, we worked with the Amazon staff that helped independent publishers (then named “Create Space”). For over three years they unquestionably knew what the book was about and what it contained. They had no problem with its content – until a month ago.
Then suddenly the book disappeared from the Amazon site. On July 17, we were notified that they have determined that the book violates their “content guidelines” and they have thus taken it down completely. They closed our account and will not allow us to open another account.
We wrote them back asking specifically what “content guidelines” the book violates, since it is a compilation of medical information from mainstream sources. They answered us that the book contains “content that is considered offensive.” That’s all there was to their answer!
Here’s what Amazon does NOT consider “offensive”
Thus, Amazon has determined that a book documenting the health hazards of homosexual behavior is “offensive” and must not be allowed to be published. But in fact, Amazon is a cesspool of pornography and perversion.
Here are just a few of the books that Amazon does NOT consider to be offensive – and are sold on the Amazon site:
Take Action: Fight back against Amazon’s ban of The Health Hazards of Homosexuality
Since Amazon is a virtual monopoly of the book business, they have the unprecedented power to remove any book they disagree with politically from the public forum of ideas. And Amazon has decided to silence the information in our book.
You can take action with these four steps:
Contact Amazon Customer Service. Tell them: “You have banned an important medical reference book, 'The Health Hazards of Homosexuality.' But Amazon still offers disgusting homosexual pornography and 'how-to' manuals targeting children. I demand you bring back the Health Hazards book so the public can get the truth!”
Recently Congress has been holding hearings on how Big Tech has a monopoly on information and discriminates against conservative material. Contact US Senator Mike Lee (R-UT). Sen. Lee is Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights. Select the topic: "Internet/Telecommunications." Tell him: "Amazon is using its monopoly power in the book industry to squelch free speech. It is banning important medical reference books and other books that disagree with Amazon's leftist agenda. This is high-tech book-burning. Anti-trust legislation is desperately needed!"
Big Tech's monopoly power to silence the facts and opinions it doesn't like is finally getting the attention of Congress.
Islamic Relief is the world’s largest independent international aid agency inspired by Islamic humanitarian values. Unfortunately, the charity is having trouble finding a director who doesn't openly support terrorism and antisemitism. The entire leadership board for Islamic Relief Worldwide has now resigned. David Wood discusses the issue. For more on this story, read "Entire board resigns at Islamic Relief Worldwide," by The Times: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ne...
Former Joyce Meyer employees, Paul and Emily Massey, now help others to leave Word of Faith and NAR false gospel organizations. In this video, they discuss how they disciple people through the process of realizing and leaving false teachings. You can contact Paul and Emily at: Instagram: @we.would.rather.have.jesus Facebook.com/wewouldratherhavejesus Blog: wewouldratherhavejesus.com Resource page: wewouldratherhavejesus.com/resources Twitter: @emilyrosemassey Their testimony of quitting Joyce Meyer Ministries is here: https://youtu.be/imluDBBvTaQ
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
TUSTIN, Calif. —The Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN), a worldwide television network that for years has aired a number of controversial prosperity preachers, says that as part of its “new vision” and changes to the lineup, it will no longer air Word of Faith teacher Kenneth Copeland, whose “Believer’s Voice of Victory” broadcast had been a part of TBN for 40 years. Airing in Copeland’s stead will be Steven Furtick, a hipster megachurch preacher who reportedly lives a lavish lifestyle and often preaches man-centered sermons.
“Just like the world in which we live, TBN is constantly evolving, seeking to provide exclusive programming that is uniquely built for the challenges facing Christians in this moment,” Marketing Director Nate Daniels told reporters. “As the leading global religious broadcaster, we want to provide our viewers with compelling and dynamic preaching, teaching, news and entertainment.”
He said that “[in] pursuit of a new vision” from President Matt Crouch, the son of the late Paul and Jan Crouch, the network has been making changes over the past several years, which includes distancing from sharathons and becoming more family-friendly.
“As a part of this transition we chose to move away from telethons, upgraded to HD, expanded our streaming platforms, forged partnerships with family brands like K-LOVE, Museum of the Bible and others, and have replaced some programs with new original content from voices like Christine Caine, Mike Huckabee, Mike Rowe and more,” Daniels told the Christian Post.
Copeland advised his followers about the change via Facebook and his website this week, writing in part, “Recently, Matt let me know they believe the Lord is taking TBN in a new direction, and our daily program, ‘Believer’s Voice of Victory’ (BVOV), isn’t really a fit for their future programming. Therefore, as of Oct. 2, 2020, the BVOV broadcast will no longer air on TBN.”
As previously reported, Copeland, who teaches that God wants Christians to be rich and teaches viewers to confess away sickness, has generated controversy for a number of years, including in 2015, when he asserted on his television broadcast that he flies on a private jet to avoid being bothered by “demon” passengers.
“Oral [Roberts] used to fly airlines,” he said. “But even back then it got to the place where it was agitating his spirit—people coming up to him, he had become famous, and they wanted him to pray for them and all that. You can’t manage that today [in] this dope-filled world, and get in a long tube with a bunch of demons. And it’s deadly.”
While he said that he didn’t want to fly with a “bunch of demons,” moments later, Copeland contended that he needed a private jet to help reach the lost.
“We’re in soul business here. We’ve got a dying world around us. We’ve got a dying nation around us,” he proclaimed. “We can’t even get there on the airlines.”
