Doctors Who Don’t Get in Line

Throughout Western nations, medical doctors are being censored and they are losing their licenses. In Australia, a recent case is that of Dr. Jereth Kok, whose Christian commentary on the Internet resulted in his wrongful persecution. It has begun in the United States too, where a doctor who questioned the wisdom of mask wearing has lost his license to practice medicine. He doubly offended the politically-correct overlords by publicly making his remarks at a post-election Trump event. The obvious conclusion is that our medicine is not medicine, and it forgot all about science long ago. The new standard of care is obedience, compliance, and never asking questions like they do in science. More importantly, uppity Christians are going to learn their place in the new order. Get reliable notification options and further information at Sarah's home site: https://SarahCorriher.com/

Rice University Sacrifices Academic Standards on the Altar of Fantasy Islam

Jamal Teaching image

BY STEPHEN M. KIRBY

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/12/rice-university-sacrifices-academic-standards-on-the-altar-of-fantasy-islam;

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

the United States created the foundation on which great research universities could be built. Those core values included…organized skepticism (the willingness to entertain the most radical of ideas, but subject the claims to truth and fact to the most rigorous scrutiny)…

Jonathan R. Cole, John Mitchell Mason Professor of the University at Columbia University[1]

The Mission Statement of Rice University (Houston, TX) states that it is “a leading research university.”[2] Unfortunately, Rice University seems to be lacking in the core value of “organized skepticism.” Here is why.

Dr. Craig Considine is a Lecturer in the Department of Sociology at Rice University. In July 2020, Considine’s new book, The Humanity of Muhammad: A Christian View, was published. Unfortunately, Considine’s book not only misrepresented “the life and impact” of Muhammad, but it was based on Considine’s version of Fantasy Islam, which was created to fit his narrative. Consequently, I wrote a three-part article about Considine’s book that was published by Jihad Watch on December 1st – 3rd: “The Fantasy Islam of Rice University’s Craig Considine.”[3]

On December 3, Dr. Carl Goldberg emailed Craig Considine the links to my three-part article and asked for Considine’s response to my article.

From December 3-5, either Dr. Goldberg or I emailed the following Rice University personnel the links to my three-part article pointing out how Considine’s book created a fantasy version of Islam to fit Considine’s narrative:

David Leebron, Rice University President

Reginald DesRoches, Rice University Provost

Linda L. Thrane, Vice President for Public Affairs

Doug Miller, Director of News and Media relations

Jeff Falk, Director of National Media Relations

Amy McCaig, Senior Media Relations Specialist

Arie Wilson Passwaters, Editor, Rice News

Editor, Rice Thresher (Student Newspaper)

As of December 16, neither of us have received any replies.

But this was not Rice University’s only involvement with Fantasy Islam.

On November 9-10, 2020, Dr. Zahra Jamal, Associate Director at the Boniuk Institute for Religious Tolerance, Rice University, was the main presenter in an online presentation for the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy: “Engaging and Building Partnerships with Muslim Americans.”

Jamal had created her own version of Fantasy Islam and gave that version in her presentation. As a result of that presentation, I wrote the following article that appeared in Jihad Watch on November 17, 2020: “The Iowa Law Enforcement Academy meets Fantasy Islam.”[4]

On December 5, I sent this email to Dr. Jamal:

Dr. Jamal,

 I am writing with regard to your November 9-10, 2020 online presentation for the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy: “Engaging and Building Partnerships with Muslim Americans.”

 Below is a link to my recent article pointing out how inaccurately you presented Islam. I concluded my article by noting:

 At the ILEA website we find this

 Here at ILEA, we are excited to serve the people of Iowa as we bring excellence in training, testing, and standards to peace officers, telecommunicators, and jailers across the state.

 Unfortunately, with this particular class the “excellence in training” about Islam was replaced with Dr. Zahra Jamal’s Fantasy Islam.

 “The Iowa Law Enforcement Academy meets Fantasy Islam”

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/11/the-iowa-law-enforcement-academy-meets-fantasy-islam

 I look forward to your reply.

I copied this email to the following Rice University personnel:

David Leebron, Rice University President

Reginald DesRoches, Rice University Provost

Linda L. Thrane, Vice President for Public Affairs

Dr. Paula Sanders, Director Boniuk Institute

Dr. Gayle Pagnoni, Program Director Boniuk Institute

Doug Miller, Director of News and Media relations

Jeff Falk, Director of National Media Relations

Amy McCaig, Senior Media Relations Specialist

Arie Wilson Passwaters, Editor, Rice News

Editor, Rice Thresher (Student Newspaper)

As of December 16, I have not received any replies.

Conclusion

At the beginning of this article, I quoted from Columbia University Professor Jonathan Cole that a core value for a research university is “organized skepticism,” which Cole defined as

the willingness to entertain the most radical of ideas, but subject the claims to truth and fact to the most rigorous scrutiny…

Craig Considine and Zahra Jamal have certainly entertained “the most radical of ideas” by creating their respective versions of Fantasy Islam, but there appears to have been no “organized skepticism” about this from within the ranks of Rice University.

Rice University apparently has no problem when its professors make up their own “truths and facts” about Islam, even though those “truths and facts” fly in the face of the commands of Allah in the Koran, the teachings and example of Muhammad, and the writings over the centuries by authoritative Muslim scholars. If this is allowable for the professors, then shouldn’t Rice University students be allowed to similarly create their own “truths and facts,” without having to face “organized skepticism”?

With this approach, Rice University could go from being just another “leading research university” to becoming the preeminent Fantasy Research university in the United States!

Dr. Stephen M. Kirby is the author of six books about Islam. His latest book is Islamic Doctrine versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials.

[1]           Jonathan R. Cole, “The Triumph of America’s Research University,” The Atlantic, September 20, 2016, https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/09/the-triumph-of-americas-research-university/500798/.

[2]           https://www.rice.edu/mission-values

[3]           Stephen M. Kirby, “The Fantasy Islam of Rice University’s Craig Considine,” Jihad Watch:

Part 1 – December 1, 2020

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/12/the-fantasy-islam-of-rice-universitys-craig-considine-part-1

Part 2 – December 2, 2020

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/12/the-fantasy-islam-of-rice-universitys-craig-considine-part-2

Part 3 – December 3, 2020

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/12/the-fantasy-islam-of-rice-universitys-craig-considine-part-3

[4]           Stephen M. Kirby, “The Iowa Law Enforcement Academy meets Fantasy Islam,” Jihad Watch, November 17, 2020, https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/11/the-iowa-law-enforcement-academy-meets-fantasy-islam.

 

Democrat Group Urges Anti-Christian Agenda on Biden

BY STEVE BYAS

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/democrat-group-urges-anti-christian-agenda-on-biden/;

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

Arguing that evangelical Christianity “permeates every aspect of government policy,” including “health care, public and private education, foreign policy, tax policy, environmental policy, military policy, and more,” the group calling itself Secular Democrats of America (SDA) has sent a 26-page memo to former Vice President Joe Biden, urging him to adopt an agenda that will eliminate the political clout of what they call the “national security threat” of “white Christian nationalism.”

The group is presuming that Biden will be sworn in as president on January 20 of next year, and they are urging him to quickly implement a strongly leftist agenda, all in the name of destroying the supposed threat of the “religious right.”

These anti-evangelical secularists are not some fringe group but have the support of several Democrat members of Congress who see evangelical Christians as a principal obstacle to them achieving their progressive goals. The document was prepared by Representatives Jamie Raskin and Jared Huffman, and was endorsed by Representative Jerry McNerney. The three Democrats are part of the Congressional Freethought Caucus, which rejects the forming of opinions based on religion.

“Policy decisions that should be guided by science and evidence — on matters ranging from climate change to comprehensive education to federal funding for stem cell research — have been skewed or blocked by powerful religious interest groups,” the secular document contends as if the liberal beliefs that there are 70-plus genders or that government-run schools are largely successful at educating kids is based on any empirical, scientific evidence. While the group claims it is simply desirous of religious liberty, it is essentially a group advocating the typical liberal agenda.

This can be seen in their denunciation of evangelical Christianity by asserting that it “advances a reactionary economic policy, tax policy,” and a view of the environment “that undermines our capacity and will to address the climate crisis.”

Not content with simply opposing the political positions of many conservative Christians, they charge evangelicals with providing “cover for white supremacy.” This has become a standard talking point and smear used by those on the Left — that evangelical Christianity’s involvement in politics is driven mostly by “white supremacy.”

In this document, however, the secularists, who have largely taken over the modern Democratic Party, are not simply resorting to slandering and verbally attacking their hated foe — Bible-based Christianity — they are pleading with Biden to implement a wide range of actions against those who still “cling” to such religious beliefs. (Referring to working-class voters in old industrial towns decimated by job losses, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama famously ridiculed such thoughts in 2008, saying, “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion.”)

The group urges Biden, as president, to “dismantle the Department of Justice Religious Liberty Task Force,” and to reverse the “Trump administration policies that have allowed faith-based government-funded contractors to provide adoption and foster care service” if they “discriminate on the basis of religion.” They further urge that “all sectarian-based restrictions of federally funded fetal-tissue and stem cell research” be reversed and all future decisions in this area “not [be] dictated by religion.”

If Biden becomes president, they are demanding that he “appoint an attorney general to the Department of Justice who will support governors whose emergency declarations and/or executive orders require even-handed universal restrictions on indoor gatherings, including at houses of worship, to help prevent the spread of COVID-19.” (Emphasis added.) To make sure that their meaning is not misunderstood, the document calls for these “houses of worship” not be given “preference.” Considering that many secularists are calling for continued restrictions even with the distribution of the anti-virus vaccines, this could mean the forced curtailment of religious practice (a direct violation of the First Amendment) for months, or years to come. There could even be a push for a permanent shutdown of religious services, all in the name of public health, but driven more by anti-Christian animus than concern about the spread of a virus. It should be noted that hatred of religion is a central tenet of communism: The author of The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx, compared religious belief to a drug.

They further call for the IRS to enforce the Johnson Amendment, and even to “strengthen” it. The Johnson Amendment was authored by Senator (later President) Lyndon Johnson, requiring religious organizations to take no position on political candidates in order to continue to receive tax-exempt status. It is of dubious constitutionality, and should the IRS seek to enforce it, the rule would probably be stricken down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Biden is also urged to enforce the teaching of an “accurate evidence-based secular curriculum rather than creationism in the schools.” The document does not specify which part of the Constitution gives any part of the federal government to dictate any curriculum in the public schools, probably because there is no such part of the Constitution. It is also urged that “humanist and non-theist chaplains” be selected for the armed forces,” and that “In God We Trust” be removed as our national motto.

The document also tells Biden that government officials have an “obligation” to “separate their personal religious beliefs from their work,” and that such officials should “never use their positions and offices” to “proselytize or promote religious dogma.” One might recall that Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) chastised Amy Coney Barrett, stating that Barrett’s Catholic “dogma” was of concern.

This memo to Biden is further evidence that we can expect increasing attacks upon the concept of religious liberty in the United States. Other members of the Congressional Freethought Caucus include Representative Rashida Talib of Minnesota (also known as a member of the socialist “Squad” associated with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) and the delegate from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton. If Senate Democrat leader Chuck Schumer has his way, the District of Columbia would become a state, and Norton might very well become a U.S. senator.

In short, this document is a prophecy (to use a word from the Bible that they hate) of our future, should these people gain power.

