NJ GovERNOR MURPHY Trumpets Proposal to Codify Roe Into State Law, Make Abortion Free Via Insurance Coverage

BY HEATHER CLARK

SEE: https://christiannews.net/2020/10/06/nj-gov-trumpets-proposal-to-codify-roe-into-state-law-make-abortion-free-via-insurance-coverage/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

TRENTON, N.J. — The Democratic governor of New Jersey is trumpeting legislation that will seek to codify the “right” to an abortion into state law should Roe v. Wade ever be overturned by the Supreme Court, as well as to ensure that abortion and birth control are free by mandating private insurance companies to cover them with “no out-of-pocket costs.”

Gov. Phil Murphy announced the proposal on his website on Friday, as well as on social media, writing, “New Jersey is the first state in the nation to announce legislation to protect and expand access to essential reproductive health care services in the wake of the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”

He additionally participated in a virtual event posted to YouTube, in which he and his wife, Tammy, joined others in talking about the “Reproductive Freedom Act,” presented by Sen. Loretta Weinberg, D-Teaneck, and Assemblywoman Valerie Huttle, D-Bergen.

“Justice Ginsburg’s life work gives us the courage to do more than sit idly by as New Jersey has wondered aloud whether the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade,” Murphy said. “As the anti-choice and — quite frankly — anti-woman movement surges … in other states, here in New Jersey, we are moved to act. We are seizing the moment to codify everyone’s full reproductive rights into law.”

“As much of today is a celebration of our own autonomy and a declaration to our unyielding commitment to the women of this state, we also know it is another day in our ongoing fight to protect the progress we have made,” Tammy Murphy also stated. “That progress is not a given, but here in New Jersey, we are committed to a stronger and fairer New Jersey for everyone.”

The “Reproductive Freedom Act” will enshrine the “right” to abortion into state law, so that if Roe is dismantled and deemed a state issue, the matter will already be codified in New Jersey by statute. It additionally will ensure that women can obtain birth control and abortions at “no out of pocket costs” and will revoke some current regulations — although Murphy did not specify which ones but generally stated that the measure will “break[] down medically-unnecessary restrictions.”

During an interview with NPR on Thursday, when speaking of the possibility that Roe may be overturned, Murphy said, “I hope to God that doesn’t happen, but we don’t want to take a chance that it could happen.”

As previously reported, last year, lawmakers in the states of Illinois and Vermont passed similar laws, which declared that abortion is a “fundamental right” and the unborn do “not have independent rights.”

In January 2019, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo also generated outrage over the signing of the Reproductive Health Act, which similarly codifies Roe v. Wade into state law but also allows the unborn to be killed at any time if they are not expected to survive or if they are deemed to threaten the health or life of the mother. This caused some to state that Cuomo was allowing abortion up until birth in some instances.

Because of the New York law, which removed abortion in the first and second degree from the criminal code, a Queens man who killed his pregnant girlfriend by stabbing her in the abdomen, torso and neck was not charged in the baby’s death but only prosecuted for the murder of the woman.

“With New York’s law, we’re saying you can take a life and escape any punishment,” remarked Assemblyman Brian Manktelow, R-Wayne County. “How as a society can you allow that to happen?”

Photo Credit: Geralt/Pixabay

As previously reported, throughout history, Christians have plainly characterized abortion as murder in God’s eyes — an undoing of the very work of the Lord, who placed a precious living soul in the womb the mother.

“So low, gentleman, is the moral sense of community on this subject,” obstetrician Hugh Lennox Hodge said in his 1854 lecture on “Criminal Abortion.” “So ignorant are even the greater number of individuals, that even mothers in many instances shrink not at the commission of this crime, but will voluntarily destroy their own progeny, in violation of every natural sentiment, and in opposition to the laws of God and man.”

In his 1869 sermon entitled “Ante-Natal Infanticide”, E. Frank Howe, the pastor of the Congregational Church of Terre Haute, Indiana, said, “[I]t makes no matter that the victim cannot stretch out its hands in defense. … It matters not that it … can utter no cry of pain or reproach. The sacred gift of human life is taken — is deliberately taken, and this constitutes the crime, and that crime is murder.”

He lamented that “men and women place their own ease and pleasure above God’s law” and that “public opinion is so corrupted there is no voice of reproach,” forthrightly declaring, “Put what face upon it the community will, disguise it under whatever name you please, you can make no more or less of it than simple murder.”

The late preacher Lee Roy Shelton wrote in “The Crimes of Our Times”, “Life is cheap today to the average individual, but not to God. … God is concerned about that baby in the mother’s womb; He gave it. It came into being, I know, by normal process of a male’s and female’s being joined together as one, but it was God who gave the life in conception, and God alone has the right to say when it should be taken away.”

“Children are a heritage of the Lord; God alone gives little children; therefore, woe be unto that woman or man who destroys them, whether in the womb or out of the womb,” he said.

And while a common argument about abortion pertains to “bodily autonomy,” 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 states, “Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.”

Please visit Christian News Network’s Outlaw Abortion page to help us work to abolish the worldwide holocaust.

 

Biden Says He Would Make Roe the ‘Law of the Land’ if the Supreme Court Overturns Abortion Ruling

BY HEATHER CLARK

SEE: https://christiannews.net/2020/10/07/biden-says-he-would-make-roe-the-law-of-the-land-if-the-supreme-court-overturns-abortion-ruling/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

MIAMI, Fla. — During a town hall event with NBC News Monday evening, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said that he would want Congress to send legislation to his desk making Roe v. Wade the “law of the land” when asked about his plan to “protect” the “right” to abortion should Amy Coney Barrett be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“My youngest sister is in high school right now, and I knew whenever I was graduating high school and entering college that I wanted to obtain my degree and start a career before starting a family. Having access to birth control and safe reproductive health care was imperative in making that true for me,” one attendee named Cassidy Brown told the former vice president.

