Pompeo Urges Biden Not to Rejoin Nuclear Deal With ‘Evil’ Iran Regime


SEE: https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/04/15/pompeo-urges-biden-not-to-rejoin-nuke-deal-with-evil-iran-regime;

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

As the Biden administration moves to reenter the Iran nuclear deal at a conference in Vienna, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned Wednesday against dealing with the “evil” and “anti-Semitic” Iranian regime. 

Pompeo said the “world’s foremost sponsor of terror, the Islamic Republic of Iran, today is in Vienna,” meeting directly with U.S. diplomats, as well as with diplomats from France, Germany, and Britain. 

“I am hoping each of the leaders in that room acknowledges that the regime is indeed evil. It is anti-Semitic. Indeed, it speaks of its genocidal intent while denying the Holocaust,” Pompeo said Wednesday in New York. He spoke at Rabbi Shmuley Boteach’s World Values Network on the eve of the 73rd anniversary of Israel’s independence.

“America, who is the noblest force for good and for human rights in the world, cannot permit the return to a situation where the risk to the Jewish homeland is real and the capacity for Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon is real,” Pompeo said. “I pray that we will move forward on a path, which is decent and righteous and moral, and make sure that we always defend those democracies in this world who are prepared to stand up for their own rights.”

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani both boasted that Iran would increase uranium enrichment to 60%, the highest level yet. That comes after they blamed Israel for the bombing this past weekend of Iran’s main Natanz nuclear-enrichment site. 

Enriched uranium at 60% would still be lower than weapons-grade, which would have to be enriched at 90%. 

Further, Khamenei dismissed the multinational talks in Vienna. 

“The offers they provided are usually arrogant and humiliating [and] are not worth looking at,” the ayatollah said in a public address. 

The Obama administration entered the Iran agreement —formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—to drop sanctions on Iran if it agreed to slow its nuclear program. Other parties to the original agreement were Britain, France. Germany, Russia, and China. 

The Trump administration withdrew from the agreement in 2018 amid concerns Iran wasn’t complying and reimposed sanctions. The Vienna talks are aimed at getting the United States back into the agreement. 

Pompeo said Wednesday that reentering the agreement would be unwise. 

The former secretary of state noted that in 1948, President Harry Truman made a “moral and right decision” within 11 minutes of Israel’s declaration as an independent nation to recognize the new Jewish state. 

“I think about the two declarations of independence. Each different documents, to be sure, but they share some self-evident propositions,” Pompeo said. “In America’s case, it was the self-evident right for all men to be created equal. In Israel’s case, it was what the Hebrew prophets handed down the right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate in their own homeland. 

Both documents created by citizens who know that their words would, time and time again, be required to back up with real deeds and military strength, and they knew that freedom requires incredibly strong defense, and each nation was prepared to do that.

Pompeo noted the strong U.S. relationship with Israel during the Trump administration, including fostering the Abraham Accords and moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. 

“We did these because they were the right thing to do. They were the honest thing to do,” the former envoy said. “While we had wished many things had happened earlier, we were proud to be part of these transformative actions that President [Donald] Trump so courageously undertook. 

We did them for no political purpose. We did them for no secondary, utilitarian end. We did them because they were right and moral and consistent with America’s understanding of the world. We do this because it was in the interest of both of our peoples.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. 

These 107 Corporations Signal Opposition to Election Integrity


SEE: https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/04/15/these-107-corporations-signal-opposition-to-election-integrity;

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

The top executives of some of the largest corporations on the planet released a statement on Wednesday saying they support “democracy.”

If that sounds bland and terribly nonspecific, you get the gist of the statement, which was the product of a summit of more than 100 CEOs and executives. The summit was convened in response to passage of Georgia’s election-integrity law and similar legislation being considered in other states.

The collective corporate statement was released in the form of an ad, which appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and elsewhere.

Here’s what it said:

A government of the people, by the people. A beautifully American ideal, but a reality denied to many for much of this nation’s history. As Americans, we know that in our democracy we should not expect to agree on everything. However, regardless of our political affiliations, we believe the very foundation of our political process rests upon the ability of each of us to cast our ballots for the candidates of our choice.

