Category: Free Speech/Constitution
Unite and Heal With Show Trials and Fascist Purges~Enjoy unity at gunpoint in the Bidenist banana republic.
BY DANIEL GREENFIELD
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
Joe Biden has called for “unity” and “healing”. And nobody knows as much about healing as Joe whose wife has a doctorate in education from the university that hosts his Biden Institute and the Beau Biden Foundation which was charging $3K for lessons on preventing online child sex grooming even as Hunter’s laptop with the Foundation’s sticker allegedly showed him doing it.
Except maybe Joe’s brother who took out $650,000 in personal loans from a company that bankrupted local hospitals while trading on his brother’s name and connections to his campaign.
"I think it has to happen," Biden said, mandating the show impeachment trial of his predecessor.
Once upon a time, impeachments were rare things. These days, Democrats aren’t considered truly progressive if they don’t impeach a Republican president twice in one term. President Trump is back in Florida, but that won’t stop the Democrats from impeaching him anyway before they move on to impeaching the presidents like Washington and Lincoln whose statues their insurrectionist mobs were toppling all summer and fall back when insurrection was still cool.
When asked how he defines unity, Joe Biden, with the help of three teleprompters and a small staff communicating with him through his earpiece and a series of frantic signals and hoots, explained that, “If you pass a piece of legislation that breaks down on party lines but it gets passed, it doesn't mean there wasn't unity -- it just means it wasn't bipartisan.”
Like most ideas that travel the circuitous route between his handlers, his brain, and his mouth, it may be impossible to understand what Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. said, but it’s pretty clear what the senile hack ruling a city under the shadow of military occupation and political terror meant.
Unity is when Democrats get their way. Unity is when no one opposes them. Unity is when they terrorize their political opposition into submitting and keeping their mouths shut.
Or as Speaker Pelosi put it, “I don't think it's very unifying to say, 'Oh, let's just forget it and move on.' That's not how you unify."
How do you unify? The same way every great democratic people’s regime did from France to Russia to China to San Francisco -- with show trials and purges of the enemies of the people.
Nothing says unity like a city full of barbed wire and soldiers. Not to mention a one-party system that is obsessed with criminalizing its political opposition using a fake state of emergency.
"There can be no unity, federal or other, with liberal-labor politicians, with disruptors of the working-class movement, with those who defy the will of the majority," Vladimir Lenin wrote. "There can and must be unity among all consistent Marxists."
The only unity on display is the unity of “consistent Marxists” who claim to represent the will of the majority, or those parts of it willing to trade harvested ballots for a fruit basket and $25 gift cards, as they move to heal the country by eliminating women, suburbs, and the economy.
The show trial of President Trump and the city full of soldiers is just the opening act to the Great Purge of a domestic terrorism crackdown on anyone who ever retweeted the wrong meme.
Biden will embed a domestic terrorism office in the NSC, making the NSC's former abuses under Obama routine as a system meant to track foreign enemies is instead used to surveil domestic political opponents. Heading the effort will be Joshua Geltzman who had formerly falsely claimed, "No, Black Lives Matter is not a terrorist organization."
Inside of a month, Democrats had redefined riots and election challenges from the highest form of patriotism to an attack on democracy. And by “democracy”, they mean the Democrat Party.
Popular leaders don’t take their false oaths of office in a deserted city surrounded by barbed wire and military checkpoints manned by 25,000 troops. Nor do they engage in show trials of their predecessors or unroll massive efforts to surveil, arrest, and silence their opponents.
That’s not the stuff of healing, but it is how you unite a country at gunpoint under your rule.
After four years of vowing to remove President Trump by any means from massive riots to illegal eavesdropping to coups, the Democrats declared an emergency because a few Republicans had done 10% of the things they had been doing, but without dressing up as human genitalia.
Democrats had been collecting bail fund donations for mass arrests in post-election protests and even a “separate fund to raise money for the families of anyone killed in violence on or around Election Day.” And then they pivoted from prepping body bags to declaring that insurrection was a national emergency which will require the National Guard to sleep in parking lots where they won’t annoy Democrat House members until Biden sees his own shadow.
That or the show trials wrap up before they get around to mandating that all future elections take place at Democrat campaign offices preceded by poll tests about equity and white privilege.
Meanwhile, the Democrat media went from writing sympathetic pieces about BLM lawyers throwing molotov cocktails at the police to demanding a thorough purge of every single person who had ever questioned the idea that Joe Biden might not be the most popular politician ever.
"Marxist philosophy holds that the law of the unity of opposites is the fundamental law of the universe," Mao had argued. " Under this system, the people enjoy extensive democracy and freedom, but at the same time they have to keep within the bounds of socialist discipline."
The bounds of socialist discipline, like a black hole, sucks things in without letting them out.
Democrats aren’t proposing that Americans unite under the Constitution. There’s no room in the Constitution for criminalizing political opposition or impeaching presidents after they leave office.
The Democrats want to make sure we stay within the shrinking bounds of socialist discipline.
Unity just means bringing the opposition into the dialectic and then making sure that it plays by the new rules of the game even if they were invented last week by way of convenience.
The new rules of unity are that no one may question an election that the Democrats claim to have won, no one may say anything that Big Tech doesn’t like, and no one may suggest that Biden’s Assistant Health Secretary is a middle-aged man in a dress and a flowing blonde wig.
(Now there’s a man who knows a lot about healing. Just ask the 8,400 seniors who died in Pennsylvania nursing homes while Dr. Rick ‘Rachel’ Levine, Biden’s new Assistant Health Secretary, withdrew his mother, but forced facilities to accept infected coronavirus patients.)
Questioning an election has become incitement to insurrection. To suggest that there’s anything illegitimate about Biden is sedition. Unity means believing that Joe Biden legitimately won an election for which Democrats changed the rules beforehand, then declared a national emergency, and inaugurated him behind barbed wire and lines of soldiers authorized to shoot.
That and believing that his assistant health secretary is a woman.
Believing implausible things is the essence of party discipline. If you want to understand how hardened Communists could shout, “Long live Stalin” just before they were shot in the gulags, it’s because they had spent a generation being conditioned to believe whatever they were told.
“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command,” George Orwell wrote in 1984.
When slavery is freedom, and ignorance is truth, then repression becomes healing. The dialectic unites opposites, turning lies into truth, and flattening all contradictions. The message of the party becomes a gnostic mystery whose paradoxes are overcome by political faith.
The evidence of our eyes and ears is more valuable than ever in an environment of lies.
And that ocular and aural testimony finds scant evidence of unity, but plenty of repression. Americans aren’t coming together, they’re being driven further apart under the guise of a manufactured emergency being declared by insurrectionist rioters suddenly turned patriots.
D.C. isn’t the epicenter of unity and healing, but of a wave of political purges targeting everyone from President Trump to ordinary Americans whose political views are being criminalized.
There’s no healing to be found in show trials and political purges. Only the unity that comes from eliminating the political opposition in your very own Bidenist banana republic.
Biden Rescinds Mexico City Policy Prohibiting Foreign Aid From Being Used to Perform, Promote Abortions
BY HEATHER CLARK
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden rescinded the Mexico City Policy on Thursday, which prohibits taxpayer money from being used by foreign aid recipients to perform, promote or refer women for abortions. The policy, created by Ronald Reagan in 1984, has been reversed by every Democratic president ever since and reinstituted by every Republican president.
In a statement released by the White House, the Biden administration said that its policy is to “support women’s and girls’ sexual and reproductive health,” asserting that those who are poor, of certain ethnicities, homosexual or transgender have been denied such services both nationally and internationally.
“Across the country and around the world, people — particularly women, Black, Indigenous and other people of color, LGBTQ+ people, and those with low incomes — have been denied access to reproductive health care,” it states. “President Biden is … issuing a presidential memorandum to protect and expand access to comprehensive reproductive health care.”
As previously reported, many Americans do not consider abortion to be health care as the vast majority of abortions are not related to the mother’s health but are rather elective — meaning, committed because the mother, who in more than 80% of the instances is unmarried, simply does not want her son or daughter.
“Like memoranda issued by President Clinton and President Obama before him, [Biden’s memo] immediately rescinds the global gag rule, also referred to as the Mexico City Policy, which bars international non-profits that provide abortion counseling or referrals from receiving U.S. funding,” the statement outlines.
The policy, which applies to recipients of family planning funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), was first instituted by then-President Ronald Reagan in 1984, being announced during the International Conference on Population in Mexico City.
It was expanded during the Trump administration, being renamed the “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance” policy and applying to all global health assistance and all federal departments.
Last week, Biden Press Secretary Jen Psaki seemingly sidestepped whether or not the president would repeal the Mexico City Policy when a reporter with EWTN asked about Biden’s plans regarding the prohibition, along with the Hyde Amendment.
“I will just take the opportunity to remind all of you that he is a devout Catholic and somebody who attends church regularly,” Psaki answered, stating that the administration would have more to say about the matter. “He started his day attending church with his family this morning, but I don’t have anything more for you on that.”
The White House said on Thursday that Biden’s memo also directs the Department of Health and Human Services to immediately consider rescinding Trump administration/Reagan-era regulations under the Title X family planning program, which resulted in Planned Parenthood declining to comply and thereby losing millions in federal funding.
As previously reported, on Friday, the 48th year since the 1973 ruling of Roe v. Wade, Biden reiterated his commitment to codifying Roe v. Wade into law, asserting that “reproductive health, including the right to choose, has been under relentless and extreme attack.”
THE CHURCH ON ABORTION
Christians have long opposed abortion as murder, seeing the taking of human life — no matter what his or her age, size or location (whether inside or outside the womb) — as playing God in essentially considering it a “right” for mothers to dictate which one of her children lives or dies.
Believers for centuries have sought to assist children worldwide, running crisis pregnancy centers, rescuing and housing abandoned children, operating orphanages, and opening foster and adoption agencies. Many Christians adopt children themselves, whether from overseas or those placed in the foster care system, and churches help provide food and clothing to those who are struggling financially.
See example stories here, here, here, here, here and here.
Ecclesiastes 11:5 states, “As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child, even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.”
Psalm 139:13-16 outlines, “For thou hast possessed my reins; Thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Marvelous are thy works, and that my soul knoweth right well.”
“My substance was not hid from Thee when I was made in secret and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect, and in Thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.”
Scripture, in addition to speaking on the value of the unborn, also repeatedly addresses the precursor sin of fornication, teaching in 1 Corinthians 6:13, “Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.”
1 Thessalonians 4:3-5 exhorts, “For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication, that every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor — not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God.”
Verses 7-8 add, “For God hath not called us unto uncleanness but unto holiness. He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man but God, who hath also given unto us His Holy Spirit.”
Please visit Christian News Network’s Outlaw Abortion page to help us work to abolish the worldwide holocaust.
Biden’s LGBT agenda uses invented language to force denial of reality on America.
Recent Executive Order and upcoming “Equality Act” part of new wave of bizarre “rights.” Undefined radical terms being put into law!
At the 2018 annual banquet of the national homosexual organization Human Rights Campaign, Joe Biden promised them that he would be very aggressive in implementing their demands on America.
BY AMY CONTRADA
SEE: https://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen4/21a/Bidens-LGBT-agenda-using-invented-language/images.html;
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
[Republished from American Thinker with some additions and changes.]