 

POLICE STATE DEMOCRAT REP. BILL Pascrell, JR. Demands Removing ‘Treasonous’ Republicans from Congress

NJ Chamber of Commerce Congressional Dinner

First, we confiscate your guns and then we put you on trial for opposing us. OK? (Bill Pascrell for Congress/Facebook)

BY DAVID CODREA

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/12/pascrell-demands-removing-treasonous-republicans-from-congress;

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

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “BREAKING: I’m demanding that the 126 Republicans who have endorsed a malignant lawsuit to overturn the will of the people and undermine our democracy not be seated in Congress,” New Jersey Democrat Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr. tweeted Friday. He was announcing his letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in which he made clear his definitions of “insurrections,” “treasonous” and “traitors” extend to anyone he politically opposes.

The excuse given for his latest public tantrum was the lawsuit filed by the State of Texas (and joined by 17 states) challenging the legality of voting procedure changes by Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case citing “lack of standing,” with Justices Alito and Thomas stating they would have “grant[ed] the motion to file the bill of complaint.”

While Roberts being a weasel was no surprise, the decision to punt points to future disappointments we can expect from Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. It also seems to corroborate establishment fears of retaliation by court-packing, and to speculation that many are terrified cities will burn if a Biden “victory” is ultimately proven fraudulent to enough citizens.

“Donald Trump and other prominent Republicans have commenced a daily assault on the legitimacy of the election that includes filing dozens of frivolous lawsuits seeking to have the results invalidated,” Pascrell complains in his letter. “Tragically, Members of our House of Representatives are supporting and amplifying these attacks on democracy, now culminating in 126 House Republicans joining a malignant lawsuit filed by the state of Texas…”

As for “frivolous,” that depends on who you’re talking to.

18 states thought the Texas complaint was valid, and daily revelations continue to raise disturbing questions that deserve thorough and impartial investigations (or as Pascrell characterizes them, acts of treason).

“As you know, Article I, Section 5 of the United States Constitution gives each chamber of Congress ultimate authority to decide its membership, positing that ‘[e]ach House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.’” Pascrell declares. He’s muddying the waters here, deliberately, one suspects, to make his supporters believe the majority has lawful authority to boot minority members.

Not so, says the National Constitution Center in its “Common Interpretation”:

“While the House and Senate may decide contested elections, they may not disqualify otherwise duly elected persons who meet Constitutional qualifications for membership.”

So what authority would Pascrell use?

“The courageous Reconstruction Congress implanted into our governing document safeguards to cleanse from our government ranks of any traitors and others who would seek to destroy the Union,” he says, then citing the Fourteenth Amendment  prohibition on holding federal or state executive or judicial offices by anyone who “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof…”

“Stated simply, men and women who would act to tear the United States government apart cannot serve as Members of the Congress,” Pascrell declares. “The fate of our democracy depends on us meeting that moment.”

To paraphrase Seinfeld’s Soup Nazi, if you’re  a Republican who thinks the “official” election tallies stink, “No representation for you.”

Note Pascrell keeps referring to “our democracy,” even though the word appears nowhere in the Constitution, which instead proclaims “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…”

Guarding against the dangers of mob rule, the Bill of Rights defined some of the areas where the individual would be immune to the will of the collective. That means no matter how many of us disagree with you, we cannot lawfully use force to shut you up, to suppress your political views, or to make you worship in the way WE see fit. We cannot break into your house and search your property without cause and a legal warrant. We cannot torture you into confessing to a crime. Barring behaviors on your part that disqualify you, we cannot strip you of your ability to keep and bear arms (which, if you think about it, is useless unless you’re also locked up). No matter how many of us vote on it.

Pascrell doesn’t much go in for the Second Amendment and we’re starting to see why. So leave it to him to call the First Amendment-articulated right to peaceably petition the government for the redress of grievances as treason. Leave it to Pascrell to demand ejecting from Congress the only representatives the Constitution called for to be democratically elected (Senators were intended to be elected by state legislators until the Seventeenth Amendment took away another vital check and made ultimate rule by high population urban areas inevitable).

By defining the most basic of American values as treason, Pascrell turns the meaning on its head. Again, that Constitution he keeps deliberately misrepresenting tells us what the term really means (Article III, Section 3, Clause 1):

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort…”

If anyone is doing that, it’s politicians like Pascrell seeking to undermine “the security of a free State” by “infring[ing]” on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

By first declaring President Donald Trump “has engaged in … treason” and demanding the prosecution of him and his “enablers,” Pascrell has in effect endorsed executing the president. That’s not hyperbole if you look at what United State Code says:

“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death…”

By using that same language to describe lawsuit-supporting Republican Representatives, Pascrell subjects them to more than mere exclusion from the House—they too, if guilty, would be subject to the same penalty. As would any citizen who agrees with them and supports what they support. If that includes you, Pascrell considers you guilty of the capital crime of treason.

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable,” a Democrat president from an earlier era noted. John F. Kennedy, a Life Member of the National Rifle Association, also had this to say about the Second Amendment:

“By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,' the ‘security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”

Pascrell wants to make a peaceful revolution impossible. And he’s moving the “fears of governmental tyranny” from “extremely unlikely” to “We’re he-re…”

What the hell, I’m in.  You?

Also see: NJ Democrat’s Demand for Prosecution of Trump ‘Enablers’ Ups the Stakes for All


About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

David Codrea

________________________________________________________________________

SEE OUR PREVIOUS POST:

https://ratherexposethem.org/2020/11/20/police-state-n-j-rep-bill-pascrell-jr-says-trump-should-be-tried-for-crimes-against-our-nation-and-constitution/



Twitter Says It Will REMOVE All Posts Claiming Vaccines Can Harm People

Despite widespread reports of health workers having allergic reactions to Pfizer shot

BY STEVE WATSON

SEE: https://www.infowars.com/posts/twitter-says-it-will-remove-all-posts-claiming-vaccines-can-harm-people/;

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

Twitter has declared that it will remove all posts that suggest there are any “adverse impacts or effects of receiving vaccinations,” despite reports already emerging of health workers getting sick from taking Pfizer’s coronavirus shot.

Twitter announced that beginning next week it will memory-hole any posts that “invoke a deliberate conspiracy” or “advance harmful, false, or misleading narratives” about vaccines.

“Using a combination of technology and human review, we will begin enforcing this updated policy on December 21, and expanding our actions during the following weeks,” the company proclaimed.

Twitter added that it will be monitoring posts about vaccinations “in close consultation with local, national, and global public health authorities around the world.”

Nurses across the country are refusing to take the COVID Vaccine as Big Pharma’s propaganda machine pushes it on the masses.

The tech company will also wipe any posts that suggest vaccines “are used to intentionally cause harm,” or “control populations,” or are “unnecessary.” 

The statement also notes that posts will be scrubbed if they contain “false claims which have been widely debunked about the adverse impacts or effects of receiving vaccinations.”

Exactly what “debunked” means was not clarified. Presumably, it means any claims about vaccines that Twitter disagrees with.

The New York Times and others reported Wednesday that healthcare workers in Alaska have been hospitalized with a serious allergic reaction after taking Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine.

The development follows reports last week from Britain where some healthcare workers reported serious allergic reactions to the vaccine, prompting Britain’s medical regulator to issue a warning people with a history of allergies not to take the shot.

There is a mountain of documented evidence that some vaccines can cause harm and have adverse effects, and compared to previous vaccines, the coronavirus shot is relatively untested, indeed six people even DIED during the rush to develop it.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulators also revealed that some people who got Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine during its trial have since developed Bell’s palsy, a form of facial paralysis.

Both the US and UK governments have rolled out technology specifically to monitor adverse effects of the vaccine, because they know there will be many, many cases.

Yet Twitter appears to be decreeing that any suggestion the shot could cause damage will be met with strict censorship.

Where it cannot prove something has been “debunked” and remove the post entirely, Twitter says it intends to attach “warning” labels to tweets that “advance unsubstantiated rumours, disputed claims, as well as incomplete or out-of-context information about vaccines.” 

Last month, Twitter declared that it will send warnings to everyone who likes a post the company deems to contain “misleading information”.

 

Omar, Tlaib and AOC Demand Facebook Remove 100% of ‘Anti-Muslim Content’~30 House Democrats go to war against the First Amendment.

BY DANIEL GREENFIELD

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/12/omar-tlaib-and-aoc-demand-facebook-remove-100-anti-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.

Two of the most notorious bigots in the House of Representatives signed a letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg demanding that he “eradicate anti-Muslim bigotry from Facebook”.

The three-page letter signed by Rep. Ilhan OmarRep. Rashida Tlaib, as well as 28 other left-wing House members, spends a great deal of time demanding the removal of what it calls "anti-Muslim content" without ever specifically defining it. That's convenient considering Omar and Tlaib's own history of racism and antisemitism, and support for the sorts of Islamic bigotry and violence that groups like CAIR, which supports the letter, have become known for.

The letter spotlights one violent incident, but then goes on to call for a ban on "anti-Muslim content", "anti-Muslim animus", "anti-Muslim bigotry", and finally, "anti-Muslim content and organizing" on the platform, without ever explaining what exactly they want to ban.

Considering the letter’s call for, "100 percent proactive detection and removal of anti-Muslim content", the safe assumption would be that they want to ban everything critical of Islam.

That's a disturbing attack on the First Amendment coming from 30 House members.

Democrats have repeatedly pressured Facebook and other social media companies to remove speech they politically disapprove of, whether by President Trump or other conservatives, eroding the thin line between private companies acting on their own initiative and government officials conspiring to violate the First Amendment by banning certain kinds of political speech.

After multiple hearings, legal proposals, and legislative threats, it’s no longer possible to view Facebook’s censorship of political speech as anything other than government censorship. When enough pressure by government officials has been applied to a company to censor certain kinds of speech, the company’s decision to censor speech becomes government censorship.

30 House members would now like Facebook to censor criticism of Islam and political protests against Islamic terrorism. One of the few examples of anti-Muslim content in the House letter was a political protest against the Islamic Society of North America’s 2019 conference.

That was the conference which included an appearance by two Democrat presidential candidates, Bernie Sanders and Julian Castro, whose forum was moderated by Salam Al-Marayati, the head of MPAC, who had defended Hamas and Hezbollah. Also participating in a round table at the conference was Imam Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the World Trade Center bombing, who has defended the Islamic mandate to kill gay people.

This is the sort of information that AOC, Omar, and 28 other House Democrats, want banned.

House Democrats trying to shut down protests targeting their own candidates is a blatant violation of the First Amendment which was meant to prevent exactly that kind of thing.

And the party of social justice wants to stop Americans from protesting against an Imam who says things like, ”Brothers and sisters, you know what the punishment is, if a man is found with another man? The Prophet Mohammad said the one who does it and the one to whom it is done to, kill them both.” What happens when ‘anti-Muslim content’ meets anti-gay content?

The 30 House Democrats don’t want to talk about any of this which is why their letter doesn’t.

Even Omar and Tlaib can’t quite openly call for blasphemy regulations for social media, but they conveniently leave terms like “anti-Muslim content” undefined and then demand that Facebook outsource the suppression protocols to "senior staff focused on anti-Muslim bigotry issues" backed by diversity training on "civil rights issues and common words, phrases, tropes or visuals used by hate actors to dehumanize and demonize Muslims".

And if that's not enough, there's an independent third-party review of Facebook’s compliance.

CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood groups would be brought in to define what “anti-Muslim content” is and then senior staff, approved of by CAIR and its allies, would set moderation policies to suppress “tropes” used by “hate actors” like Jihad, Sharia, Taqiyya, and terrorism.

Cartoons of Mohammed, mentions of blasphemy, hate, and terrorism would all be censored.

It's not hard to spot what sort of content they're after.