For American democracy to work, we must ensure the right to vote for all of us. We should all feel a responsibility to defend the right to vote and to oppose any discriminatory legislation or measures that restrict or prevent any eligible voter from having an equal and fair opportunity to cast a ballot.

Voting is the lifeblood of democracy, and we call upon all Americans to join us in taking a nonpartisan stand for this most basic and fundamental right of all Americans.

This is so generic it makes one wonder what the point of the ad was. The Georgia election-integrity law isn’t mentioned at all, nor are any other specific laws.

A list of more than 100 corporate signatories that appeared in the ad can be found at the bottom of this article. It includes Apple, the Ford Motor Co., PayPal, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Under Armor, Sweetgreen, and American Express, among many others.

So, unless you don’t use the internet, drive a car, use large banking institutions, wear clothes, eat food you didn’t grow yourself, or pretty much function at all in modern life, you are almost certain to find companies you interact with on the list.

And, of course, The New York Times did its best to shame the companies that didn’t sign the statement.

Coca-Cola and Delta Air Lines, two of the companies that were most public and vocal about the Georgia voting law, were not on the list of the statement’s signatories.

What’s to be made of their collective statement?

One wonders if the only truly animating “nonpartisan” issue these corporate titans are standing for is democracy, why do we see no similar collective statements in response to the autocratic and deeply anti-democratic policies of communist China, for instance?

“There is overwhelming support in corporate America for this principle of voting rights,” Kenneth Chenault, the former chief executive of American Express Co., said in the days before the meeting. “The right to vote is fundamental to America. It is not a partisan issue.”

Isn’t the right to vote fundamental in other countries, too?

Again, why was there no dramatic corporate summit to address the end of democracy when China was squeezing the life out of the last vestiges of free government in Hong Kong?

This is corporate posturing, little more than virtue signaling that they are all aboard the cause of the woke, social justice left.

It isn’t about “democracy” at all. It’s a typical corporate-speak way of demonstrating that they are committed to the cultural left and the policy priorities of the Democratic Party.

Though the product of this confab ended up being little more than insipid, nonspecific mush, the implications of this turn in corporate behavior should worry Americans.

Are these companies now going to constantly collaborate to bully and threaten states and elected officials who don’t pursue the policy agenda of the activist left?

Not only that, in spite of this corporate insistence on “democracy,” threatening states that pass laws through their democratically elected officials seems quite anti-democratic.

Such a turn further erodes public trust in private corporate institutions and makes them very much the opposite of “nonpartisan.” That only adds fuel to the fire of our current civic discord.

These trends are disturbing, but at least they are revealing. The rise of woke corporatism can no longer be ignored.






American Airlines

American Express 


Bain & Company

Bank of America

Berkshire Partners

Best Buy



BMC Software

Boston Consulting Group

Broadridge Financial Solutions

Cambridge Associates


Civic Entertainment Group

Climb Credit


Cowboy Ventures

Creative Artists Agency

Dell Technologies


Discover Financial Services



Emerson Collective

Estee Lauder





FirstMark Capital

Ford Motor Co.

General Catalyst

General Motors

Goldman Sachs




Insight Partners Leadership


Intelligentsia Coffee

Johnson & Johnson

Jazz Lincoln Center


Khosla Ventures

Levi Strauss & Co.

Live Nation Entertainment

Loop Capital Markets


M&T Bank


McKinsey & Company



Mondelez International


Newell Brands


Otherwise Incorporated

Paper Source





Predxion Bio



REI Co-op

Richer Poorer



Seventh Generation

Slow Ventures

Smith & Company

Sodexo USA



Sound Ventures

Spark Capital 







T. Rowe Price


Tory Burch




Under Armour

United Airlines

United Talent Agency




Warburg Pincus

Warby Parker

Wells Fargo



Biden’s Border Security Pick Backs Amnesty, Opposes Wall

CBP candidate, TPD Chief Magnus critical of past border policies


SEE: https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/04/15/bidens-border-security-pick-backs-amnesty-opposes-wall;

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

President Joe Biden’s pick to run border security has tweeted or spoken regularly against the Trump administration’s immigration policies, supported a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and opposed a border wall. 

Chris Magnus, the police chief of Tucson, Arizona, is Biden’s nominee for commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Magnus also has cited research by the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center, backed free injection sites for drug addicts, and expressed support for law enforcement building relationships with all immigrants, “documented and undocumented alike.”