On the afternoon of January 20, Biden issued an Executive Order demanding “equal treatment under the law, no matter [one’s] gender identity or sexual orientation.” This is just the first salvo in the next wave pushing “LGBT rights.” The order will soon be backed by federal law, via the pending LGBT “Equality Act.”
While many are now warning the order will destroy girls’ and women’s sports, the order’s impact is much broader.
The enforcers will be handed free rein to transform society in unimaginable ways, given the undefined terms in the order and pending law: gender identity, sexual orientation, LGBT. Why has there been no pushback on embedding these sexual-radical concepts in our legal system?
Establishment conservatives have shied away from addressing this issue and denigrate anyone who dares to confront it. They don’t want to be called “anti-gay” or “uncompassionate” towards the “gender confused.” (In 2018, MassResistance was banned from CPAC for our outspoken opposition to the transgender movement. See more here and here.)
Yet now, conservative commentators complain about boys taking over girls’ sports and locker rooms. Too little, too late.
Biden’s LGBT Executive Order
Biden’s Executive Order (EO) targets “discrimination” based on “gender identity and sexual orientation.” Anywhere existing statutes or regulations prohibit “sex discrimination,” the EO instructs all federal agencies to review and revise regulations as necessary to include “gender identity and sexual orientation.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch’s absurd ruling in Bostock , which radically re-defined Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as official Civil Rights protections, is cited as one basis for this EO. The woke EO even references the radicals’ idea about “overlapping areas of discrimination,” called “intersectionality,” that deserve special notice.
As we often see from the Left, the EO’s introductory paragraph is emotionally manipulative, mentioning respect, dignity, love, children, one’s true self, and people just wanting “a roof over their head”:
Every person should be treated with respect and dignity and should be able to live without fear, no matter who they are or whom they love. Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports. Adults should be able to earn a living and pursue a vocation knowing that they will not be fired, demoted, or mistreated because of whom they go home to or because how they dress does not conform to sex-based stereotypes.
But nowhere does the EO define the new terms at issue.
LGBT “Equality Act”
As of this writing, the so-called Equality Act has not yet been filed in the new 117th Congress. But you can see last session’s Equality Act bill here.
Even during the campaign, the LGBT movement was bragging about "Joe's plan" to integrate their agenda into the federal government and US law. It starts with the re-definition of the word "equality." Note that LGBT doesn't go far enough; Biden now says LGBTQ+.
The Equality Act’s stated goal is “to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and for other purposes.” (What are the “other purposes”?) The bill employs the phrase “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (referred to as ‘LGBTQ’).” That’s as close to a definition it gets.
Anywhere discrimination on the basis of sex appears in the law, the new terms gender identity, and sexual orientation will be added. That includes laws on public accommodations, employment, housing, credit, education, federally funded programs, jury service, and child welfare programs.
One foreboding clause states:
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993… shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title.
So, destroying religious freedom on these issues is one of the “other purposes” of the Equality Act.
No Definitions
What exactly will be protected under the terms “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” in Biden’s EO and the Equality Act? No actual definitions are given. So we must look elsewhere for hints.
“Gender Identity”
The whole idea of “gender” is recent – and irrational. It’s basically an evolving theoretical construct disseminated by sexual radical academics, political activists, and allies in the medical establishment. But what we’ve seen play out so far under cover of “transgender rights” reveals it as pure lunacy.
Massachusetts law includes a silly circular definition of “gender identity.” The relevant section states:
''Gender identity'' shall mean a person's gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or assigned sex at birth. Gender-related identity may be shown by providing evidence including, but not limited to, medical history, care or treatment of the gender-related identity, consistent and uniform assertion of the gender-related identity or any other evidence that the gender-related identity is sincerely held as part of a person's core identity...
In a ridiculous attempt to explain it, The Massachusetts Attorney General writes, “In essence, gender identity is a person’s internal sense of their own gender.” So “gender” is just what an individual thinks about himself, unconnected to the reality around him. But we all must “respect” his delusion. We are also presented with the absurd phrase, “sex assigned at birth,” which negates the scientific reality of the distinction between biological male and female.
The far-left Human Rights Campaign has an equally absurd definition:
Gender identity: One’s innermost concept of self as male, female, a blend of both or neither – how individuals perceive themselves and what they call themselves. One’s gender identity can be the same or different from their sex assigned at birth.
Already, we’ve seen this nonsense allow for glaring abuses in language, schools, sports, public accommodations, healthcare, insurance, and businesses. It has led to children being confused and indoctrinated; some are having their bodies destroyed and sterilized by puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical mutilations.
Lacking any rational legal definition, who can imagine what further demands will be justified under the “gender identity” umbrella?
Biden is very serious about his intentions push the LGBT denial of reality. As one of his first acts he nominated Dr. "Rachel" (formerly known as Richard) Levine - a man who pretends to be a woman - as Assistant Health Secretary.
“Sexual Orientation”
What exactly is “sexual orientation”? Massachusetts law includes a disturbing hint of what could come our way, among other things, if Biden’s EO and the Equality Act law are enforced: legalized pedophilia.
Where Massachusetts law mentions “sexual orientation” (as protected from discrimination), the term is immediately followed by the phrase, “which shall not include persons whose sexual orientation involves minor children as the sex object.” Clearly, pedophilia can be considered a sexual orientation.
But the EO and Equality Act do not limit “sexual orientation” in this way. Nor do they exclude other reprehensible and dangerous practices which could be considered sexual orientations such as BDSM, polygamy, prostitution, bestiality, pornography addiction.
The radical homosexual advocacy group Human Rights Campaign defines sexual orientation as, “An inherent or immutable enduring emotional, romantic or sexual attraction to other people” – also without any limitation on who those “other people” might be. That syrupy reference to emotion and romance helps cover over the dangerous promiscuity common to many in the “LGBT community.” And HRC repeats the false claim that sexual orientation is “inherent or immutable.”
“LGBTQ+”
The Equality Act uses the acronym LGBTQ [no +] without defining it. We’ve been told that LGBT stands for “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender.” The meaning of the long-standing words “lesbian” and “gay” are obvious – but what exactly are “bisexual,” “transgender,” and “queer” (Q)?
Here is how the Human Rights Campaign defines the Q for “queer”:
Queer: A term people often use to express a spectrum of identities and orientations that are counter to the mainstream. Queer is often used as a catch-all to include many people, including those who do not identify as exclusively straight and/or folks who have non-binary or gender-expansive identities.
In a recent interview with Philadelphia Gay News (Oct. 2020), Biden went even further and added + (a plus sign) to the LGBTQ acronym. He promised the moon to the “LGBTQ+” community and said he would guarantee transgender housing. He said, “It’s about dignity, plain and simple.” But what does that + (plus sign) mean?
Orwellian “Newspeak”
The ruling elite wants free rein to keep expanding their reach without limit of legal definitions. That’s what the + means!
What we’re experiencing is the perversion of language for use as a political weapon. Orwell explained this in “The Principles of Newspeak”:
The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the [ruling regime], but to make all other modes of thought impossible….
This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings…. Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought…
New words and phrases invented by the Left:
sexual orientation - gay - gay marriage - bisexual – gender - gender identity - transgender - [pronouns] zie, zir, they, them - queer - LGBTQ+ - questioning - pansexual - nonbinary - genderqueer - sex assigned at birth - who they are - hate speech - hate crime - love is love - social justice
Undesirable words and phrases the Left is attempting to eliminate:
God - faith - Bible - truth - free speech - freedom of the press - Constitution -Founding Fathers - abortion - morality - perversion - modesty - sodomy - mother - father - son - daughter - parental rights
Words and phrases that are being stripped of unorthodox (unapproved) meanings:
sex – man – woman – boy – girl – marriage – family – human rights – justice – discrimination – hate – equality
It’s been going on for decades now. But we must demand that our political leaders call out the illegitimacy of embedding undefined radical terms in our laws. And we must continue to make that clear, too!
As we pointed out above, we can't simply wait until a new transgender edict begins to destroy girls' and women's sports. The deeper roots of that agenda need to be confronted now. Are conservatives up for that? More to the point: Do we have a choice?
______________
Amy Contrada is with MassResistance. Early in the transgender rights onslaught (2008), she published a groundbreaking analysis of the Massachusetts transgender rights bill.
Biden Forms a Commission to Pack the Supreme Court
BY RICK MORAN
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Joe Biden has begun staffing a commission that would examine reforming the Supreme Court and the federal court system. The commission will supposedly be bipartisan, but we all know which side will be in the majority.
Biden floated the idea of a commission to study reforming the Supreme Court during the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett. At that time, the radical left was advocating to put more justices on the court to flip its ideological makeup to make it friendlier to the radical liberal social agenda.
Biden said at the time he was “not a fan” of court-packing. He said in 2019 that he opposed the idea. But now that he’s president and beholden to the radicals for his election victory, it’s time to pay up.
The commission will be housed under the purview of the White House Counsel’s office and filled out with the behind-the-scenes help of the Biden campaign’s lawyer Bob Bauer, who will co-chair the commission. Its specific mandate is still being decided. But, in a signal that the commission is indeed moving ahead, some members have already been selected, according to multiple people familiar with the discussions.
Among those who will be on the commission are Cristina Rodríguez, a professor at Yale Law School and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Obama Department of Justice, who will join Bauer as co-chair. Caroline Fredrickson, the former president of the American Constitution Society, and Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and a former assistant attorney general in the Bush Department of Justice, will also serve on the commission, those familiar with discussions said.
Fredrickson, a respected constitutional lawyer, had this to say about packing the court.
Fredrickson has hinted that she is intellectually supportive of ideas like court expansion. In 2019, she said in an interview with Eric Lesh, the executive director of the LGBT Bar Association and Foundation of Greater New York: “I often point out to people who aren’t lawyers that the Supreme Court is not defined as ‘nine person body’ in the Constitution, and it has changed size many times.”
This is very true and the federal judiciary certainly could do with some reforms. But the Supreme Court is the primary battleground in the culture war. We can pretend it’s “above politics” but everyone knows it isn’t. It’s besotted with politics and the political calculation of the left is simple: if they can’t get the American people to elect a radical president whose term coincides with Supreme Court openings, they’ll just manufacture a new court with more justices who will rule the way they want them to.
At bottom, this is about the left not getting their way and changing the rules to bend the court to their political will. What they can’t do at the ballot box, they will do in the courts.
I really wish Joe Biden had had the political courage to say he would pack the court with more liberals if he was elected. Then, the American people would have had a say in how the court was constructed. If the people thought more justices were needed they could have voted for Biden. If they didn’t, they could have voted for Trump.
As it is, Biden will try and effect change through the subterfuge of a commission set up to satisfy his radical left base.
Help us STOP Joe Biden’s radical agenda by becoming a PJ Media VIP member. Use promo code AMERICAFIRST to receive 25% off your VIP membership.
_____________________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
https://www.ammoland.com/2021/01/2a-jeopardy-biden-committed-to-reform-court-system-including-scotus
_____________________________________________________________________
State AGs Warn Biden: Follow the Constitution or We’ll Sue
BY BOB ADELMANN
SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/state-ags-warn-biden-follow-the-constitution-or-well-sue/;
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey minced no words in his letter of warning sent to the president on Wednesday: “If you sign unconstitutional laws passed by Congress, it will be our responsibility and duty to challenge those laws in court.”
