DEMOCRATS ATTACK JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT FOR BEING CATHOLIC

CAUTION: CATHOLICS ARE NOT CHRISTIAN!

5 Things to Know About Amy Coney Barrett

BY TYLER O'NEIL

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/09/25/5-things-to-know-about-amy-coney-barrett-n966406;

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

President Donald Trump will nominate a Supreme Court justice to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Saturday. Amy Coney Barrett, a judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, is widely considered the frontrunner. When Trump was deliberating on whom he would nominate to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, the president said of Barrett, “I’m saving her for Ginsburg.”

Barrett has an impressive resume and an inspiring story. She has articulated a powerful defense of originalism, the method of interpreting the Constitution according to its original public meaning.

1. Barrett’s background

Amy Coney Barrett graduated from Notre Dame Law School first in her class. She has taught there for decades — and continues to teach there while serving as a judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. After graduation, she clerked at the Supreme Court for Justice Antonin Scalia. As Princeton professor Robert P. George noted, even fellow clerks who disagreed with Barrett admired her intellect. Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman described her as “a brilliant lawyer.”

As a Notre Dame graduate and professor, Barrett would break the Supreme Court law degree duopoly. All eight current justices hold degrees from one of two — and only two — law schools, Harvard and Yale.

Barrett and her husband have seven children, ranging in age from 5 to 16. They adopted two of them from Haiti. One of her sons also has “special needs.” As George wrote, “As someone who excelled as a legal scholar and reached the pinnacle of her profession as a Supreme Court Justice, Barrett would be an example to women hoping to combine a flourishing family life with a professional vocation.”

While Barrett has only served on the 7th Circuit for three years, that represents more experience than Barack Obama’s appointee, Justice Elena Kagan, who had never served as a judge prior to her nomination to the Supreme Court.

Is Amy Coney Barrett an Originalist?

2. Judicial philosophy

Barrett may have clerked for Scalia, but is she an originalist? Last year, she spoke about her judicial philosophy at the Washington, D.C., branch of my alma mater, Hillsdale College. She rebuked the notion of a “living Constitution,” arguing that the judge’s role is not to twist the text of the Constitution to fit his or her police prescriptions but rather to interpret the law faithfully.

“If the judge is willing not to apply the law but to decide cases in a line, in accordance with personal preference rather than the law, then she’s not actually functioning as a judge at all. She’s functioning as a policymaker,” Barrett explained.

“And I would have had no interest in the job if the job was about policymaking and about making policy decisions,” the judge said. “My interest is in contributing to our tradition of judges upholding the rule of law.”

Barrett also addressed the increasing political polarization centered on the Supreme Court.

“There’s a lot of talk these days about the courts being mere political institutions. But if we reduce the courts to mere politics, then why do we need them? We already have politicians. Courts are not arenas for politics. Courts are places where judges discharge the duty to uphold the rule of law,” she said.

Yet the judge insisted that the Supreme Court is not partisan, not divided along the lines of Republicans and Democrats.

“So I don’t think that five-four decisions or splits on courts are explicable by partisan commitments or by outcomes in particular cases. I think they’re explicable by starting points, by first-order commitments. So there are differences in ways that judges approach the enterprise of interpreting the Constitution,” Barrett explained.

“All judges think that the original meaning of the Constitution—its history, the way that it was understood by those who ratified it, who drafted it, the founding generation—all judges take that as a data point, as relevant,” she said. “Those who are committed to originalism treat it as determinative when the original meaning is discernible. Others just treat it as a data point, but one that would not necessarily control. So that will yield different outcomes in different cases.”

“Some judges approach the Constitution saying, ‘There are some constitutional commitments that we’re not going to back down from because the Constitution enshrines them. But with respect to those that the Constitution does not speak, we’re going to leave it to democratic majorities to work out.’ Others see the Constitution as having a more amorphous and evolving content and speaking to evolving values and majority—evolving values in ways that then democratic majorities don’t have the freedom to make choices,” the judge explained.

Barrett went on to cite Scalia, who “used to say that a judge who likes every result that she reaches is not a very good judge. In fact, she’s a very bad judge. The law simply does not align with a judge’s political preference or personal preference in every case.”

That sure sounds originalist to me.

Blame the Left for Making the Supreme Court Too Political

3. Positions on abortion

Democrats are terrified that Trump’s replacement for Ginsburg would overturn Roe v. Wade(1973), the case in which the Supreme Court reinterpreted the Constitution, effectively amending the Constitution to include a right to abortion. Roe is bad law and should be overturned, but it is extremely important that the Court do so in a wise way. States should be able to make their own laws restricting abortion.

Barrett, a Roman Catholic, has expressed the Catholic doctrine that life begins at conception. However, she made it extremely clear that judges should rule based on the law, not their own personal religious or philosophical convictions.

Barrett has only served on the 7th Circuit for three years, but has a limited record on abortion cases.

In 2018, the court considered a challenge to an Indiana law requiring the burning or cremation of fetal remains after an abortion. The court denied a rehearing of the case and Barrett joined a dissent written by Judge Frank Easterbrook. Easterbrook addressed a separate provision of the law that had been struck down but was not at issue in the rehearing. The law banned abortions based on the race, sex, or disability of the unborn baby. Easterbrook said he doubted that the Constitution bars states from enacting laws to prevent prospective parents from “[u]sing abortion as a way to promote eugenic goals.”

Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed the 7th Circuit’s opinion on the fetal remains law, upholding the state’s interest in mandating the proper disposal of aborted baby bodies. The justices did not weigh in on the non-discrimination policy, however.

Last year, Barrett joined a dissent when the 7th Circuit denied a rehearing in a case concerning another Indiana law. The court ruled that a law required young women to notify their parents before obtaining an abortion was unconstitutional. When the court refused to rehear the case, Barrett joined a dissent arguing that “[p]reventing a state statute from taking effect is a judicial act of extraordinary gravity in our federal structure.”

The Supreme Court later sent that case back to the lower courts in light of the ruling in June Medical Services v. Russo, which struck down a Louisiana law that requires abortionists to obtain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

Interestingly, Barrett’s abortion rulings have not always favored the pro-life side. Last year, she joined an opinion that upheld a Chicago ordinance barring pro-life sidewalk counselors from approaching women entering an abortion clinic. While Barrett likely sympathized with the sidewalk counselors, she upheld the law restraining them — putting the law ahead of her personal beliefs.

3 Reasons Mitch McConnell Is Not a Hypocrite for Considering Trump’s Potential RBG Replacement

4. Other key cases

Barrett’s rulings in two other cases stand out.

In Kanter v. Barr (2019), she dissented when the 7th Circuit upheld the denial of gun rights from a convicted felon. The majority upheld the law denying Second Amendment rights to felons. Barrett dissented.

The felon “had sold shoe inserts that didn’t actually comply with the right standards and then been refunded, gotten money for them anyway. It was fraud, and he had served his sentence,” Barrett told Hillsdale last year.

“Under federal law, those who’ve been convicted of a felony, any felony, lose their gun rights, so they can’t possess a gun thereafter,” Barrett explained. “So Kanter argued that he wasn’t a threat. This was his only conviction. It wasn’t a violent crime.”

She claimed it was unconstitutional to deny the man his Second Amendment rights. She did “a pretty deep dive into the history of the Second Amendment,” following the Supreme Court precedent in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

“That sounds kind of radical, to say felons can have firearms,” Barrett admitted. “But I think it’s because what the longstanding prohibitions were, and in fact, had been, even under federal law until more recently, was that violent felons couldn’t have firearms. … What the history showed me was that there’s been a longstanding practice of saying that those who pose a threat of violence to the community cannot have firearms.”

Barrett also stood up for due process rights in a college Title IX sexual assault case. In Doe v. Purdue University (2019), she wrote for a three-judge panel that reinstituted an anonymous male student’s lawsuit against Purdue University. The student claimed that the university violated his due process rights and that its determination of his guilt had led to his expulsion from the Navy ROTC program, the loss of his scholarship, and the end of his plans to join the Navy.

The court ruled that he should be allowed to pursue his claim against Purdue. “Purdue’s process fell short of what even a high school must provide to a student facing a days-long suspension,” Barrett wrote.

Liberals Are Already Gearing Up to Attack the Notorious ACB… for This Common Christian Phrase

5. “The dogma lives loudly”

During Barrett’s confirmation hearing for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) notoriously imposed something of a religious test. “The dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein said, suggesting that Barrett’s religious convictions disqualified her from service on the federal bench.

After Ginsburg’s death, some on the Left have rushed to demonize Barrett. Washington Post book critic Ray Charles suggested that there was something nefarious to Barrett’s statement that she intends to pursue “the kingdom of God.” On the contrary, the “kingdom of God” is a common Christian phrase that has more to do with loving your neighbor as yourself than bringing about some kind of theocracy.

Similarly, Newsweek ran a story claiming that Barrett belonged to a secret cult-like organization that inspired Margaret Atwood’s book The Handmaid’s Tale. In truth, the pentecostal group to which Barrett belonged, People of Praise, had no connection with People of Hope, the group Atwood seized upon. Newsweek corrected the story but did not retract it.

If Trump nominates Barrett on Saturday, expect similarly baseless attacks on this nominee.

Editor’s Note: Want to support PJ Media so we can expose and fight the Left’s radical plans for the Supreme Court? They will stop at nothing, so your support for conservative journalism is more important than ever. Join PJ Media VIP and use the promo code SCOTUS to get 25% off your VIP membership.

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

No, Amy Coney Barrett Doesn’t Belong to a Catholic Group That Inspired ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’
Trump Will Name One of These 12 People to the Supreme Court Next Week
Don’t Want to Wear an LGBT Pride Emblem? You’re Fired.
House Democrats Shoot to Remake the Supreme Court


AS BLM MURDERS COPS IN STREETS DURING VIOLENT GATHERINGS, CHRISTIANS ARRESTED FOR SINGING HYMNS

SEE: https://reformationcharlotte.org/2020/09/24/as-blm-murders-cops-in-streets-during-violent-gatherings-christians-arrested-for-singing-hymns/;

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

One can only look at what this nation has become with complete and utter disdain. The judgment of God is upon this nation when violent anarchists, rioters, looters, and domestic terror groups are allowed to freely assemble in the streets with the foreknowledge that destruction will ensue while Christians, on the other hand, are arrested for singing hymns.

That’s exactly what happened in Moscow, Idaho. While the name resembles the name of the capital city in the Communist nation, Russia, its actions mirror them just as well. The city has now arrested several Christians for gathering in the streets to sing hymns amid the terror and chaos taking over or cities in America.

We hope that this nation will understand what is happening before its too late and hope that more people will come to realize that without faith in Christ, there is no hope.

In case you want to reach the city council members of Moscow, Idaho, their email addresses are listed below:

Email the Moscow, Idaho city council members:

  • blambert@ci.moscow.id.us
  • mlaflin@ci.moscow.id.us
  • abettge@ci.moscow.id.us
  • gtaruscio@ci.moscow.id.us
  • azabala@ci.moscow.id.us
  • bsullivan@ci.moscow.id.us
  • skelly@ci.moscow.id.us

Of the three arrested, one of them, Gabriel Rench, was a candidate for Latah County Commissioner and was arrested on charges of not social distancing and flouting the facemask order. The two others arrested were a husband and wife on charges of singing too closely together.