“Considering the new Supreme Court nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, what are your particular plans to protect women’s reproductive rights in the U.S.?” she asked.

Biden provided a short answer, advising that while he doesn’t know what Barrett would do, if the court did overturn the 1972 Roe decision, he believes the next step would be to pass a federal law codifying the right to abortion, implying that he would sign it.

“Number one, we don’t know exactly what she will do, although the expectation is that she very well may overrule Roe,” he said. “And the only responsible response to that would be to pass legislation to make Roe the law of the land. That’s what I would do.”

President Trump, who identifies as pro-life but supports the exceptions of rape, incest and the life of the mother, tweeted about the matter on Tuesday.

“Wow. Joe Biden just took a more liberal position on Roe v. Wade than Elizabeth Warren at her highest,” he wrote. “He also wants to pack our great United States Supreme Court. This is what the Dems will do.”

As previously reporteda page on Biden’s website, called “The Biden Agenda for Biden,” similarly explains that — if elected — among Biden’s objectives are to codify Roe v. Wade into law, to reinstate federal Title X and Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood, and to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funds from being used for abortion (with exceptions).

“Biden will work to codify Roe v. Wade, and his Justice Department will do everything in its power to stop the rash of state laws that so blatantly violate Roe v. Wade,” it reads.

“Vice President Biden supports repealing the Hyde Amendment because health care is a right that should not be dependent on one’s zip code or income,” the page states. “And, the public option will cover contraception and a woman’s constitutional right under Roe v. Wade.”

As previously reported, during a vice presidential debate in 2012, Biden, a Roman Catholic, outlined that while he personally believes that life begins at conception, he doesn’t want to “impose” his view on others.

“Life begins at conception in the Church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life,” he said. “I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others …”

“I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that — women — they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor. In my view and the Supreme Court, I’m not going to interfere with that,” Biden stated.

On Monday, he or his campaign shared the town hall segment on Twitter, writing, “Roe v. Wade must remain the law of the land.”

Photo Credit: Christian Bowen/Unsplash

However, as previously reported, Christians throughout history have decried abortion as murder, no matter the reason. The late preacher Lee Roy Shelton wrote in “The Crimes of Our Times” in a section on abortion:

“When killing anyone, the murderer is guilty of taking the life which God has given, and therefore he is ‘playing God’ by saying when and how a man should die. But God doesn’t look lightly upon those who try to take His place.”

“God has given us the Sixth Commandment as a fence about human life to preserve it, for it is sacred to Him. Yes, the Bible declares human life to be sacred. It is a divine creation, mysterious and magnificent in its beginning and possibility, utterly beyond the control or comprehension of any human being. It is never to be taken away at the will of anyone, for how can they tell the full meaning of that life and what it will bring forth?”

“The revelation of God made to man out of His blessed Word proves that He has purposes for every individual and for the [human] race, stretching far beyond the present moment or manifestation; and to terminate a single life is to set yourselves up as wiser and superior to God. The immensity of the issues of death is so great that there can be no sin against humanity, and accordingly, against God, greater than that of taking a human life.”

Please visit Christian News Network’s Outlaw Abortion page to help us work to abolish the worldwide holocaust.

 

 

spencer smith: Amy Coney Barrett and the 7 Mountain Mandate of the new apostolic reformation

STILL USING FACEBOOK?-FEC Complaint Filed by GOA Against Facebook for Federal Election Campaign Violations

BY DEAN WEINGARTEN

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/10/fec-complaint-filed-against-facebook-for-federal-election-campaign-violations/

AND: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/10/goa-files-fec-complaint-against-facebook-afp-harris-campaign-violation/

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Journalist John Crump & Gun Owners of America have filed an FEC complaint against Facebook, AFP, and the Biden/Harris campaign. The Complaint alleges several violations of campaign finance law and foreign election interference.

Biden Harris censorship Facebook election interference iStock-klevo 1160557926.jpg
Biden Harris censorship Facebook election interference iStock-klevo 1160557926.jpg

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- John Crump, a regular journalist for AmmoLand News, and Gun Owners of America have filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging violations of provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 by Facebook, the company.

The complaint alleges Facebook (FB), and/or Agence France-Presse (AFP), and Kamala Harris, the candidate for Vice President on the 2020 Democratic ticket, have violated the Federal Election Campaign Act act in the following ways. From the complaint:

1. the prohibition on corporations making in-kind contributions (see 52 U.S.C. §§ 30101(8), 30118);

2. the limitations on making coordinated expenditures (52 U.S.C. § 30116(a)(7));

3. the prohibition on making Independent Expenditures without disclaimers and reporting (52 U.S.C. §§ 30104(g) and 30120(a)); and

4. the prohibition on foreign nationals making in-kind contributions for the purpose of influencing a federal election (52 U.S.C. § 30121).

The hostility of Facebook against gun ownership, the right to arms, conservative speech, as well as Republicans, has become a notoriously subjective experience for many Second Amendment supporters.

The allegations in the FEC complaint are stark and easily followed. Facebook approves of AFP as its official “fact-checker”, which gives the French government supported agency significant power in deciding what is acceptable speech on Facebook for U.S.-based users, particularly as it concerns what is or is not “Fake News“.

The “fact-checker” is supposed to be unbiased in what it labels as false or true.

False Information Flagging Cam Edwards Kamala Harris Says She Supports Your Second Amendment Rights. Her Record Proves Otherwise FB August 2020
False Information Flagging of Cam Edwards “Kamala Harris Says She Supports Your Second Amendment Rights. Her Record Proves Otherwise” FB Screenshot August 2020.