Attorneys General from Arkansas, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Texas signed the six-page letter. It said, “One week ago … you swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States … [but you] cannot cut constitutional corners or shirk statutory strictures without inevitably doing more harm to our country than good.”
It added:
Overreaching and defying Congress will not be rewarded or succeed. Our states have led the charge in successfully challenging unauthorized and unlawful executive actions, as you know from your years as Vice President.
You can be assured that we will do so again, if necessary.
This is only the latest example of the mounting pushback against Biden’s policies. His decision to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement generated a bill from Colorado Republican freshman Lauren Boebert to prevent its funding.
She also filed bills to halt funding for the World Health Organization “until we hold them accountable for their role in COVID”; and another bill to overturn the president’s mask mandate.
Those three bills, filed on Tuesday, immediately generated almost a dozen GOP co-sponsors. Representative Boebert stated:
My bill prohibits Congress from spending a single penny on the Paris Agreement until this treaty is ratified by the United States Senate.
Joe Biden took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. If he wants to keep it, he must transmit the job-killing Paris Agreement to the U.S Senate for ratification.
As for COVID, she tweeted:
Had the WHO not taken China at [its] word, COVID-19 would never have spiraled so deeply out of control.
The WHO is beholden to China and American taxpayers should not be sending them nearly a half a billion dollars each year.
Others are pushing back against the president’s executive orders, including the Western Energy Alliance, a group representing fossil-fuel producers operating on federal lands. It just challenged the president’s ban on oil and gas leasing: “The law is clear. Presidents don’t have the authority to ban leasing on public lands. All Americans own the oil and natural gas beneath public lands, and Congress has directed them to be responsibly developed on their behalf.… President Biden cannot simply ignore laws in effect for over half a century.”
And some of that pushback is meeting with initial success. A federal judge temporarily blocked Biden’s EO halting the deportation of certain immigrants for 100 days.
Many Christians are supporting this pushback as well. For example, on Lou Dobbs Tonight Friday, January 15, Pastor Robert Jeffress said:
The Bible says we need to pray for all our leaders. But we also need to be ready to push back against the ungodly policies that are sure to come [from the Biden administration].
These are days for God’s people to stand up and to be courageous like never before.
That would include the peoples’ representatives such as Morrisey and Boebert.
______________________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO: https://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen4/21a/Bidens-LGBT-agenda-using-invented-language/images.html
Greek Archbishop Tells the Truth About Islam, Muslim Leaders Enraged
Noticing the obvious is forbidden.
BY ROBERT SPENCER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Archbishop Ieronymos of Athens and all Greece touched off a firestorm in mid-January when he dared to note, according to the Orthodox Times, that “Islam was not a religion but a political party.” He added: “They are the people of war.” In response, Muslim leaders the world over have rained down condemnations upon the archbishop. He spoke inaccurately when he said that Islam was not a religion at all, but proof that he was wrong about Islam having a political aspect has not been forthcoming.
Muslims in Greece were outraged. The Western Thrace Turkish Minority Consultation Council (BTTADK) declared: “We condemn the statement of the Archbishop of Greece, Mr. Ieronimos….We hope a more peaceful language to be used instead of anti-Islamic discourse in such difficult times of pandemic.” The Xanthi Turkish Union added that Ieronymos’ words were an “Islamophobic attack” and even a “hate crime.” It thundered: “The fact that these statements, filled with insults, came from the number one name in the Greek church increases the gravity of the situation. We see this move as one of the typical examples of the rising Islamophobia and xenophobia in Greece in recent years.”
For its part, the Western Thrace Imam-hatip Schools Graduates and Members Association (BIHLIMDER) asserted that the archbishop was displaying “ambition and jealousy,” and stated: “We are leaving the examination of the psychological state of this person, who uses words that even the most ordinary people wouldn’t use, to the experts. We are condemning such a hostile attitude.” Ahmet Ibram, deputy head of the province of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace, said fancifully: “One of Islam’s basic beliefs is to have life based on peace between religions. It can never be accepted to have grudge and hostility against other religions’ members.”
The Turkish Foreign Ministry also issued a statement: “These provocative expressions of Archbishop Ieronimos, which incite the society to hostility and violence against Islam, also show the frightening level Islamophobia has reached. Such malign ideas are also responsible for the increase of racism, Islamophobia and xenophobia in Europe.”
The fact that the Turkish Foreign Ministry would attack the Archbishop of Athens for abetting “the increase of racism, Islamophobia and xenophobia in Europe” confirms that the concept of “Islamophobia” is an illegitimate conflation of two distinct phenomena: crimes against innocent Muslims, which are never justified, and honest analysis of the motivating ideology of jihad terror, which is always necessary. Archbishop Ieronymos pointed out that Islam was political and expansionist, which its scripture, doctrine, and history show it to be.
The Turkish Foreign Ministry knows that Archbishop Ieronymos is right. In January 2018, as Turkish troops launched a military operation in Syria against the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), 90,000 mosques in Turkey prayed the Qur’an’s “Conquest” sura, sura 48, which calls upon Muslims to be “ruthless against unbelievers.” Why did they do that, unless they assumed that their military action had an Islamic aspect? And in November 2019, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said: “Our God commands us to be violent towards the kuffar (infidels). Who are we? The ummah [nation] of Mohammed. So [God] also commands us to be merciful to each other. So we will be merciful to each other. And we will be violent to the kuffar. Like in Syria.”
Archbishop Ieronymos said: “Islam, its people, is not a religion but a political party and are the people of war…They are the people who seek expansion, that is the characteristic of Islam.” Erdogan proved him right.
Nonetheless, all this led the unnerved Archdiocese of Athens to issue a clarification, claiming that Archbishop Ieronymos was “meaning nothing more than the distortion of the Muslim religion itself by a handful of extreme fundamentalists, who wreak death and destruction all over the world. These are exactly the people the Archbishop was referring to, that is, people who instrumentalize Islam and turn it into a deadly weapon against all those who have a different view from that of ‘unbelievers,’ even that of believers.”
It is understandable that the archdiocese would release this clarification in light of all these denunciations of the archbishop. The archdiocese doesn’t want any violence from Muslims who believe that perceived insults to their faith should be requited with violent attacks, after the pattern of the prophet of Islam himself. But that proves the archbishop’s point yet again.
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.
Texas Rep Files TEXAS INDEPENDENCE ACT as Support for Secession SURGES!!!
★★★ THE POPULIST REVOLT HAS JUST BEGUN ★★★
A Texas Representative has officially filed the Texas Independence Referendum Act that would allow Texans to vote on seceding from the US, all as support for secession surges! In this video, we’re going to take a look at the latest Texit bill introduced in the Texas legislature, how support for secession is reaching what some are calling a fever pitch, and what’s REALLY behind the secessionist movements not just here in the States but around the world; you are NOT going to want to miss this!
New York Times Details Horrors of Trump’s ‘Muslim Ban,’ Ignores Victims of Jihad Attacks
BY ROBERT SPENCER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
The New York Times story opens with a scene of unmitigated horror: “On May 30, 2019, Mohamed Abdulrahman Ahmed should have been in class preparing for exams. Instead, neighbors found the gifted high school senior hanging lifeless from a beam in his home in the Dadaab refugee camp in northeastern Kenya. He had taken his own life.” Since this is the New York Times, it comes as no surprise that the ultimate culprit is none other than Donald J. Trump, and his nefarious “Muslim Ban” that his wise successor’s handlers have now consigned to the dustbin of history.
Times author Ty McCormick does his best to tug at our heartstrings as he describes Dadaab, “a sea of sand and thorn scrub and makeshift tarpaulin dwellings” that is “home to more than 200,000 people — a city the size of Richmond, Va., or Spokane, Wash., except without electricity or running water.”
It’s a place absolutely mired in despair, but “over the years, refugees in Dadaab have clung to one hope: resettlement overseas, sometimes in Europe or Canada but mostly in the United States. Tens of thousands of Dadaab’s residents have come to the United States; in 2015, for instance, more than 3,000 people from the camp were resettled there.”
But then came the reign of the Evil One: “Those hopes of a better life were dashed on Jan. 27, 2017, when on his eighth day as president, Donald Trump suspended all refugee admissions and banned entry to citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries, including Somalia. (Restrictions were eventually applied to 13 countries in all.)”
It’s a predictable sob story about how hard the residents of Dadaab have had it since they have been unable to come to America. One is moved to tears, but when one begins to consider the issue rationally, other considerations inevitably intrude: there are people who are having hard times all over the world. In fact, there are even people who are having hard times in the United States of America. There are people who are suffering economically, like the people in Dadaab. There are people who are suffering physically, emotionally, mentally, and in other ways. All over the world, there is suffering and pain. Why, then, is it the moral responsibility of the United States of America to alleviate the suffering of the people of Dadaab? No one in Kenya or Somalia or France or China or Australia or anywhere else is doing a thing to alleviate the sufferings of Americans; why is it up to Americans, all of whom are suffering in various ways themselves, to alleviate the suffering of everyone else?
Meanwhile, what about the suffering of those whose lives were destroyed by Somali migrants who came into the country before Trump’s travel ban came into effect? Can we get a New York Times article on them? Somali Muslim migrant Mohammad Barry in February 2016 stabbed multiple patrons at a restaurant owned by an Israeli Arab Christian. When is the New York Times going to interview the people whom Barry stabbed, and publish a piece about how they have suffered, and how their lives forever changed that day? When is the New York Times going to write a piece about the other people who were in the restaurant that day, and explore their trauma, their horror, their terror, and the nightmares and anxiety they have experienced since then?
When does the New York Times plan to profile the victims of Dahir Adan, another Somali Muslim migrant, who in October 2016 stabbed mall shoppers in St. Cloud while screaming “Allahu akbar”? Do Adan’s victims get a New York Times article about their injuries, their healing processes, any operations they may have had to undergo, and their own ongoing trauma and fear?
How about the victims of Abdul Razak Artan, yet another Somali Muslim migrant, who in November 2016 injured nine people with car and knife attacks at Ohio State University? Does the New York Times plan to explain to us how the victims whom Artan tried to run down with his car (in an instance of the common phenomenon of vehicular jihad) now find their hearts racing at the prospect of having to cross the street?
Of course, the New York Times is not going to publish even a single line about the suffering of those people and others like them, or even consider the possibility that Trump’s travel bans did anything but harm. Only the suffering of the people of Dadaab and others like them, not the suffering of victims of jihad attacks, matters to the Times. The suffering of the people of Dadaab is very real, and should be addressed, but is the only solution, or the best solution, really the resettlement in the United States of large numbers of people among whom is an unknowable number of jihad terrorists, who will enter undetected since any vetting to try to discover them will be deemed “Islamophobic”?
There will soon be new victims of Biden’s handlers’ marvelous, multicultural discarding of the “Muslim Ban.” The New York Times will ignore them, while congratulating themselves on how they helped install a president who strikes back against “racism” and “xenophobia.”
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.