The House Democrat blasphemy and terror letter has been endorsed by CAIR and the Islamic Networks Group, but beyond these traditional Islamist groups, it has the backing of pro-terror groups like Code Pink and JVP, and assorted anti-war organizations. These groups are less concerned with blasphemy, but very focused on preventing America from fighting terrorists.

CAIR had demanded the removal of Mohammed's image from the Supreme Court, and more recently compared magazines publishing cartoons of Mohammed to ISIS. A board member of the Muslim Brotherhood group had insisted that, "[t]he right to free speech is not absolute."

The Founding Fathers and the Constitution disagreed.

The letter also cites a Muslim Advocates report which listed examples of "anti-Muslim content" that they wanted Facebook to censor that included President Trump's call for a ban on migration from Islamic terror nations, and a Trump campaign ad which described AOC, Omar, Tlaib, and Pressley as socialists who had made "anti-Israel, anti-American, and pro-terrorist remarks".

AOC, Omar, Tlaib, and other Democrats have signed a letter demanding that Facebook censor political speech critical of them. That’s a grotesque assault on the First Amendment.

Another example of “anti-Muslim content” from the Muslim Advocates report was an Israeli Facebook user who had written negatively about Omar, Trudeau, and Corbyn.

Omar responded to this by ranting that "foreign interference – whether by individuals or governments – is still a grave threat to our democracy” and that “malicious actors operating in a foreign country, Israel”, were “spreading misinformation and hate speech to influence elections in the United States." Even though there’s no evidence that elections were actually influenced.

But, once again, the kind of “anti-Muslim content” that Omar and her political allies seem to want to ban involves criticism of her and of them. The “grave threat” here is coming from Rep. Omar.

The letter claims that its signers also want Facebook to remove “any hate content directed at a religious or ethnic group”, but Rep. Ilhan Omar, one of the letter’s signers, has been the House’s worst offender, tweeting antisemitic content, including her infamous “Benjamins” tweet.

If House Democrats were serious about removing hate, they would have removed Rep. Omar.

Facebook already engages in extensive monitoring and censorship. This isn’t about taking down bigotry, but about removing political speech and content that Islamists consider blasphemous. It’s also about suppressing the political organizations that combat Islamist hate and violence.

It’s no coincidence that the type of political speech that Omar, Tlaib, Carson, and other House members want to censor casts a negative light on their own political alliances with Islamists, their bigotry, and their ugly views. And they would like Facebook to do the censoring for them.

The more Democrat officials lay out the kind of censorship they would like internet platforms to perform, the more the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech becomes a dead letter. And this letter, signed by 30 House Democrats, is a new threat to our freedom of speech.

America does not have blasphemy laws. And politicians are not allowed to ban speech they don’t like. The letter to Facebook makes it more urgent than ever that our elected officials find ways to protect the marketplace of ideas from political censorship by Democrats and Facebook.

 

Attorney Jenna Ellis on Trump Team Legal Options, Supreme Court Decision & Starting Recall Petitions

Today we sit down with constitutional law attorney Jenna Ellis, a member of the Trump campaign legal team, to get an update on their legal efforts, and what she expects the future holds. This is American Thought Leaders 🇺🇸, and I’m Jan Jekielek.

Protect Election Integrity~Censor Anyone Who Questions the Election

The threat to election integrity is coming from inside the system.

BY DANIEL GREENFIELD

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/12/protect-election-integrity-censor-anyone-who-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.

Last week, Google's YouTube announced that “supporting the integrity" of the election required it to censor anyone alleging that "widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of a historical U.S. Presidential election".

By historical presidential election, Google meant this one. Democrats are still free to allege that they would have won in 2000 or 2016, if it hadn’t been for the chads or the Russians.

A huge tech monopoly closely tied to the Democrats, which was sued by the Trump administration over its illegal abuses, censoring critics of the Democrat election fraud is protecting and supporting something alright, but that thing is very definitely not integrity.

Election integrity, like fact-checking, is one of those curious terms whose meaning was ‘Orwellianized’ in the last decade. Fact-checking used to mean media organizations checking their facts before they published a story. Now the media has mostly done away with internal fact-checking and uses fact-checking to describe its efforts to censor conservative media.

Election integrity traditionally meant verifying the integrity of the process, but is now being used to mean silencing anyone who questions the integrity of the election. In both cases a term that meant protecting the integrity of an internal process has been turned inside out to mean covering up for the corruption of the internal process by censoring its outside critics.

That’s the new integrity.

At last count, 72% of Republicans, and 1 in 3 Americans, don’t trust the election results. That means silencing a hundred million people to protect thousands of election workers.

Protecting the integrity of the election means clean voter rolls, voter IDs, and elections that take place under predetermined rules put into place by state legislatures. It does not mean telling critics that pointing out the lack of integrity in the election is a threat to election integrity.

The threat to election integrity is coming from inside the system.

One basic difference between free and unfree societies is that free societies have internal checks and balances, while unfree societies only have external ones. A free society assures the integrity of its elections and its facts by keeping its facts and elections open to examination, while an unfree society protects its processes against outside criticism by threatening its critics.

American elections now happen under the grim shadow of networks of organizations that vow to “protect election integrity” by making sure that Americans aren’t “misled” by “disinformation”.

Typical of these is the Election Integrity Partnership, funded in part by billionaire Biden donor Craig Newmark, which predictably claimed that “election disinformation” was coming from Trump supporters. Its list of “repeat offenders with large audiences” consists entirely of Trump supporters. Calling people you disagree with “repeat offenders” is typical of the lefty discourse that criminalizes dissent by describing opposing views as “disinformation” and then an offense.

It's easy for conservatives to laugh off such corruption, much like Poynter's Craig Newmark Center for Ethics and Leadership being embedded in the fact-checking machine, whose head also doubles as NPR's public editor, but legally treating lefty views as embodying truth and facts and conservative views as representing disinformation has serious consequences.

Even beyond YouTube and social media censorship in the marketplace of ideas.

The entire election integrity industry whose work involves closely monitoring political speech by ordinary people is operating under the theory that the biggest threat to elections comes from people. The Democrat obsession with Russian bots in the last election was almost wholesome compared to their current obsession, not with bots, Russian or otherwise, but with Americans.

Election integrity now means a stasi-like focus on identifying and punishing public speech. The threat, as in most totalitarian societies, was never really from outside: it was from Americans.

In 2020, Dems mostly ceased pretending that the issue was bots or foreign agents, instead, the election integrity industry amplified by the media claimed to be very worried about people sharing “disinformation”. Big tech firms approached the election boasting about their massive effort to stem all the “disinformation” in order to protect the integrity of the election from people.

But if people can’t be trusted to discuss political issues, how can they be trusted to vote?

Our elections are only as free as our ideas are. Any system that doesn’t trust people to debate ideas isn’t about to trust them to actually make the decision about implementing those ideas.

The suppression of questions about the integrity of the election is the best reason to question it.

A free liberal society defines integrity as the integrity of the process while illiberal ideologues define it as the integrity of the outcome. The shift from the integrity of process to integrity of outcome has destroyed the integrity of most of the country’s institutions and the public’s trust.

The highest principle of integrity of process is sticking with the facts and following the rules, but integrity of outcome’s only principle is a cause so righteous that none of the rules matter.

Shifting from process to outcome led to a media that was not just biased, but that has zero regard for the facts or the truth, but insists that it’s right because it has the right principles. This preference for picking the outcome you want and then forcing the process to follow pervaded not just the media, but every political and many of the non-political institutions in American life.

That corrupt willingness to dispense with the rules is why so many question the election.

In the last four years, conservatives have witnessed a string of government officials coming forward to undermine a sitting administration, while others leaked from behind the scenes. Before the election, Democrat state officials in charge of the election vented their hatred for President Trump on social media while promising that a Biden victory was forthcoming.

Now some of those same officials are furious that Republicans are challenging the integrity of the elections they supervised. Guns don’t kill people and elections don’t defraud themselves.

Tech companies and the media have reduced the election to a sacred idea whose integrity may not be challenged, but Republicans aren’t challenging an idea: they’re challenging public officials. And tech companies stepping in to protect “election integrity” are not, at this late date, preventing voters from being “misled”, but protecting the officials they support from scrutiny.

Only unfree societies protect the integrity of public officials from the outrage of the public. And only a corrupt oligarchy selectively intervenes to protect its officials in the name of “integrity”.

Election integrity isn’t achieved by suppressing criticism of election officials. That is how you get corruption. And how conspiracy theories, right or wrong, are spawned on an unprecedented scale. Real integrity comes when public officials are held to a high standard by the public.

Free countries can have contested elections. Unfree ones, by definition, can’t.

Contested elections are healthy things. As long as you contest them the right way. Throwing around accusations of election fraud is as American as apple pie. Even most liberal historians agree that there were at least two “historical” presidential elections, as Google puts it, whose outcomes were corruptly determined. And a number of others were legitimately in dispute.

The unhealthy way to contest elections is accusing the winner of being a Russian spy, and launching investigations of him and his associates based on that smear. That’s how elections are contested in places like, well, Russia. Just make sure to substitute American for Russian.

The oligarchy has spent every minute since the election crying that contesting an election is illegitimate, a threat to what it calls “democracy”, and must be stopped to save our country.

Free countries aren’t that fragile. Unfree ones are very fragile.

Every time you hear another media screed about the threat posed by “disinformation”, you’re hearing an admission that their rule over this country is totalitarian and very fragile. And when you hear them lecture about the need to protect “election integrity” by suppressing critics, you’re hearing an admission that they rig elections whenever they can and are afraid you’ll find out.

Any faction that spends this much time protesting its integrity, doesn’t have any to protest.

 

Vaccination Cards Will Track Everyone Who Gets a COVID-19 Vaccine

Vaccination Cards Will Track Everyone Who Gets a COVID-19 Vaccine

SEE: https://thevaccinereaction.org/2020/12/vaccination-cards-will-track-everyone-who-gets-a-covid-19-vaccine/;

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

On Dec. 2, 2020, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) released the first images of the government’s proposed COVID-19 vaccination record card and vaccination kits that include a needle, syringe, alcohol wipes and a mask. The vaccination card, which will be issued to everyone who gets a COVID-19 vaccine, will be used by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to track who gets vaccinated with the first dose of the vaccine.1 2 3 4 5 6

Recipients of the vaccines will be asked to provide their cell phone numbers so pubic health officials can contact vaccinated persons by text and remind them to return to receive a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine three or four weeks later. The two doses of Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 (BNT162b2) need to be given 21 days apart. Moderna’s mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine requires two doses to be given 28 days apart.1 2 4 5 6 7

Each dose of COVID-19 vaccine a person receives will be reported to the CDC.1 2

COVID-19 Vaccination Card Contains Personal Medical Information

“Everyone will be issued a written card that they can put in their wallet that will tell them what they had and when their next dose is due,” said Kelly Moore, MD, MPH, associate director of the Immunization Action Coalition (IAC) of Saint Paul, Minnesota. “Everyone’s going to get that.”1 2 6

Each card, written in English and Spanish, will record the first and last name of the person receiving the vaccine, along with their date of birth, medical information, the dates in which they were vaccinated and the name of who performed the vaccination and where. It will provide spaces to record the name of the vaccine given and the name of its manufacturer. It will also have spaces that could be used to record additional booster shots in the future.3 6

A “Draconian Process” to “Capture Everybody”

“We’ve set up everything [in] a draconian process, where when we sent out the ancillary kits which have needles and syringes, we’ve included paper cards to be filled out and given to the individuals, reminding them of their next vaccine due date,” said U.S. Army Gen. Gustave Perna, chief operating officer of the U.S. government’s Operation Warp Speed (OWS) program tasked with facilitating development of COVID-19 vaccines.3

“We do know that pharmacies such as CVS and Walgreens have established very elaborate tracking systems to set up appointments, notify people when their second shots are required,” Gen. Perna said. “And we’re doing our best to capture everybody to ensure that they get their second dose.3

Click here to view References:

1 Bonifield J, Vera A. Vaccination cards will be issued to everyone getting Covid-19 vaccine, health officials sayCNN Dec. 3, 2020.
2 Budryk Z. Details emerging on vaccine cards that will accompany inoculationsThe Hill Dec. 3, 2020.
3 Chappell B. Vaccine Cards And Second-Dose Reminders Are Part Of Warp Speed’s Immunization PlanNPR Dec. 3, 2020.
4 Kavanagh M. People getting COVID-19 vaccine will receive cards for second dose reminder3WTKR Dec. 3, 2020.
5 Scribner H. You will get a COVID-19 vaccine record card if you get the vaccine. Here’s what it looks likeDesert News Dec. 4, 2020.
6 Smith C. Everyone who gets a coronavirus vaccine will be issued this cardBGR Dec. 3, 2020.
7 Syal A. Covid vaccine cards are a reminder for the 2nd shot, not a passportNBC News Dec. 4, 2020.