The complaint lays out how an article written by Cam Edwards titled “Kamala Harris Says She Supports Your Second Amendment Rights, Her Record Proves Otherwise” on the website BearingArms.com, was taken down [technicaly redirected by overlay] by Facebook.

The FB app would overlay a bold-warning claiming the original article was “False Information” and hijacked interested readers, redirecting these FB users to an AFP article, Kamala Harris does not oppose gun ownership or the Second Amendment. Facebook searches for the Edwards article were directed to the AFP puff-piece driving Facebook users to the Fench article filled with less-than-truthful reporting failing to mention her history of supporting gun control and taking away your Second Amendment rights.

AmmoLand News and John Crump reported on this when first discovered on August 21, 2020, in an article on AmmoLand News titled ‘Facebook Fact Checker Interfering in U.S. Election, Covering for Harris’s Gun Control‘.

Another blatant example of the false “False Information” flagging was when an article by Texas Director for GOA, Rachel Malone was shadow-blocked.  The article is entitled “Kamala Harris is the Gun Owner's Worst Nightmare“. Multiple screengrabs, where Facebook took down other articles about Candidate Kamala Harris's position on a private right to arms, were easily found all over FB, see the selection below.

In the filed FEC complaint, “John Crump and Gun Owners of America, Inc. Federal Election Commission Complaint Against: Facebook, AFP Fact Check, and Kamala Harris for Vice President“, goes on to detail how Facebook then deleted the personal FB account of AmmoLand News contributor John Crump. After John attempted to post on the Facebook App a link to the original Kamila Harris court document or Amicus Brief referenced in the Cam Edwards article. That court-filed document, submitted by Kamila Harris in her own words, was once more falsely flagged with the warning. When John called attention to this practice directly with FaceBook his account was shortly thereafter deleted.

What Agence France-Presse (AFP) Convienenty Fails to Report

The AFP paper does not show official statements from the Harris campaign which deny or reject the positions in the 2008 amicus brief. Instead, AFP interprets the statements as though banning some guns and some gun ownership is not an attack on the right to own guns, but only “gun safety” measures.

The AFP paper takes the same political position as the Harris position, which is, essentially, the Second Amendment is or should be, a paper tiger. They cite the Harris statement in 2018:

At a Judiciary Committee hearing in March 2018, Harris called for “common sense gun safety laws” and said “it’s a false choice to suggest that you are either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone’s guns away.”

Thus, AFP comes down on Harris' side of a contentious Constitutional issue, which has legal scholars on both sides. AFP only cited experts who hold that Second Amendment rights are extremely limited.  AFP did not cite those who hold Second Amendment rights to be broad, such as Eugene Volokh from UCLA, or David Kopel of the Cato Institute.

This illustrates part of the problem with “fact-checkers” on political questions.

Either side can find “experts” to agree with its own beliefs.

When a public forum takes down assertions from one side, and only allows publication from the opposite side of an issue, that publication has taken sides.

The controversy goes deeper than the opinion of experts on the legal issue. It becomes one of a world-view or a philosophy.

The articles about Harris' statements on more regulation of firearms in the United States cite her positions, and what the writers believe those positions mean for how Kamala Harris will act if she is elected the next Democratic Vice President, one 77-year-old heart-beat-away from being the President of the United States. They are clear and reasonable interpretations.

The AFP paper does not refute the claims of Cam Edwards, Rachel Malone, or John Crump. Instead, they interpret Harris' statements and positions from the same philosophical base as the Harris campaign.  Facebook's claims and actions are not transparent or easily followed.

The AFP paper never claims Harris approves of a right to own guns, which is what is required to refute the claims of Edwards and Malone.

Instead, it says Harris does not oppose all gun ownership. The two positions are far apart.  AFP never mentions the difference.

Facebook and AFP claim they do not take sides. GOA, John Crump, and the complaint say they do, and are doing so in violation of federal election law.

It is a David v. Goliath effort. Facebook is one of the wealthiest and most powerful companies on earth.

With only a few weeks before election day 2020 and early voting already in effect in some states,  Facebook and AFP are exerting their influence on the American presidential election let us hope the FEC will hold them accountable.


John Crump & GOA File Complaint With Federal Election Commission Against Facebook for Election Interference


Update: In an ironic twist of timing, the Biden / Harris Ticket in an open letter to Facebook on Monday is calling for increased, not less, censorship by Facebook.

Biden-Harris campaign demands increased censorship by Facebook before 2020 election Screengrab wsw.org
Biden-Harris campaign demands increased censorship by Facebook before the 2020 election Screengrab wsw.org

The World Socialist Web Site, big supporters of the Biden Ticket report: “The campaign of Democratic Party presidential and vice-presidential candidates Joseph Biden and Kamala Harris published an open letter on Monday demanding that Facebook increase political censorship on its platform before the general election on November 3.”


About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30-year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Dean Weingarten

 

Bribery and Murder Threats Still Spread the Faith of Islam

BY HUGH FITZGERALD

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/10/bribery-and-murder-threats-still-spread-the-faith-of-islam;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

During the last 1,400 years, many non-Muslims converted to Islam to avoid death or a wretched existence as dhimmis. Bribery and murder, as instruments of conversion, still take place today, in Muslim lands as diverse as Iraq, Nigeria, and Pakistan. The story of these converions is here.

It started with his father.

As fighting and instability ravaged Iraqi villages and cities, a local Shiite militia offered a means for him to save his family and himself: convert from Christianity to Islam, and gain not only protection but the promise of eternity in heaven. Or, they said, he could remain a Christian, and put his life and his children’s at risk.

The father converted.

Then he demanded all his children do the same. “One daughter fled the home,” Muna Tagi, a friend of the family based in the United States, related in an email. “The teenage son was expelled from the home, but eventually came back as he had nowhere to stay, and had to be forced, along with his other sister, to convert their IDs to show them as Muslims.”