JAMES LINDSAY: How Wokeness Undermines The Constitution
SEE: https://newdiscourses.com/2020/11/how-wokeness-undermines-constitution/;
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
“We live on stolen land.” So we’re told – repeatedly – and so we’re increasingly forced to repeat to ourselves in public-facing “land acknowledgments.” Solidifying this spurious message is one of the primary objectives of the Critical Theory of Postcolonialism. It is echoed in Critical Race Theory, which reminds us ad nauseum of an even more inaccurate claim that the American economy was built on stolen labor through the institution of slavery. To the casual observer, these narratives might spur reflective thought or even a critical consciousness, or they might only induce an eye roll, but they have a far more sinister application that can be seen quite clearly when one understands the subversive method of political activism employed by Critical Theory (“Woke”) activists.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals in our society from illegal search and seizure of property without probable cause and a duly issued warrant consistent with it. It does not apply to stolen property. Suddenly, then, in the instant the popular Woke narrative above is juxtaposed with this idea, the property rights ensured by the Fourth Amendment come crashing down around us even while their guarantor remains fully intact and in precisely the same black and parchment print it has always been. With a narrative about stolen property, the Woke can gut the Fourth Amendment and subject “warranted” search and seizure upon anyone they so choose, if duly empowered. Those who are said to benefit from systemic power dynamics will be the victims of this narrative-writing, and those who are said to be oppressed by them will be their protected beneficiaries so long as the Woke hold power.
Put another way, as the Woke narratives about society and its “true” machinations gain sway, the fundamental protections of the Bill of Rights will increasingly be subverted. They will not be done away with but will be reinterpreted in total according to the usual double standards the Woke so successfully employ for themselves everywhere they gain the power to do so. This will happen without the need to change a single word. This sounds hyperbolic, but consider these words from Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic’s Critical Race Theory: An Introduction:
Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law. (p. 3, third edition, emphasis added)
It isn’t just the Fourth Amendment that can be subverted and repurposed to a Critical double standard within the purview of the Woke ideology, then. Equality, legal reasoning, rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law are all on the chopping block. Thus, any policy or contract can be manipulated in a similar fashion, either by changing the meaning of the terms used in writing it or by changing the context in which they are to be understood. It is the latter of these that we see able to be employed against Fourth Amendment protections in the United States.
Consider the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination and ensures due process of law. To say nothing of the “stolen land” narrative, which will demand proving one’s innocence from a presumption of complicit guilt, the assumption under Critical Race Theory is that systemic racism is the ordinary—not aberrant—state of affairs in society (this can be read five pages later in the same book as above). That is, there is a presumption of guilt in racism and other systemic power dynamics, which could easily be construed as being in violation of the relevant titles of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—again, without changing the wording of anything. On its own, this subverts due process of law, undermining Fifth Amendment protections, but it gets worse when the context is allowed to shift with Woke narrative-making. “Silence is complicity.” “Silence is violence.” Pleading the Fifth is an admission of guilt for those who find themselves on the “privileged” side of systemic power, as the Woke define it.
Given the context, this could turn the Thirteenth Amendment into a Woke weapon of ferocious power—as wouldn’t a fitting punishment for complicity in a system that enabled and profited from slavery be some involuntary servitude, once one is duly convicted by a Woke court? The Eighth Amendment would offer no protection against this as a “cruel and unusual punishment,” as that idea risks being interpreted under a Woke rubric where one’s privilege mitigates or even eliminates the authenticity of one’s suffering.
There’s no harbor in the Sixth Amendment either, which ensures the right to a “speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” Under Woke assumptions about power dynamics, there is no such thing as an impartial jury because impartiality, like objectivity, is a myth that those with systemic power have told themselves so that they might maintain that power. The Second Amendment’s controversial clause about a “well-regulated militia” will be interpreted strictly and literally with the definition of “well-regulated” meaning, roughly, “Woke.” The First Amendment’s speech protections could be maintained while protections from mob “accountability” could be gutted—power dynamics determining the actions of district attorneys to charge as they see fit—so that the state is technically not the repressive actor but instead the guarantor of a permanent invitation to an American Hundred Flowers Campaign.
This line of thinking could extend to almost anything, applying to any number of laws, policies, contracts, and even the text of the Constitution and its Amendments—even without changing a word of them (as they are seeking to do in California currently). The Nineteenth Amendment, guaranteeing no abridgment of suffrage based upon sex, is frequently attacked in Woke circles for being racist because the Suffragettes are charged under Critical Race Theory of failing solidarity to black women, who did not achieve similar levels of legal equality (independent of the voting issue) until 1964 with the passage of the Civil Rights Act. None of this makes sense to a fair-minded, impartial observer, but Woke ideology denies such an observer can exist in principle or would even be desirable if it were possible.
That is, even the Constitution offers us uncomfortably little protection against Woke totalitarianism as the Woke gain cultural hegemony and, as a result, control over ever more levers of power. Theirs is a war waged at the levels of interpretation, meaning, and context, and until we stand up firmly against their empowerment, we risk finding out in very disquieting ways just how crucial those can be.
This article was originally published at Roca News.
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT Rescinds ‘Zero Tolerance’ Policy For Illegal Immigration
BY RICK MORAN
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
In his eagerness to overturn every Donald Trump policy within reach, Joe Biden is substantially changing some valuable policies.
The “zero-tolerance” policy relating to illegal immigrants is a good example. It was a deterrent to illegal immigration in that it left no doubt in any illegal’s mind that they would be sent home if caught. It’s hard to prove how many people didn’t cross the border because of it, but it clearly had an effect.
The policy was referred to as “cruel” by open-border advocates, but the fact is, the United States has a fundamental, universally-recognized right to safeguard its border. And forcing everyone who enters the United States to do it legally is as fundamental as it gets.
Prosecuting those who break the law is a no-brainer. If you think the law is unfair, change it. But when you can prove your moral superiority by declaiming against “heartless” immigration enforcement, it becomes a matter of politics — not security.
“Consistent with this longstanding principle of making individualized assessments in criminal cases, I am rescinding — effective immediately — the policy directive,” Wilkinson wrote.
Wilkinson said the department’s principles have “long emphasized that decisions about bringing criminal charges should involve not only a determination that a federal offense has been committed and that the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction, but should also take into account other individualized factors, including personal circumstances and criminal history, the seriousness of the offense, and the probable sentence or other consequences that would result from a conviction.”
Let’s examine that statement: Has a federal offense been committed and is there admissible evidence? It’s a federal crime to enter the United States illegally and the “admissible evidence” is the illegal alien’s presence in a country that he entered illegally.
“Personal circumstances. criminal history, the seriousness of the offense, and the probable sentence or other consequences that would result from a conviction” all relate to the fundamental tenet of security. The most lenient sentence should be for the illegal alien criminal to be allowed to go back to his country of origin and apply for entry into America legally. If other circumstances apply, have the illegal alien claim refugee status and look to be accepted legally into the country that way.
Open-border advocates talk as if there are no other options than sneaking into the country illegally. It’s a bogus argument and shows how unserious they are about the law and security.
While the rescinding of “zero tolerance” is in part symbolic, it undoes the Trump administration’s massively unpopular policy responsible for the separation of more than 5,500 children from their parents at the U.S-Mexico border. Most families have not been prosecuted under zero tolerance since 2018, when the separations were halted, though separations have continued on a smaller scale. Practically, the ending of the policy will affect mostly single men who have entered the country illegally. Prosecutions had dropped sharply after the Trump administration declared a pandemic-related health emergency that allows them to immediately expel Mexicans and many Central Americans without applying immigration laws.
The “family separation” policy will go down in history as the most deliberately misrepresented policy in history. The alternative — the one that open-border advocates wanted — was to let the parents and children enter the country with no strings attached except a piece of paper telling them when their court date was going to be — usually 3-5 years from the date of their illegal entry.
Whose fault was “family separation”? Weren’t the parents at fault for knowingly trying to bring their families into the United States illegally? How can we absolve the parents of all responsibility for their own actions? It is illegal to enter the United States without being minimally vetted and obtaining the proper documentation — just like it’s illegal to enter Mexico or Guatemala or Honduras, or any other country where these illegals come from without the proper clearances.
If you don’t like the system — and I agree it’s truly screwed up — work to change it legally. And that includes enforcing the laws on the books against illegal entry into the U.S.
Help us STOP Joe Biden’s radical agenda by becoming a PJ Media VIP member. Use promo code AMERICAFIRST to receive 25% off your VIP membership.
Biden Signs Executive Order To Ban The Term ‘China Virus’
Policing language AND facts now
BY STEVE WATSON
SEE: https://www.infowars.com/posts/biden-signs-executive-order-to-ban-the-term-china-virus/;
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
The latest of Joe Biden’s THIRTY SEVEN executive orders signed in the first week of his presidency states that the term ‘Chinese virus’ or ‘China virus’ is now banned.
Yes, this is real.
The White House website confirms that Biden signed this EO.
CBS News reported ‘Biden to address racism toward Asian Americans during pandemic with executive action’.
The report notes that “The Biden executive order is also expected to direct federal agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to examine whether there are xenophobic references like “China virus” in any existing policies, directives or government websites published by the Trump administration.”
NBC News lists all the executive actions Biden has instigated thus far, with the last being the ban on the term ‘China Virus’. The report notes that “additionally, the order directed the attorney general to work to prevent discrimination and hate crimes.”
Given that literally anything is now being touted as a ‘hate crime’, that could mean banning or canceling absolutely everyone and everything.
As we noted earlier, Biden admitted back in October that anyone who legislates by executive order should be considered ‘a dictator’.
Biden appears not to know what he is actually signing, and can barely hold the pen:After managing to stuff the pen in his pants, Biden then babbled on about the wearing of face masks, for which he has already issued multiple executive mandates.
Biden said that a Congressman told him to “kiss my ear, I’m not wearing a mask”.
#MALKINLIVE: FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AT RISK
MICHELLE MALKIN AND LAURA LOOMER DISCUSS THE LOSS OF LIBERTY
Impeachment is Officially DEAD ON ARRIVAL as MAJORITY of GOP Voters Like Patriot Party
★★★ THE POPULIST REVOLT HAS JUST BEGUN ★★★
SBC Leader Blames Trump Supporters for Destroying Church’s “Witness,” Calls on Joe Biden to Unify Christians~Moore wants illegal immigrants to be given amnesty; associated with & funded by George Soros
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
The hypocrisy of leftist Evangelicalism is like a column in the comic section of the New York Times, except it’s not. Top Southern Baptist leader, Russell Moore scolded Christians who supported Donald Trump and blamed them for destroying the Church’s witness. In an interview with Time Magazine, Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, blamed the recent riot at the nation’s capitol on “Trump-worshiping” Christians.
“The biggest threat facing the American church right now is not secularism but cynicism. That’s why we have to recover the credibility of our witness,” he told Time. “I don’t know a single family that’s not been divided over President Trump, and politics generally. I don’t know a single church that hasn’t been.”
While there are certainly those who claimed to be Christians who acted poorly and should be dealt with harshly during the attack at the Capitol, to assume that these were Christians — or that the attack was instigated by Christians — is irresponsible. And to assert that these attacks were instigated by Donald Trump is also irresponsible.
What Moore, the former Democrat staffer, doesn’t understand is that the reason Donald Trump was so divisive is because he, unlike any other president in modern history, has actually governed like a conservative. Conservatism, in the eyes of leftists like Russell Moore, is taboo. Russell Moore is no conservative and the Time Magazine article appeared to acknowledge this.