Though not inherently a political actor as Tucson’s police chief since 2016, Magnus regularly made public comments about political issues of the day. 

Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>

Last July, he criticized Department of Homeland Security agents who were deployed to respond to urban riots. 

“This activity—I won’t even dignify it by calling it policing—is an affront to constitutional, professional law enforcement,” Magnus tweeted. “Cammo—Seriously? No visible patches? No name tags? Unmarked vehicles?  What is this—some authoritarian regime?”

Last Nov. 16, well after sordid scandals emerged regarding the Southern Poverty Law Center, Magnus seemed to endorse the organization’s research. 

The SPLC is a left-leaning group that frequently labels organizations it doesn’t agree with as “hate groups,” lumping some mainstream conservative organizations with the Ku Klux Klan or Nazi organizations.

The police chief’s tweet cited a New York Times story quoting the Southern Poverty Law Center as saying, “It’s important to note that, because of the nature of hate crime reporting, the FBI’s annual report vastly understates the real level of hate crimes in the country.” 

It is not clear, of course, whether quoting from a news article without comment means that Magnus endorses the sentiment of SPLC, which many observers would not agree legitimately “tracks hate groups.” 

In another example, Magnus tweeted about the positive side of drug injection sites for addicts, quoting from a National Public Radio story.  

“Most studies show that supervised injection sites can drive down fatal overdoses. These cites are credited with restricting the spread of infectious diseases,” Magnus tweeted. “Advocates say the facilities help move more people into treatment. The AMA [American Medical Association] has endorsed them.”

Magnus did not respond to phone and email inquiries Thursday from The Daily Signal. 

In a New York Times interview earlier this week, the chief denied that he was a partisan.

“Sometimes it’s frustrating how hyperpartisan all these issues can become, but I want to say from the very start, I am no ideologue and I do want to make a difference on things,” Magnus told the Times. 

Magnus became police chief in Tucson after gaining some notoriety and glowing national media coverage for reforms he made as police chief in Richmond, California, to improve race relations there. He took that job in 2006. 

Before that, Magnus was police chief of Fargo, North Dakota, beginning in 1999. This came after 15 years with the police department in Lansing, Michigan. 

He also gained some national attention for holding a Black Lives Matter sign in 2014 in Richmond, California. 

Magnus has been involved in national policy before, testifying in 2015 before President Barack Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. He has been an expert witness for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. 

“In each of these cities Magnus developed a reputation as a progressive police leader who focused on relationship-building between the police and community, implementing evidence-based best practices, promoting reform, and insisting on police accountability,” said the White House press release Monday announcing Biden’s intent to nominate him. 

Today, the Biden administration is facing scrutiny for conditions at detention facilities for illegal immigrants at the border. In February 2020, Magnus criticized conditions at detention facilities during President Donald Trump’s administration.

Earlier, on June 1, 2019, Magnus tweeted: “This is a level of inhumanity and mistreatment of human beings that should shock the conscience of any citizen and law enforcement agency in this country.”

In apparent support of amnesty for illegal immigrants, Magnus tweeted on Feb. 9, 2019: “Imagine what it’d be like if you were brought here as a child, grew up here, pay taxes here, only know here—yet have no path to citizenship.”

Magnus backed providing illegal immigrants with visas as a means to encourage crime reporting in a May 14, 2019, post on Twitter. 

The chief expressed support for anti-bias training for police in a January 2019 tweet, a policy that could extend to his position heading Customs and Border Protection if he is confirmed by the Senate.

If confirmed, Magnus could have a rocky relationship with Border Patrol officers. In a Facebook post in June 2018, National Border Patrol Council Local 2544, the union representing officers in the Tucson area, asserted that Magnus “encourages anarchy.” 

“If law enforcement is now free to pick and choose which laws they want to enforce based on their personal ‘morals’ and political beliefs, this country is in one hell of a mess,” the Border Patrol union said in the Facebook post, adding:

Chris Magnus is an ultra-liberal social engineer who was given a badge and a gun by the City of Tucson.  …  Chris Magnus is dangerous. He is preaching anarchy and encouraging police officers to commit dereliction of duty. He is supposed to staunchly defend the rule of law. He routinely crosses the line between politician, social engineer, liberal activist and ‘police chief.’