Despite their conversion, however, the two teens secretly continued to wear their crosses beneath their clothes — until their Shiite friend discovered them. “The friend … cut it from the teen’s neck and threw it in the mud,” Tagi said. Soon after, the boy received a letter, signed in blood, accompanied by a single bullet.

The letter, signed in blood, and with a bullet enclosed, is no different from the warnings given by the Mafia to its potential victims. The message is not “Pay up, or die,” but, rather, “Convert, or die.” The only other possibility for most Christians in Iraq to save themselves – unless they choose conversion under maximum duress — is to flee the country. And that is how some Iraqi Christians have handled their calvary. Many have fled the country, many have converted, and an impossibly brave minority still hangs on, most having moved to the Kurdish part of Iraq, deemed safer because the Kurds are not as fanatical in their faith as are the Arabs.

Such forced conversions are becoming increasingly common in post-Saddam Iraq, extending beyond the 2014 capture and enslavement of Yazidis, and not only because of the violence of ISIS militants. Under Saddam, Christians were largely left alone. Now, says Tagi, churches and Christian communities have come under violent attack because of Shiite rule, Islamist militancy, and Al-Qaeda’s revitalization. Many Christians have faced torture, especially by ISIS militants, who beat them when they could not repeat passages from the Koran.

Unsurprisingly, then, Christians have fled the country in droves: over 1 million have sought sanctuary either in the West or in the country’s more tolerant Kurdish areas, leaving a mere 500,000 Christians in Iraq struggling for survival. Thousands who escaped ISIS in 2014 now live in semi-permanent camps, knowing they may never return home. And while most continue to resist conversion, more and more are starting to give in.

Before the war in 2003, there were 1.5 million Christians in Iraq. The secular despot Saddam Hussein protected them; he knew that they were no threat to his rule, unlike the Shi’a, or rivals among the Sunni population. Saddam employed Christians as his household staff, as cleaners, waiters, drivers, launderers, tasters—many of these Christian workers were inherited by the Americans living in the Green Zone. Saddam also employed-as his face to the world, his Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz, a Christian who was liiving testimony to Saddam’s tolerance.

It isn’t just Iraq. In Algeria, the Algemeiner reported earlier this year, the government “prohibited Christians and other non-Muslims from speaking publicly about their faith, for fear of influencing Muslims.” Moreover, “any Muslim accused of approaching Christians for the purpose of learning more about their faith or beliefs could face years in prison and a hefty fine.”

In Algeria, the Arab rulers are most concerned about the Berbers, noticeable numbers of whom have, both in Algeria and in France, been converting to Christianity. Those Berbers, whose language and culture have been suppressed by the Arabs, have come to see Islam — as the late Anwar Shaikh argued — as a vehicle for Arab supremacism. After all, the message of Allah, the Qur’an, was delivered to an Arab, and in his language. Five times a day Muslims prostrate themselves in prayer, turned toward the qibla of Mecca, in western Arabia. At least once in their lifetime Muslims who are financially able must make the pilgrimage to that same city of Mecca. So great is the prestige in Islam of the Arabs that new converts to the faith frequently adopt Arab names. Some Muslims go even further, calling themselves “Sayyids” — especially in non-Arab Pakistan — which indicates a claimed descent from the tribe of Muhammad himself, the Al Quraysh.

Thus the Algerian Arabs, to cut down on apostasy from Islam, have tried to shut off discussion of Christianity at both ends. They don’t want Christians, or other non-Muslims, to speak about their own faith, and they don’t want Muslims speaking to Christians to find out more about their faith. Breaking these laws can result in long prison sentences. Statistic on conversions are understandably not released by the Algerian government, so there is no way of knowing how effective the draconian laws preventing even the discussion of Christianity have been in discouraging apostates from Islam.

And in Nigeria, home to 80 million Christians (versus 90 million Muslims), Boko Haram and Hausa Fulani militants have made the country one of the most dangerous in the world for Christians, with an estimated 7,000 Nigerian Christians executed since 2015 for their religion. In its 2019 religious freedom report, the US State Department reported that “Muslim Fulani herdsmen killed 17 Christians who had gathered after a baby dedication at a Baptist church … including the mother of the child.” They were but a few of the 1,350 Christians estimated to have been killed in Nigeria last year.

In Nigeria, unlike in Iraq and Algeria, the Christians are not a tiny minority. They have been attacked by Muslims, both those in the terror group Boko Haram, and Hausa-Fulani tribesmen, determined to push Christians out of northern Nigeria, in a territorial grab that has an underlying religious basis.

And 2020 is turning out to be similarly horrific, warns the Alabama Baptist. A video posted to YouTube on July 22, for instance, shows the execution of five Christian men, and a report issued by former MP Lord David Alton, co-founder of the Movement for Christian Democracy, counts at least 27 murders of Christians during the 24 hours between July 19-20.

Non-Muslims, not only Christians, continue in many Muslim countries to face the threat of violence, including being killed if they refuse to convert to Islam. That has always been the major reason for conversion to Islam, and not, as Muslims would have you believe, the self-evident sheer wonderfulness of Islam. As Muslims swept out of Arabia and conquered new lands, they offered the non-Muslims they vanquished only three choices: death, conversion to Islam, or wretched lives as dhimmis, “tolerated” minorities who had to submit to a host of political, social, and economic disabilities, including payment of the capitation tax known as the Jizyah. It’s no wonder that so many non-Muslims have over the centuries converted to Islam to save their own, and their families’ lives, and to avoid the crushing economic burden visited upon dhimmis.