______________________________________________________________________

Dr. Gounder Recommends Waiting on COVID Vaccine if You’ve Had a History of Severe Allergic Reaction

You would think that [the severe allergic reactions to the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine] would have come up in all of the phase trials already with those who were getting the vaccine, because that’s such a noticeable reaction. Well, I think it’s important to understand that when we do these Phase 3 clinical studies, we are actually intentionally excluding a certain population, so people who’ve had severe side effects… pregnant women, children, they were not included in these Phase 3 clinical trials. And, in fact, the way the vaccine is approved for use in the U.K., they are recommending, even prior to these allergic reactions happening, they were recommending against giving them to people who’ve had severe allergic reactions.


Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Nevada Electors VOTE FOR TRUMP!!!

★★★ A NEW CONSERVATIVE AGE IS RISING ★★★

We’ve got some BREAKING News here! Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Nevada Electors have indeed VOTED FOR TRUMP! That’s right, we’re going to take a look at what happened today as the electoral college met to vote for president, how some GOP electors announced they cast their ballots for Trump, what it means for the ongoing contesting of the election, and why all of this further underscores the fact that this is not yet over by a longshot; you are NOT going to want to miss this!

Rogue ATF Agents are Cracking Down on Legal Guns in Anticipation of Biden Administration

Honest citizens should enjoy the right to assemble their own firearms for lawful purposes, and they should be able to do so without being terrorized by their government.” — GOA's Erich Pratt, AmmoLand, December 11, 2020.

ATF Agent NRA-ILA

BY F. RIEHL

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/12/rogue-atf-agents-are-cracking-down-on-legal-guns-in-anticipation-of-biden-admin/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
GOA and other pro-2A groups are suing the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives.

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- On Thursday, federal agents raided the headquarters of Polymer80, one of the largest manufacturers of homemade firearm accessories.

For years, Polymer80 has been producing “80% complete” lower receivers which the ATF determined to be incomplete and non-regulatable by the ATF as firearms. These receivers require holes to be drilled and surfaces filed before they become an actual, usable receiver, hence the term 80% receiver.

You might have heard an anti-gunner refer to a completed homemade firearm as a “ghost gun” before.

According to the ATF in numerous letters to Polymer80, their 80% receivers did not require a manufacturer's license, the unconstitutional Pittman-Robertson tax, a serial number, or a NICS check before purchase.

Anti-gunners have been advocating for a ban on homemade firearms for years, even recently appealing to the Trump Administration.

Once again, the ATF appears to be reversing its longstanding interpretive guidance and is arbitrarily redefining a crucial term to enact a gun ban.

ATF is Expanding its Crackdown

AmmoLand News broke the news yesterday that ATF is raiding more companies than just Polymer80:

The ATF did raid or show up at other companies that sell other kits that include 80% part kits, barrels, and slides that are not Polymer80. AmmoLand News sources inside the ATF say that the agency is now considering 80% kits with all the parts needed to finish a pistol as a firearm. None of the companies had any warning on the change to ATF’s regulations before actual agents showed up making attempts to retrieve customer information.

Apparently, the ATF now considers an 80% lower receiver sold with a parts kit — such as the one offered by Polymer80 as a Buy Build Shoot Kit — to be a firearm requiring a background check. .

But the statute defining a firearm hasn’t changed.

ATF Leadership 2020 Acting Director Regina Lombardo & Associate Deputy Director Marvin Richardson
ATF Leadership 2020 Acting Director Regina Lombardo & Associate Deputy Director Marvin Richardson

What did change?

ATF is arbitrarily redefining firearms using interpretive guidance. Acting Director of the ATF Regina Lombardo must feel emboldened by the apparent victory of presidential candidate Joe Biden.

In November, she even began working early with the “Biden Transition Team.”

Take Action Square

Her reported priorities? Pistol braces and 80% receivers.

But this is more than cooperating with a transition team. Lombardo has begun advancing the Biden-Harris gun control agenda during the Trump Administration!

Take action and tell President Trump to fire Acting Director of the ATF Regina Lombardo and her anti-gun subordinates responsible for this anti-Second Amendment attack on homemade firearms.

These anti-gunners have got to go!

In liberty,

Aidan Johnston
Director of Federal Affairs
Gun Owners of America

PS: If any readers have been contacted by ATF regarding 80% receivers or Polymer80 products please contact AmmoLand News.


About Gun Owners of America

GOA spokespeople are available for interviews. Gun Owners of America, and its sister organization Gun Owners Foundation, are nonprofits dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms without compromise. For more information, visit GOA at www.gunowners.org.

Gun Owners of America GOA logo



N.J. Gym Owner Fined $1 Million for Refusing to Close Has a Message for Gov. Phil Murphy

BELLMAWR, N.J.-GESTAPO POLICE STATE NEW JERSEY

"This is not a game, these are our lives."

Atilis Gym owners break into their own business to let in customers, again violating N.J.‘s coronavirus orders

A judge says Bellmawr’s Atilis Gym can remain open if it follows state’s guidelines. The owners say that’s not going to happen.

BY MEGAN FOX

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/megan-fox/2020/12/13/watch-n-j-gym-owner-fined-1-million-for-refusing-to-close-has-a-message-for-gov-phil-murphy-n1208869;

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

Atilis Gym has been continuously harassed by the government of New Jersey for refusing to shut its doors or impose mask mandates on its clients. Owner Ian Smith has made headlines for staying open despite orders from the state to close up shop.

But now he’s back with a viral video message he made for Governor Phil Murphy. I don’t think the state’s sanctions on him are working, do you? Filming in a full gym, Smith stands defiant against government interference with his right to work and feed his family. I wish every business owner in America was this courageous. That’s all it would take to end the unfair targeting of small businesses while huge corporations are allowed to turn profits without fines. Resist!

________________________________________________________________________
SEE OUR PREVIOUS POSTS:

 

 

 

United Airlines Boots Family Because 2-Year-Old Refuses to Wear Mask

UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT FROM DENVER, COLORADO TO NEWARK AIRPORT, NEW JERSEY 

BY TYLER O'NEIL

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/12/12/watch-mother-says-united-kicked-her-family-off-a-plane-because-2-year-old-refused-to-wear-a-mask-n1206654;

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

On Friday, a mother publicly complained that United Airlines booted her family off a plane and allegedly banned the family from flying on the airline ever again after her 2-year-old daughter refused to wear a mask. Despite the girl’s obstinacy, her father held her mouth with his hand to prevent the spread of liquid particles and kept trying to place the mask over her nose and mouth.

On Saturday, the video went viral. Many prominent conservatives, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) expressed outrage over the video. United told PJ Media the company is working to rectify the situation.

“We just got kicked off the flight because our 2-year-old would not put on a mask, and we tried,” Colorado mom Eliz Orban said in the viral video. She said United booted her family off of a plane from Denver to Newark. “And they’re sending all of our bags, and [her daughter]’s car seat, to New York. And we’re banned from United forever because a 2-year-old would not put on a mask.”

The video goes on to show the girl’s father struggling with her to put the mask on. In a show of obstinacy familiar to any parent of a toddler, the girl repeatedly refuses, putting her hands in front of her face. Frustrated, the father resorts to holding the mask in his hand over his daughter’s face.

In the video, a flight attendant orders the family to exit the aircraft.

“In what universe does this make any sense?? A two-year-old child? WATCH this video,” Cruz tweeted while sharing the video. “This isn’t keeping anyone safe. It’s just arbitrary & nonsensical. And infuriating.”

“This is unbelievable… and infuriating,” journalist Megyn Kelly tweeted.

PragerU condemned the flight attendant’s behavior as “UNBELIEVABLE,” noting that in the video, United “kicks couple off airplane & bans them for life because their TWO YEAR OLD child resists wearing a mask despite their best efforts to comply. IT’S TIME to stand up and fight this draconian nonsense–please share!”

United spokesman David Gonzalez told PJ Media that United is investigating the incident and is working to make things right.

“We are investigating this specific incident and have made contact with the family. We also refunded their tickets and returned their car seat and bags,” Gonzalez told PJ Media. While his statement suggested United admits some form of fault, he went on to defend the general policy.

“The health and safety of our employees and customers is our highest priority, which is why we have a multi-layered set of policies, including mandating that everyone onboard two and older wears a mask,” Gonzalez added. “These procedures are not only backed by guidance from the CDC and our partners at the Cleveland Clinic, but they’re also consistent across every major airline.”

In this case, the issue seems to have been less the general policy, which the family tried to follow, and more the zero-tolerance manner in which the flight attendant applied it. Even if the policy itself is rock-solid, commonsense would dictate some lenience for parents struggling to hold a mask on an obstreperous 2-year-old girl. My own 18-month-old has proven herself quite a lovable handful at times, and I can imagine the tantrums will likely get worse in the next six months.

The coronavirus pandemic is hard enough on children (and their parents) as it is without self-righteous elites taking a zero-tolerance stance against people who make a good-faith effort to comply with the rules.

The full details of the story remain cloudy and the flight attendant’s actions may be more justified than the video suggests. However, from the evidence available, this episode appears to echo the kind of self-righteous sermonizing that Americans hear from hypocritical political leaders. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.), for instance, infamously attended an indoor dinner party at the upscale restaurant The French Laundry with lobbyists and California Medical Association executives without a mask in sight. He just issued a strict lockdown that will prevent multi-household gatherings through Christmas.

Thankfully, it seems United is working to make this situation right.

Tyler O’Neil is the author of Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Follow him on Twitter at @Tyler2ONeil.

DESPICABLE: Karen Wishes Death on Kids for Going Mask-Less
Tucker Carlson Rips Newsom TO SHREDS Over His COVID Double Standard
Pelosi Violated Lockdown Rules to Get a Hairdo. Now She’s Demanding an Apology — from the Salon?!
Coronavirus Double Standards and the New American Privilege
 

WASHINGTON, D.C.: Christians, CATHOLICS & JEWS Protest FRAUD FILLED Election With ECUMENICAL INTERFAITH Jericho TRUMP March~SPEECHES BY GENERAL FLYNN, ALEX JONES & OTHERS DELIVER POSITIVE ENCOURAGEMENT THROUGH FAITH

A CATHOLIC ORGANIZED RALLY THAT WOULD PLEASE THE ECUMENICAL, INTERFAITH, UNIVERSALIST, COMMUNIST POPE; BUT NOT BIBLE BELIEVING FUNDAMENTAL EVANGELICALS

LET THE ONE WORLD "CHURCH" ROAR? 