This week, Magnus acknowledged a need to listen to what those who soon could work under him have to say. 

“I know much is made of how Border Patrol might feel about my nomination, and I want to say right off that I do recognize that a Border Patrol or customs agent is doing a very difficult job,” Magnus told The New York Times. “I’m going to be making it a priority to get to know the people doing that job, to learn from them and to try and help them.”

Magnus faced scrutiny from immigrant rights groups last year after the Tucson Police Department took two months to release body camera footage of the death of Carlos Ingram-Lopez, 27, who repeatedly had asked for water. 

According to news reports, Lopez was intoxicated, having a mental health crisis, and running around the house naked when his grandmother called 911 in April 2020. Police officers chased Lopez to the garage, handcuffed him, and placed him in a face-down position for 12 minutes, according to the Times. 

An autopsy found that the cause of Lopez’s death was cardiac arrest and no charges were brought against the officers who took him into custody, although three resigned. 

Magnus said the delay in releasing the video was due to bureaucratic problems. 

In a Nov. 5 tweet that likely wouldn’t have a bearing on his position at CBP, but expressed a politically charged view, Magnus called for Google to ban former Trump White House aide Steve Bannon. 

Google owns YouTube, where Bannon has a channel. It wasn’t clear whether Magnus was referring to YouTube, or wanted to make it impossible to find a Bannon link through a Google search. 

“Law enforcement should condemn ANY political operative for advocating violence, such as Steve Bannon saying the heads of FBI Dir. [Chris] Wray & Dr. [Anthony] Fauci be placed on pikes,” Magnus wrote on Twitter. “Google must also be condemned for allowing Bannon’s channel to remain online. This isn’t politics, it’s criminal.”

In a follow-up tweet, Magnus wrote: “It doesn’t matter which party or ideology the individuals who incite this kind of violence belong or subscribe to, it’s a step way too far. This is how people get hurt—even killed. Absolutely unacceptable.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a confirmation hearing on Biden’s nomination of Magnus to head Customs and Border Protection. 

In written testimony to that committee on Dec. 12, 2018, Magnus opposed Trump’s construction or reinforcement of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border:

Tucson is in Pima County, Arizona, the 6th largest county in the U.S. Last year, our Republican elected sheriff, Mark Napier, who has the responsibility for policing a county with 125 miles along the border, told lawmakers they would be better off giving a fraction of the estimated billions it would take to build the wall to law enforcement. He said, ‘I think it’s kind of a medieval solution to a modern problem, 10,000 years ago we were building walls around things, and here we are in 2017, and this is the best idea we can come up with?’ I agree with Sheriff Napier, as do many other law enforcement leaders.

In responding Dec. 19, 2018, to a questionnaire from Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., Magnus said it is important for police departments to have strong relationships with immigrants, regardless of their legal status. 

“There are many reasons to foster strong relationships with our immigrant communities,” Magnus wrote, adding:

The following list, while not all inclusive, highlights some of these:

—Immigrants (documented and undocumented alike), as well as the family and friends of immigrants, need to feel safe coming forward to report crimes and cooperate as witnesses to crimes without fear.

—From a crime deterrence standpoint it’s critical we avoid creating a subgroup of victims who are easily preyed upon because they are afraid to report crimes due to the threat that they or a family member will be deported.

—It’s important to ensure this vulnerable population will appear in court as needed to testify as victims or key witnesses in both civil and criminal cases rather than fearing the entire criminal justice system.

—Our intention is to partner with the residents of all neighborhoods in the community, regardless of documentation status, so we can make very area of the city as safe as possible through crime prevention initiatives and relationship building. 

—The immigrant population contributes to the social, economic, and cultural fabric of the entire community. It is critical they have a positive perception of the police in order to maximize the many contributions they can make to our city.

In a December 2017 op-ed in The New York Times, Magnus criticized Trump and then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions while defending sanctuary cities, which refuse to help federal officials enforce U.S. immigration law. He also said that Tucson was “not technically a sanctuary city.” 