But it isn’t only the fear of violence that is driving conversions to Islam. While the New York Times reports that the “forced conversions of Hindu girls and women to Islam through kidnapping and coerced marriages occur throughout Pakistan,” other Muslim groups use bribery to seduce impoverished Hindus, Sikhs, and Christians to abandon their faith. Indeed, in June, several dozen Hindus converted in a mass ceremony in South Pakistan seeking to escape the constant discrimination — in jobs, housing, and society — that Hindus typically experience in the Muslim majority country.

“The dehumanization of minorities coupled with these very scary times we are living in — a weak economy and now the pandemic — we may see a raft of people converting to Islam to stave off violence or hunger or just to live to see another day,” former Pakistani lawmaker Farahnaz Ispahani told the Times in August.

One wealthy Muslim in Pakistan has taken particular advantage of the current economic crisis. In a video posted on the social media site TikTok, Mian Kashif Zameer Chohadary announced his plan to pay 200,000 rupees (about $1,200) to any Christian who converts to Islam — with 1 million rupees (nearly $6,000) for a family. “Please accept Islam,” he says in the video, “which is the best religion.” The video, according to AsiaNews, quickly went viral.

Yet even these non-violent methods are problematic, the Times reports, noting that: “Hindu rights groups are also troubled by the seemingly voluntary conversions, saying they take place under such economic duress that they are tantamount to a forced conversion anyway.”  

Moreover, once non-Muslims convert to Islam, they are unable to return to their former religion: apostasy is punishable by death in Islam, and many countries — including Iraq and Pakistan — consider it a capital offense.

Of course for the impoverished Christians in Pakistan, who are confined to such menial and ill-paid jobs as garbage collectors, tannery workers, and lavatory cleaners, the amounts they are offered to convert are huge sums, and it is no wonder that some cannot resist conversion – but can we really describe these conversions, as Pakistani Muslims insist, as “voluntary”? It’s under extreme economic duress that these desperately poor Christians convert to Islam, in what are clearly forced conversions.

For her part, Muna Tagi is equally troubled about the situation in Iraq. “My concern for Iraqi Christians, at present, is that there are many unreported incidents like this one, never known … [for fear of] retaliation. And I strongly believe it will get worse in the future, as … each conversion success will empower these militia[s] to pursue the next.”

“It is largely, then, up to the West to aid these endangered families: “Open, firm talk between leaders of the west and Iraqi government is [needed] first,” Tagi believes. And second, “to help these families to migrate, if they choose to do so.”

Does the West think it can pressure Muslim governments to prevent their people from attempting to. bribe, or to threaten with death, non-Muslims, unless they convert? What kind of law could those governments enact that would prevent fanatics from threatening, or killing, or bribing non-Muslims? Wouldn’t angry Muslims rise up against such attempts to limit their freedom to convert the Infidels, and threaten the stability of the government?

In Iraq, the best solution would be to aid Christians to migrate to the safety of the West, a migration that has already been underway since 2003. In that year there were 1.5 million Christians still in Iraq; today there are scarcely 500,000. In Nigeria, the West could help with funds, and possibly troops, to ease the move of Christian Nigerians from the Muslim-dominated north to the safety of central and south Nigeria, where they can resettle among fellow Christians. But the best solution for the plight of Nigeria’s Christians was that which was attempted in the Biafra War in 1967-1969. In that war, the Christian tribes of the south, particularly the Igbo, who were by far the largest in numbers, after pogroms were unleashed by Muslims against Christians in the north, decided to declare the Christian-populated south as the independent state of Biafra. A bloody civil war ensued. Shamefully, the major Western powers did not intervene to help Biafra; some of them thought that it was “important” – but why? – that the most populous African state remains in one piece. The U.S. and U.K. did nothing to help the Biafrans; only Israel and Ghana extended both diplomatic recognition and military aid. Meanwhile, the Muslims were given aid by some Arab states. Egyptian Migs, with Egyptian pilots, freely bombed Ibo villages, killing hundreds of thousands of defenseless civilians. In the end, Biafra – outgunned and outmanned – lost the war and was again folded into the Nigerian state. .

But times have changed, and if there were another attempt today by Nigeria’s Christians to declare an independent state of Biafra, this time the Western powers, having now been subject themselves to Muslim aggression and terrorism, would likely intervene on the side of Biafra, by sending weapons, including planes, to the Christian fighters of Biafra Redux. And this time Biafra would win.

 

Why Leftists Can’t and Won’t Say They Hope Trump Recovers

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/robert-spencer/2020/10/04/the-real-reason-why-leftists-cant-and-wont-express-good-wishes-for-trumps-recovery-n1003313;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

When the news broke that President Trump had contracted the coronavirus, many of his supporters immediately began to pray for his recovery, while many Democrats were thrilled. Some, including former Hillary Clinton staffer Zara Rahim, even expressed the hope that he would die. The sharply divergent reactions revealed yet again the growing divide in American society, as they demonstrate that the left and the right today are operating from two vastly different and irreconcilable worldviews.

Leftists celebrating Trump’s illness were many, and they made no effort to hide their sentiments. Chris Rock yukked it up on Saturday Night Livesaying: “President Trump is in the hospital from COVID and I just wanna say my heart goes out to COVID.” Film critic Simon Abrams tweeted: “For once, I’m rooting for the virus.” Daniel Golson, staff editor at Car and Driver, chimed in with “I don’t feel bad about hoping he dies because I’ve been hoping that since 2015.”

Many conservatives have been appalled at these reactions, and have pointed to them to illustrate how deranged the left has become in its hatred for the president. They’ve noted that the right reacted to the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with condolences and expressions of regret, without regard for the fact that Ginsburg was the embodiment of a leftist activist judge with no interest in respecting constitutional restraints. Many have asked why leftists can’t react with similar charity when someone among the dissidents from their agenda falls ill, even their primary bête noire, President Trump.