“He says both he and his family have been the subject of threats and that people have tried to dig up information that would prove he is a liberal,” the article stated and followed up with a sarcastic, “Heaven forfend!”
But what should concern Christians the most is that Moore believes that Joe Biden — a man who has promised to codify Roe and increase access to abortion, to promote child sexual immorality in public schools, and to silence conservative religious viewpoints in every facet of society — will be the man to “unify” the Church and the nation.
After tweeting that he would be praying for Biden’s success, in a follow-up interview with the Christian Post, Moore state that he’d be praying for Joe Biden’s “ability to unify.”
Biden has shown he is “willing and eager to listen to people” who disagree with him, he told the Christian Post.
“I hope that that’s the way that he decides to be as president,” he continued. “And what that’s going to mean is saying, ‘There are going to be some things that would make my base happy if I said or if I did, and I’m going to have to take into account the whole country and maybe disappoint people who support me just like I will disappoint people who oppose me sometimes.’”
After spending five years denouncing Donald Trump and lampooning anyone who supported him — instead of Hillary Clinton — Russell Moore, the Southern Baptist Convention’s most influential leader, now calls on Christians to unify around the most radical administration the nation has ever seen in the presidency.
____________________________________________________________________________
Southern Baptist-Led Organization Praises Joe Biden For Giving Illegal Alien Felons Citizenship
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Russell Moore is one of the heads of the Evangelical Immigration Table (EIT), a front group for the George Soros-funded National Immigration Forum (NIF) which calls for open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens. The fact that the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission head, Russell Moore, has never had to explain his association with George Soros is telling of the direction the denomination has gone. The Southern Baptist Convention is now primarily an outlet to propagandize semi-conservative pew-sitters with left-wing politics.
The EIT recently gave glowing accolades to Joe Biden who has just ordered a cease on the construction of the Trump-era border wall. Matthew Soerens, one of the co-leaders of the EIT, told Christianity Today, “I see it as a positive sign, the new administration is leading on this issue as a day one priority.”
Joe Biden’s proposed policy will give all illegal aliens currently in the United States amnesty and an 8-year path to citizenship. The bill, dubbed the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021, reads, in part:
The bill allows undocumented individuals to apply for temporary legal status, with the ability to apply for green cards after five years if they pass criminal and national security background checks and pay their taxes. Dreamers, TPS holders, and immigrant farmworkers who meet specific requirements are eligible for green cards immediately under the legislation. After three years, all green card holders who pass additional background checks and demonstrate knowledge of English and U.S. civics can apply to become citizens.
This bill, if passed, would give up to 20 million or more illegal aliens — which, is at the very least, a misdemeanor for a first offense and in many cases, a felony — currently in the United States amnesty and citizenship. It would also give them voting rights which, is well-known, that the vast majority of illegal immigrants into the United States support Democrats. This would solidify the Democrat majority for decades to come.
Last year, Russell Moore joined with George Soros to call on the United States to implement a “restitution-based” immigration plan — a plan that they say would allow illegal immigrants to stay in the country legally so long as they pay restitution to the government over a period of 7 years.
America Betrayed! But God Has the Final Say! Shahram Hadian Sermon Pt 2 @ Patriot Church 1/17/21
All of President Biden’s Key Executive Orders in One Chart
SEE: https://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/newsletters/2021/newsletter20210126.htm;
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.—Jesus (John 17:15-16)
LTRP Note: The following is posted for informational and research purposes as we strive to live in the world, but “not of the world” in these days.
Source: Biden administration, Biden transition team
| Subject | Type of action | Date |
| Re-engage with World Health Organization | End withdrawal process | Jan. 20 |
| Create position of COVID-19 response coordinator | Executive order | Jan. 20 |
| Rejoin Paris climate agreement | Sign an “instrument” | Jan. 20 |
| Revoke permit for Keystone XL pipeline, pause energy leasing in ANWR | Executive order | Jan. 20 |
| Ask agencies to extend eviction/foreclosure moratoriums | Request | Jan. 20 |
| Ask Education Dept. to extend student-loan pause | Request | Jan. 20 |
| Launch an initiative to advance racial equity, end “1776 Commission” | Executive order | Jan. 20 |
| Revoke order that aims to exclude undocumented immigrants from census | Executive order | Jan. 20 |
| Preserve/fortify DACA, which helps “Dreamers” | Memorandum | Jan. 20 |
| Require masks/distancing on all federal property and by federal workers | Executive order | Jan. 20 |
| Reverse travel ban targeting primarily Muslim countries | Executive order | Jan. 20 |
| Stop construction of border wall | Proclamation | Jan. 20 |
| Combat discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity | Executive order | Jan. 20 |
| Require ethics pledge for executive-branch personnel | Executive order | Jan. 20 |
| Modernize and improve regulatory review | Memorandum | Jan. 20 |
| End “harsh and extreme immigration enforcement” | Executive order | Jan. 20 |
| Extend protection from deportation for Liberians in U.S. | Memorandum | Jan. 20 |
| Revoke certain executive orders concerning federal regulation | Executive order | Jan. 20 |
| Freeze any new or pending regulations | Memorandum | Jan. 20 |
| Fill supply shortfalls in fight vs. COVID-19 with Defense Production Act, other measures | Executive order | Jan. 21 |
| Increase FEMA reimbursement to states for National Guard, PPE | Memorandum | Jan. 21 |
| Establish “COVID-19 Pandemic Testing Board,” expand testing | Executive order | Jan. 21 |
| Bolster access to COVID-19 treatments and clinical care | Executive order | Jan. 21 |
| Improve collection/analysis of COVID-related data | Executive order | Jan. 21 |
| Mount vaccination campaign amid goals such as 100 million shots in 100 days | Directives | Jan. 21 |
| Provide guidance on safely reopening schools | Executive order | Jan. 21 |
| OSHA guidance for keeping workers safe from COVID-19 | Executive order | Jan. 21 |
| Require face masks at airports, other modes of transportation | Executive order | Jan. 21 |
| Establish a “COVID-19 Health Equity Task Force” | Executive order | Jan. 21 |
| Support international response to COVID-19, “restore U.S. global leadership” | Directive | Jan. 21 |
| Ask agencies to boost food aid, improve delivery of stimulus checks | Executive order | Expected Jan. 22 |
| Restore collective bargaining power for federal workers | Executive order | Expected Jan. 22 |
Biden’s Trans Agenda Hits Military, Science, Women’s Rights
BY TYLER O'NEIL
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
On Monday, President Joe Biden signed an executive order promoting transgender identity in the U.S. military. This represented his latest move to embrace the ideology that an amorphous gender identity supersedes biological sex. His transgender agenda threatens to undermine the military, America’s scientific and health care establishment, and women’s rights.
In a press release reversing what activists have derided as former President Donald Trump’s “transgender military ban,” the Biden administration claimed that “an inclusive force is a more effective force. Simply put, it’s the right thing to do and is in our national interest.”
Yet the Trump policy — as upheld by the Supreme Court in 2019 — does not ban people who identify as transgender from the U.S. military. Rather, it explicitly allowed “transgender persons with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria” to serve in certain circumstances. While it required troops to serve “in their biological sex,” it “grandfathered” in troops who identify as transgender and who served under former President Barack Obama.
Unlike Obama’s policy — and, presumably, Biden’s new policy — the Trump policy did not endorse gender identity over biological sex.
While many transgender activists have compared Trump’s “transgender military ban” to the military’s previous “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy banning members of the military from openly engaging in homosexual activity, one of the key figures in the repeal of DADT explained that the transgender policy is fundamentally different from DADT.
Military Transgender Ban Is Nothing Like ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ Lesbian Vet Says
“As one who helped bring the end to the ban on LGB military service and DADT, I am offended that a mental aberration is being compared to being a sexual human being,” Miriam Ben-Shalom, the first lesbian to be reinstated to the U.S. Army after getting kicked out for her sexuality, told PJ Media in 2019. The decision not to endorse transgender identity in the military “isn’t like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell at all,” Ben-Shalom argued.
Ben-Shalom noted that the military rejects potential recruits for many reasons and some of the medical reasons may apply to transgender identity.
She noted that the pro-transgender group Human Rights Campaign admits that “29.9 percent of females identifying as trans have tried to commit suicide, 41.8 percent of non-binary youth have tried to commit suicide, and ‘over half’ of males identifying as trans have tried.”
“That’s terrible. These people need help!” Ben-Shalom declared. “But they don’t belong in the military. Who is willing to take a chance and place a gun in the hands of a person who might want to commit suicide?”
She further argued that while “a person’s sexuality is part and parcel of what makes up that person,” transgender identity is malleable. “By using talk therapy or just letting so-called transgender kids grow up, studies indicate that up to 94 percent of these kids will grow out of their ‘transgender identity.’ So we can see that transgenderism may not be firmly part and parcel of the makeup of a human being.”
Lt. Gen. Tom Spoehr, director of the Center for National Defense at the Heritage Foundation, warned that Biden’s new policy “will contribute to a reduced level of military readiness in our armed forces, which are already hard-pressed to defend American interests around the globe.”
“After considerable study, the previous administration found gender dysphoric people attempt suicide at about nine times the rate of the general population,” Spoehr noted. “Service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria are also nine times more likely to have mental health encounters with a professional. Military service is inherently stressful. The suicide rate in the military already exceeds the general population’s. It would be immoral to place individuals at higher risk from mental injury – such as those suffering from gender dysphoria – in a situation where they are likely to experience extraordinary stress” (emphasis original).
In addition to this reversal of Trump’s military policy on transgenderism, Biden has issued an executive order banning “discrimination” on the basis of gender identity in many aspects of American society. This order requires schools to open girls’ restrooms, locker rooms, and sports leagues to biological boys. It requires health care plans to pay for experimental transgender “treatments” and requires doctors and hospitals to perform them.
Such policies destroy the fundamental rights of women in various arenas. Such a policy leaves women vulnerable to male perverts posing as transgender who may prey on them in restrooms and locker rooms. This policy destroys fair competition in women’s sports, since males have biological advantages over females that cannot be erased by simply identifying as female. Duke Law School professor Doriane Lambelet Coleman warned that if women’s sports must admit biological men, “the very best women in the world would lose to literally thousands of boys and men, including thousands who would be considered second-tier.”
VIP: Man Sues USA Powerlifting So He Can Beat Women by Identifying as Transgender
Yet Biden’s transgender agenda also threatens the integrity of the science and medical establishment. Shortly before his inauguration, Biden tapped Pennsylvania Health Secretary Rachel Levine (a biological male originally named Richard Levine) for assistant secretary of health at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Levine has a questionable record on COVID-19, but his gender identity also poses a serious problem.
By placing an openly transgender person in a key health position, Biden sent a dangerous message about science and medicine.
While the condition of gender dysphoria (the persistent and painful identification with the gender opposite one’s biological sex) is real and deserves sympathy, it does not erase the fact of biological sex. Human beings are male or female down to the level of their DNA, and males and females have different biochemistry even before they are born. This different biochemistry has health implications: some drugs do not work as well for men as for women, and some drugs that help men may harm women or vice versa.