Magnus wrote in the Times:

I’m deeply troubled by the Trump administration’s campaign against ‘sanctuary cities,’ which refuse to turn over undocumented immigrants to federal authorities. Washington is trying to retaliate against them by withholding funding for things like crime prevention, drug treatment and mental health programs. … 

The harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric and Mr. Sessions’s reckless policies ignore a basic reality known by most good cops and prosecutors.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. 

POLICE STATE New Jersey: Gov. Murphy Announces Drastic Gun Control Agenda

New Jersey State Flag NRA ILA

NJ once again showing wanton disregard for its citizen’s rights. IMG NRA-ILA


SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/04/new-jersey-gov-murphy-announces-drastic-gun-control-agenda/#axzz6sCT5Y4m7;

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

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Thursday morning, Gov. Phil Murphy held a press conference to unveil yet another gun control package in the Garden State.  Every time he reverts back to the same playbook, it is nothing more than an admission that years of gun control have been a failure.  But because he has no real ideas about how to enhance public safety, the Governor doubles down on more of the same failed laws.

The Governor has proposed and supported the introduction of legislation which includes:

    • Reworking the Firearms Identification Card system (FID) to include mandatory firearms safety course completion to even those who own firearms.
    • Legislation that would require mandatory storage.  Gun owners would be forced to store their firearms under lock and key in safes, rendering them useless in self-defense situations.
    • Raising the age to 21 for FID card issuance for long guns and completely stripping an entire class of legal adults of their constitutional rights.
    • Microstamping.  This legislation would require all new semi-automatic handguns to be equipped with microstamping technology, a costly technology that is unproven and easily circumvented.  This is nothing more than a traditional handgun ban.
    • Forced market acceptance of “smart guns” by mandating that gun shops sell them.  Again, this is nothing more than an attempt to ban traditional handguns.
    • A .50 Caliber ban.  This is a firearm that weighs about 30 lbs., costs thousands of dollars, and is rarely, if ever used as a crime gun.  This is the proverbial solution in search of a problem and constitutes political pandering at its worst.
    • Electronic registering of all ammunition sales.
    • Registering of firearms brought into the state by residents relocating to New Jersey.  Ironically, under Murphy’s reign, most moving vans are pointed in the opposite direction.

There were other issues that were discussed, but these are a sample of the drastic steps the Governor is proposing.  With each step, he is inching toward his goal of completely banning the Second Amendment in New Jersey.

New Jersey has some of the toughest gun laws in the country and has for decades.  Despite these laws, cities like Paterson, Camden, Newark, and Trenton are some of the most violent cities in the country.  This is evidence that none of these laws have been successful.  New Jersey gun laws are an epic failure and so is Gov. Phil Murphy.  NRA and its New Jersey members are adamantly opposed to these proposals, and we will fight them every step of the way in Trenton.

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

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)


NIGERIA: Muslims Needed a Mosque~The Catholic Church Built One for Them

Mbaka is an embarrassment to Catholic Church –Mamza, Adamawa ...


SEE: https://pjmedia.com/culture/robert-spencer/2021/04/13/muslims-needed-a-mosque-the-catholic-church-built-one-for-them-n1439720;

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

Although this happened in Nigeria, it is emblematic of what is happening all over the West today, including in the U.S. Non-Muslims are being generous, welcoming, and kind, without any particular concern for the possibility that not all of the recipients of their largesse might be interested in reciprocating their kindness. Bishop Stephen Mamza of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Yola, is building houses in Yola for people who have lost their homes due to jihad terror activity by the Islamic group Boko Haram, whose official name is People Committed to the Prophet’s Teachings for Proselytizing and Jihad. Since many of those displaced are Muslims whom Boko Haram didn’t think were Islamic enough, Bishop Mamza also built them a mosque. What could possibly go wrong?

In an interview Sunday in Nigeria’s Punch, Bishop Mamza explained that “at a certain stage we had over 3,000 people living on our church premises,” and “we thought of what we could do to improve their living standards.” Ultimately, with help from German backers, “we started last year in January the construction of 86 units of houses to be built for the 86 families still in our camp. On the housing estate, we built a church and a mosque and a school for the IDPs,” that is, Internally Displaced People.