 

KAMALA HARRIS IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE (VICE) PRESIDENT

BY  

SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/print-magazine/item/36964-kamala-harris-is-not-qualified-to-be-vice-president;

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

Though Kamala Harris was born in the United States, because neither of her parents were American citizens, she is not qualified to be president under the Constitution.

With Joe Biden’s apparent substantial setbacks in his cognitive capacity and his advanced age, Kamala Harris is in a more-likely-than-usual position to assume the office of president. Yet Kamala Harris is constitutionally ineligible to be president of the United States because she is not a natural born citizen, as required by Article II (and, by reference, the 12th Amendment) of the U.S. Constitution.

While born in the United States — Oakland, California — at the time of her birth, Kamala Harris’ father was a citizen of Jamaica and her mother was a citizen of India. This makes Kamala Harris a native-born American — thus eligible to serve as a U.S. senator — but she is not a natural born citizen, the higher standard set for those occupying the office of president.

The Founders’ standard is important to follow because preventing constitutionally unqualified candidates from usurping power is of critical concern to every American and every man and woman whose life and liberty could be taken by the person with his — or her — finger on the button.

The Constitution does not define natural born citizenship, neither has the Supreme Court or Congress. The term “natural born citizen” comes from the English concept of “natural born subject,” which came from Calvin’s Case, a 1608 decision.

Natural born subjects were those who owed allegiance to the king at birth under the “law of nature.” The court concluded that under natural law, certain people owed duties to the king, and were entitled to his protection, even in the absence of a law passed by Parliament.

Let’s explore the possible sources and appropriate interpretations of the “natural born citizen” qualification.

At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, a person born subject to the British Crown could hold “double allegiance,” a concept similar to “dual citizenship” as understood today.

Our own Founding Fathers, nearly every one of whom was born in some outpost of the British Empire, feared the damage that could come from such divided loyalty. They instituted the “natural born citizen” qualification in order to avoid what Gouverneur Morris described during the Constitutional Convention as “the danger of admitting strangers into our public councils.”

As famed jurist of the early Republic St. George Tucker, a contemporary of Morris, explained:

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom.

The very source of the “natural born citizen” standard is known to us today. The Swiss jurist Emer de Vattel defined that term in his seminal book The Law of Nations, published in 1758 and which, according to Benjamin Franklin, “had been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress.” 

Book I, Chapter 19, Section 212 of The Law of Nations reads:

Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. [Emphasis added.]

De Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen” and the benefits derived from distinguishing between “natural born citizens” and “citizens” were well known to our Founding Fathers and, in fact, the very name of that high standard was copied verbatim by them into Article II of the U.S. Constitution wherein the qualifications for president of the United States are set out.

To see that such a qualification was universally agreed to by the delegates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, one need only look to the record of that convention and note that the requirement that the president be a “natural born citizen” was mentioned only twice and was agreed to “nem. con.,” a contraction of a Latin legal phrase meaning “without opposition.”

As indicated in early records of the naturalization process, men applying for American citizenship were required to make two renunciations of all fealty to foreign powers before swearing allegiance to the Republic of the United States.

As a matter of fact, the possibility of any legal acceptance of divided allegiance was explicitly rejected in a report issued by the House of Representatives in 1874: “The United States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.”

The practical effect of that proclamation is that in order to be a “natural born citizen” of the United States, one would have to be free from a competing claim for allegiance from another nation.

That such a schizophrenic situation was not only anticipated but accepted by His Majesty’s government during the time of the American founding can be inferred from the impressment of American sailors into the service of the Crown. During the War for Independence, British ships would block American ships from sailing, and then the seamen on the British vessels would board the American ships and force the Americans to serve the side of the Empire.

The insistence on the part of the British that anyone born within the realm was a British subject regardless of any voluntary severance thereof and one’s subsequent vow of allegiance to another was a significant factor in the hostilities known as the War of 1812. 

Finally, in this regard, the British required no process of naturalization as such. Simply being born within the dominions of the monarchy of Great Britain was sufficient to endow one with the rights and privileges granted to any British subject. Nothing such a person did later in life (including becoming a citizen of another country) would ever alter his status as a subject.

Obviously, in the United States that concept is not the law now, nor was it the law at the time of the founding. Quite the opposite, in fact.

One of the scholars frequently cited in articles on the subject of the definition of “natural born citizen” is Temple University law professor Peter Spiro.

Spiro often cites the 14th Amendment to the Constitution as further evidence that, although born outside the United States to a foreign father, recent presidential candidates — including Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio — fit the 14th Amendment’s definition of a natural born citizen. 

The relevant clause of the 14th Amendment reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside.”

However, the principal architect of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was Michigan Senator Jacob Merritt Howard, a Republican from Detroit. 

Senator Howard crafted much of the language that was eventually ratified as part of the 14th Amendment.

During the debates that embroiled the Senate in the years following the Civil War, Senator Howard insisted that the qualifying phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” be inserted into Section 1 of the 14th Amendment being considered by his colleagues. In the speech with which he proposed the alteration, Howard declared:

This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

How could a person “born in the United States” be simultaneously a citizen and a “foreigner” or “alien” if the mere fact of nativity settled the question of citizenship?

Another legislator commenting at the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Representative John Bingham, provided the following clarification of the meaning behind the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause: “Every human being born within the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Emphasis added.)

While similar questions have been raised regarding the Article II eligibility of Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) who ran for president in 2000 and in 2008, and Mitt Romney, who ran in 2008 and 2012, the case of those two men is distinct from that of Kamala Harris.

Both McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone to an American father serving overseas in the military, and Romney, whose father was born in Mexico to American parents, pass constitutional muster.

However, in the case of Senator Kamala Harris, the principles of constitutional law and interpretation set forth above call into question her eligibility for president. 

There is no reasonable or legal doubt that at the time of her birth (regardless of the location), Harris’ father was not an American citizen — and thus, should she assume the office of the president, the president would be the child of a person with legal allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. She would not conform to the accepted legal, constitutional, and historical definition of “natural born citizen,” and thus Kamala Harris could not serve as vice president.

 

“S IS FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE, THE LANGUAGE OF TODAY’S CULTURAL ‘REVOLUTION'” BY MARY DANIELSEN

NEW BOOKLET: S is for Social Justice The Language of Today’s Cultural “Revolution” by Mary Danielsen is our newest Lighthouse Trails Booklet.* The Booklet is 18 pages long and sells for $1.95 for single copies. Quantity discounts are available. Our Booklets are designed to give away to others or for your own personal use. Below is the content of the booklet. To order copies of S is for Social Justice The Language of Today’s Cultural “Revolution,” click here.

S is for Social Justice The Language of Today’s Cultural “Revolution”

By Mary Danielsen

In Revelation 3:14-22, we are introduced to the last days church of Laodicea, a lukewarm self-serving congregation that seems to have the most to lose by ignoring God’s instruction. But it’s what that name reveals that is so profound—a deep level of apostasy and a coming marriage of religion and politics that will blend in seamlessly with the agenda of Antichrist. “Laodicea” means “justice of the people.” As the “social-justice gospel” threatens to overtake the professing church today, the church of “wokeness” is more and more asleep in the light and ignoring the Lord’s admonitions to stay awake lest she be overtaken with the world in a flood of lawlessness and judgment.

Biblical definitions are an important part of rightly dividing and understanding the Word, but there is also a great benefit in pulling the curtain back on the things the world lusts after; and in this day of addictive social media, keeping up with the jargon of mass movements can help equip our discernment. That, in turn, will help us to explain the origins and goals of such movements to friends and family who may be caught up in round-the-clock politics. We are not to be ignorant of the wiles of the devil (2 Corinthians 2:11).

I’m not sure when the suffix “-babble” came into common usage, but the origins of the word are quite interesting. In the 16th century, it meant “idle talk,” but then by the 17th century, the common definition meant “inarticulate speech”—“bibble babble.” Baby talk, basically. In this age of media, “babble” became popular as a suffix to alert the listener that something unintelligible was being foisted upon him, and it carried with it the idea that very few will understand what is about to be said; but if you do understand it, you are a step ahead of some imagined curve. For instance, “techno-babble” terms are used in sci-fi scripts to sound futuristic and (theoretically) technologically advanced. “Psycho-babble,” a newer term to the lexicon, uses the jargon or buzzwords of the self-help industry to give the impression that whatever is being defined is scientifically plausible and diagnostically helpful. Those using these terms with confidence like to give the impression of having a deeper knowledge via special code that puts them on the cutting edge of cultural happenings.

“Social”-babble (my term) is a body of jargon that reflects an advancing tidal wave of change that will no doubt affect the lives of everyone in its path. As we careen toward a global everything and an accompanying Marxist-style tyranny, it is important to expose the cunning lies and deep deception that will ensnare billions of souls through psychological warfare, economic disaster, and subservience to The State, which will occur through the planned destruction of our culture and the forced religion of political correctness. Through this transformation, Earth-dwellers will ultimately come face to face with a brutal dictatorship that will, according to prophecy, be the last of its kind before Christ returns to judge and rule.

In the same vein, the word “jargon” is worth defining as well. Jargon, according to The Oxford Dictionary, refers to special words or expressions used by a particular profession or group that are difficult for others to understand. It is a verbal shorthand, so to speak, traditionally used within areas of expertise to communicate with those on the same level, professionally speaking. But in a world of eight billion people, it would seem that the goal of jargon, by today’s definition, is to confuse, lecture, and often to alienate and correct. The reasons people use cultural jargon might be to sound important, to hide or spin a situation, manipulate an outcome, or simply to signal agreement with a political movement.

The truth is, the real meaning of a jargon-related term is often lost because of a lack of adequate translation. New terms spring up regularly, and the meanings must be defined or redefined by the one who coined the term. Forget what you think a word means traditionally—now the urban-dictionary wading pool is the authority. And just try to keep up!

That said, it’s not impossible to grasp a basic understanding of this social-justice, progressive cultural revolution of which we find ourselves in the midst. And in so gaining this knowledge, we will also gain a clearer understanding about these times. Then with knowledge and understanding comes wisdom, which according to the Scriptures is simply knowing what to do and how to do it. Such wisdom comes from His holy Word, through His Spirit, and seeking Him with all our hearts who “giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not” (James 1:5).

While reading the terms in this glossary, bear in mind that in many cases, I am using definitions that line up with what the social-justice movement adheres to and not necessarily a traditional definition.

The Language of Today’s Cultural “Revolution”

Activist/Activism: Social justice, in its many forms, is primarily accomplished when people become activists—engaged in activism. The goal is to bring about societal change and can be as simple as writing a letter to a government official, or as dramatic as civil disobedience, or protesting in a violent or non-violent manner. With no lack of victimhood in our culture, activists can target any one of a long list of causes to take on. Racial issues, political change, gay/transgender causes, economic disparities, and women’s rights are just a few of the subjective causes with which to identify oneself; and the levels of involvement in any one cause vary from individual to individual. One can be merely a demonstrator, or a reformer, or an extremist, depending upon many factors.