The answer is in this as in so many other areas, the left and the right are working from premises that are more or less polar opposites. Jesus says “Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44). This has long been interpreted as meaning that one should treat everyone, even one’s political opponents, with respect, and have compassion for them when they suffer. This remained a cultural ideal long after many Americans began to discard their Christian faith and is still taken for granted among many people, albeit in the United States increasingly only among conservatives of all faiths.

That former Hillary staffer, Zara Rahim, in contrast, is a Muslim. The Qur’an doesn’t say that believers should love their enemies. Instead, it says “Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are ruthless to unbelievers, merciful to one another” (48:29). What flows from this is that one should not have respect for one’s political foes, but rather, remain intent on destroying them.

Of course, most of the Leftists who have been cheering Trump’s coronavirus and passionately hoping (if not praying) for his death are not Muslim and never will be. But the leftist/Islamic alliance is manifest in numerous ways these days, including the fact that Zara Rahim is a top-level Democratic Party operative, and that Joe Biden has repeatedly engaged in the most shameless Islamopandering, and the power and influence of first-term Muslim Representatives Ilhan Omar (D-Mogadishu) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Gaza) among congressional leadership, and the collaboration of Black Lives Matter with Palestinian jihadis, and much more.

This is an alliance of convenience based upon a shared goalthe destruction of the United States of America as a free republicbut it is more as well. The secular Left agrees with the idea that one should be ruthless to one’s enemies and merciful only to one’s friends. Leftists share with Islamic supremacists the idea that one’s enemies should not be loved, or prayed for, but only treated ruthlessly and destroyed by any means possible.

This scorched-earth world view has not been a constant in American politics. As Rating America’s Presidents shows, it wasn’t all that long ago that Democrats as well as Republicans shared the world view that was derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Politicians of both parties took for granted that one should treat one’s political opposition with decency and respect, and could expect the same in return.

But no more. The left is increasingly not just post-Christian, but anti-Christian, and not just American liberal, but Marxist and anti-American. Leftists have a completely different understanding of how the world works from the one that still prevails among most conservatives. The sooner the right wakes up to this fact and begins to prepare for more ruthlessness and hatred from the Left, the safer every patriotic American (which is not by any stretch of the imagination all of them) will be.

Editor’s Note: Want to support PJ Media so we can continue telling the truth about the 2020 election? Join PJ Media VIP TODAY and use the promo code LAWANDORDER to get 25% off your VIP membership.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 21 books, including the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Rating America’s Presidents: An America-First Look at Who Is Best, Who Is Overrated, and Who Was An Absolute Disaster. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.

Linda Sarsour In Louisville: The Leftist/Islamic Alliance in Action
 

A Tale of Two Hydroxychloroquine Studies: Mainstream Media Touts One and Ignores the Other

A Tale of Two Hydroxychloroquine Studies: Mainstream Media Touts One and Ignores the Other

BY DENNIS BEHREANDT

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/a-tale-of-two-hydroxychloroquine-studies-mainstream-media-touts-one-and-ignores-the-other/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The mainstream news continues to be aflutter with accusations and propaganda that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work against COVID-19.

The most recent case in point is this Reuters headline: “Trump-Touted Hydroxychloroquine Shows No Benefit in COVID-19 Prevention: Study.”

This headline, widely reported during the first week of October, is both true and misleading at one and the same time.

It is true that the study in question, published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, found that hydroxychloroquine did not have a prophylactic benefit. In other words, in a small sample of 132 people, there was no difference in chance of infection between the groups taking 600 mg of hydroxychloroquine and those taking a placebo.

That’s the true part. The misleading aspect of the title comes from its construction and, secondarily, the important bits the coverage of this headline leaves out. For instance, Reuters makes only the barest of mention of the following caveats included by the authors of the study:

Our study has important limitations. Our study was likely established with insufficient power. Given the small sample size, we cannot exclude the possibility of an undetected modest potential prophylactic effect of hydroxychloroquine. We did not attempt to quantify the frequency of participant exposure or specific timing of exposures. The cohort largely comprised young healthy HCWs and thus may not be generalizable to other populations with increased risk because of advanced age or additional comorbidities. Both study hospitals were located in Philadelphia and may not be representative of COVID-19 prevalence and exposure risk in other geographical areas. We cannot exclude the possibility that a lower or intermittent dose of hydroxychloroquine would be more effective at prevention, although a recent preclinical investigation in a COVID-19 macaque model did not find differences in antiviral activity with varied hydroxychloroquine dosing. Ongoing prophylaxis trials using hydroxychloroquine will be important to address these limitations.

In other words, this study, while useful and interesting, is not definitive. And that’s ok — this is how science works. One experiment yields interesting results (or non-results) that then reasonably require additional replication and iterative experimentation. Pointing out these finer points, however, is not helpful to the propagandist.

As for the title, propagandists understand that the most important words for directing human understanding come at the beginning of a title. In this case, we have “Trump-Touted Hydroxychloroquine Shows No Benefit.” 

“Trump-Touted” is dog-whistle “gotcha” phraseology meant to convey and reinforce the notion that an idea is ipso facto stupid because president Trump supported it. This is a logical fallacy that tries to convince readers that because some “discredited” person or group likes or supports an idea, then that idea is therefore necessarily incorrect. In this case, if the president supports hydroxychloroquine as a possible remedy for COVID, then the fact of Trump’s support on its own proves hydroxychloroquine is ineffective. In reality, though, the merit or lack thereof of an idea or hypothesis is independent of the character and personality of the people or groups that may or may not support it. Two plus two equals four is true even if Trump believes it.