Transgenderism has already caused medical mixups, to deadly effect. In one case, a pregnant woman who identified as a man went to the hospital with abdominal pains. Because the woman’s records identified her as a man, the hospital ruled out labor and did not give her the treatment she needed, so her baby died. To make matters worse, the hospital doubled down on transgender confusion, rather than accepting the truth that medicine should depend on biological sex, not gender identity.
There is no evidence that transgender surgery improves the mental health outcomes of gender dysphoric people. Men and women who formerly identified as transgender and underwent surgery have grown to reject transgender identity and lament the damage they did to their own bodies.
Yet Joe Biden has endorsed transgender identity and activism even for children under age 10. In picking a transgender official for a health/medicine role, he has not only endorsed transgenderism in general but this dangerous ideology’s invasion of the medical field in particular.
Biden’s transgender agenda threatens to erode basic biological facts in the military, the health and science establishment, and the culture at large. His agenda threatens the safety of women’s private spaces, fairness in women’s sports, clarity in medicine, and best practices in the military. While the Biden administration touts “inclusivity,” a rush of transgender people into the military may seriously harm morale, as female troops fear abuses at the hands of ostensibly transgender men and as suicide rates may increase.
Biden has only been president for five days, and he has already rammed transgenderism down Americans’ throats. Get ready for a long and divisive four years.
Tyler O’Neil is the author of Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Follow him on Twitter at @Tyler2ONeil.
Biden Taps Transgender Health Official With Horrifying COVID-19 Nursing Home Record
Supreme Court Rules to Allow Trump’s Transgender Military ‘Ban’ to Continue… for Now
VIP: Rewriting History for Transgender Political Correctness
Radical Feminists Eviscerate New York Times for Warning That Trump Would ‘Erase’ Transgender People
Globalists Celebrate: EU, Biden Join Forces To Fight ‘Right-Wing Extremists’, Islamize the West, Ban Free Speech (Video)
BY AMY MEK
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
‘After four long years, Europe has a friend in the White House’, declared Swedish European Union (EU) Commissioner Ylva Johansson in a speech celebrating Democratic Joe Biden’s controversial new Presidency.
The EU leader celebrated the new left-wing alliance with the 77-year-old Democrat that will implement more globalist policies ranging from open borders, policing thought criminals on the internet, to hunting right-wing extremists.
Johansson and the political elite have gone to great lengths to conceal the devastating effects of their suicidal immigration policies have caused Europe. From arresting migration critics to lying and concealing the links between migration and crime/terrorism, to labeling those concerned about the financial effects of millions of migrants as right-wing extremists or racist and xenophobic.
Meanwhile, Johansson continues to force European Union member to accept all migrants applications despite the country’s overwhelmed and financially depleted systems,
“Rejections are illegal. Not everyone has the right to asylum, but everyone has the right to be treated in line with our values. When people apply for asylum in the EU, they appeal to European values. And we must honour that appeal”
Just a few months ago, European Interior Ministers held a virtual meeting in November on the fight against terrorism on the 5th anniversary of the Islamic terrorist attacks in Paris that killed 130 people.
Johansson announced she would be cracking down even further on anyone who sees Islam as a threat. “Religion is not a threat”, and pointed out, among other things, that the EU must wage a strong fight against “right-wing extremism”.
Johansson told Swedish news agency TT after the meeting that Islam and migration do not pose a threat to Europe, but right-wing extremism is the true problem,
Islam is not a threat. Religion is not a threat. Terrorists are a threat. We must fight against extremists who have an Islamist appearance and the extreme right. Migration is not a threat to Europe either
Ylva Johansson does believe closing a country’s border helps secure a nation but instead nations should enhance their “digital security”,
I do not believe that either the security threats or the pandemic threats today can be met in any effective way with closed borders. Rather, it is about the need to better protect ourselves digitally. This is where we can be incredibly much more efficient within the EU
The commissioner also criticized the idea of training imams in accordance with European values, “I do not think that the training of religious leaders falls within the framework of the competences of the EU”.
America Will Be The Next Europe
Hours after Joe Biden’s inauguration, he kicked off his term by signing out a 17 orders and actions to undo many of President Trump’s administration’s policies. From ending the national emergency that diverted millions of dollars to the border wall, to rejoining the Paris climate accord and the World Health Organization, implementing a mask mandate on federal property to a return to embracing illegals.
Two executive orders Biden signed extend the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program for another four years and overturn the Trump administration’s travel bans on some terrorist hot-spots around the world.
Biden is promising his administration will install a radical amnesty plan which will reward an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants with instant green cards and a “right” to citizenship after just eight years. According to the left-wing Politico, “top Latino and immigrant advocacy groups who’ve seen details of the coming package said they were stunned by the boldness of Biden’s plan.”
As previously reported at RAIR, Democrat Joe Biden vows to also flood America with 700% more “refugees” from terrorist hot spots around the world through the corrupt, Refugee Admissions Program. This controversial program was the brainchild of then Senator Joe Biden. Meanwhile, President Trump lowered the cap for refugee admissions each year of his presidency, dropping them to a record low of 15,000 for 2021.
The Islamic and socialist values that are currently sinking much of Europe into an ungovernable and burgeoning totalitarian nightmare have now seized control of the highest office in America. When Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were sworn into office on January 20, 2021, it may well be the end of a classical United States with its individual rights, freedom of speech and assembly, equality before the law, and classical thought. The essence of which is at the heart of all American institutions.
Support our work at RAIR Foundation USA! We are a grassroots activist team and we need your help! Please consider making a donation here: https://rairfoundation.com/donate/
Biden’s Anti-American Handlers Waste No Time Scrubbing the 1776 Commission Report
BY RENEE NAL
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
President Trump signed an executive order in November establishing the 1776 Commission “in order to better enable a rising generation to understand the history and principles of the founding of the United States in 1776”. On January 20, 2021, the Biden Administration quickly scrubbed both the executive order and the 1776 Commission Report from the official government website.
As reported at the Epoch Times:
“Biden, who was inaugurated on Wednesday, is expected to sign 17 executive actions, according to a press release. A number of those actions are a direct reversal of Trump-era policies, including the travel ban on seven predominantly Muslim countries, the construction of barriers along the U.S.-Mexican border, and the 1776 Commission to promote a ‘patriotic education.'”
The archived version of President Trump’s executive order can be found here.
-
Before -
After
President Trump’s move came as students are being overtly indoctrinated to believe that America was founded on slavery, as taught in the vile 1619 Project. The 1619 project is a creation of the New York Times’ Nikole Hannah-Jones, whose regular anti-white rants are a fixture on social media. Unsurprisingly, the anti-American author won a Pulitzer Prize in 2020 for the 1619 Project.
This is what the founding fathers really said about slavery.
Anti-American, cherry picked concepts such as “White Privilege,” “Systemic Racism” and “Gentrification” were all devised by communists. Yet instead of being rightfully shunned, they are embraced and used as a tool to indoctrinate children against America.
The conclusion of the 41-page 1776 Commission Report (archive link):
Among the virtues to be cultivated in the American republic, the founders knew that a free people must
have a knowledge of the principles and practices of liberty, and an appreciation of their origins and challenges.While this country has its imperfections, just like any other country, in the annals of history the United
States has achieved the greatest degree of personal freedom, security, and prosperity for the greatest proportion of its own people and for others around the world. These results are the good fruit of the ideas the founding generation expressed as true for all people at all times and places.An authentic civics education will help rebuild our common bonds, our mutual friendship, and our civic
devotion. But we cannot love what we do not know.This is why civics education, education relating to the citizen, must begin with knowledge, which is, as
George Washington reminds us, ‘the surest basis of public happiness.’
But the Biden Administration quickly erased it.
Support our work at RAIR Foundation USA! We are a grassroots activist team and we need your help! Please consider making a donation here: https://rairfoundation.com/donate/
Biden Commits to Codifying Roe Into Law on 48th Year Since Supreme Court Abortion Decision
BY HEATHER CLARK
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
WASHINGTON — Referring to abortion as “reproductive health care,” President Joe Biden reiterated his commitment to codifying Roe v. Wade into law on Friday, the 48th year since the U.S. Supreme Court issued the decision that resulted in more than 60 million deaths of unborn children — and counting.
“In the past four years, reproductive health, including the right to choose, has been under relentless and extreme attack,” he said in a statement released by the White House. “We are deeply committed to making sure everyone has access to care — including reproductive health care — regardless of income, race, zip code, health insurance status, or immigration status.”
“The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to codifying Roe v. Wade and appointing judges that respect foundational precedents like Roe,” he advised. “We are also committed to ensuring that we work to eliminate maternal and infant health disparities, increase access to contraception, and support families economically so that all parents can raise their families with dignity. This commitment extends to our critical work on health outcomes around the world.”
Vice President Kamala Harris also shared the statement on social media. Read it in full here.
As previously reported, prior to the election, Biden made clear on his campaign website that he planned to codify Roe v. Wade into federal law.
The page, called the “Biden Agenda for Women,” which is still available for viewing, explains, “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.”
He also outlined that he wishes to reinstate federal Title X and Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood, and to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funds from being used for abortion (with exceptions).
In October, during a town hall event hosted by NBC News, Biden similarly outlined that he would urge Congress to pass a bill making Roe the law of the land when asked by a woman — who spoke of taking birth control in college — what his plans are to protect “women’s reproductive rights” now that Amy Coney Barrett is seated on the U.S. Supreme Court.
“[W]e don’t know exactly what she will do, although the expectation is that she very well may overrule Roe,” he replied. “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.”
He or his campaign then shared the town hall segment on Twitter, writing, “Roe v. Wade must remain the law of the land.”
Biden, a Roman Catholic, outlined years ago 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 in 2012. “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.
However, Scripture states in Romans 13 that civil leaders are to be the “minister of God for good,” being representatives of God’s will on Earth in the application of the law.
“For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid, for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil,” Romans 13:4 states.
Proverbs 24:11-12 outlines, “If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain, if thou sayest, ‘Behold, we knew it not,’ doth not He that pondereth the heart consider it? And He that keepeth thy soul, doth not He know it? And shall not He render to every man according to his works?”
2 Chronicles 19:6 similarly teaches that judges are to represent the will of God, stating, “And said to the judges, ‘Take heed what ye do, for ye judge not for man, but for the Lord, who is with you in the judgment. Wherefore now let the fear of the Lord be upon you; take heed and do it, for there is no iniquity with the Lord our God …'”
Please visit Christian News Network’s Outlaw Abortion page to help us work to abolish the worldwide holocaust.
CNN Fears Journalists
CNN (Communist News Network), alongside other leftist groups, is ratcheting up its campaign to destroy the lives of independent commentators and all non-Marxist journalists. Since they're rapidly hemorrhaging viewers, they want to destroy the competition and leave viewers nowhere else to go. They are openly championing the elimination of free speech and a free press. Get reliable notification options and further information at Sarah's home site: https://SarahCorriher.com/
We Will Likely Soon Wish the Travel Ban Were Still In Place
BY ROBERT SPENCER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Joe Biden had barely been in the Oval Office long enough to exile the Winston Churchill bust yet again when he repealed the notorious “Muslim Ban,” and so now Americans can rest easy. We have repudiated one of the hallmarks of the Bad Orange Man’s administration, put “racism” and “Islamophobia” behind us, and resumed our role as a refuge for the tired, the poor, the woke masses. And so as a glorious new multicultural era dawns in America, after a four-year-long speed bump, will come the reminders that virtue-signaling is never a risk-free proposition.