Jericho March Stop the Steal

EXCERPTS FROM: https://jerichomarch.org/about/:

This Election Jericho March™ will culminate in a massive national peaceful prayer rally protest in Washington, D.C. on Dec. 12, 2020 called “Let the Church ROAR!” where we will march around the U.S. Capitol seven times to send a very clear message to national and state leaders as they hear patriots and people of faith roar in support of election integrity, transparency, and reform. We will be hearing from national faith leaders, worship leaders, and others. 

Our first Jericho March™ is for election integrity, transparency, and reform to preserve free and fair elections in America for this generation and generations to come — free from any corruption or interference, both foreign and domestic. America is a city on a hill and light to other nations, and God’s favor is still upon her. We are proud of the American system of governance established by our Founding Fathers and we will not let globalists, socialists, and communists destroy our beautiful nation by sidestepping our laws and suppressing the will of the American people through their fraudulent and illegal activities in this election.

Mainstream Media, Big Tech, and corrupt political machines want the world to believe that the 2020 election is over. We have a clear message to them: You do not call elections and this election is far from over. You try to censor the truth, but we know the truth, and our God will reveal the truth,

“For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.”
(Lk. 8:17)

_______________________________________________________________________

ECUMENISM EXPOSED AS PER LUKE 8:17 ABOVE:

SEE EXCERPTS FROM: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/what-i-saw-at-the-jericho-march/:

Then onto the stage came one Fr. Greg Bramlage, a Colorado priest who says he is an exorcist. He shamanically prayed down heaven to deliver America from demons. These were real deliverance prayers. He is saying, in effect, that to oppose Trump and his re-election is to be an agent of Satan. This was the first time I got really angry. As regular readers know, I believe in the power of exorcism. I believe the demonic is real. But there was this Trumpy priest deploying holy prayers of deliverance from the demonic on behalf of a politician, and did it in a way that logically locates doubters within the shadow of Mordor. It felt sacrilegious. I wondered what Protestants in this crowd thought about the Catholic priest addressing prayers to Mary, the saints, and the angels. Following him was an opera singer belting out “Ave Maria.” Trumpy ecumenism is a fascinating religious development. This isn’t simply a revival of the old Chuck Colson/Richard John Neuhaus “Catholics & Evangelicals Together.” This is something much more intense. Later in the day, a Catholic priest blessed a framed image of Our Lady of Guadalupe that they plan to give to Melania Trump. Again, what did the Evangelicals think of that? I believe that it is good for Christians to work together on political and social causes of mutual concern. But if I believed what Evangelicals believe, I would have a lot of trouble affirming, by my presence, those kind of Catholic prayers. But maybe common love for Trump overcomes these theological divisions.

Then a woman who heads a pro-Trump organization in Virginia came onstage to instruct the crowd: “We have to align our spirituality to our politics.”

Yes, it is bonkers. All of it. But you would be wrong to make fun of it and blow it off. This phenomenon is going to matter. Divinizing MAGA and Stop The Steal is going to tear churches to bits, and drive people away from the Christian faith (or keep them from coming in the first place). Based on what I saw today, the Christians in this movement do not doubt that Trump is God’s chosen, that they, by following him, are walking in light, and whatever they do to serve Trump is also serving God. They have tightly wound apocalyptic religion to conservative politics and American nationalism.

“We have to align our spirituality to our politics,” said the speaker today. Notice that she didn’t say “align our politics to our spirituality.” Politics determines spirituality. (?)

SEE ALSO: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/12/12/christians-to-march-around-supreme-court-swing-state-capitols-seven-times-like-jericho-n1205940

Trump supporters gather for the Stop the Steal rally at Freedom Plaza in Washington on December 12, 2020. Photo by Yuri Gripas/ABACAPRESS.COM.

Gen. Flynn: SCOTUS doesn’t decide, we decide the election of president of the United States 

General Michael Flynn’s FULL Speech At DCs Jericho March Rally For President Trump 12/12/2020

Alex Jones Speaks At The Massive Trump Stop The Steal Rally In Washington DC 12/12/20

EXCELLENT CHRISTIAN SPEECH YOU MUST SEE:

 

 

 

SARAH CORRIHER: McCloskey Prosecution Is Exposed as a Farce

The McCloskeys successfully defended themselves and their home from an Antifa mob, after which they were smeared relentlessly by the media. Criminal charges were brought against them by one of the most leftist cities in the nation. (St. Louis, Missouri). The political nature of those charges has just been exposed. Get reliable notification options and further information at Sarah's home site: https://SarahCorriher.com/

__________________________________________________________________________

SEE ALSO:

Judge dismisses St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner from Mark McCloskey case

The couple's attorneys argued Gardner's email solicitations for campaign contributions demonstrated she and her office have a personal interest in the case

FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA: SCHOOL District to Change NameS of SchoolS Named for Jefferson & MASON, Ignoring Community Opposition

District to Change Name of School Named for Jefferson, Ignoring Community Opposition

FALLS CHURCH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD

BY LUIS MIGUEL

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/district-to-change-name-of-school-named-for-jefferson-ignoring-community-opposition/;

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

A Virginia school board voted this week to change the names of two schools because their namesakes were slave owners — even though one of them was America’s third president and the other was another Founding Father.

Falls Church City Public Schools will rename Thomas Jefferson Elementary School and George Mason High School following a unanimous vote to approve the measure Wednesday.

“The Board took seriously the viewpoints and concerns raised by many students, parents, staff, and community members,” said School Board Chair Greg Anderson.  

Prior to the vote, the school board conducted a survey to gauge the public’s interest in changing the 
names of the schools. Only 26 percent of the nearly 3,500 parents, students, and staff members surveyed 
supported renaming the George Mason school, and only 23 percent supported renaming the Thomas Jefferson 
Elementary. By contrast, 56 percent opposed renaming both of them.

Despite this fact, Anderson said the change was “in the best interest” of students and “a necessary part of our equity work.”

“Our schools must be places where all students, staff, and community members feel safe, supported, and inspired,” the board chairman said.

Jefferson has been a constant target of the historical revisionists, especially over the last year as vandals associated with the Black Lives Matter movement have toppled monuments and statues dedicated to historical figures they deem “racist.”

For leftists, Jefferson is problematic because he owned slaves. Added to that is the charge that he carried on an affair with 16-year-old slave Sally Hemings, and went on to father six of her children.

But as TNA writer R. Cort Kirkwood notes, the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society published The Jefferson-Hemings ControversyReport of the Scholars Commission, which showed the Jefferson-Hemings tale to be false. DNA tests did not, as widely believed, connect Jefferson to Hemings, and other historical research showed the claims of so-called offspring and descendants of the two were also untrue. 

What Jefferson did do was author the Declaration of Independence, which justified secession from Great Britain and explicitly stated that God, not the state, gives us with inalienable rights that can’t be taken away by the government.

Kirkwood explains about other aspects of Jefferson’s legacy: 

He also wrote the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom, which Virginia’s General Assembly adopted in 1786 and which anticipated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever,” it says, “nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief.”

… With the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, he doubled the size of the United States by acquiring 827,000 square miles of territory from Napoleon for the meager sum of $15 million. The transaction included all of Iowa, Kansas, Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma, almost all of the Dakotas, Minnesota west of the Mississippi River, parts of Texas and New Mexico, and Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado east of the Rocky Mountains.… Yet because he was a man of his time and one aspect of his life does not meet 21st-century sensibilities, the stunning memorial on the Tidal Basin must be demolished.

George Mason, meanwhile, is famous for refusing to sign the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention. One of his reasons? Because he wanted an immediate end to the slave trade.

Mason also led the fight for a bill of rights in the Constitution, and it’s heavily thanks to him that James Madison introduced, in the First Congress, the first 10 Amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

But again, none if means much to the Left, who ignore history and see nothing more than “racist old white men” upon looking at any historical statue. Unfamiliarity with history is why even statues of Abraham Lincoln and black abolitionist Frederick Douglass have been targeted by the “woke mob.”

Such ridiculous acts are not only a sign of ignorance on the part of the vandals, but show that the overarching agenda of the current “social justice” movement is to make war on all of Western history in order to replace it with an alternative Marxist history. It’s the same agenda that fueled the toppling of statues in the Soviet Union and during Communist China’s Cultural Revolution.

If the cultural pillagers aren’t stopped in their tracks, they’ll keep going until they’ve burned all America’s heritage to the ground.

____________________________________________________________________________

SEE ALSO: https://pjmedia.com/culture/robert-spencer/2020/12/09/falls-church-virginia-school-board-cancels-thomas-jefferson-n1200003;

BY ROBERT SPENCER

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

In a unanimous vote Tuesday, the Falls Church, Virginia School Board voted to rename Thomas Jefferson Elementary School, as well as George Mason High School, replacing the names of these Founding Fathers with those of people who are more woke and acceptable to the vanguard of today’s Cultural Revolution.

School Board Chair Greg Anderson, tongue no doubt planted firmly in cheek, intoned the usual pieties: “The Board took seriously the viewpoints and concerns raised by many students, parents, staff, and community members.” Except it didn’t, since according to WTOP, “a survey of the Falls Church community taken in October…revealed that 56% of the community overall asked that the names stay on the schools, including 61% of the parents of Thomas Jefferson Elementary students and 57% of George Mason High parents.” But their viewpoints didn’t count. As is always the case, the only viewpoints that mattered were those of the woke mob.

Not grasping the old adage that it is better to be silent and be thought an idiot than to open one’s mouth and prove it, Anderson rambled on: “We thank everyone who shared their perspectives with us and will be mindful of your comments as we now begin selecting names that reflect the diversity of opinions in our community” – except, that is, the opinions of the majorities who thought Thomas Jefferson and George Mason were fine names and need not be changed. “Our schools must be places where all students, staff, and community members feel safe, supported, and inspired.” Except, that is, those who respect and revere the Founding Fathers.

And so the foes of American history and America itself, for to repudiate the one is to repudiate the other, score another victory. If His Fraudulency Joe Biden succeeds in gaining the presidency by massive voter fraud, it will hardly matter anyway, but America can only have a future as a free society if its people recover a deep appreciation for its heroes and a pride in its achievements. In fact, that’s why the Left embarked upon its statue-destroying frenzy, tearing down statues not just of Confederates but of Lincoln, Grant, and even Frederick Douglass. They want to make you ashamed of American history so that you won’t see in America anything worth defending as the country continues to be assaulted from within and from outside, with useful idiots such as Greg Anderson helping on the destroyers.

Ahistorical myopia and ignorance of history as displayed by Anderson is a significant cause of the current outpouring of hatred for America. The war on Jefferson and Mason, both slaveowners, is just one small part of the Left’s relentless defamation of our country as a bastion of racial hatred and injustice. Leftist rioters and destroyers are enraged at Americans who are memorialized despite being slaveowners. They’re oblivious to the fact that slavery was not universally considered a moral evil at the time these men lived, and that this is relevant because there are very likely to be people in future ages who look at our times and scratch their heads and ask each other How could they not have known that was wrong?

Even more importantly, the Leftists are heedless of the fact that the movement to abolish slavery arose in Britain and America because of Christian principles that they despise, while slavery persisted long into the twentieth century in several Muslim countries because of Islamic principles that Leftists would rather be caught at a Trump rally than criticize. Saudi Arabia, a country based strictly upon Islamic law, only abolished slavery in 1962, and North African states including Mauritania and Niger only did so in the early twenty-first century, because of Islamic laws that the Leftist rioters would no doubt say it was “Islamophobic” to denounce.