Mamza maintained that building the mosque was a simple act of charity: “In the first place, when we played host to these IDPs, we did not discriminate against any one of them. We didn’t ask what religion the IDPs belong to; we didn’t ask for their church denomination; we just treated them as human beings who are in need of help, irrespective of their religion, denomination or tribe.” He explained that “if we were able to build houses for all of them, and also built a church for the Christians among them, then it is only a matter of justice and fairness that we also provide a space of worship for the few Muslims among them….I just felt that since we didn’t leave out the Muslims while providing food for the Christians or leave the Muslims out while building houses for the Christians, it is only just that we also build a mosque for the Muslims as we built a church for Christians.”

As good as this bishop’s intentions were, his gesture didn’t sit well with many Christians in a country where Islamic jihadis murdered a Catholic priest in March and burned a Catholic Church to the ground in February, and where jihadis killed 2200 Christians during 2020, an average of six every day. Would the mosque that Mamza built stop this jihad violence against Christians in Nigeria? Not likely. And so, Mamza recounted, “even from within, people did not see it as a good gesture, at all….Some of them even pointed out that the Boko Haram insurgents are Muslims and they have caused a lot of havoc for us; they ask, ‘Why should we even go ahead and build a mosque for them?’ But I say, ‘Well, not all the Muslims are Boko Haram (members), not all of them (Muslims) are evil. Those that I know, that we have been living together and taking care of them for the past seven years, I know them to be good. So, there should be no reason why I should discriminate against them. I think that is the reason we built the mosque.’”

Of course, that is true that not all Muslims are evil. It is odd, however, for a Christian entity to spend money on building a structure in which congregants will be taught that Jesus is not the Son of God and belief in the Trinity is “excess” (Qur’an 4:171, 19:35), and that Jesus was not crucified (Qur’an 4:157), and that those who believe in the divinity of Christ (that would include Bishop Mamza) are unbelievers (Qur’an 5:17), and that those who (like Bishop Mamza) believe that Jesus is God’s Son are accursed (Qur’an 9:30), and that Christians who do not accept Muhammad and the Qur’an must be fought against and subjugated under Islamic hegemony (Qur’an 9:29).

Also, a hadith has Muhammad predicting that Jesus will return at the end of the world and break the cross, as it is an insult to Allah’s power to say that he would have allowed one of his prophets to be crucified: “Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, ‘By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary [Jesus] will shortly descend amongst you people [Muslims] as a just ruler and will break the Cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya [a tax taken from the non-Muslims, who are in the protection, of the Muslim government]. Then there will be abundance of money and nobody will accept charitable gifts.’” (Bukhari 3.34.425)

So Bishop Mamza’s gesture is beautiful, but it may also be dangerous: The jihadis who attack his own people could be incited in the mosque he built. Also, if the situation were reversed, would the Muslims build a church? Of course not. There is no chance of that whatsoever.

Now, all that may not be probative for Bishop Mamza. He is a Christian cleric, and Christians are taught to “love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them, expecting nothing in return” (Luke 6:35). Very well. Still, in building a house where essential doctrines of Christianity will be denied, and the congregation will be exhorted to fight against Christians, subjugate them under Sharia, and make them pay the jizya (Qur’an 9:29), is Bishop Mamza being loving to his Christian flock by building this mosque? Does he have any obligation of charity to the Christians, or only to the Muslims? Well, what would the Pope say? Given Pope Francis’ actions since he became Bishop of Rome, Bishop Mamza may be on the fast track to a Red Hat.


SEE ALSO: France: Catholic diocese finances construction of mosque



The Catholic Church is Building Mosques Now

What could possibly go wrong? Celebrate diversity!


NEMOS NEWS: Dems Stacking Supreme Court, US Bans J&J Suicide Vaccine, CNN Busted as Get Trump & Fearporn

In this episode of The Silent War:
Dems are seeking to Stack the Supreme Court to get around the final impediment to their unconstitutional far left radical agenda.

The (Formerly..) United States has joined a growing list of countries including Denmark in banning one or more suicide vaccine variants - pick your poison, death by blood clot, or cytokine storm induced heart attack?

CNN Busted by amazing work by my friend in Project Veritas, catching a CNN Director admitting that Covid Fearporn was about the ratings and that the focus has been to Get Trump.

All of this and more, including an update on the audits of the fraudulent, stolen 2020 election - in this important emergency episode!