Antifa: Literally, “anti-fascist.” Originating in the 1930s in Germany, it was the violent arm of the left—the Communist Party. Fascism is defined as a nationalist far-right authoritarian style of government, so Antifa then labels any people or group they consider far right as Nazis, fascists, and white supremacists. The goal of Antifa is to remake America into a Marxist state.

Biphobia: Patterned after the term “homophobia,” biphobia is a term of contempt defined as a fear of bisexuals and bisexuality. Those who oppose these alternative lifestyles are said to be afraid of them (phobic). “Social-justice warriors” would say that those who believe the Bible teaches that any kind of sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman is sin are suffering from some type of phobia.

Black Lives Matter (BLM): The Black Lives Matter (BLM) Global Network Foundation is a largely decentralized international organization—listing regional chapters instead of particular leaders. It was founded by three women, two of whom identify as “queer”: Patrisse Khan-Cullors, Opal Tometi, and Alicia Garza. On its “What We Believe” page, BLM describes itself as a movement “to fight for freedom, liberation, and justice,” but its definition of those terms includes radical reform to basic societal norms including the disruption of the nuclear family. In a 2015 video, Khan-Cullors admitted that BLM is led by “trained Marxists.”1

A closer look at BLM reveals that while there are many who see it as a noble force for racial equality, the intelligentsia behind it is using black people and those involved with BLM as pawns to create civil unrest with the goal being to overthrow existing forms of government with Marxism.

Cancel Culture: “Cancel culture refers to the popular practice of withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. Cancel culture is generally discussed as being performed on social media in the form of group shaming.”2 An example of cancel culture would be a social media blitz against a company that has publicly spoken up against “gay” marriage or transgender bathrooms.

Capitalism: “A form of economic order characterized by private ownership of the means of production and the freedom of private owners to use, buy, and sell their property or services on the market at voluntarily agreed prices and terms, with only minimal interference with such transactions by the state or other authoritative third parties.”3

“Christian” Palestinianism: In direct opposition to Christian Zionism, this dangerous movement claims that Palestinian Arabs were the original possessors of the land of Israel. In this reboot of Replacement Theology,4 dominion theology, amillennialism, and the teaching that the Jews are occupiers and oppressors, “Christian” Palestinianism seeks to remove all Jewish elements from the Bible and eliminate the Old Testament, thus opening the door for the Islamization of the church. It is the antithesis of what evangelicals have traditionally believed about God’s promises to Israel, Bible prophecy, and the very nature of Jesus Himself.

Cisgender: A term to label one who identifies with the gender he or she is born with. It is not related to sexual orientation, however, merely gender. It is the opposite of “transgender”; from a biblical point of view, it would be those who do not denounce or try to change the gender with which they are born.

Classism: The determination of one’s value to society based on economic, educational, or lineage background. In the social-justice paradigm, classism is a form of victimhood in which the middle to upper class discriminates against the working class/poor/minimally educated segments of society. Karl Marx viewed society relative to its classes and believed that class is determined by property ownership. He divided society into two classes: the bourgeoisie, and the proletariat; Marxists believe the former controls the capital and production for a society, the latter provides the labor.

Collusion: The traditional meaning of the word is “secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others,” but in social-justice minds, the word means to show support and cooperation with groups they consider dominant in “power, privilege, and oppression.”5

Communism: “The specifically Marxist-Leninist variant of socialism which emphasizes that a truly communist society can be achieved only through the violent overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ that is to prepare the way for the future idealized society of communism under the authoritarian guidance of a hierarchical and disciplined Communist Party.”6

Consumerism: A way of life that revolves around acquiring “stuff” and the attitude that a person’s happiness is dependent upon having material possessions. In the global village, it is looked down upon as the main reason for the destruction of the environment as the cost of production leads to more pollution and the destruction of farmland, thus accelerating the destruction of the environment. As cities grow, demand for goods and services grow, and the economic shift of a nation from agricultural, to manufacturing, to consumerism has been instrumental in bringing about a massive but fragile global economy. The term is being used by those fighting for a socialist society to downplay and denounce capitalism.

Critical Race Theory (CRT): The idea that the law is inherently racist and designed by Caucasians to maintain or further their standing in politics and economics over minorities. It has branched out to include liberal feminists, LGBTQ, and other minorities. Proponents believe that even the Civil Rights laws, which they claim did nothing to benefit people of color, mainly benefited the whites only. Richard Delgado, professor of civil rights and CRT at the University of Alabama School of Law, was the first (along with wife Jean Stefancic) in the 1980s to introduce this theory at the academic level, where it continues to have the most traction. The term is derived from Critical Theory based on dialectic philosophy that teaches “truth” (synthesis) is achieved by a critical approach to ideas, beliefs, and practices. As with Marxism, the idea is that, in order to have improvements and reform, conflict (revolution) is necessary to bring about resolution.

Critical Theory (CT): A sociological approach to examining the structures of society by asking, “do these long-held structures and practices benefit all people or only the privileged?” The underlying (Marxist) goal is to rethink and restructure every institution of society so that no one is at a disadvantage. Coming out of the Frankfurt School in Germany, the Nazis shut it down in 1923, but it found a home at Columbia University then returned to Germany in the 1950s as “The Institute for Social Research.”

Cultural Appropriation: A term coined in the 1980s academia, cultural appropriation happens when one culture (or person) adopts practices or beliefs from another culture without really understanding the significance of that culture. In social-justice circles, cultural appropriation (or sometimes called cultural mis-appropriation) is frowned upon especially when a “dominant” culture (such as whites or the wealthy) is embracing the characteristics of less dominant cultures without understanding.

Cultural Hegemony: A term developed by Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci to suggest that the upper class exploits and manipulates the lower class into accepting and maintaining the current status quo.

Cultural Marxism: Refers to the encroachment of Marxism in all areas of culture (i.e., political correctness, LGBTQ rights, multiculturalism, feminism, the attack on the family, and Judeo-Christian ethics). Also called “Neo-Marxism,” the left considers this a derogatory term used to denounce what they believe is right-wing cultural hysteria from those who fear communism. The leftist media would categorize the term cultural Marxism as a mere “right-wing conspiracy theory” with its roots in the McCarthy era.

Cultural Sensitivity Training: A workplace program that is supposedly designed to ensure that all employees understand and abide by the ground rules for how to treat people depending on their gender, race, age, or sexual orientation. In today’s “progressive” socialist environment, employees in some companies are being coerced and even threatened with job loss if they do not embrace radical sensitivity-training issues (such as transgenderism and “gay” marriage) that go against their moral values.
De-centering: To cause to move away from a traditional view (e.g., decentering conservative biblical sexuality and marriage views would involve embracing views outside of that scope such as “gay” marriage, transgenderism, living together without marriage).

Dialectical Materialism: “A Marxist tenet describing the process by which the class struggle between bourgeois capitalist society and the exploited workers produces the dictatorship of the proletariat and evolves into socialism and, finally, communism, dictatorship of the proletariat.”7

Dialogue: An intentional conversation between two parties who may differ significantly in their cultural worldview or goals with the intended outcome of meeting in the middle or coming to some sort of understanding. The exchange of ideas, presumably on a civil level. In the realm of social justice, “Intergroup Dialogue” is intended to improve understanding among differing social standings, to promote social justice; but in reality, the goal is to highlight social in-justice and promote fundamental change. See Hegelian Dialectic.

Diversity: In socialism, this would be tied in with the view that every organization, religious group, government agency, charity, or business needs to be “diversified” in that each one must have a wide variety of people groups within it, especially “oppressed” people groups. “An unhappy corollary of the championing of “victim” categories is the denunciation of “oppressor” categories, thus generating increasing popular anti-white, anti-male, anti-heterosexual, anti-Christian and anti-Jewish campaigns.”8

Environmental Stewardship: Coined by Aldo Leopold in the mid-20th century, it refers to all the ways that mankind is obligated to protect the natural world from degradation and provide all means of conservation for future generations. When it intersects with the politics of global warming or climate change, it then becomes mandated in the form of tax increases, decreasing “carbon footprints” with associated guilt for our high-tech age and lifestyles. The spiritual aspect that is increasingly a part of environmentalism involves preaching love for Mother Earth from a religious perspective that is underpinned by Darwinism.9

Ethnocentrism: The belief that one’s own culture is superior to others. Having partiality toward our own set of beliefs or way of life is not inherently bad in that it doesn’t necessarily mean that one views other cultures as inferior. From a cultural perspective, it can simply reflect the experiences and constants that one is most familiar with. The cultural revolution practices a “reverse ethnocentrism” by rejecting one’s own culture, or country, or ethnicity especially if that culture or country is considered to be an oppressor or dominant.

Feminism: The position that when society is male-dominated, women are oppressed in the areas of marriage, finances, pay, maternity leave, etc. Beginning with the suffrage movement, women have increasingly become more political in their methods to include abortion rights and gender-neutral inclusive language. There are several forms of feminism, including multicultural and intersectional. Social-justice feminism includes Marxist feminism, which analyzes the ways women are oppressed through the lens of a communist philosophical system regarding property ownership and compensation for labor. Feminism in the church today expresses itself with gender-neutral Bibles and taking over pastoral roles. A biblical view of women gives women equal value, worth, contribution, and essentialness with men but also describes each of their unique roles.

Gender Binary: “The idea that there are only two genders—male and female. This is viewed as problematic by social justice warriors, despite being a biological truth.”10

Genderfluid: Meaning gender is not something that has to remain the same but can always be changing. (e.g., You may be born a man, but you can become a woman.)

Gender Identity: The sense of self that comes from being male or female and can vary from birth on in our gender-fluid culture. Gender-justice activists tie any and all gender oppression or discrimination to every other injustice that exists, such as racial, economic, immigration, violence, feminism, education, and financial, making all human injustice rise and fall largely based on the human set of chromosomes supplied at birth. Currently, activists are claiming upward of 100 genders among humans, but biologically, there are still only two.

Hegelian Dialectic: George Wilhelm Frederich Hegel was a 19th century German philosopher. He developed a method of using the art of argument to determine “truth”—with a prearranged outcome to define and direct the process. There are three parts to utilizing this dialectic: “Thesis” is an idea or philosophy. “Antithesis” refers to the position of refuting the original idea from an opposite perspective. “Synthesis” is meeting in the middle, to form a new idea that both parties can agree on. It works best on a group that is easily controlled or manipulated and lacking critical thinking skills or the ability to reason through a debate.

In the church, one example might be this: The thesis is that biblical Christianity presents the only way to God is through Jesus Christ, and the Bible is the truth. The antithesis might be that Islam is one of the three great religions in the world, and the Koran is the truth. The synthesis would be “Chrislam,” in which Christianity and Islam co-exist through compromise, that Jesus is also represented within Islam and is therefore the same Jesus as the biblical one. There are many such examples in the church that we call “compromise” but represent the Hegelian Dialectic philosophically.