In contrast, it was Greg Anderson’s bête noire Thomas Jefferson who wrote the words “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It was those words that led many Americans, long before the Civil War, to believe that slavery was not only evil in itself, but incompatible with the principles of the American republic. Slavery was ultimately eradicated in the United States by people who believed that Thomas Jefferson had enunciated the principles that made it necessary to wipe it out.

It will be interesting to see who Thomas Jefferson Elementary and George Mason High are named for now. Malcolm X? Angela Davis? Che Guevara? Mao Zedong? Whoever it will be, it is almost certain that the honored figures will be just as imperfect, and maybe even worse violators of human rights than Jefferson or Mason. But the Left is indifferent to the imperfections of its own heroes; its objective is not to find perfect or sinless people to venerate, but to turn Americans against their own heritage. In Falls Church, Virginia, it’s working.

 
 

Rush Limbaugh Says US “Trending Toward Secession.” Here’s Why He’s Probably Right.

Rush Limbaugh Says United States “Trending Toward Secession.” He’s Probably Right

Rush Limbaugh | I'm Not Advocating Secession

BY LUIS MIGUEL

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/rush-limbaugh-says-united-states-trending-toward-secession-hes-probably-right/;

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

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh this week suggested that the United States is heading down a path similar to what resulted in the Civil War, stating that the nation is “trending toward secession.”

Asked by a caller on Wednesday whether conservatism will ever again become the dominant political philosophy in America, Limbaugh responded: “I thought you were asking me something else when you said, ‘Can we win?’ I thought you meant, ‘Can we win the culture, can we dominate the culture.’ I actually think — and I’ve referenced this, I’ve alluded to this a couple of times because I’ve seen others allude to this — I actually think that we’re trending toward secession.”

“It can’t go on this way,” he continued. “There cannot be a peaceful coexistence of two completely different theories of life, theories of government, theories of how we manage our affairs. We can’t be in this dire a conflict without something giving somewhere along the way.”

The legendary radio personality remarked that “there is a sizable and growing sentiment for people who believe that this is where we’re headed whether we want to or not.… I myself haven’t made up my mind. I still haven’t given up the idea that we are the majority and that all we have to do is find a way to unite and win. 

“And our problem is the fact that there are just so many RINOs, so many Republicans in the Washington Establishment who will do anything to maintain their membership in the Establishment.”

Limbaugh appeared to attempt to soften the impact of his comments on Thursday, stating that he was not advocating for secession but merely referencing what others have written about. “I simply referenced what I have seen other people say about how we are incompatible, as currently divided, and that secession is something that people are speculating about,” the host added. “I am not advocating it, have not advocated, never have advocated it, and probably wouldn’t.”

Nevertheless, the conservative personality noted that even if he is not advocating for secession, it remains true that liberals and conservatives cannot peacefully coexist due to deep political and cultural differences.

That, of course, is true. Certainly, there are few people who would actually desire or angle for secession, but the reality is that such an eventuality is becoming increasingly likely in the face of the growing political divide, which is more than just a difference in taste or preference, but a situation in which about one half of the country believes that this is a good nation with a Constitution and founding principles that must be preserved, while the other half sees the nation and its history, culture, and Constitution as inherently evil institutions that must be radically transformed or abolished.

The result is that one half of the country wants to see a continuation of the Republic as conceived by the Founders, while the other half wants to throw it all out and replace it with socialist, globalist tyranny (even though many who vote for far-left policies are oblivious to the totalitarian implications of the feel-good ideas such as the Green New Deal and the Great Reset).

Because of this stark contrast, the country is now only ever one election away from socialist dictatorship. It used to be a cliche to say that “this is the most important election in the history of America.” Now, it really is the case.

Take this election, for example. If President Trump proves unable to stop the stealing of the election and Joe Biden assumes the presidency, he will enact a radical agenda that includes the virtual elimination of the Second Amendment, climate controls over the economy, COVID-19 tyranny, an explosion of the welfare state, social justice, and “hate” laws, and more.

And because Democrats, should they get complete control over all branches of government, want to pack the Supreme Court, abolish the Electoral College, grant statehood to Puerto Rico and D.C., eliminate supposed “voter suppression” measures that in reality just prevent vote fraud, and give citizenship (and thus voting rights) to millions of illegal aliens, they will make it nearly impossible for constitutionalists to be able to win high office or pass their agenda again.

If Democrats get into power and try to force all of this on the American people, will constitutionalists accept it, particularly in light of such strong evidence of voter fraud? Or will they instead decide that keeping their freedom is more important than staying in the Union?

Of course, the reverse is true. Should President Trump prevail in this election, it’s likely many blue states will decide they’d rather break off than endure conservative policies from a president they believe is illegitimate.

Perhaps the union can still be salvaged, but it’s looking less likely by the day.

 

Trump Administration Moves to Curb Facebook’s Domination~Facebook Could Be Forced to Divest Instagram and Whatsapp

BY RICK MORAN

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2020/12/10/trump-administration-moves-to-curb-facebooks-power-n1202546;

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

There was a time when AT&T was a virtual monopoly, stifling and destroying competition while giving Americans no alternatives for phone service.

“Ma Bell” became hated and despised by consumers who wanted something different. Then, in the 1970s, the Justice Department, along with the Federal Trade Commission, sued AT&T under the Sherman Antitrust Act for being a monopoly in supplying local phone service. That eventually led to a consent decree in 1982 that forced the breakup of the company into smaller, regional entities.

Now, the Justice Department, the FTC, and dozens of states have filed suit against Facebook alleging the tech giant uses monopoly tactics and “anti-competitive conduct.” Specifically, the suit wants Facebook to divest itself of two of its most popular platforms — Instagram and WhatsApp — and pay an unspecified amount of damages.

Politico:

The suits, filed seven weeks after the Justice Department and a smaller coalition of states sued Google on antitrust grounds, represent the latest escalation of a power struggle between governments around the world and the United States’ wealthiest tech companies. They also serve notice that regulators are no longer satisfied with the billions of dollars in fines that authorities in the U.S. and Europe have levied in recent years in unsuccessful attempts to curb Silicon Valley’s dominance.

States attorneys general want to get their hands on some of those Facebook billions that will be assessed for damages in any settlement.

“No company should have this much unchecked power,” New York Attorney General Tish James said in a news conference announcing Wednesday’s multistate suit, adding that Facebook engaged in a “buy or bury strategy” against potential competitors.

Facebook says that the sale of Instagram and Whatsapp were approved years ago and now the government wants a “do-over.”

CNBC:

“The most important fact in this case, which the Commission does not mention in its 53-page complaint, is that it cleared these acquisitions years ago,” Facebook’s chief counsel Jennifer Newstead said in a statement. “The government now wants a do-over, sending a chilling warning to American business that no sale is ever final.”

Facebook’s business plan to buy up smaller competitors and either destroy them or absorb them was exactly what AT&T was accused of doing in the 1970s.

“As a result, Facebook’s acquisition strategy harmed competitors and advertisers that rely on the platform to reach massive audiences with few alternatives to choose from, the lawsuits allege.”

“Since toppling early rival Myspace and achieving monopoly power, Facebook has turned to playing defense through anticompetitive means,” the FTC states in its lawsuit. “After identifying two significant competitive threats to its dominant position — Instagram and WhatsApp — Facebook moved to squelch those threats by buying the companies, reflecting CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s view, expressed in a 2008 email, that ‘it is better to buy than compete.’”

The FTC lawsuit also notes that Facebook tried and failed to purchase rivals Twitter and Snapchat.

The arrogance of Facebook in seeking to impose political conformity on its users by censoring “objectionable” content won’t end regardless of the results from this lawsuit. The platform “Facebook” will continue to be a dominant social media presence for the foreseeable future. However, rivals may emerge who have a different idea of what’s “objectionable” and what isn’t. That would be a welcome development and a win for free speech.

 

Trump Administration Counters Politically-Motivated Banking Discrimination

BY JIM GRANT

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/12/trump-administration-counters-politically-motivated-banking-discrimination/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
In late November, the Trump administration took its firmest action yet to counteract ongoing banking discrimination against firearms-related companies.. IMG NRA-ILA

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- In late November, the Trump administration took its firmest action yet to counteract ongoing banking discrimination against businesses that serve America’s gun owners. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, a significant banking regulator, issued a proposed rule to prohibit politically-motivated service denials and to ensure large, nationwide banks would have to make offered products available to all law-abiding customers without ideological bias.

Of all the Obama/Biden administration’s attacks on the Second Amendment, Operation Choke Point (OCP) was one of the most insidious. Frequent readers of this page will recall how federal banking regulators, under the guise of shielding banks and the public from fraud, pressured financial service providers against doing business with lawful but politically-disfavored customers. These included sellers of firearms and ammunition, which were specifically singled out as “high risk” by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in regulatory guidance provided to banks in 2011.

What made these firearm-related businesses high risk? In the circular reasoning of OCP, it wasn’t their creditworthiness or financial performance but the “reputation risk” they supposedly posed to banks that, so the story went, could anger third parties by serving the “high risk” clients. And the regulators made sure the banks understood that no one might be angrier than the regulators themselves: failing to heed their “risk-based” guidance could subject the banks to costly and embarrassing investigations. The simple solution was for the banks to avoid conducting business with “high risk” customers entirely.

The Obama/Biden administration retreated from OCP when Congressional investigators and other watchdogs revealed its obvious wrongdoing. The FDIC revised its infamous 2011 regulatory guidance in 2014, and issued further clarification in 2015, refocusing on case-by-case risk management, rather than debanking of entire industries. Nevertheless, the regulators portrayed the furor over OCP as a big misunderstanding, with banks supposedly overreacting to legitimate attempts to hinder scammers.

Subsequent events, however, confirmed that political activists were indeed deliberately trying to weaponize the financial services industry against the targets of their activism.

On February 18, 2018, the New York Times published an infamous essay by Andrew Ross Sorkin that called upon the financial services industry to adopt restrictions on relationships with gun companies to demonstrate its commitment to “moral responsibility.” The plan was for banks and payment processors to defund activities – like the making and sales of semiautomatic rifles – that anti-gun activists had unsuccessfully lobbied the political branches to ban.

Sorkin’s proposal, like OCP, recognized that financial services are the lifeblood of any successful business. But the pressure this time was to come from the social justice mob, not faceless government bureaucrats. The new OCC rulemaking actually cites Sorkin’s article as an example of how politics have infected the provision of financial services.

Even some in the government itself have retroactively embraced the tactics of OCP. After anti-gun Democrats took over control of the House Financial Services Committee following the 2018 midterms, the committee hauled a Wells Fargo Bank executive to a hearing to berate him for, among other things,  the bank’s transactions with gun companies.

Other banks, Rep. Carolyn D. Maloney (D-NY) lectured, had forced their firearm-related customers to adopt “best practices” that limited the scope of their lawful activities. These practices just happened to mirror unsuccessful legislative proposals pushed by anti-gun Democrats, that included such constitutionally dubious measures as refusing to sell otherwise-legal long guns to otherwise-eligible adults of military age. To his credit, the executive stood his ground, asserting, “We just don’t believe that it is a good idea to encourage banks to enforce legislation that doesn’t exist.”

The tenor of the hearing, however, made it unmistakably clear that certain committee members were unabashedly trying to pressure the bank to curb its business with certain customers, not because those customers were behaving illegally, but because the committee members found them objectionable.

All the while, firearm-related businesses were finding their options for financial services shrinking.