The rest of the headline’s first words — “Hydroxychloroquine Shows No Benefit — is all that will be remembered by most people who generally become less intellectually engaged with text the further they read. From a sentence construction point of view, this makes sense. The word “hydroxychloroquine” is the subject of the headline. It is followed by the verb “show” and the subject complement illustrating a characteristic of the subject which, in this case is “no benefit.” As the core of the headline, this is the takeaway people will remember. 

Many will not remember — because they have not been taught how to read properly and have never heard of sentence diagrams — the important caveat introduced by prepositional phrase at the end: “in COVID-19 Prevention.”

This is the part where a sharp reader who has been paying attention to the developments in the summer-long propaganda war over HCQ should dismiss this headline as of no account whatsoever, beyond being a secondary matter.

That’s because while it would be great if HCQ was of use prophylactically, the real issue with the drug is its use as a potential cure for COVID once infected. Many, if not most, people reading this Reuters headline will likely conclude from it that HCQ is useless for COVID in general. And that is just not true.

There are plenty of in vivo studies showing that HCQ has an antiviral effect even on its own. In practice, the drug has often been used in combination with zinc and azithromycin with many doctors testifying to the utility of this treatment regimen.

There are also recent studies that have gone unremarked in the mainstream media that conflict with the prevailing propaganda narrative.

As an example, a group of researchers and scientists recently published intriguing positive HCQ results in the October 2020 issue of the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents

This study, reported in the article titled “Low-dose hydroxychloroquine therapy and mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a nationwide observational study of 8075 participants,” found that mortality was decreased in those taking HCQ.

The researchers of this study concluded:

In this large analysis of patients admitted for COVID-19 in Belgium, HCQ monotherapy administered at a dosage of 2400 mg over 5 days was independently associated with a lower in-hospital mortality rate compared with patients treated with supportive care only, even after adjustment for age, major co-morbidities and disease severity at admission. Importantly, mortality was reduced regardless of the time from symptom onset to diagnosis and HCQ treatment initiation.

Note that this was not a small study. The researchers point out that the study was of “multicentric design covering the vast majority of Belgian hospitals” and was strengthened by “the real-life representativeness of the data.” In total, the study assessed the “Impact of HCQ on mortality among 8075 patients with COVID-19.” 

This study, by the way, received nearly zero coverage in the mainstream media.

Of that, there are a couple of important points. First, the media’s anti-HCQ crusade, motivated primarily by hatred of a political opponent, has been fundamentally anti-science in that it has sought to discredit inquiry into the drug. This from the same mainstream media that browbeats anyone it perceives as an opponent for an apparent insufficient regard for ideologically favored scientific findings. But science is not about ideology. It is about understanding physical phenomena that can be examined and tested. These things occur independently of political ideology and if political ideology makes certain avenues of scientific investigation off-limits or restricted, as it had earlier this year in causing the stoppage of some HCQ investigations, then collectively we have our understanding of the world around us artificially limited. 

Second, when that limitation impacts research into medical therapies, lives are put at risk, unnecessarily. In a campaign that has successfully limited research into, and the availability of, HCQ for medical uses, this has directly caused harms to innocent people who might have been helped by the drug. To put it bluntly, mainstream ideological propagandists have hurt people — perhaps many thousands of people — as a direct result of their Trump-hatred-fueled campaign against a drug.

Again, we repeat as we have before, ad nauseam, that freedom is the cure. Scientists need to be free to investigate HCQ and other therapies. Doctors need to be free to prescribe the drugs and treatment protocols they believe best fit their patients’ needs. And people need to be free to engage in the full panoply of activities that their natural rights and responsibilities allow and require. 

Limiting freedom and attacking it compounds and spreads harm, an especially evil outcome when done — as it is today — for base ideological purposes. 

 

Grand Jury Indicts Netflix Over ‘Lewd’ Depiction of Underage Girls in ‘Cuties’

BY CARMINE SABIA, JR.

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/culture/carminesabia/2020/10/06/grand-jury-indicts-netflix-over-lewd-depiction-of-underage-girls-in-cuties-n1011363;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The streaming service Netflix is in hot water for broadcasting the French-Senegalese movie Cuties, which drew scorn on social media.

Even after parents and viewers panned the website for its decision to stream the movie—full of scantily clad, suggestively dancing children—the company aired it.

And now the streaming giant has been indicted in the state of Texas for depicting a lewd exhibition of the pubic area of a partially clothed child, The New York Post reports. The indictment identifies the movie as Cuties, aka Mignonnes, which began streaming on the service on Sept. 9.

“Netflix, Inc. indicted by grand jury in Tyler Co., Tx for promoting material in Cuties film which depicts lewd exhibition of pubic area of a clothed or partially clothed child who was younger than 18 yrs of age which appeals to the prurient interest in sex #Cuties #txlege,” Rep. Matt Schaefer (R-Texas) said on Twitter.

The indictment says the company “knowingly promote(s) visual material which depicts the lewd exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a clothed or partially clothed child who was younger than 18 years of age at the time the visual material was created, which appeals to the prurient interest in sex, and has no serious, literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

The movie, which made its debut at the 2020 Sundance Film Festival, tells the story of an 11-year-old Muslim girl who is raised in a conservative household but becomes “liberated” after joining a dance group.

“The video streaming service and content-producer Netflix is currently hosting a film entitled ‘Cuties’ that sexualizes young girls, including through dance scenes that simulate sexual activities and a scene exposing a minor’s bare breast,” Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said in a letter to Attorney General Bill Barr last month.

“I urge the Department of Justice to investigate the production and distribution of this film to determine whether Netflix, its executives, or the individuals involved in the filming and production of ‘Cuties’ violated any federal laws against the production and distribution of child pornography,” he said.

The fury at the movie and its depiction of young girls in a sexual manner is bipartisan, with Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard expressing her outrage.