For besides cementing Old Joe’s role as the errand boy for his party’s ascendant hard-Left wing, that was all the repeal of the “Muslim Ban” was: virtue-signaling. The executive order his handlers had ready for him to sign on Wednesday made that clear. “Beyond contravening our values,” it said, “these Executive Orders and Proclamations” — that is, the ones instituting the bans – “have undermined our national security. They have jeopardized our global network of alliances and partnerships and are a moral blight that has dulled the power of our example the world over. And they have separated loved ones, inflicting pain that will ripple for years to come. They are just plain wrong.”
That “moral blight” bit is the key, as it would be hard for Biden’s handlers to whisper into his earpiece a coherent argument for how a ban on travel from such upstanding members of the international community as Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, North Korea, Venezuela, Nigeria, Myanmar, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Sudan and Tanzania undermined, rather than strengthened, national security.
But even the “moral blight” business runs into a major problem: there never really was a “Muslim Ban” at all. From beginning to end, that was just propaganda designed to smear Trump as a racist (even though Islam is, contrary to popular belief, actually not a race), bigoted, “Islamophobe.” It had no basis in reality. For as you may be aware, North Korea, Venezuela, and Myanmar are not actually Muslim countries at all. Eritrea has about a fifty percent Muslim population. Tanzania is about 35% Muslim.
What’s more, the world’s largest Muslim populations are (in descending order) in Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Algeria, and Sudan. Iran, Nigeria and Sudan are the only ones on the “Muslim Ban” list. If Trump had really wanted to bar Muslims from entering the United States, he would have banned travel from Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Egypt, Turkey, and Algeria. He made no attempt to do so. If he had intended to impose a “Muslim Ban,” barring travel from North Korea but not Pakistan was a remarkably inefficient way to go about it.
What led to the grouping of countries in the Trump “Muslim Ban” was not that they were Muslim at all. The travel bans were on countries that could not or would not provide adequate information about who was entering. It was a national security move from start to finish. But now Obama’s dotty old puppet and his handlers have made sure that any consideration of national security issues in connection with mass migration will be dismissed as “racist” and “Islamophobic.”
And so now the reminders of why we needed Trump’s travel bans will start coming. Here is a preview: Somali Muslim migrant Mohammad Barry in February 2016 stabbed multiple patrons at a restaurant owned by an Israeli Arab Christian; Ahmad Khan Rahami, an Afghan Muslim migrant, in September 2016 set off bombs in New York City and New Jersey; Arcan Cetin, a Turkish Muslim migrant, in September 2016 murdered five people in a mall in Burlington, Washington; Dahir Adan, another Somali Muslim migrant, in October 2016 stabbed mall shoppers in St. Cloud while screaming “Allahu akbar”; and Abdul Razak Artan, yet another Somali Muslim migrant, in November 2016 injured nine people with car and knife attacks at Ohio State University.
Seventy-two jihad terrorists had entered the U.S. from the countries listed in Trump’s initial immigration ban before it was instituted. But once the travel bans came into effect, suddenly we didn’t see as much of this as we had before. Yes, this was no coincidence.
There are warning signs from Europe as well. All of the jihadis who murdered 130 people in Paris in November 2015 had just entered Europe as refugees. Numerous other Muslim migrants since then have committed “lone wolf” jihad attacks on the streets of several European countries.
But to consider such matters is now officially “racist” and “Islamophobic.” The problem with virtue-signaling by our moral superiors in Washington, however, is that they never have to deal with the consequences of their actions; ordinary Americans do. Anyone who is the victim of a crime or a jihad attack perpetrated by a migrant from one of the countries on Trump’s travel ban list can expect no sympathy from Biden’s handlers. Their constituency has been served, and it isn’t the Americans who have to deal with criminal migrants. As a nation, we are no longer “racist,” at least in this particular, and that’s all that matters.
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is the 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.
Trump Should Have Pardoned This Pro-Family Hero~He Didn’t
Philip Zodhiates is a Christian who was aggressively railroaded for a phony "crime" by the Obama Justice Dept, the LGBT lobby, and the SPLC.
ABOVE: Philip Zodhiates and his wife Kathie Lee Zodhiates
Note: This article first appeared in American Thinker.
BY BRIAN CAMENKER
SEE: https://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen4/21a/Free-and-pardon-Philip-Zodhiates/index.html;
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
We have all seen the corrupt US Justice Department aggressively prosecute and imprison political opponents such as General Michael Flynn and former Texas Congressman Steve Stockman on the flimsiest of “crimes.” Meanwhile, left-wing figures such as Hillary Clinton and Hunter Biden, who commit serious crimes remain untouched. The full truth is worse than most people are aware. Here is just one case we’re familiar with.
Philip Zodhiates is recognized as one of America’s best direct-mail professionals for conservative and Christian non-profits. His company, Response Unlimited, has sent out tens of millions of fundraising letters regarding the homosexual agenda and other anti-Christian movements. (Several years ago his company helped us!) Prior to and during the Obama administration his company sent out over 80 million fundraising letters targeting various suspect issues concerning Barack Obama, including his status as a “natural born citizen” and his ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. In addition, Zodhiates operated the Conservative Petitions website that generated impactful feedback and millions of email messages opposing leftist programs.
Zodhiates is a committed Christian who adopted six children from Central America and has generously donated money to, and volunteered for, Christian causes.
On Sept. 21, 2009, Zodhiates gave a young woman he knew from church, Lisa Miller, a car ride from Virginia (where they all lived) to New York. At the time, Miller was under emotional stress and was accompanied by her 7-year-old daughter Isabella.
That was the beginning of Zodhiates’ nightmare. The Obama Justice Dept. and major liberal and LGBT groups used the incident to manufacture an outlandish charge against him, leading to a tremendously expensive trial, and landing him in federal prison where he is today.
But the story began almost ten years earlier. It’s not surprising that a “gay rights” dispute is involved.
In December 2000, Lisa Miller and another young woman, Janet Jenkins, were in a lesbian relationship. They traveled from home in Virginia to Vermont to enter into a “civil union” which was not legally recognized in Virginia.
Lisa wanted to have a child and was artificially inseminated. Janet did not participate in that. In April 2002 when Isabella was born, Janet was not listed as a parent on the baby’s birth certificate. Since then, Jenkins also declined to adopt Isabella on at least two occasions, according to published documents.
In July 2002, the couple and child moved from Virginia to Vermont. But in September 2003, the relationship broke up and Lisa and Isabella moved back to Virginia. In November 2003, the domestic partnership was dissolved. After that, according to documents, Janet only saw Isabella once in 2003 and twice in 2004. Soon after, Lisa became a Christian. In 2004, a Virginia judge officially recognized Lisa as Isabella’s sole parent. Lisa decided not to allow Janet to have any further visits with Isabella. And according to published papers, Janet expressed little interest in Isabella.
Then the LGBT movement stepped in.
The ACLU along with the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund sought to make it a test case to establish that same-sex partners in civil unions could have “parental rights” over children – even if they were not biologically related and had never legally adopted them. In addition, according to documents, the Southern Poverty Law Center convinced Janet to allow them to make this case the precedent-setting attempt to nullify the Virginia Marriage Amendment and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Starting in 2007, these groups funded Janet Jenkins’ protracted custody battle over Isabella in the courts of Virginia and Vermont. A Vermont judge ordered that Janet should be allowed unsupervised overnight visits with Isabella, even though at that time she had not seen Isabella for 2½ years.
Lisa initially complied with these orders. But then she noticed that Isabella was acting very disturbingly after these visits. According to published documents, after one visit in 2007 (when Isabella was 5 years old) Lisa noted (published later in an affidavit):
Isabella has been crying at night asking me to promise that she doesn’t have to take a bath or shower with [Janet] … Since I picked her up on Sunday, Isabella has been exhibiting severe behaviors of stress, including pushing a comb against her stomach and telling me she is going to kill herself. She has been excessively and openly masturbating since she returned on Sunday and at one point tried to put a pen in her vagina.
When Lisa could see that Isabella was obviously being sexually abused during the visits with Janet, she declined to yield to the orders of the Vermont court. She continued trying to fight, but the massive legal force of the national groups was no match for Lisa’s meager resources.
Three licensed social workers in Virginia submitted affidavits stating that they believed Isabella was in danger with these visits, but that did not sway the courts. The Vermont court would not even allow those affidavits to be introduced as evidence.
The Virginia courts were persuaded to go along with the Vermont decision on visitation. In 2008, Lisa fought it all the way up to the Virginia Supreme Court. The court ruled in favor of continuing visitation rights for Janet!
Lisa still refused to comply. In 2009 a judge warned that if Lisa did not allow the visitations, he would transfer full custody of Isabella to Janet. In November 2009, the judge followed through with his threat and ordered Lisa to hand Isabella over to Janet.
But by then it was too late. Lisa and Isabella had left the country.
On Sept. 21, 2009, Lisa asked her friend from church, Philip Zodhiates, to drive her to Buffalo, NY. The next day Lisa and Isabella took a taxi across the border to Canada. They apparently flew from there to Central America, but their exact whereabouts are still unknown, according to reports.
At that point, the LGBT groups got the Obama Dept. of Justice (DOJ) to get involved, which they did with enthusiasm. They charged Zodhiates with International Parental Kidnapping and Conspiracy. The two-week jury trial was largely a sham. Among other things:
- The DOJ got the jury trial moved from conservative Lynchburg, Virginia to liberal Buffalo, New York. But the supposed “kidnapping” took place in Virginia. Buffalo was simply the endpoint of the ride.
- Lisa had full legal custody of Isabella, they had legal passports, and there were no travel restrictions.
- Virginia's Defense of Marriage Amendment to its Constitution forbade the Virginia courts from recognizing the Vermont civil union, and Isabella's Virginia birth certificate lists Lisa as her only parent. Lisa lived in Virginia when Isabella was born.
- The trial was largely on ad hominem characterization, not points of law. During the trial, the SPLC helped introduce “evidence” that Zodhiates was a horrible Christian bigot. But the judge refused to allow evidence of Zodhiates’ philanthropy and charitable work.
- The jury never heard any evidence of the horrible sexual abuse regarding Isabella (or the affidavits from the social workers) which was the reason Lisa was escaping with her daughter. More important, fear of sexual abuse is a legal defense for alleged “parental kidnapping.” But Zodhiates’ lawyers purposefully chose not to tell the jury about that – an act of apparent legal malpractice which Zodhiates brought up in his appeal.
By any normal measure, Philip Zodhiates committed no crime. And certainly, by the normal standards of today’s legal system, he wouldn’t have been charged even if he had. But that’s not how things turned out.
The massive DOJ, SPLC, and LGBT legal team was too overwhelming, and Zodhiates’ lawyers were frankly unimpressive. The jury convicted Zodhiates.
The appeal was also shameful. The court rejected all of the problems with the trial that Zodhiates brought up. Petitions to the US Supreme Court were also rejected. In 2018 he was sentenced to three years in federal prison, where he sits now until the end of 2021. They would not even let him out early for Covid, even though thousands of other inmates were released.
Philip Zodhiates is also hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt for legal fees and lost income. It is likely that the SPLC will bankroll a further lawsuit against him on behalf of Janet for “damages.”