This is a breaking news story and will be updated.
The video was released by Log Cabin Republicans, a homosexual lobbying Republican group, and recorded by Richard Grenell, former U.S. Ambassador to Germany and current special presidential envoy for Serbia and Kosovo peace negotiations. Grenell has led the administration’s campaign to decriminalize homosexuality worldwide.
“President Trump is the most pro-gay president in American history,” Grenell states in the video, which seeks to demonstrate why Trump is, and has consistently been, more pro-homosexual than Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. “I can prove it.”
He outlines that Trump knew he was a homosexual when he appointed Grenell as acting director of national intelligence earlier this year, but it “didn’t even faze” the president. Grenell takes issue that Biden never acknowledge the appointment, stating that his “silence was deafening.”
“President Trump has done more to advance the rights of gay and lesbians in three years than Joe Biden did in 40-plus years in Washington,” he asserts, stating that Biden has “attacked” homosexuals throughout his tenure.
He notes that Biden had previously supported “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act, and “threatened to cut off funds to any school that teaches acceptance of homosexuality.”
Playing footage of Biden once stating that “[m]arriage is between a man and a woman,” Grenell remarks, “Now that we’ve made progress, Joe Biden has changed his mind.”
“I know that firsthand that President Trump is the strongest ally that gay Americans have ever had in the White House,” Grenell states. “Donald Trump is the first president in American history to be pro-gay marriage from his first day in office. [And] President Trump knew I was gay when he appointed me to one of the most prestigious and powerful ambassadorships in the world.”
“As ambassador to Germany, President Trump fully supported our fight to crush the homophobic and barbaric terrorist organization Hezbollah and the Iranian regime that supports them,” he continues. “While President Trump was denying the homophobic regime money, the Obama-Biden team was giving them billions of dollars.”
He also notes that Trump backed the effort, led by Grenell, to decriminalize homosexuality worldwide.
“President Trump began a historic campaign to decriminalize homosexuality around the globe at the United Nations, where he publicly challenged the 69 countries the 69 countries who make being gay a crime to change their laws,” he explains in the video, playing a clip of Trump’s speech before the U.N.
Grenell states that Biden never worked to do so throughout his four decades as a politician, declaring, “This is why I believe we need President Trump in office for another four years, and I’m certainly not the only one,” he stated, as the video then cuts to a photograph of Trump holding a homosexual flag during a 2016 campaign rally.
“There are millions of patriotic gay Americans who are sick of being told to sit down and shut up by those who want to control us, those who are afraid of our voice, those who want to keep equality a partisan issue,” he says.
“Gay people don’t have to vote Democrat because Donald Trump is the most pro-gay president in American history,” he asserts, donning a rainbow “Make America Great Again” hat, available in the store section of the Trump official website.
As previously reported, in 2018, the White House sent a signed letter of congratulations for the 40th anniversary of Log Cabin Republicans, with the correspondence stating in part, “No matter the color of our skin or our sexual orientation, we all live under the same laws, salute the same great American flag, and are made in the image of the same Almighty God.”
“As we celebrate LGBT Pride Month and recognize the outstanding contributions LGBT people have made to our great nation, let us also stand in solidarity with the many LGBT people who live in dozens of countries worldwide that punish, imprison, or even execute individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation,” he wrote.
“My administration has launched a global campaign to decriminalize homosexuality and invite all nations to join us in this effort!” Trump urged.
“I think there would be some that wouldn’t [vote for a homosexual], and I wouldn’t be among that group to be honest with you,” he said. “I think that it doesn’t seem to be hurting Pete Boot-edge-edge … It doesn’t seem to be hurting him very much. There would certainly be a group — you know this better than I do — that there would be a group that probably wouldn’t [vote for a homosexual]. But you or I would not be in that group.”
“Putting aside policy disagreements, don’t you think that it’s just great to see the guy there on the stage with his husband, and it’s normal?” Hilton, host of “The Next Revolution,” asked.
“Isn’t it a sign of great progress in the country?” Hilton inquired, continuing to prompt the president to concur that the development is positive.
“Yeah, I think it’s great,” Trump answered unflinchingly. “I think that’s something that perhaps some people will have a problem with, [but] I have no problem with it whatsoever. I think it’s good.”
During the 2016 presidential election, Trump asked during one campaign speech, “So you tell me, who’s better for the gay community, and who’s better for women than Donald Trump? Believe me!”
After being elected, he decided to keep intact Barack Obama’s 2014 order banning federal contractors from engaging in “discrimination” in employment matters against homosexual and transgendered persons.
Click to enlarge.
“President Trump continues to be respectful and supportive of LGBTQ rights, just as he was throughout the election,” the White House said in a statement at that time. “The president is proud to have been the first ever GOP nominee to mention the LGBTQ community in his nomination acceptance speech, pledging then to protect the community from violence and oppression.”
His website has featured homosexual-themed apparel for a number of years. As previously reported, both Trump and Biden are currently selling Pride apparel on their websites.
Proverbs 14:34 says, “Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.”
Proverbs 16:12 also states, “It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness, for the throne is established by righteousness.”
Founding father Noah Webster, known for penning the American dictionary, once wrote in exhorting fellow Christians, “When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God.”
“The preservation of government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty. If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted. Laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes, corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws, the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men, and the rights of the citizen will be violated or disregarded.”
“If government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine Commands and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.”