For its part, the Trump administration explicitly repudiated OCP, with the U.S. Department of Justice (which had participated in OCP under the Obama/Biden administration) providing written assurance to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee that the program had been terminated and would not be revived. Characterizing OCP as a “misguided initiative conducted during the previous administration,” the DOJ’s Aug. 16, 2017, letter stated:

“the Department will not discourage the provision of financial services to lawful industries, including businesses engaged in … firearms-related activities.”

Still, whether from lingering doubts left by OCP or in the vain hope of appeasing the social justice grievance lobby, some of America’s biggest banks have continued to shun lawful, creditworthy, and financially sound businesses within the firearm and ammunition sectors.

The proposed OCC rule aims to end politically-motivated manipulation of the financial service industry and to require large banks to provide fair access to all the products they offer to law-abiding customers who are able to satisfy predetermined “quantitative, impartial risk-based standards.” It reiterates that the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act requires “fair treatment of customers by . . . the institutions” subject to its jurisdiction. The rule would therefore establish enforceable standards of fairness for America’s largest banks. Those standards would prevent activists and banks from conspiring to deprive otherwise eligible customers of financial services for purely political reasons.

The rule, in other words, would refocus banks on doing their jobs of helping to promote lawful economic activity and managing financial risk while leaving policy decisions about what sorts of businesses are permissible in the first place to the political branches and the U.S. Constitution.

While some have questioned whether it is an appropriate role for government to tell private banks who they must provide financial services to, the major banks affected by the proposed rule have themselves been the beneficiary of support by American taxpayers. As Senator Kennedy (R-La.) pointed out last year, “[b]anks should not be able to discriminate against lawful customers on the basis of social policy. The banks should keep in mind that these lawful customers are the same hard-working taxpayers who bailed them out during the recession.”

Beyond bailouts during the recession, major banks regularly benefit from taxpayer dollars. We noted just this year that

 “[m]any of the same institutions that discriminate against lawful firearm activity are now the clearinghouses for the COVID-19 SBA loan programs, reportedly picking up billions of taxpayer dollars for processing fees along the way.”

If major banks get to benefit at the expense of the American taxpayer, especially at times when many Americans are struggling to make ends meet, then, at a minimum, they can be required to respect those same Americans’ constitutional rights.

The OCC is accepting comments on the rulemaking through the government’s online regulatory portals, (among other options) until Jan. 4, 2021. The NRA encourages all firearm-related businesses that have been harmed by political discrimination in the provision of financial services to provide their respectful and constructive feedback on the proposal.

We also thank the Trump Administration and Acting Comptroller of the Currency Brian P. Brooks for their leadership in seeking to restore fairness and sanity to the nationwide market for financial products. Ideological discrimination in the services businesses need to survive is a shameful, pernicious, and thoroughly un-American trend. The proposed OCC rule is a welcomed step toward eliminating it.


About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

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

 

REP. ERIC Swalwell’s Chinese Spy Connection Underscores Democrats’ Fatally Poor Judgment

Swalwell's father also liked a headshot style image Fang posted to her Facebook on March 12 of this year despite Rep. Swalwell asserting contact had been severed

Swalwell is pictured with Fang at one of their numerous social engagements

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stacey-lennox/2020/12/09/amid-mounting-criticism-eric-swalwell-implicates-democrat-leadership-blames-trump-for-the-chinese-spy-who-infiltrated-him-n1199716

BY SELWYN DUKE

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/swalwells-chinese-spy-connection-underscores-democrats-fatally-poor-judgment/;

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

So you’re on the House Intelligence Committee, and you take into your inner circle a national from our main geopolitical adversary — which just happens to be a nation dictating that all its citizens must engage in spying when asked. What could possibly go wrong?

What could possibly go wrong is what did: Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) ended up with a Chinese spy in his midst, a comely young woman named Fang Fang (a.k.a. “Christine Fang”)

What’s more, the married politician is accused of having had a sexual affair with Fangs. This would make it a classic “honey pot” scenario, which is when an operative initiates a relationship with a target in order to gain influence over him (and a married Intel. Committee member is ripe for blackmail).

Moreover, Fangs sank her teeth into other politicians as well, as she also “allegedly slept with at least two Midwestern mayors while cozying up to a slew of pols across the country in a bid to infiltrate the US political system,” reports the New York Post.

In fairness, it’s not believed Fangs obtained classified information, and Swalwell did break ties with her in 2015 after being warned of her activities in a “defensive briefing.” Yet what does making ties with her in the first place say about his, and the other politicians’, judgment?

More on that momentarily. But first we have some story details about the “Chinese Mata Hari,” as the Post dubs Fangs.

The fetching Beijing spy “entered the US through California as a college student in 2011 — and spent the next four years wooing everyone from local politicos to US congressmen, said the Web site Axios, citing current and former US intelligence officials,” the paper related. 

Aside from Swalwell, Fangs “also once helped raise funds for Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), sources said,” the Post further informs. The paper continues:

“She was on a mission,’’ a US counter-intelligence official said of Fang — and it included plenty of seduction before the feds got wind of her antics and she vanished in 2015.

The idea was for Fang to maneuver herself into key government circles — and sometimes politicians’ beds — to gain personal information about them while ingratiating herself with unwitting potential up-and-coming heavy-hitters, intelligence sources told Axios.

US officials know of at least two mayors who had romantic relationships with Fang, likely now in her late 30s or early 40s, for about three years, the site said.

The accused spy had sex with an Ohio mayor in a car, an incident caught on FBI electronic surveillance, an intelligence official said.

The mayor asked Fang at one point why she was into him, and she allegedly replied that she needed to improve her English.

(And, not suspicious at all, that’s always a great reason to jump into bed with somebody!)

As for the congressman, why did Swalwell fall well for Fangs? Aside from the allure of being a comely coed, Axios tells us that the spy “took part in fundraising activity for Swalwell’s 2014 re-election campaign, according to a Bay Area political operative and a current U.S. intelligence official.”

“Swalwell’s office was directly aware of these activities on its behalf, the political operative said,” the site continued.

In addition, Fangs “helped Swalwell secure the support of his district’s Asian-American community,” according to Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

To be clear, Shanghai Swalwell isn’t accused of illegality, but he may be guilty of two other “itys”: immorality and stupidity. And for certain, as Carlson points out (video below), he doesn’t belong on the Intel. Committee.

In fact, Swalwell was a prime target for Chinese espionage, stated ex-federal prosecutor Brett Tolman, a former counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Swalwell had to have known this, too, informs Tolman.

What’s more, there were enough red flags with Fangs to drive a bull to Xanax. Consider:

  • She’d just arrived from China, an aggressively imperialistic nation and our main geopolitical adversary.
  • Beijing is infamous for infiltrating American power structures.
  • Many Chinese are intensely nationalistic; politically correct “internationalism” isn’t in their vocabulary.
  • Shortly after arriving, Fangs tried to insert herself into the American political system.
  • She’s an attractive young woman, precisely the kind of honey-pot operative an intelligence agency would use.

So what explains Swalwell’s Shanghai surprise? Stupidity first comes to mind, but the second possibility is even more troubling.

Leftists’ identity politics/cultural affirmative action mentality corrupts their judgment. That is to say, instead of seeing red flags with Fangs, she’d get hiring points because she’s non-white. She’d get more points because she was a foreigner and, oh my, even (likely) had an accent! What a chance to value-signal and show how enlightened you are!

But there’s a reason our Constitution contains a natural-born clause relating to the presidency. Oh, this doesn’t mean an immigrant can’t become a good citizen, and there certainly have been native-born American traitors. Nonetheless, it’s logical to suspect that a recently arrived foreigner’s heart will lie with his native country — and a Chinese national should set off alarm bells.

The third possibility is that, as with too many leftists, Swalwell just doesn’t care about our country at all. And power-lust does appear his only principle, as his frequent lying about President Trump and mythical “Russian collusion” evidenced (meanwhile, he was the one subject to foreign influence).

Of course, two or all of the above possibilities likely explain Swalwell’s behavior. He may not be a Manchurian congressman, but he’s surely a bad one.

And the bottom line about Fangs’ role with Swalwell is, was that really a job Americans won’t do? She didn’t belong there, period — and the congressman doesn’t belong on the Intelligence Committee.

Then again, maybe Swalwell just wanted to help Fangs improve her English. What are we, all cynics now?

 

President Trump is Defending the People, Democrats are Attacking Them

Republicans want to count every legal vote, while Democrats want to count every illegal opinion.

BY DANIEL GREENFIELD

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/12/president-trump-defending-people-democrats-are-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.

Democrats claimed that the 2016 election was stolen, Republicans say that the 2020 election is being stolen. But there is a fundamental difference in how they say the theft happened.

The Democrats and their media have spent four years claiming that the 2016 election was tampered with through “disinformation”. Disinformation has become the latest media buzzword whose meaning is both ambiguous and menacing. Every opposing point of view, on any issue, is now labeled “disinformation” and falsely described as being a “threat to democracy”.

Strip away the Orwellian buzzwords and what they are really saying is that the election was stolen because the voters had access to wrongthink and accordingly voted the wrong way.

Ignore the actual merits of the proposition and compare it to the Republican argument.

Republicans are saying that the 2020 election was stolen through systematic election fraud. They’re not saying that the election was stolen because people had the wrong views.

The proposed Republican solution to the election fraud is to verify the legitimacy of the vote while the Democrat solution to their claim of election theft was and is massive censorship.

Republicans want to empower voters while Democrats want to disempower them.

Democrats reversed the basic meanings of words and ideas. Hillary Clinton accused Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg of being “authoritarian” and “Trumpian” for saying, “our users can make up their own minds” when refusing to remove an unflattering Pelosi video.

That’s the opposite of authoritarian.

Legally, there are no such things as illegitimate ideas, but there are illegitimate votes.

Republicans are addressing an election fraud by sorting legitimate votes from illegitimate ones, while Democrats want to fight what they say is election theft by sorting legitimate from illegitimate ideas. This censorship venture actually is authoritarian and unconstitutional.

Republicans want to count every legal vote, while Democrats want to count every illegal opinion.

When President Trump calls for counting all legal votes, he’s defending the rights of the voters, but when Hillary Clinton and Democrats attack speech, they’re attacking the Bill of Rights.

Distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate votes is fundamental to representative government. When ballot harvesters hand out gift cards, as they allegedly did in Nevada, when massive amounts of ballots appear in the dead of night and are never properly verified, when drop boxes and voting machines vulnerable to fraud are used, then the power of the voters to choose their representatives is undermined, not by other voters, but by Democrats.

That’s not an election: it’s an authoritarian system that elects its own leaders.

Verifying the integrity of the vote is a fundamental function of government because its legitimacy rests on free and honest elections. When one party or another challenges the integrity of an election, it’s not attacking the people, but holding the system that serves them accountable.

Democrats and their media have responded to President Trump’s claims of election fraud by describing it as “disinformation” and an “attack on democracy”. Media outlets have cut off speeches and statements by President Trump and his associates about the election fraud, and tech monopolies have censored claims by President Trump and other conservatives.

This is not a “defense of democracy”. It’s the response of an authoritarian system to political dissent. A free system doesn’t fear verifying the integrity of an election because it has nothing to hide. It doesn’t seek to disbar lawyers who sue over election results, and it doesn’t censor elected officials and private citizens who raise questions about it, let alone call for their arrests.

Verifying ideas is an illegitimate and unconstitutional function of government. It is so entirely unconstitutional that the First Amendment was designed as a rebuttal to that entire notion.

"It's imperative that leaders from the private sector and the public sector step up to protect our democracy and innocent lives," Hillary Clinton ranted, urging a fight against “disinformation”.