Politics is a prime example of a constant flow of dialectical thinking. The far left and right are endlessly pitted against each other with the end goal of a synthesis between the two after a protracted media war of spin, psychological warfare, and change on every level. Antifa, BLM, and other groups demanding societal change on a fundamental level will not stop just because they are opposed; they will only stop when the synthesis matches their pre-ordained agenda. (If Christians better understood this manipulation, there would be far less compromise in the church.)

Heterosexism: Social-justice warriors would say that to have a heterosexism viewpoint is oppressive and negative because “individual, societal, cultural, and institutional beliefs and practices favor heterosexuality and assume that heterosexuality is the only ‘natural,’ ‘normal,’ or acceptable sexual orientation.”11

Identity Politics: Where the focus is on who you are regarding race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender rather than what your political views and moral persuasions are.

Intersectionality: A term coined in 1989 by Kimberlé Crenshaw, a civil-rights activist. The theory behind it is that there are multiple sources of discrimination in people’s lives simultaneously. For example, one can be oppressed as a woman, and as a LGBTQ woman, and as a black LGBTQ woman. These categories of oppression intersect with each other, increasing the victimhood exponentially regarding entitlements and subjective justice.

LGBTTQQIA: “The umbrella community of people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, two-spirited, queer, questioning, intersex, and/or asexual.”12

Manarchism: “The belief that social anarchism will result in gender equality.”13

Microaggression: A social-justice warrior would say that a microaggression is an act committed by an “oppressor” person against an “oppressed” person. The act would be subtle and done possibly unintentionally, indirectly, and even unbeknownst to the “aggressor.” A few examples listed in an article supporting the term are: 1) “An able-bodied person using a bathroom stall reserved for someone who is disabled.” 2) “Telling a woman she should smile.” 3) “Referring to something you don’t like as ‘gay.’” 4) “Someone clutching his or her purse when a person of color walks by.”14

Narrative: Less about fact, doctrine, objectivism, absolutes; more about story, change, subjectivism, relativism.

Non-Binary: Those who identify as neither male nor female are said to be “non-binary.”

Oppressed vs. Oppressor: In Critical Race Theory, you are either an oppressor or an oppressed. Oppressed groups would include women, the low-income, people of color, LGBT, etc.); oppressor groups would include men, the wealthy, white, conservatives, etc.). Members of oppressor groups must refrain from voicing their views as it may intimidate those in oppressed groups. In actuality, Critical Race Theory has adopted a prejudicial and even racist mindset. It also causes dissension, distrust, suspicion, and hate toward people because of their supposed oppressor traits.

Patriarchy: Prior to the social-justice movement, this meant a social system wherein the father or the oldest male was head of the family, and descent was traced through the male line. Today, the term is as a catch-all term used in a derogatory manner suggesting that such a system is oppressive, abusive, and portrays male dominance. However, it is not the system of patriarchy that has failed but rather is the sinful nature in mankind (men and women) that causes abuse, cruel domination, and oppression. A biblical view of fatherhood portrays strength, kindness, leadership, protection, and godly wisdom. Sadly, fatherhood has been demonized by the radical socialist movement.

Political Correctness (PC): Coined in the 1980s, “PC” describes a set of culturally acceptable rules to avoid verbally offending any sex, gender, race, or “religion.” Those who are the alleged victims of verbal discrimination or offense are always seen as in the right, and those who perpetrate the victimhood are always wrong; there are also groups that can be spoken of slanderously, such as white men, and Bible-believing Christians, without recrimination. “Hate speech” is the legal reproach to getting justice from those who defame another person or group as defined by PC rules. Political correctness is the religion of cultural Marxism, which teaches a class struggle over which groups have power over other groups, determined, of course, by those with the power to control thought, speech, and behavior. The goal of PC doctrine, which has now permeated all of society, is to eliminate freedom of speech and the press in this attempt to force equality on every person in society, making it the conscience of secular humanism and the coming global religion as opposed to the conscience God has given every human.

Prejudice Plus Power: “The social-justice warrior standard for bigotry. This leads them to deny possibilities such as anti-white racism, misandry [prejudice against men], heterophobia, cisphobia, and other bigotry—against groups said to be privileged.”15

Progressive Christianity: Often used interchangeably with “social-justice Christianity,” or “emergent” Christianity, which is another way of describing a theology that is liberal, interspiritual, and politically minded. Progressivism in politics is simply Marxism. In the church, it seeks justice for every people group, engages in environmental causes, views the Bible merely as a social-justice manual, and does not ascribe to the doctrine of inerrancy. “Red Letter Christianity” springs from the progressive playbook, and dominion theology/amillennialism is their eschatology. Many leaders in the movement such as Jim Wallis, Shane Claiborne, Tony Campolo and Brian McLaren themselves subscribe to a Marxist/socialist worldview.

Queer: “An umbrella term within the LGBTQQIA community that refers to anyone who doesn’t prescribe to traditional societal views of gender and sexuality; implies elasticity and a resistance to the notion of a predetermined gender and sexual identity based on biology.”16

Racism: “Any criticism or negative sentiment that affects minority racial groups, regardless of validity. Note: Most social-justice warriors deny the possibility of racism against white people, due to their belief that bigotry is a combination of prejudice and power.”17

Reconciliation: The general definition simply means to restore broken relationships. In progressive “Christianity” (i.e., social-gospel “Christianity”), it brings opposing views to a compromised consensus so that all views are given equal standing (whether they are biblically sound or not). In social-justice circles, it identifies what are considered great divides among humans due to marginalization, discrimination or victimhood (real or perceived injustices) and then forces reconciliation to secure that every human being experiences the same rights and equality of position and property. The biblical definition of reconciliation is found in 2 Corinthians 5:18 where we are told that through Christ’s atonement, we are reconciled to God, having been alienated from Him through sin.

Red Letter Christians: An ecumenical religious/political progressive group that emphasizes some teachings of Jesus found in red letters in some published New Testaments. The verses are primarily construed to build a framework of social-justice values deemed most important in a public expression of “faith plus politics.” Red Letter Christians have attempted to distance themselves from the “conservative right” popular during the Bush years.

Reparations: Making amends for a wrong done due to injustice, criminal acts, or after a war is waged to compensate the offended party. After WW II, Jewish families from Germany who survived the Holocaust were given reparations for property taken from them by Hitler’s regime. Today’s debate centers around the white man’s need to compensate the descendants of slavery which includes financial output to level the playing field of every person whose ancestors suffered injustices. This would include apologies by current generations and the promise that it would never be repeated. Besides the obvious problem that it would be impossible to determine who would be an actual descendant, there is the issue of determining which injustices in all of history deserve such rewards regardless of the injustice or when it occurred in history.

Social Gospel: An ecumenical socialist creed that emphasizes the need for social reform in an attempt to promote political change and bring a form of justice to every race, class, and oppressed group. It de-emphasizes individual conversion to Christ while extolling community, unity, and the common good. In contrast, Jesus did not promote political change but redeemed the hearts of sinners.18

Social Justice: A temporal kind of justice that addresses the privileges and rights that every human must be allowed to have in society. There is economic justice, racial justice, gender justice, civil rights etc., but primarily revolves around economic justice which, of course, is the outcome of socialism (distribution of wealth). A “social-justice warrior” is someone who actively promotes these issues and see himself as a corrector of society’s greatest wrongs.

Socialism: A political theory that advocates government ownership and administration of a society’s production of goods and services vs. private ownership (capitalism). There are various types of socialist governments in the world, and each one might incorporate this ideology differently.

Systemic (institutional) Racism: The belief that racism is not just an individual problem but is integrated into the entire infrastructure and system of a society and that basically all white people are racist whether they know it or not, think it or not, or act like it or not. Since the killing of George Floyd, social-justice warriors have particularly focused on the police, insisting that police forces throughout the U.S. are saturated with racism; and defunding the police is the only solution. This is largely based on statements that police are killing unarmed black people in astronomical numbers each year, which according to various studies, is not true. One article, written by Larry Elder, a black attorney, radio program host, and documentary film maker, states:

Recent studies not only find no “systemic” abuse of black suspects by the cops, but if anything, cops are more hesitant, more reluctant, to use deadly force against a black suspect than against a white suspect. The Manhattan Institute’s Heather MacDonald writes: “Regarding threats to blacks from the police: A police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.”. . .

In Baltimore, where in 2015, a black man named Freddie Gray died in police custody, how could one, with a straight face, argue that resident blacks suffer from “institutional” racism? The mayor was a black female; the top two officials in the police department were black; the city council was majority black; the state attorney who brought the charges against six officers was black; three of the six charged officers were black; the judge before whom two officers tried their cases was black; the U.S. attorney general was black, as was the president of the United States.19

Tolerance: The most ironic and hypocritical of all the social-justice terms. To tolerate by definition is merely to accept or agree with an opinion, belief, or lifestyle that one would not normally give assent to based on their upbringing, environment, or beliefs. However, as the demand for tolerance of every lifestyle, identity, and view grows, those who publicly demand that society give assent to pre-determined values and language framed in political correctness are those most likely to be intolerant of any view or ideology that does not match their own (i.e., Christianity and biblical values). In other words, social-justice warriors can demand that others are “tolerant” of them in every area, while they are under no obligation to agree with anything to which they don’t adhere.

Virtue Signaling: Expressing opinions that are designed to align with a certain politically correct or socially acceptable cause. It claims some sort of agreed-upon moral high ground with the attending feeling of moral superiority (i.e., good works for a social-justice climate). The church of the social gospel is also not immune from virtue signaling in its efforts to mimic the world’s causes and bring the culture into the church to appear to be more appealing to the lost and please men instead of God.

White Fragility: Describes a type of response from a “privileged” race to those who want to have a discussion about how they should feel about their privilege or lack of required guilt. For example, if a white person is approached by a black person to discuss racial issues, the white person may become uncomfortable and defensive, especially if he is told he is racist, just because he is white. If he doesn’t engage, he is said to have “white fragility” and is out of touch with reality.

White Guilt: Also known as “colonial guilt,” it is a reflective state in which those who feel responsible for racial injustice (“woke”) in any form, beginning with slavery, need to take responsibility and pro-actively alleviate racial injustice. The concept of reparations is designed to play off this guilt and level the playing field for all races.

White Privilege: Ascribed privileges assigned to the white (Caucasian) race, the assumption being that a person has what they have simply by virtue of their genetics and that everything in society from employment to advertising systemically caters to a privileged race.

Woke/Wokeness: A supposed state of social and political awareness to the injustices of society for any one people group seen to be oppressed. The result is supposed to be a desire to challenge certain norms that society has taken for granted and modify one’s behavior to reflect the need to become an activist for change. However, the term, used frequently now in social media, has become more of a way to discriminate (are you “woke” or not) against those who may see the injustices of society but do not necessarily become vocal activists but live their lives treating all humans justly and lovingly. “Woke” activists, however, reject that and say “Silence is Violence.”