In December 2019, Zodhiates filed a Petition for Pardon to President Trump. Since then, there were numerous letters and emails from the Trump administration. On Dec. 23, 2020, President Trump pardoned 15 people and commuted the sentences of 5 others. Then on Jan. 20, 2021, President Trump granted 73 pardons and commuted the sentences of an additional 70 people. Philip Zodhiates was not among them.
Many of these people had been convicted of drug trafficking, securities fraud, and similar crimes. A friend of a famous rapper got pardoned.
But no one who got pardoned, that we could determine, had committed a transgression against the LGBT movement. We have a disturbing feeling that President Trump – or his staff – did not want to offend that “constituency.” It’s a terrible shame, and bad for America.
Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!
Our successes depend on people like you.
Your support will make the difference!
Texas Files First Major Lawsuit Against Biden Administration FOR VIOLATING DEPORTATION OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS CONGRESSIONALLY ENACTED LAWS
SEE: https://www.newsmax.com/politics/law-northam-pol-us/2021/01/22/id/1006835/;
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Texas sued the U.S. government for ordering a halt to most deportations of undocumented immigrants, the first major lawsuit challenging President Joe Biden’s policies just two days into his term and a likely sign of what’s to come from other Republican-led states.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton claims the directive from the Department of Homeland Security violated federal law by failing to seek input from the state. Paxton also accused the administration of failing to enforce immigration laws and granting a “blanket amnesty.”
“On its first day in office, the Biden Administration cast aside congressionally enacted immigration laws and suspended the removal of illegal aliens whose removal is compelled by those very laws,” Paxton said in the complaint, filed Friday in federal court in Victoria, Texas. “In doing so, it ignored basic constitutional principles and violated its written pledge to work cooperatively with the State of Texas to address shared immigration enforcement concerns.”
The suit highlights the clash between Biden’s pledge to reverse the efforts of Donald Trump’s former administration to clamp down on people in the U.S. illegally and Republicans who want to continue those policies. Biden plans to eventually offer a path to citizenship to the almost 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., which will likely trigger additional litigation.
Paxton, who is under federal investigation for bribery and abuse of power allegations made by former aides, led a failed legal challenge by Republican attorneys general that sought to prevent Biden from taking office based on bogus allegations of election fraud. In his new lawsuit, the Texas official claims the current administration is failing to remove immigrants even after they’ve had “full and fair” hearings.
“The Constitution, controlling statutes, and prior Executive pledges prevent a seismic change to this country’s immigration laws merely by memorandum,” Paxton said in the suit.
The Department of Homeland Security’s press office declined to comment and referred questions to the White House. The White House didn’t immediately return messages seeking comment.
The case is State of Texas v. U.S., 6:21-cv-00003, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Victoria).
‘In the Strong Name of Our Collective Faith’? Closing of Inauguration Benediction, LACKING IN JESUS’ NAME, Refuted by Pastor
FUTILE PRAYERS AT THE INAUGURATION
GIVEN THE EXTENT OF BIDEN'S SINS, NO MAN CAN INTERCEDE FOR HIM THROUGH AN ARROGANT PRAYER THAT IGNORES JESUS, GLORIFIES COLLECTIVISM/COMMUNISM
CATHOLIC IN NAME ONLY BIDEN MINIMIZES JESUS, GLORIFIES MARY & SUBSTITUTES AN APOSTATE MINISTER TO APPROACH GOD IN VAIN
Matthew 24:10 - And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
Matthew 24:12 - And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
2 Timothy 3:1-5, “But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. 2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, 4 treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these,”
2 Timothy 4:3-4, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.”
John 14:13-14 and John 16:23-24 are some of the most powerful verses in all of scripture related to prayer. In fact, when most of us pray we conclude with the phrase, "in Jesus' name."
But what does it mean to pray in the name of Jesus? When we pray in Jesus' name
1. We are admitting the bankruptcy of our own name.
When I pray in Jesus' name I come boldly before God because of the power of his name. It would be like a bride coming from abject poverty to marry a wealthy husband. At that point the woman takes the name of her husband and all that entails. She no longer acts in her name, but in his.
2. We identify with the person of Jesus Christ.
Jesus has literally given us his name. When I use that name, I am confessing that he is mine and that I am his. It is like going to the bank of heaven, knowing I have nothing deposited. If I go in my name I will get absolutely nothing. But Jesus Christ has unlimited funds in heaven's bank, and he has granted me the privilege of going to the bank with his name on my checks.
3. We pray in his authority.
We are like the child who picked up a policeman's hat, wandered out onto a busy intersection and began to direct traffic. The people in the cars followed the child's direction because they respected his position of authority. To pray in his name is to ask by his authority; and to ask by his authority is to ask in accordance to his will as revealed in his word.
4. We submit to his will.
Jesus' authority rested with his submission to the Father, so our authority rests with our submission to him. To ask in his name is to ask according to his nature, and his nature is one of submission. This, by the way, is why prayers that ask for things contrary to the Word of God will never be answered.
5. We are representing him and his interests here on earth.
It is much the same as the legal arrangement known as the power of attorney. In such matters one person may represent another in his absence. They act in their behalf. Jesus has given every believer unlimited and general power of attorney in all matters and with the right to use his name in every situation.
6. We pray expectantly.
When we pray in Jesus' name, we may expect the answer in accord with the value of his name. So we can pray with great and excited expectation.
BY HEATHER CLARK
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
WASHINGTON — “In the strong name of our collective faith, amen” was how Silvester Beaman of the Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Delaware ended his benediction on Wednesday during the Biden-Harris inauguration. His avoidance of using the name of Jesus in the prayer was noted by at least one pastor, who refuted Beaman’s choice of words online.
“It must be said: there is no such name,” wrote Mike Riccardi, the pastor of Local Outreach Ministries at John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California.
“And even if there were, that name would not be the only name under Heaven given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12),” he noted. “It would not be the name above every name — the name to which every knee will bow and every tongue will swear allegiance (Phil 2:9-11). It would not be the name of Christ, in whom alone are the promises of God yes and amen (2 Cor 1:20).”
Beaman, a longtime friend of the Biden family who participated in the funeral for Beau Biden in 2015, had been asked by Joe Biden to close out the inauguration ceremony with prayer.
“Joe Biden is a man whose life experiences have taught him to seek the face of God,” Beaman told NBC News. “He’s had some dark times in his life. And he’s someone who is naturally a person of faith. He prays and listens to God.”
“We need a president who is after the heart of God,” he continued. “In these terrible times, if anybody can bring healing and reconciliation to a divided country, if we give him room to work, Joe Biden can be that person.”
On Wednesday, Beaman asked for God’s favor on Biden and Harris, controversial figures who were opposed by Christians in the election primarily because of their support for homosexuality, transgenderism and abortion “rights.”
“God, we gather under the beauty of your holiness and the holiness of your beauty. We seek Your face, Your smile, Your warm embrace,” he said. “We petition you once more in this celebration. We pray for divine favor upon our president, Joseph R. Biden, and our first lady, Dr. Jill Biden, and their family.”
“We further ask that you would extend the same favor upon our vice president, Kamala D. Harris, and our second gentleman, Doug Emhoff, and their family,” Beaman continued. “More than ever they and our nation need You.”
In keeping with the theme of unity, he spoke of realizing the common humanity, which compels one to have compassion for the sick, poor, elderly and oppressed. In brevity, Beaman also mentioned confessing sin and seeking forgiveness.
“In you, O God, we discover our humanity. And in our humanity, we discover our commonness, beyond the difference of color, creed, origin, political party, ideology, geography and personal preferences,” Beaman stated, remarking that men should “make friends of our enemies.”
He also touched on the nation’s stain of slavery, noting that slaves had been used to build the U.S. Capitol building.
“Let us all acknowledge from the indigenous Native American to those who recently received their citizenship, from the African American to those whose foreparents came from Europe and every corner of the globe, from the wealthy to those struggling to make it, for every human being — regardless of their choices, that this is our country,” he proclaimed.
“As such, teach us, O God, to live in it, love in it, be healed in it, and be reconciled to one another in it, lest we miss kingdom’s goal.”
Beaman then ended the prayer with, “To Your glory, majesty, dominion and power forever. Hallelujah. Glory, hallelujah,” the latter of which when literally translated means, “Praise Yahweh.”
But then he said, most likely to again incorporate the theme of unity, “In the strong name of our collective faith, amen.”
View Beaman’s benediction in full here or watch the video below.
Riccardi shared his thoughts about the prayer on social media Wednesday evening.
“We do not petition the Father in the name of our faith. Our faith is worthless apart from the object in which it trusts,” Riccardi wrote. “To come before God in the name of our faith is to come before God in our own name, which is blasphemous, idolatrous, and hopeless for those who do not possess the infinite righteousness required for fellowship with God.”
He said that God accepts nothing less than coming to Him in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ.
“Instead, those who would hope to receive anything from the Father must come to Him in the name of Christ His Son, for all the promises of God are yes in Him alone,” Riccardi outlined. “And coming before God in the name of Christ — who has accomplished the infinite righteousness required for fellowship with God — in union with Him we are heard for Christ’s sake.”
“Our prayers before the Father — the holiest of which are laced with enough sin to damn the entire human race for eternity — are thus sanctified in the sweet name of God’s dear Son, and received as a sweet-smelling aroma of the sacrifice of His own precious blood,” he said.
“Solus Christus.”
Read Riccardi’s post in full here.
1 Timothy 2:5 states, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
Psalm 96:5 also teaches, “For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the Lord made the heavens.”
The late Anglican preacher J.C. Ryle also once said, “Live a courageous life. Confess Christ before men. Whatever station you occupy, in that station confess Christ. Why should you be ashamed of Him? He was not ashamed of you on the cross.”
“He is ready to confess you now before His Father in Heaven. Why should you be ashamed of Him? Be bold. Be very bold. The good soldier is not ashamed of his uniform. The true believer ought never be ashamed of Christ.”
At the close of his prayer at the inauguration, Dr. Silvester Beaman concluded, “To your glory, majesty, dominion and power forever. Hallelujah. Glory, Hallelujah. In the strong name of our collective faith, amen.”
It must be said: there is no such name.
And even if there were, that name would not be the only name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12). It would not be the name above every name—the name to which every knee will bow and every tongue will swear allegiance (Phil 2:9-11). It would not be the name of Christ, in whom alone are the promises of God yes and amen (2 Cor 1:20).
We do not petition the Father in the name of our faith. Our faith is worthless apart from the object in which it trusts. If we came before the throne of God solely in the name our faith, we would be cast into hell, for our faith has nothing in it that is virtuous or meritorious before God.
To come before God in the name of our faith is to come before God in our own name, which is blasphemous, idolatrous, and hopeless for those who do not possess the infinite righteousness required for fellowship with God.
Instead, those who would hope to receive anything from the Father must come to Him in the name of Christ His Son, for all the promises of God are yes in Him alone. And coming before God in the name of Christ—who has accomplished the infinite righteousness required for fellowship with God—in union with Him we are heard for Christ’s sake. Our prayers before the Father—the holiest of which are laced with enough sin to damn the entire human race for eternity—are thus sanctified in the sweet name of God’s dear Son, and received as a sweet smelling aroma of the sacrifice of His own precious blood.
Solus Christus.
Little children, guard yourselves from idols (1 John 5:20).