Radical Mass-migration Bills Advancing in Congress

Radical Mass-migration Bills Advancing in Congress


SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/radical-mass-migration-bills-advancing-in-congress/;

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

Members of Congress are seeking to pass multiple bills that would fundamentally undermine the integrity of the U.S. immigration system, threaten American sovereignty, and grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

According to multiple reports, the Biden administration knew the current border crisis would occur, and even likely planned the surge to implement its agenda. Despite this, congressional Democrats, along with some Republicans, are pushing for legislation that would exacerbate the migration surge, in addition to permanently damaging national cohesion.

Mass Amnesty: H.R. 1177 / S. 348

H.R. 1177 and S. 348, titled the “U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021”, sponsored by Representative Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) and Senator Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), respectively, are identical. The House version is co-sponsored by 136 representatives, while the Senate version is co-sponsored by 26 senators.

H.R. 1177/S. 348 is one of the most extreme and far-left migration bills ever introduced into Congress — it would affect both legal and illegal migration and help the Democrat Party take total control of the country through demographic change. The bill would do the following, among other provisions:

  • Allow illegal aliens who entered the United States after January 1, 2021, to receive green cards in five years, and U.S. citizenship in eight years;
  • Immediately provide green cards and a three-year path to citizenship for a conservatively estimated combined total of 3.3 million Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients, those protected by the “Temporary Protected Status” (TPS), and illegal immigrants;
  • Massively increase legal immigration by increasing per-country caps for chain migration, and ending it outright for foreign workers, among other actions;
  • Encourage asylum fraud by removing the one-year filing deadline and making it easier for asylum-seekers to work in the United States;
  • Provide for the return and amnesty of previously deported illegal aliens at taxpayer expense;
  • Provide U.S.-taxpayer-funded lawyers to all illegal aliens facing deportation proceedings — better treatment than American citizens;
  • Dump $4 billion in foreign aid into Central American countries, with half of this spending being without conditions. Much of this spending would “prioritize … social justice reforms, including environmental activism,” rather than discouraging migration. Additionally, this spending would promote international organizations; and
  • The bill would also change the word “alien” to “non-citizen,” a change that would effectively abolish the legal difference between legal and illegal migrants.

H.R. 1177/S. 348 is an extreme bill, but it is not the only such bill. Other legislation has been introduced that is narrower in focus, but which would serve as a stepping stone toward mass amnesty and the abolition of national borders.

Illegal Farmworker Amnesty: H.R. 1603

Sponsored by Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and 61 co-sponsors in the House, H.R. 1603, the “Farm Workforce Modernization Act of 2021,” would give amnesty to illegal aliens who have worked at least 180 days — out of the previous two years — in the agriculture industry. This would likely affect an estimated 1.5 million illegals. Those illegals would then be eligible for green cards — and, eventually, citizenship — if they pay a fine and wait up to eight years.

Additionally, H.R. 1603 would encourage low-wage foreign-worker migration by making H-2A visas more attractive to migrants. To give a picture of how radically this would increase migration into the United States, over 200,000 H-2A workers entered the country in 2020 alone. Thus, in addition to suppressing the wages of American citizens and limiting their job opportunities, this bill would encourage mass migration to the United States and serve as a slippery slope to further amnesties.

The House passed H.R. 1603 on March 18, 2021, by a vote of 247-174. Thirty Republicans joined all but one Democrat voting in favor. The bill now goes to the Senate for consideration.

DACA, TPS, & DED Amnesty: H.R. 6

Last, but not least, the “American Dream and Promise Act of 2021” (H.R. 6), sponsored by Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.) and 175 co-sponsors in the House, would provide permanent amnesty to illegals under the DACA, TPS, and Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) programs. Illegals in the latter two programs would also receive green cards.

According to the Migration Policy Institute — a left-leaning, pro-migration organization — over 4.4 million illegals would receive amnesty, 2.5 million of whom would receive citizenship. The actual numbers will likely be much higher.

The House passed H.R. 6 on March 18, 2021, by a vote of 228-197. Nine Republicans joined every Democrat voting in favor. The bill heads to the Senate, where Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) claimed he was “close” to gaining the necessary votes to pass the bill.