Woke Christianity: The “woke church” is one that is said to be conscious of certain injustices of society. The liberal churches then will use what they consider to be this essential worldview and proceed from the premise that their priority is to work for worldly justice for oppressed people groups, which includes acceptance of lifestyles that the Bible calls sinful. Interestingly, “woke” churches usually do not see the killing of babies through abortion as a social injustice. The church that is truly biblically “awake,” however, will prioritize the household with faith over ethnicity (Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”), call out sinful behaviors and lifestyles, and prioritize the spreading of the Gospel to all people.

Conclusion

Having read these terms, it is my hope you can see the contrast between the social-justice “narrative” and what is written in God’s Word. In God’s economy, the terms “justice” and “gospel” are clearly defined in biblical texts as you will see by the verses at the end of this booklet. To add the humanistic adjective “social” to these critical terms is to render them nonsensical and gives a temporal meaning where an eternal one that affects every person who ever lived is already established. With “social justice,” there is no room for personal salvation, forgiveness, repentance, and reconciliation. Rather, it creates an environment of hostility, unrighteousness, anger, distrust, pride, and resentment. God’s Word, on the other hand, couples true justice with righteousness, compassion, mercy, kindness, graciousness, and humility. These are the attributes of God and what He has offered to every human being and what He will put in our hearts toward others if we believe in Him and trust Him as our Savior. Social justice can try to guilt people and force them into treating others right, but it can never change hearts. It is a powerless substitute for the real thing. I leave you with the following verses from God’s Word, which beautifully show the meaning of true justice and perfect truth.

Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. (Psalm 82:3)

Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face. (Psalm 89:14)

Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy. (Proverbs 31:9)

And therefore will the LORD wait, that he may be gracious unto you, and therefore will he be exalted, that he may have mercy upon you: for the LORD is a God of judgment: blessed are all they that wait for him. (Isaiah 30:18)

But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream. (Amos 5:24)

Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Execute true judgment, and shew mercy and compassions every man to his brother. (Zechariah 7:9)

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: (Luke 6:37)

He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? (Micah 6:8)

But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels [of compassion] from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. (1 John 3:17-18)

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit. (1 Peter 3:18)

To order copies of S is for Social Justice The Language of Today’s Cultural “Revolution,” click here.

Endnotes:

  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=58&v=HgEUbSzOTZ8&feature=emb_logo.
  2. Dictionary.com, http://www.dictionary.com/e/pop-culture/cancel-culture.
  3. Paul M. Johnson, A Glossary of Political Economy Terms (Auburn University, 1994-2005, http://webhome.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/capitalism.phtml.
  4. Read Mike Oppenheimer’s booklet Israel: Replacing What God Has Not (https://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=11341).
  5. Lexico Dictionaryhttps://www.lexico.com/en/definition/collusion https://www.dal.ca/dept/hres/education-campaigns/definitions.html.
  6. Paul M. Johnson, A Glossary of Political Economy Terms, op. cit. (http://webhome.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/communism.phtml).
  7. Federation of American Scientists, “Glossary, Soviet Union,” https://fas.org/irp/world/russia/su_glos.html.
  8. Philip Carl Salzman, “How ‘Social Justice’ Undermines True Diversity” (https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2019/03/25/howsocial-justice-undermines-true-diversity).
  9. Read Roger Oakland’s booklet A Christian Perspective on the Environment: How the Catholic Pope and Other Leaders Are Uniting the World’s Religions Through Environmentalism (https://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=21237).
  10. “A Glossary of Social Justice Warrior Terminology” (The Zeroth Position, https://www.zerothposition.com/2016/03/30/a-glossary-of-social-justice-warrior-terminology).
  11. Dalhousie University, “Social Justice Terms” (https://www.dal.ca/dept/hres/education-campaigns/definitions.html).
  12. Lewis & Clark College, “ABC’s of Social Justice” (https://www.lclark.edu/live/files/18474-abcs-of-social-justice).
  13. “A Glossary of Social Justice Warrior Terminology,” op. cit.
  14. “What is Microaggression and How to Avoid it? ( TherapyNYC, https://mytherapynyc.com/what-is-microaggression).
  15. “A Glossary of Social Justice Warrior Terminology,” op. cit.
  16. Lewis & Clark College, “ABC’s of Social Justice,” op. cit.
  17. “A Glossary of Social Justice Warrior Terminology,” op. cit.
  18. Read my booklet, The Dangerous Truth About the Social-Justice Gospel (https://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=15318).
  19. Larry Elder, “The George Floyd Riots: Where’s Black Lives Matter When You Need Them?” (Front Page Magazine, June 11, 2020, https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/06/george-floyd-riots-about-racism-and-police-larry-elder/); to read more about systemic racism and Critical Race Theory, read Critical Race Theory, Southern Baptist Convention, and a Marxist “Solution” That Will Not Work at https://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=32684

To order copies of S is for Social Justice The Language of Today’s Cultural “Revolution,” click here.

162 HOUSE DEMOCRATS VOTE AGAINST ANTISEMITISM AMENDMENT TO RIGHTS BILL

See the source image

BY WARREN MASS

SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/37107-162-house-democrats-vote-against-antisemitism-amendment-to-rights-bill;

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

After Representative Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) proposed an amendment to the Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act (H.R. 2574) adding antisemitism to race, color, or national origin as a form of discrimination to be prohibited by the act, 162 Democrats in the House voted against Foxx’s amendment.

“With anti-Semitism on the rise around the world, the need for this amendment is clear,” Foxx said,

The summary of H.R. 2574 said that the bill “authorizes private civil causes of action for disparate impact violations … of federal regulations of general applicability that prohibit discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance.” The stated purpose of the bill, which was introduced by two Democrats, Bobby Scott of Virginia and John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan, was to strengthen Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by restoring “the right to individual civil actions in cases involving disparate impact.”

Most Republicans, including Foxx, initially opposed H.R. 2574. Foxx stated during debate: “The consequences of this legislation within the education community are very clear. The creation of a private right of action would lead to additional burdens on already taxed State and local agencies, especially school systems who would have to defend themselves against tenuous allegations advanced by parents and activists.”

When the speaker pro tempore asked Foxx, “Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?” Foxx answered, “I am in its present form.”

Foxx then moved to insert an amendment into the text that included this wording: “Antisemitism Considered Discrimination. — In carrying out the responsibilities of the recipient under this title, the employee or employees designated under this section shall consider antisemitism to be discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin as prohibited by this title.” 

Foxx continued: “If this House is going to radically rewrite title VI, as this bill does, we should use this opportunity to show commitment to combating anti-Semitism.”

One might think that this language would appeal to most Democrats, who usually describe themselves as champions of all minorities. However the vote indicated differently. While 66 Democrats voted for the amendment, enough to pass it when added to the votes of 189 Republicans, 162 voted “nay.” Among the 162 were all four members of the “squad” — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), and Ayanna Pressley (Mass.)

H.R. 2574 passed in the House on September 16 by a vote of 232-188 and now goes on to the Senate. If the Senate passes it, President Trump will likely veto it. 

A September 14 statement issued by the Executive Office of the President begins: “The Administration strongly opposes passage of H.R. 2574.” The statement continues: “Granting a private cause of action for enforcement of such regulations would inevitably lead to a massive expansion of litigation involving recipients of Federal financial assistance, diverting resources toward litigation and away from education.” It concludes: “If H.R. 2574 were presented to the President, his advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.”

Related articles:

Do Democrats Have an Anti-Semitism Problem?

The Continuing Scourge of Anti-Semitism

 

“BURN CONGRESS DOWN”: “ELITE” DEMOCRATS & LEFTISTS URGE VIOLENCE IF DECEASED SCOTUS JUDGE GINSBURG IS REPLACED BEFORE THE ELECTION

We confirm justices to interpret the Constitution, not to dictate through “dying wishes” who their successors should be or when they should be nominated
The Hill
@thehill
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Mitch McConnell: "This is a man who does not care about a dying woman's final wish."

BY SELWYN DUKE

SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/37101-burn-congress-down-elite-dems-leftists-urge-violence-if-rbg-is-replaced-before-election;

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

It’s not enough that this year’s rioting and looting have hurt innocent people, destroyed their businesses, and even taken some of their lives. Now pseudo-elite Democrats/leftists are calling for another violent response — if President Trump and the Senate exercise their constitutionally granted power and replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg before the election.

Ginsburg died Friday at age 87 of complications from metastatic pancreatic cancer. Since then, a firestorm has arose, with Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell resolving to quickly fill the vacant Supreme Court seat and Democrats insisting that November 3rd’s winner be allowed to choose Ginsburg’s replacement.

The Street Rabble Are No Longer Just in the Street

“Elections have consequences,” said Barack Obama shortly after his 2009 inauguration. Yet prominent writers, a professor, and an ex-CNN host are among the leftists singing a different tune now that they’re out of power, essentially saying that the consequence of their losing elections will be destruction.

As the Daily Mail reports on the Ginsburg-oriented threats:

Reza Aslan, a religious scholar and former CNN host, tweeted to his 293,000 followers: ‘If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f****** thing down.’ 

... Beau Willimon, a screenwriter who produced the U.S. version of House of Cards and the president of the Writers Guild of America, East, told his 164,000 followers: We’re shutting this country down if Trump and McConnell try to ram through an appointment before the election.’

Another writer predicted riots. 

‘If McConnell jams someone through, which he will, there will be riots,’ said Laura Bassett, a political journalist writing for GQ and the Washington Post.

Author Aaron Gouveia, whose latest book is about toxic masculinity, tweeted:  ‘F*** no. Burn it all down.’ 

And a professor of political science repeated calls for arson attacks on Congress.  

Emmett Macfarlane, who teaches at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, tweeted: ‘Burn Congress down before letting Trump try to appoint anyone to SCOTUS.’

A member of the Wisconsin Ethics Commission, responsible for administering state laws regarding campaign finance, ethics and lobbying, echoed the urging for violence.

When Ed Markey, senate candidate for Massachusetts, said that McConnell should not nominate a replacement in an election year, Scot Ross tweeted: ‘F****** A, Ed. If you can’t shut it down, burn it down.’

It’s truly striking. The United States had always been known for exhibiting what we’d previously taken for granted: The peaceful transfer of power — and respect for its lawful exercise. Now we’re starting to resemble a Third World nation, where violence and underhanded dealings elevate leaders as much as, if not more than, free and fair elections.

Speaking of which, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has also gotten in on the act (and in many cases it is an “act”), as she “on Sunday refused to rule out pushing forward a privileged impeachment resolution that would have the effect of eating up Senate floor time and potentially stalling a Supreme Court nomination,” reported the Mail in a different article.

“We have our options,” said Pelosi. “We have arrows in our quiver.”

(The speaker certainly is perturbed. But I would recommend, Nancy, that you be more fatalistic and remember some counsel I once heard you give: “People will do what they do.”) 

Returning to the approval of violence, it’s beginning to appear a pattern with pseudo-elites. Just about a week ago, in fact, some leftists essentially applauded the shooting of police officers.

As for the SCOTUS vacancy, both parties are fending off accusations of hypocrisy. For “Ginsburg’s death immediately recalled how Republicans resisted a vote on former President Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland while Democrats told the other side it was their job to confirm another justice,” writes TheSpectator.Info.