“@netflix child porn ‘Cuties’ will certainly whet the appetite of pedophiles & help fuel the child sex trafficking trade. 1 in 4 victims of trafficking are children. It happened to my friend’s 13 year old daughter. Netflix, you are now complicit. #CancelNetflix,” she said.

The indictment says that the promotion of the controversial movie was “authorized or recklessly tolerated” by upper management at the company, namely Wilmot Reed Hastings Jr. or Anthony Sarandos Jr.

Netflix has yet to respond to the Texas indictment but defends the movie, citing its awards and calling it a “powerful story” about what young girls face on social media.

“‘Cuties’ is a social commentary against the sexualization of young children,” a spokesperson for the streaming giant said in September.

“It’s an award-winning film and a powerful story about the pressure young girls face on social media and from society more generally growing up — and we’d encourage anyone who cares about these important issues to watch the movie,” they said.

“Eleven-year-old Amy starts to rebel against her conservative family’s traditions when she becomes fascinated with a free-spirited dance crew,” a synopsis of the movie on Netflix says.

I Watched Preteen Sexploitation Flick ‘Cuties’ on Netflix So You Don’t Have To
The Depraved Sexual Exploitation of Children in Netflix’s ‘Cuties’ Is Coming to a School Near You—if It Hasn’t Already
 

DOJ Defends Church’s Pandemic Lawsuit Against D.C.

DOJ Blasts D.C. Mayor for 'Silencing' Churches:

'There Is No Pandemic Exception to the Constitution'

BY PAULA BOLYARD

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/culture/paula-bolyard/2020/10/06/doj-says-d-c-mayor-is-silencing-religious-worship-there-is-no-pandemic-exception-to-the-constitution-n1007402;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The Department of Justice on Friday announced it had filed a statement of interest in the case filed by Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., against the District of Columbia and Mayor Muriel Bowser. The 853-member church has a strong religious conviction that it must meet weekly and in person, as a single body, for worship. As a result of Mayor Bowser’s onerous COVID-19 orders (first capping worship services at 10 people and now 100), Capitol Hill Baptist Church (CHBC) has not been able to meet together in the District since March. As a temporary measure, they’ve been meeting in a field in Virginia.

The congregation had asked the mayor for permission to meet at the 45,000-plus-seat Robert F. Kennedy Stadium, which would give them ample room to social distance, but the city denied the application for a waiver, and also the church’s appeals. (More background here.)

Finally, on Sept. 22, the church filed a lawsuit and a request for a temporary restraining order asking that they be allowed to hold outdoor worship services in the District of Columbia, citing the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. CHBC says the mayor has double standards—one for churches and another for large gatherings of protesters. The lawsuit pointed out that the mayor herself has attended some of these gatherings.

“The right to free exercise of religion and the right to protest are both enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution,” said Eric Dreiband, assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, in a press release. “We are a nation dedicated to freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. The District of Columbia has, unfortunately, neglected these rights. The Justice Department is committed to defending both of these fundamental freedoms and in supporting all Americans’ rights to worship as they choose.”

The statement of interest is part of Attorney General William P. Barr’s initiative, announced April 27, directing the DOJ to “review governmental policies around the country to ensure that civil liberties are protected during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

“While a local government has significant discretion to decide what measures to adopt to meet a public health threat, the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution requires that, whatever level of restrictions it adopts, government must treat religious gatherings the same as comparable nonreligious gatherings, absent the government meeting strict scrutiny, that is, proving that it has a compelling governmental interest pursued through the least restrictive means,” the DOJ argued in the statement of interest. “Similarly, the Free Speech Clause forbids the government from discriminating against certain speech while privileging other speech with a viewpoint favored by the government, unless it meets strict scrutiny.”

The District of Columbia is also bound by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Justice Department said. RFRA “requires that any government action imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise meet strict scrutiny.” The city’s current approach to COVID-19 restrictions “has the effect of treating some forms of protected First Amendment activity differently than other forms of comparable activity and in so doing singles out religious exercise for differential treatment.” CHBC has demonstrated that its lawsuit is likely to succeed on merits, the statement of interest noted.

John MacArthur’s Religious Freedom Case Is Headed to Trial

In its filing, the DOJ said that while the United States “has a strong interest, especially in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, in ensuring the development and maintenance of the best possible public health strategies to combat the virus and protect the people of the United States from harm,” that interest “must be balanced with constitutional liberties.”

“Although the precise legal tests may change based on the specific restriction at issue, the bottom line remains the same: there is no pandemic exception to the Constitution and our fundamental rights,” the DOJ lawyers declared. [Emphasis added] “Individual rights set forth in the Constitution are always operative and restrain government action.”

Mayor Bowser and the District of Columbia clearly don’t agree. Protesters who have the “correct” political views are allowed to gather in the streets with impunity—and without anyone in the mayor’s office, the MSM, or Democratic Party saying boo about it—while churches are told to close their doors and forsake their religious teachings. The aforementioned leftists have no use for those “icky” Christians who insist on obeying the Bible, but, ah, the protesters and rioters—they, and they alone, are worthy of robust constitutional protections amid the pandemic. That hypocrisy is what CHBC takes issue with. The Justice Department is insisting that the discrimination stop.

People need Jesus during these tumultuous times. Christians need to be in church, where they can obey biblical mandates to hear the Word of God preached, partake of Communion, and fellowship together. A few brave churches are wading into the fray, asking only to be treated the way other groups are and for the government to abide by the First Amendment and RFRA. William Barr and Trump’s Department of Justice are making it clear that government “shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. Period. Not even during a pandemic.

Follow me on Twitter @pbolyard

Prominent D.C. Church Becomes First to Sue Over Mayor Muriel Bowser’s Hypocritical Worship Restrictions