The Danger of Mass Migration

As The John Birch Society has warned for decades, the globalist establishment of both the Democrat and Republican parties want to use mass migration “to fundamentally alter the nature of our constitutional Republic.” By importing significant numbers of individuals from cultures with little knowledge or understanding of the U.S. Constitution and the Founding Fathers’ philosophical principles, they are able to reshape the nation to their liking — importing the very type of socialist and corrupt governments that many of them fled.

This is demonstrated in the political beliefs of migrants. For example, a 2014 Pew Research Center survey found that Democrat-leaning immigrants significantly outnumber Republican-leaning migrants four-to-one in some cases. Pew also found that immigrant and second-generation Hispanics in the United States are significantly more likely to support an expansive government than third-generation Hispanics. The current proposed bills are intended to accomplish this political shift.

A good way to push back against the Deep State’s anti-American agenda is to defeat H.R. 1177, S. 348, H.R. 1603, H.R. 6, and any other pro-migration bills. The exceptional level of freedom recognized by the U.S. Constitution is too important to lose, whether through mass migration or other means.

To urge your U.S. representative and senators to reject these radical mass migration bills, visit The John Birch Society’s legislative alert here.

Nebraska Joins Growing Number of Second Amendment Sanctuary States

Nebraska Joins Growing Number of Second Amendment Sanctuary States


SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/nebraska-joins-growing-number-of-second-amendment-sanctuary-states/;

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

When Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts signed a proclamation on Wednesday declaring his state a “Second Amendment Sanctuary State,” he joined an increasing number of other governors pushing back against unconstitutional federal overreach at the hands of the Biden administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress.

He said:

Nebraska has always been a state that has supported our Second Amendment rights. As a symbol of that support, I am signing a proclamation declaring Nebraska a Second Amendment Sanctuary State, and, with my signature, it will become official.

He also thinks it’s enforceable against federal encroachment:

The White House and U.S. Congress have announced their intention to pursue measures that would infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

Nebraska will stand up against federal overreach and attempts to regulate gun ownership and use in [our state].

His proclamation makes it nearly impossible for federal authorities to enforce federal statutes without the state’s assistance.

Likewise, when Arizona declared itself a Second Amendment Sanctuary State, its proclamation stated:

An act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the United States Government that violates Amendment II of the Constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in this state.

[Therefore] this state and all political subdivisions of this state are prohibited from using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer or cooperate with any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the United Stats Government that violates Amendment II of the Constitution of the United States.

Without state help in enforcing federal law, those federal laws become toothless. (Think federal marijuana laws).

Nebraska joins Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Idaho, and Wyoming in taking a stand against Biden’s proposed overreach.

Texas is going to join the club shortly. House Bill 2622 and its companion, Senate Bill 541, are close to passing both statehouses. And Governor Greg Abbott is ready to sign it: “This is what I’m seeking for Texas: a law to defy any new federal gun control laws. I look forward to signing it.”

On the other hand, New Jersey is far from celebrating the Second Amendment for its citizens. In fact, that state’s attorney general, Gurbir Grewal, has just filed a complaint in New Jersey’s Superior Court that gunmaker Smith & Wesson is refusing to release its marketing materials to him.

What Grewal is hoping to find is evidence that the company’s marketing strategy somehow violates New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act by “misrepresenting to consumers the impact of owning a firearm and/or safety in the home.”

As John Mastronardi, writing at American Thinker, observed:

Grewal asserts that some uncited “preliminary investigation,” conducted by persons or agencies unknown, supports his otherwise unsupported premise that criminals — i.e., “consumers” — are somehow influenced by Smith & Wesson’s false and misleading advertising.

Criminals, of course, aren’t influenced in the slightest by advertising from any gun maker. And if Grewal really and truly thinks so, then New Jersey is in even more trouble than it already is.

Wrote Mastronardi:

If the highest law enforcement officer in New Jersey really thinks gang members and felons care about home firearm safety, or are seduced into getting a Smith & Wesson [firearm] because the company’s ads mislead them … then New Jersey is in far more dire straits than has recently been reported.

What those Second Amendment Sanctuary States are doing is a form of nullification of federal overreach. New Jersey (and other states with anti-gun legislatures) on the other hand, is a party to the federal crime. This illustrates the vast ideological divide that separates those who love and support the Constitution and those who consider it a hindrance to completing their agenda of tyranny.