Moreover, the Spectator relates Barack Obama as saying that a “basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment.”

Of course, this is the same man who said in 2010 “I am not king” when explaining why he couldn’t unilaterally alter immigration law, but then did so anyway in instituting DACA. In contrast, the only “law” involved in the SCOTUS vacancy’s filling is the constitutional provision stating that the president and Senate have the rightful power to fill it. The GOP’s 2016 rationale for not voting on Garland was just that — a rationale — not a “law.”

Moreover, some Republicans are saying the rationale is actually that a SCOTUS seat should not be filled during an election year when the White House and Senate are controlled by different parties. As McConnell put it Friday, “Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.”

Of course, here’s reality: The Democrats wouldn’t flinch from filling the seat were the roles reversed. Alluding to this, I tweeted the following yesterday:

The point is that the Democrats are seeking power by any means necessary, including vote fraud and Big Tech manipulation (and violence) — and the application of socialist revolutionary Saul Alinsky’s RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

Then there’s guilt. That is, leftists insist we must respect Ginsburg’s “dying wish,” which allegedly was that she not be replaced until after the presidential election. Below is avowed socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) making this appeal, saying on video that McConnell is “a man who does not care about a dying woman’s final wish.”

First, this “dying wish” claim could be a ploy — and one that puts Ginsburg in a bad light. For we’re to believe that in her final moments her thoughts weren’t about God or her ultimate destination, but about politics and power.

Regardless, there’s an irony here. Despite Democrats’ talk about “consistency” and abiding by laws, what they’ve consistently done is appoint “living Constitution” justices who violate the law, engaging in judicial activism and imposing their will from the bench.

Now they want a judge to be able to impose her will even after death.

And the consequence for defying this postmortem judicial activism, say some pseudo-elites, is violence in Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s name. Hey, nothing proves your devotion to the rule of law like threatening insurrection.

Selwyn Duke (@SelwynDuke) has written for The New American for more than a decade. He has also written for The Hill, Observer, The American Conservative, WorldNetDaily, American Thinker, and many other print and online publications. In addition, he has contributed to college textbooks published by Gale-Cengage Learning, has appeared on television, and is a frequent guest on radio.

 

BREAKING: TRUMP INDICATES WHEN HE’LL ANNOUNCE SCOTUS NOMINEE

BY MATT MARGOLIS

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/09/21/breaking-trump-indicates-when-hell-announce-scotus-nominee-n948033;

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

During an exclusive interview on Fox & Friends Monday morning, President Trump revealed that his list of potential Supreme Court nominees to fill the vacancy left by Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been narrowed down to five and that he’ll announce his choice Friday or Saturday.

“The bottom line is we won the election, we have an obligation to do what’s right and act as quickly as possible,” Trump said. “I think it will be on Friday or Saturday and we want to pay respect. It looks like we will have services on Thursday or Friday, as I understand it, and I think we should, with all due respect for Justice Ginsburg, wait for services to be over.”

Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on Friday from metastatic pancreatic cancer. She was 87 years old.

Democrats have vowed to do anything in their power to either stop the nomination or retaliate afterward. Nancy Pelosi refused to rule out using impeachment as a tactic to tie up the Senate to keep it from confirming a replacement. Chuck Schumer has also threatened to pack the court next year if Trump proceeds with the nomination.

But Democrats were previously all for election-year nominations to the Supreme Court.

“I made it absolutely clear that I would go forward with the confirmation process, as chairman — even a few months before a presidential election — if the nominee were chosen with the advice, and not merely the consent, of the Senate — just as the Constitution requires,” Biden said back in 2016. “Eight is not a good number for a collegial body that sometimes disagrees.”

Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”

Editor’s Note: Want to support PJ Media so we can continue telling the truth about what the Left is up to? Join PJ Media VIP TODAY and use the promo code LOYALTY to get 25% off your VIP membership

Matt Margolis is the author of the new book Airborne: How The Liberal Media Weaponized The Coronavirus Against Donald Trumpand the bestselling book The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama. You can follow Matt on Twitter @MattMargolis

McConnell Gets Key Republican Senators to Support Filling SCOTUS Vacancy
Radical Left Threatens Riots, War, and to ‘Burn It Down’ if RBG Replaced
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies at Age 87
Trump Calls for Filling Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Seat ‘Without Delay’
 

JUDGE RESCINDS PA GOVERNOR WOLF’S COVID MANDATES~MICHELLE MALKIN: AMERICANS AGAINST UNCONSTITUTIONAL MASK MANDATES

Masks off. Fight on. This is the American way.

See the source image

SEPT 21, 2020

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/09/americans-against-unconstitutional-mask-mandates-michelle-malkin/;

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

Good news: The anti-mask mandate movement is gaining steam. Americans yearning to breathe free are waking up from their pandemic stupor. Common sense and constitutional principles, now more than ever, are vital to a sovereign nation's health.

On Monday, a federal judge rescinded Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf's shutdown orders restricting gatherings, forcing "nonessential" business closures and directing citizens to stay at home to combat COVID-19. U.S. District Judge William Stickman determined that the sweeping measures violated "the right of assembly enshrined in the First Amendment." He noted Wolf's hypocrisy in severely limiting indoor and outdoor fairs, festivals, concerts and other gatherings and condemning a small anti-lockdown protest of small-business owners (whom he called "selfish," "cowardly" and "unsafe") — while marching with thousands of non-socially distancing Black Lives Matter radicals in Harrisburg in June.

Moreover, Stickman ruled, Pennsylvania's stay-at-home order — a sweeping population unlike any "in the history of our Commonwealth and our Country" — violated the 14th Amendment's due process rights to travel, association and privacy. Similarly, Wolf's extreme and open-ended power grab designating and closing "nonessential" businesses undermined due process protections "against arbitrary government action."

While Wolf's measures may have been "well-intentioned," Stickman concluded that "good intentions toward a laudable end are not alone enough to uphold governmental action against a constitutional challenge. Indeed, the greatest threats to our system of constitutional liberties may arise when the ends are laudable, and the intent is good — especially in a time of emergency."

In Florida, conservative lawyer and state House Rep. Anthony Sabatini cheered the defeat of Wolf's draconian COVID-19 orders. "Some in the Judiciary are finally waking up to the fact that the government is not always right — and that the constitution is not suspended during an emergency," he told me. Sabatini has filed 15 ongoing challenges to the Sunshine State's lockdown measures. "We're looking forward to winning."

In Colorado, I joined a similar lawsuit with state House Rep. Pat Neville to challenge Gov. Jared Polis' whopping 166 COVID-19 executive orders, as well as multiple public health orders issued by state and county health departments. As in Pennsylvania, our state Supreme Court declined to hear the case. So we filed in Denver District Court two weeks ago. Polis and other government officials are on notice: No more kings.

Like Americans all across the country, Coloradans have been threatened with civil and criminal penalties for failure to wear a mask in public, and businesses are coerced by the governor into enforcing his mask order with zero input from voters or their elected representatives. Last week, Polis unilaterally extended the mask mandate by another 30 days. Our lawyer, Randy Corporon, laid down the law:

"The Colorado Constitution expressly prohibits the delegation by the legislature of lawmaking authority to the governor. While courts have made limited exceptions for emergency situations, we are now six months into this 'emergency' with a governor who, on his own, extends his superpowers every 30 days. Enough is enough."

Corporon's law firm has filed a companion lawsuit seeking an injunction against "Power Grab" Polis on behalf of the family owners of the Bandimere Speedway — where more than 5,500 patriots joined us at a rally to "Stop the COVID Chaos" two weeks ago. Liberals and "Never-Trumpers" have condemned our constitutionally protected peaceful protest, while downplaying violent BLM and antifa riots that have turned downtown Denver into a Third World hellhole.

We are not alone. Parents in Tennessee are suing to free their children from unlawful and unhealthy mask mandates unsupported by science. Minnesotans have filed multiple lawsuits against Gov. Tim Walz. "It's not the place of government to impose those requirements on us when there is no lawful authority to do so," Doug Seaton, Upper Midwest Law Center President and attorney, argues. "That's something that is against our self-governing principles that we've had in the state of Minnesota since we were a part of the northwest territory. We can't have our governor override the separation of powers and the limited government we have and trample on rights, whatever good the intentions might be."

In Boise, Idaho, this weekend, citizens held an anti-mask rally at the local Veterans Memorial park. Organizer Jeff Buck spoke for all of us: "We feel like we are being held hostage and we need to stand up for our rights or the government will take them away."

Masks off. Fight on. This is the American way.

 

SUPREME COURT REPLACEMENT: TRUMP CALLS FOR FILLING RUTH BADER GINSBURG’S SEAT “WITHOUT DELAY”

Pro Abortion Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies at Age 87

BY TYLER O'NEIL

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/09/18/breaking-ruth-bader-ginsburg-dies-n944311;

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

And you thought 2020 couldn’t get any more tense. On Friday night, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg finally lost her long battle with pancreatic cancer. The Court’s most outspoken liberal, Ginsburg had survived multiple bouts with cancer but finally passed away at age 87, the Associated Press reported.

While Ginsburg was a notorious liberal, twisting the text of the Constitution to support far-left causes like abortion, she was also an impressive and inspiring individual. A pioneer as a woman in the legal profession, she rose through the ranks while having children and raising a family.

“Our Nation has lost a jurist of historic stature,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a statement on Ginsburg’s passing. “We at the Supreme Court have lost a cherished colleague. Today we mourn, but with confidence that future generations will remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg as we knew her — a tireless and resolute champion of justice.”

Her passing opens up one of the Court’s nine seats less than two months before the presidential election. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said he would rush to confirm any justice nominated by President Donald Trump even shortly before an election.

When Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016, McConnell refused to consider President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. Democrats have accused McConnell of having a double standard on a potential Trump nominee during an election year, but McConnell has insisted that when the president and the Senate majority represent two separate parties, they should wait to confirm a justice until the election.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) tweeted the exact text of McConnell’s statement when Scalia passed away.

Get ready for a tense political battle.

Last week, President Donald Trump released an updated list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

It remains unclear whether or not the president will nominate a justice so close to the election, but since the Democrats did away with the filibuster for judicial nominations, it seems likely the Senate could confirm a replacement for Ginsburg before the election. If the Senate did so, the Democrats would likely renew their calls to pack the Supreme Court after a Joe Biden victory.

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

Trump’s 2020 Supreme Court List Will Drive the Left Crazy
Hey Supreme Court, Government Can’t Decide ‘Which Beliefs Are Acceptable’
Blame the Left for Making the Supreme Court Too Political
WINNING: Trump Is Restoring the American Judiciary

____________________________________________________________________________

BY TYLER O'NEIL

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/09/19/breaking-trump-calls-for-filling-ruth-bader-ginsburgs-seat-without-delay-n944816;

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

On Saturday, President Donald Trump rallied the Republican Party to confirm a Supreme Court nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He called filling the vacancy an “obligation” to be fulfilled “without delay.”