Our republic, and for that matter no democracy, is threatened by disinformation. It can be threatened by bad and evil ideas, but free societies don’t police ideas, they police crimes. The Democrats have endorsed police defunding and no longer want to police crimes, just ideas.

George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth in 1984 was based on the real Ministry of Information whose goal was to dispense propaganda and enforce censorship. The modern UK set up the National Security Communications Unit to combat disinformation in “an era of fake news and competing narratives”. Treating “competing narratives” as a national security threat is how you get 1984.

Or the Democrat claims that the 2016 election was stolen because they lost the argument.

Democrats or Republicans have every right to challenge the integrity of an election because elections are a legitimate function of government. They have no right to regulate ideas, as Senator Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton have urged, because ideas are not a legitimate function of government. Governments serve the people through elections, not ideas.

There’s no room for a Ministry of Information or a Ministry of Truth in America.

In the fight for the last two presidential elections, as in all things, Republicans and Democrats have maintained their respective polar philosophical differences over the role of government. Democrats responded to losing in 2016 by trying to police the people, while Republicans are fighting in 2020 to police the government. Republicans believe that elections are undermined by the government, while Democrats believe that elections are undermined by the people.

At the heart of the question is the same debate over the relationship between the people and the government. The Democrats run for office to reaffirm the central role of the government and attribute their losses to an unruly public that needs to learn its place, while Republicans run for office to affirm the central role of the people in limiting the power of the government.

And they blame their losses on the government, whether it’s the ‘deep state’ or corrupt officials.

President Trump is right to question the role of the government in this election. And, more importantly, whether he’s right or wrong, he is within his rights to do so. As are we all. But Hillary Clinton and Democrats were never within their rights to question the role of ideas in elections.

When President Trump challenges the integrity of an election, he’s fighting for the rights of the voters to have their votes legitimately counted. But when Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren call for a crackdown on ideas, they are proposing to have the government repress the people.

Those are the ultimate stakes in this election fight and in our political system.

People elect governments. Governments do not elect people. The public has the right to question, challenge, and denounce the government. But the government has no right to tell the people what to think. It is a dangerous thing for the government and its allies to tell the people that they have no right to question an election or that they have no right to their opinions.

But in 2016 and 2020, that was and is the Democrat position. In 2016, when the Democrats lost, they said that the people had no right to have the wrong sort of opinions. In 2020, they insist that the people have no right to question an election. And that is why it must be questioned.

Free countries remain free when people challenge the government. When they don’t, elections and opinions stop mattering. President Trump’s ongoing campaign for the integrity of the election upholds our nation’s highest principles of freedom and helps keep us all free.

 

Biden Chooses Anti-Gun, PRO-ABORTION CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL Becerra to Head Health & Human Services

BY DAVE WORKMAN

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/12/biden-chooses-anti-gun-becerra-to-head-health-human-services/;

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

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Democrat Joe Biden sent another strong signal about the direction on guns his administration will take by announcing his pick to head the Department of Health and Human Services is Xavier Becerra, the anti-gun California attorney general who replaced another gun prohibitionist, Kamala Harris, when she was elected to the U.S. Senate.

Becerra is the defendant in several ongoing gun rights lawsuits filed by the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and others. He’s been sued at least five times by SAF.

If he is confirmed as HHS Secretary next year, he will be in a position to put the full force of the federal government behind the notion that guns are a health risk.

Various anti-Second Amendment groups have been crusading for years to declare “gun violence” a public health crisis. None of these groups ever seem to create a ripple in the news when there is a fatal stabbing or someone is bludgeoned to death. Becerra would likely get plenty of support from such organizations.

But he may have trouble being confirmed depending upon the outcome of the double Senate election in Georgia on January 5th. If Republican incumbents Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue are re-elected, it gives the GOP a thin majority. Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Alabama already said he will vote against confirming Becerra.

Fox News is reporting “Republicans slammed President-elect Joe Biden after he announced his choice of California Attorney General Xavier Becerra for secretary of Health and Human Services on Monday, and they criticized Becerra's record on abortion and other issues.”

Conservative groups such as the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Susan B. Anthony List has labeled Becerra an “extremist,” Fox added. Religious leaders are also slamming the choice, again on the abortion issue.

In September, Becerra’s office made a big splash with the announcement that he was leading a “coalition” including the anti-gun Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence “in filing a lawsuit against the Trump Administration demanding the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) correct its interpretation of what qualifies as a firearm.”

The lawsuit is aimed at defining so-called “80 percent” frames as firearms.

It’s no small wonder why Giffords Executive Director Peter Ambler issued a ringing endorsement of Becerra when news broke Monday about Biden’s pick.

“After four years of Donald Trump, Americans desperately need strong leadership from the top to confront public health crises like the coronavirus pandemic and gun violence,” Ambler said in a prepared statement. “Xavier Becerra is a superb choice to take charge of Health & Human Services, which will have one of the most critical missions in the Biden-Harris Administration. Becerra has an impressive record of taking action to protect and improve public health, he’s been a partner in the fight against gun violence, never backing down from special interests like the gun lobby in his mission to save lives. We look forward to working with him and the rest of the cabinet to address gun violence.”

No doubt most of the resistance to Becerra will relate to the abortion issue, but Becerra would remain no friend to American gun owners as head of HHS.

Last year, when a killer opened fire at the annual Garlic Festival in Gilroy with a semi-auto rifle he brought from neighboring Nevada, Becerra lamented “We cannot enforce California laws in Nevada.”

At the time, KGO reported that despite California’s restrictive gun control laws prohibiting the sale or import of so-called “assault rifles” into the state, “the suspected gunman brought one into the state.”

Gun rights activists shook their heads because the media, and Becerra, missed the point entirely. Determined killers will ignore gun control laws and find ways to commit their heinous acts. Transporting the gun into California simply underscored the problem with such laws: They don’t really prevent crimes.

While he was in the state assembly representing California’s Legislative District 31, Democrat Becerra voted against legislation prohibiting junk lawsuits against gun manufacturers for crimes committed by third parties misusing their firearms. He voted against reducing the waiting period for firearms purchases from three days to one day. He was rated “F” by the National Rifle Association.

Biden is in the midst of picking people to fill his cabinet positions as the possibility of any reversal of the election grows increasingly remote. Over the weekend, President Trump traveled to Georgia in an effort to get out the vote for Loeffler and Perdue, while insisting he won the state and contending he won elsewhere.


About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

Dave Workman

_______________________________________________________________________________

Biden Taps Radical Planned Parenthood Lackey Xavier Becerra to Head HHS

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/12/07/biden-taps-planned-parenthood-lackey-xavier-becerra-to-head-hhs-n1195377

EXCERPTS:

"Joe Biden will nominate California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) as secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the department notorious for railroading religious freedom via the Obamacare contraception mandate. Becerra has attacked religious freedom and free speech with zeal at the beck and call of radical-Left activists in Planned Parenthood and other groups."

"Becerra has abused his power as attorney general in pursuit of silencing pro-life activists and organizations."

Becerra also vigorously defended a California law that mandated pregnancy resource centers (PRCs), most of which are pro-life, must advertise abortion on placards.

____________________________________________________________________

Biden’s Gun Control Signal in Becerra Nomination

BY JIM GRANT & LARRY KEANE

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/12/nssf-bidens-gun-control-signal-in-becerra-nomination/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Biden's nomination of CA AG Becerra is a bad omen for American's gun rights. 

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- President-elect Joe Biden is taking an early turn to the far left with his nomination of California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to take over the Department of Health and Human Services.

That nomination would put a firebrand gun control collaborator at the helm of the nation’s leading health organization delivering services and support of scientific advances in medicine, public health, and social services. This is a harbinger that the federal office that employs 80,000 and has a $1.3 trillion budget will be used to push an antigun ideology over science. Attorney General Becerra’s nomination means that the next four years will be an administration pushing firearm ownership as a public health crisis and using the cover of a national health emergency to trample on Constitutional rights.

Attorney General Becerra’s public career started in California, working as a deputy attorney general for California’s Department of Justice before he was elected to the State Assembly, then to the U.S. House of Representatives from 1993-2017. He left Congress when he was chosen by California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom to succeed U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris as California’s Attorney General.

California Gun Control Parade

When it comes to gun control, California’s jockeying to lead the parade with Attorney General Becerra as the drum major waving the giant stick. He’s embroiled in two lawsuits challenging California gun control laws that could have national impacts. The first is Duncan v Becerra, a case challenging California’s ban on standard capacity magazines, or what the state labels “large-capacity magazines” (LCMs). In 2000, the state banned the sale of new magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, but a 2016 voter initiative called Proposition 63 made possessing those magazines purchased before the ban illegal. U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez blistered the law in his ruling that it’s unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld Judge Benitez’s ruling earlier this year.

Another high-profile challenge to California’s onerous gun control laws is Miller v Becerra, a case that challenges the state’s nearly 20-year ban on modern sporting rifles, or what they knowingly mislabel “assault rifles.” That case, too, was brought before Judge Benitez, who ruled the law was unconstitutional. Attorney General Becerra also appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where it was denied a motion to dismiss the case.

That’s Not All

Attorney General Becerra’s fights to place stumbling blocks in the way of lawful firearm ownership don’t just involve modern sporting rifles and their magazines. He’s also defending a law that requires universal background checks for ammunition purchases. California passed a law requiring background checks for ammunition sales, which was challenged by U.S. Olympic Gold Medalist Kim Rhode. The case, Rhode v Becerra, challenges the burdensome regulation that was fraught with inaccuracies and outages. Judge Benitez thrashed that law and issued a preliminary injunction to stop the state from enforcing the law. Attorney General Becerra again appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and won a stay against the preliminary injunction while the case awaits hearing there.

Attorney General Becerra also led the defense of California’s slow-motion handgun ban. In Pena v Horan, a challenge to California’s Unsafe Handgun Act that bans handguns in common use for lawful purposes. That case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but denied review last summer, along with nine other firearm-related cases. He also defended the law in NSSF v State of California, filed in 2014 that went to the California Supreme Court, the state’s mandate to incorporate microstamping technology for firearms that doesn’t exist. In 2007, California gun control advocates knew they couldn’t outright ban handguns, so they put a condition on their approved sale. They would be required to incorporate technically-unfeasible microstamping technology, that would make identifying marks on two places of each cartridge casing fired from the firearm. The state’s Department of Justice created a list of “approved” handguns that’s only shrunk. They haven’t added a new semiautomatic handgun since 2013 when then-Attorney General Kamala Harris triggered the law. A new law passed in California last session only speeds that shrinking roster. The new law calls for three handguns to be removed for every new one added.

Wrong Prescription

The problem with Attorney General Becerra leading the nation’s health agency is that any issue he finds politically unfavorable can be labeled a public health crisis and be used to justify unprecedented restrictions on Constitutionally-protected individual liberties. Gun control advocates have been trying to do this for years as if criminal activity could be cured with a pill.  Thinking this wouldn’t happen would be foolish. The evidence abounds that this not only could happen, it has and is happening. The COVID pandemic saw governors order firearm retailers and ranges to close, reversing course only after threats of lawsuits, or their orders were tossed out by judges. Democratic Govs. Gavin Newsom and Andrew Cuomo trampled on religious liberties by attempting to block people from attending services at churches and synagogues. They didn’t stop until the courts told them, and even then, they’re grousing that they’re the authority.

They’re neglecting that they are accountable to the people. That’s us. Don’t expect Attorney General Becerra to be any different at the Department of Health and Human Services. He’ll make you swallow the gun control pill and it will come in one color.  Blue.


The National Shooting Sports Foundation

NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org

National Shooting Sports Foundation

 
 
1 81 82 83 84 85 100