“We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices,” the president tweeted. “We have this obligation, without delay!”

Ginsburg, an impressive justice and a liberal lion of the Court, passed away on Friday at the age of 87.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the Senate will consider Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court.

Democratic nominee Joe Biden has called for the Senate to wait until after the election, rather than rushing to confirm a potential Trump nominee.

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

Trump’s 2020 Supreme Court List Will Drive the Left Crazy
Blame the Left for Making the Supreme Court Too Political
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies at Age 87

____________________________________________________________________________

SEE ALSO:

https://christiannews.net/2020/09/21/rep-offers-condolences-to-30-million-innocent-babies-who-died-from-ginsburgs-defense-of-abortion/

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/09/18/ted-cruz-explains-perfectly-why-rbgs-seat-must-be-filled-before-the-election-n944445

https://www.ammoland.com/2020/09/ruth-bader-ginsburg-dies-just-as-president-trump-releases-his-list-of-scotus-judges/

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2020/09/20/how-ginsburgs-death-gives-an-advantage-to-republicans-in-the-supreme-court-n946234

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/09/19/ruth-bader-ginsburg-made-the-case-for-filling-her-vacancy-before-the-election-back-in-2016-n944778

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stacey-lennox/2020/09/19/hillary-clintons-response-to-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburgs-death-is-quite-deplorable-n943718

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2020/09/19/here-are-the-four-gop-senators-who-might-derail-trumps-scotus-pick-n944785

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2020/09/19/liberals-will-look-to-expand-the-supreme-court-if-biden-wins-n945636

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/09/19/radical-left-threatens-riots-war-and-to-burn-it-down-if-rbg-replaced-n944513

https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2020/09/20/the-no-limit-casino-of-doom-n944274

https://christiannews.net/2020/09/21/jen-hatmaker-amy-grant-praise-justice-ginsburg-well-done-good-and-faithful-servant-thank-you-ruth/

 

 

 

 

ELECTION INTERFERENCE EXPOSED: HILLARY CLINTON TARGETS AND DEPLATFORMS TRUMP SUPPORTERS THROUGH ‘DARK MONEY’ GROUP

BY RENEE NAL

SEE: https://rairfoundation.com/election-interference-exposed-hillary-clinton-targets-and-deplatforms-trump-supporters-through-dark-money-group/;

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

The latest effort to dominate the election narrative by silencing conservative voices comes from Clinton acolytes in the form of an organization called “Accountable Tech”. The subversive group is pushing the “dragging out the election” strategy until Americans accept Joe Biden as president. Accountable Tech claims that there will “likely be a prolonged period of uncertainty as ballots are counted.”

Accountable Tech is conspiring with TwitterGoogleYouTube, and Facebook, who are all openly working to suppress election “disinformation” which will boil down to any criticism of the ultimate strategy to kick President Donald Trump out of office, even if he wins on election night.

Earlier this week, Hillary Clinton linked to Accountable Tech in a Tweet, dog-whistling like mad to her supporters: “We can have democracy—or we can have social networks that allow the spread of weaponized disinformation about our elections…”

The Accountable Tech website ominously warns:

“Unchecked lies about mail-in ballots and fraud will suppress votes. Baseless claims of election-rigging will sow chaos and inflame tensions. And extremists will organize and advocate for violence.”

Hillary Clinton has set the stage by stating openly that “Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances.” She continued: “Because, I think this is going to drag out and eventually I do believe we will win, if we don’t give an inch.”

Watch:

Accountable Tech, founded by Nicole Gill and Jesse Lehrich, has previously also teamed to pressure social media giants to suppress viewpoints they deem “unscientific,” such as social media posts critical of man-made global warming.

Accountable Tech’s co-founder Nicole Gill’s big achievement is her organized opposition to President Trump’s incredibly successful economy-boosting tax cuts. Gill has also served as senior advisor to the CEO of Pathfinder International, which trains developing countries to promote and conduct abortions, or as she puts it, an NGO “focused on reproductive health care worldwide.”

Gill’s fellow co-founder Jesse Lehrich worked on the presidential campaigns of both Obama and Clinton, and gained national attention for telling then-candidate Trump to “go f**k yourself” while Lehrich was serving as foreign policy spokesman for Hillary Clinton.

Accountable Tech does not disclose its donors, but Hillary Clinton is certainly onboard.

Accountable Tech released what they refer to as the “Election Integrity Roadmap for Social Media Platforms,” which includes “steps” big tech can use to suppress pro-Trump voices and ensure a win for their puppet, Joe Biden. Steps include suggestions such as “platforms must elevate authoritative information and disincentivize false, divisive, and sensationalist posts that often travel the fastest.”

Read more in their email campaigns, documented here.

It is clear that the militant left is pushing to make election day drag on until Joe Biden “wins”. Americans must loudly tell their elected officials that this “dragging out the election” strategy, which includes silencing pro-Trump voices, is unacceptable.

Support our work at RAIR Foundation USA! We are a grassroots activist team and we need your help! Please consider making a donation here: https://rairfoundation.com/donate/

 

IT’S ON: UNDERCOVER JOURNALIST DAVID DALEIDEN BEHIND BABY BODY PARTS SCANDAL SUES PLANNED PARENTHOOD FOR DEFAMATION

BY TYLER O'NEIL

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/09/19/its-on-undercover-journalist-behind-baby-body-parts-scandal-sues-planned-parenthood-for-defamation-n945758;

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

On Thursday, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) and its founder, David Daleiden, sued Planned Parenthood for defamation in federal court. Daleiden and CMP released a string of sting videos exposing Planned Parenthood employees’ shameful and illegal trafficking in aborted baby body parts in 2015. Even though the videos were accurate, Planned Parenthood claimed that they were doctored and false. Government officials even targeted Daleiden for prosecution. Yet some of Planned Parenthood’s business partners confessed to illegally selling body parts and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the undercover footage was accurate.

“Planned Parenthood admits my videos are true when under oath in federal court, but when speaking to the public, Planned Parenthood lies and calls the videos fake,” Daleiden said in a statement. “I have put my life on hold for five years to report, with video evidence, the trafficking of aborted infants that I and others witnessed at the highest levels of Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry. It is time for Planned Parenthood to face the truth.”

“Planned Parenthood has tremendous power and influence in our society. But even it must adhere to legal norms. We filed this lawsuit to hold PPFA accountable for damaging falsehoods it uttered concerning our clients’ groundbreaking journalism that exposed shocking practices it would rather keep hidden — for good reason,” Harmeet Dhillon, a lawyer representing Daleiden and CMP in the suit, said in a statement. “Planned Parenthood is not above the law. We look forward to the merits litigation of this lawsuit.”

“Instead of coming clean about its ruthless pursuit of profit from selling the remains of aborted children, Planned Parenthood tried to smear David Daleiden, the man who blew the whistle on its dirty secret,” Peter Breen, vice president and senior counsel for the Thomas More Society and another of Daleiden’s lawyers, added. “In its earlier lawsuit against David and the Center for Medical Progress, Planned Parenthood fought to avoid scrutiny of its illegal fetal tissue trafficking. This new lawsuit puts Planned Parenthood’s grisly business practices front and center, to prove the truth of the conclusions of David’s investigation, which were also confirmed and echoed by the United States Congress and other government officials.”

After CMP and Daleiden released the sting videos, which showed Planned Parenthood staff admitting to selling aborted baby body parts for profit, and one even joking about buying a Lamborghini with the profits, Planned Parenthood hired the firm Fusion GPS, now notorious for assembling the Trump-Russia dossier, to obscure the facts and suggest the videos were deceptively edited.

Many media outlets have claimed that the Fusion GPS report settled the matter, even though the report’s fine print acknowledged the veracity of the photos.

Planned Parenthood Would Gut the First Amendment to Silence Sting Videos

The Planned Parenthood sting videos were authentic

In 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice announced it had opened a federal investigation into Planned Parenthood and its business partners, prompted by the videos. Two of Planned Parenthood’s business partners in Orange County, Calif., admitted guilt for selling aborted baby body parts in a $7.8 million settlement. DV Biologics and DaVinci Biosciences acquired their profits “by viewing body parts as a commodity and illegally selling fetal tissues for valuable consideration,” District Attorney Tony Rackauckas explained in a statement.

In September 2018, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) terminated its contractswith Planned Parenthood partner Advanced Bioscience Resources because it could not be “sufficiently assured” that the company’s supply of fetal tissue complied with federal law. In January 2019, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Edith Jones ruled that CMP’s footage was “authentic and not deceptively edited.”

Planned Parenthood officials admitted — in sworn deposition testimony that the CMP videos authentically captured their statements. Planned Parenthood Federation of America admitted in a federal trial that the words captured in the sting videos “were spoken by those persons.”

Yet on September 18, 2019, Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Melanie Newman accused Daleiden of launching a “multiyear illegal effort to manufacture a fake smear campaign against Planned Parenthood.” Planned Parenthood also tweeted that Daleiden and CMP had “created a false smear campaign against Planned Parenthood.”

The lawsuit claims that these two statements constitute defamation with actual malice against Daleiden and CMP. The lawsuit demands actual and punitive damages of at least $75,000, “including damages necessary to make Plaintiffs whole for the presumptive impairment to their reputation, personal humiliation, mental anguish and suffering; and punitive and exemplary damages, in an amount necessary to punish PPFA for its malicious conduct toward Plaintiffs.” The lawsuit also requests an injunction to force Planned Parenthood to retract these statements.

Planned Parenthood’s Melanie Newman condemned the lawsuit as a “desperate attempt” to “get publicity.”

“These baseless claims are not new. They are just another desperate attempt by a discredited source to get publicity,” she told Fox News. “Last fall, a jury — with all of the facts fully presented to it — decided that David Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress intentionally broke the law in a multi-year, malicious campaign to advance their goals of banning safe, legal abortion in this country, and preventing Planned Parenthood from serving the patients who depend on us. The result: Daleiden was ordered to pay millions of dollars in damages. And, he still faces criminal charges.”

David Daleiden Exposes Planned Parenthood’s ‘Coordinated Attack on the Civil Liberties of Pro-Life Americans’

Impact on 2020

This lawsuit is also important during the 2020 presidential race. When Kamala Harris — now Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s running mate — was attorney general of California, her office searched Daleiden’s home, seizing his video footage and preparing a legal case against him. Harris has received at least $81,000 from Planned Parenthood. In 2017, Harris’s successor, Xavier Becerra (another politician bankrolled by Planned Parenthood), filed 15 felony charges against CMP and Daleiden.

Peter Breen, special counsel at the Thomas More Society, briefed PJ Media on the ongoing case last July. He argued that Daleiden’s filming was taken in “entirely public places.”

“I could point you to undercover investigations that are being shown on the evening news in Los Angeles. Under the standard they are applying to David, those would be felonies,” the lawyer argued. “The other reporters are being lauded for their brave investigative techniques, but David is being prosecuted.”

“I would say this is an abuse of the criminal process,” Breen told PJ Media.

Pro-choice law professors have defended Daleiden’s right to engage in undercover journalism.

“The Planned Parenthood case reveals that activists – and journalists – might… have to go to prison for undercover reporting if they violate any laws to gain access to the targets of their investigation,” Sherry F. Cobb and Michael C. Dorf, professors of law at Cornell University and authors of Beating Hearts: Abortion and Animal Rights, wrote in 2016. They condemned the charges against Daleiden as “a stunning act of legal jujitsu” that could “chill undercover journalists and activists everywhere.”

If CMP and Daleiden prevail in this lawsuit, that will serve as a damning indictment to Kamala Harris, whose office launched the criminal investigation against them. This news should also remind Americans of Harris’ tyrannical past — which is extremely relevant because most Americans have said that if Joe Biden is elected in November, he will not serve out his term.

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

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

6 Reasons to Oppose Nanny State Tyrant Kamala Harris in 2020
The SPLC Is in Serious Legal Jeopardy for Defamation Regarding Its ‘Hate Group’ Labels
Fusion GPS, Firm Behind the Trump-Russia Dossier, Linked to Planned Parenthood
‘Most Damning’ Planned Parenthood Videos Yet Set for Release if Judge Lifts Gag Order
‘Hate Group’ Lawsuit Clears Hurdle, Judeo-Christian Group Warns SPLC ‘Day of Reckoning’ Is Coming
 

NYC: MUSLIM DOCTOR CALLED ON PEOPLE TO SPIT ON “JEW DOGS”, BEAT UP ZIONISTS, YET IS ALLOWED TO TREAT JEWISH PATIENTS

See the source image

HERE ARE SOME MILD ANTI-SEMITIC TWEETS HE SPENDS HIS SPARE TIME VOMITING; THE REST ARE TOO OFFENSIVE TO SHOW 

See the source image

See the source image

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/09/nyc-muslim-doctor-called-on-people-to-spit-on-jew-dogs-beat-up-zionists-yet-is-allowed-to-treat-jewish-patients;

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

“The hospital discovered his social media rants and last year tried to fire Khass from his position as a pediatric resident, however, Khass took them to court and won his job back claiming the hospital wrongly fired him for violating his ‘freedom of speech.'”

That’s ridiculous. I’m a free speech absolutist, but there is no doubt that no one has the freedom or the right to call for harming other people. This man is supposed to be a doctor, but what will he do if he has a Jewish, Zionist, or Christian patient? He should not just be fired from New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital; he should be barred from practicing medicine immediately.

“‘Beat Up Zionists’: NY Doctor Tweets Violent Anti-Semitic Incitement, Permitted to Treat Jews,” by Yakir Benzion, United With Israel, September 13, 2020:

For the past two years New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital has been trying to fire a doctor with a history of posting anti-Semitic and violently anti-Israel messages on social media.

Next week, the hospital and Dr. Walid Khass will be back in court to address the doctor’s eight-year history of tweets denigrating Jews and calling for Israel’s destruction.

Before Khass was hired as a resident at the hospital, his reputation for virulently anti-Israel social media activity was known.

As far back as 2012, Khass tweeted “My beloved Palestine! Spit on you, Jew dogs!” His tweets continued as a medical student until his graduation from St. George’s University (SGU) School of Medicine in June 2019, reported Canary Mission, a watchdog organization that tracks anti-Semitism on campuses….

On August 1, 2014, Khass tweeted: “quran chapter 2 take not the christians and the jews for friends — I’m Muslim And Know This.”

On November 13, 2014, Khass tweeted: “Go Beat Up A Zionist, You’re Not You When You Don’t Beat Up A Zionist.”

His tweets are also racist including one on July 10, 2015, in which he said: “Israel Needs To Stop Payin Ethiopians To Pretend That They’re Jewish Just So They Can Have A Bigger Population.”

On February 9, 2017, Khass tweeted: “Trump Trust Me, The Only People Ruining Our Country Is The Zionist Israeli’s …. #FreePalestine.”

The Canary Mission website lists at least 57 tweets by Khass that call for violence, spread anti-Semitism, support the Hamas terror group, and spread hatred of Israel and calls for its destruction.

The hospital discovered his social media rants and last year tried to fire Khass from his position as a pediatric resident, however, Khass took them to court and won his job back claiming the hospital wrongly fired him for violating his “freedom of speech.”…

 

PASTOR JOHN MACARTHUR GETS SUPPORT FROM TRUMP, HEALTH DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS, POLICE AGAINST GOVERNOR & MAYOR

#JohnMacArthur tells Gavin Newsom and the California Government to "Bring it On" regarding an arrest and jail time for keeping Grace Community Church open. With the the U.S. Constitution and the backing of President Trump that #ChurchIsEssential, he continues to fight the #COVID19 mandates in California.

US LAWMAKERS CONCERNED OVER NETFLIX AIRING OF “CUTIES” MOVIE THAT ADDRESSES SEXUALIZATION OF GIRLS BY DEPICTING CHILD SENSUALITY

BY HEATHER CLARK

SEE: https://christiannews.net/2020/09/14/us-lawmakers-concerned-over-netflix-airing-of-cuties-movie-that-addresses-sexualization-of-girls-by-depicting-child-sensuality/;

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

A French-made film available on Netflix that is said to be a dramatized “commentary” about how social media and societal role models wrongly influence young girls to sexualize themselves is generating outrage, including from Congress, as its content counteracts its purpose by utilizing 11-year-old female actors who “perform dances simulating sexual conduct in revealing clothing.”

“I urge the Department of Justice to investigate the production and distribution of this film to determine whether Netflix, its executives, or the individuals involved in the filming and production of ‘Cuties’ violated any federal laws against the production and distribution of child pornography,” wrote Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to Attorney General William Barr on Friday.

According to reports, the movie was directed by Maïmouna Doucouré and seeks to address the negative influence sensual role models and social media have on pre-adolescent females by telling the story of an 11-year-old Senegalese Muslim immigrant, named Amy, who joins a girls dance troupe in Paris in rebellion against her mother.

She also finds herself dressing more provocatively and posting various pictures of herself online to gain attention and approval.

The scantily-clad girls engage in various sexually-charged dance moves — all clearly captured on camera and in the face of the viewer — while practicing and performing for a competition. Amy later tearfully realizes the wrong of her pursuits and returns to the arms of her mother.

“The film routinely fetishes and sexualizes these pre-adolescent girls as they perform dances simulating sexual conduct in revealing clothing, including at least one scene with partial child nudity,” Cruz wrote. “The scenes in and of themselves are harmful.”

Netflix has defended the movie, stating that it encourages others to watch the production because of its message.

“‘Cuties’ is a social commentary against the sexualization of young children,” it said in a statement. “It’s an award-winning film and a powerful story about the pressure young girls face on social media and from society more generally growing up — and we’d encourage anyone who cares about these important issues to watch the movie.”

“[Amy] believes she can find freedom through that group of dancers [where there is a] hyper-sexualization, but is that really true freedom, especially when you are a kid? Of course not,” Doucouré also explained in a video posted to the film page on Netflix.

She said that she interviewed a number of young girls before creating the film in seeking to understand how social media affects the way they think about themselves and their bodies.

“I needed to know how they felt about their own femininity in today’s society and how they dealt with their self-image in a time when social media is so important,” Doucouré outlined. “Our girls see that the more a girl is overly-sexualized on social media, the more she is successful. And children just imitate what they see trying to achieve the same result without understanding the meaning. And, yeah, it’s dangerous.”

“We are able to see oppression of women in other cultures, but my question is: isn’t the objectification of a woman’s body that we often see in our Western culture not another kind of oppression?” she asked.

Hawley

But Cruz says the film could conversely encourage the abuse of children, and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., worries about the child actors who were used for the production and taught to engage in such acts for the camera.

“[I]t is likely that the filming of this movie created even more explicit and abusive scenes and that pedophiles across the world in the future will manipulate and initiate this film in abusive ways,” Cruz told Barr.

“Did Netflix, at any point, take measures to ensure the protection of the physical, mental and emotional health of child actors made to perform simulated sex acts and filmed in sexual or sexually suggestive ways?” Hawley wrote in a letter to Netflix CEO Reed Hastings.

“Why did your company choose to market this film — which touches on a range of issues, including religion, culture and social media — with a poster solely depicting scantily-clad preteens in sexually suggestive positions?” he asked.

The original marketing image in France had been of the girls walking with shopping bags through the street and confetti flying in the air. The Netflix version had showed the girls in more provocative poses as dancers.

Others who have spoken out against the film include Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark.; Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind.; and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hi.

Even the liberal site Vice, which found the film to be “a powerful story about the pressure young girls face on social media and from society,” acknowledged that at least some scenes in the film give cause for concern given the age of the actors, even if the underlying message is well-intentioned.

“There are some scenes that are intentionally provocative … and one in particular that feels unnecessarily eroticized,” it wrote. “The girls have established themselves as an urban dance troupe and spend an afternoon filming footage of themselves dancing to a song called ‘Bum Bum’ by well-known Nigerian artist Yemi Alade.”

“The montage features close-ups of their young bodies, skin-tight clothing and highly sexualized dance moves. This scene is designed to make viewers uneasy, but knowing that the actors themselves are very young is somewhat concerning,” the outlet said.

Online petitions for Netflix to pull the film have surpassed 1 million.

___________________________________________________

'Critics' Rush to Defend Netflix's Pre-Teen Twerking Flick 'Cuties'

Where will we as a culture draw a line in the sand?

BY MARK TAPSON

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/09/critics-rush-defend-netflixs-pre-teen-twerking-mark-tapson/;

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

Mark Tapson is the Shillman Fellow on Popular Culture for the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

The brilliant satirical website Babylon Bee recently posted another gem of a faux headline:  “Awesome: Netflix Will Now Just Pump Septic Waste Straight Into Your Living Room,” poking fun at the streaming entertainment service’s reputation for pushing increasingly controversial and offensive content. But Netflix’s latest offering is no joke: a French flick that veers into the realm of child pornography.

Cuties (originally Mignonnes), which debuted Thursday on Netflix, is the story of Amy, 11, a Senegalese girl growing up in Paris who rebels against her conservative Muslim immigrant family and seeks the approval of a bullying quartet of fellow 11-year-old girls who are absolutely clueless about sex but who nevertheless believe dressing and acting like prostitutes is the key to popularity (the ages of the actresses at the time of filming are unclear, but reportedly range from 11-14). Their aimless lives center on rehearsing sexed-up choreography to a rap song for a local dance contest.

As Amy becomes desperate to escape the stultifying, traditional expectations of the women in her family, she exhibits increasingly wanton behavior, such as posting a pic of her genitalia on social media and teaching the other girls how to rev up their dance routine by twerking (if you are mercifully ignorant about twerking, it’s a very popular move derived from strip-club lap dancing, in which females squat and shake their rear ends up and down like primates presenting themselves for mating; needless to say, this is wildly inappropriate for pre-teens). The movie culminates in an extended, raunchy dance performance in which the camera lingers repellently on the scantily-clad little girls’ pelvic gyrations, come-hither looks, and suggestive touching – of themselves and each other.

SPOILER ALERT:

During the performance, Amy is horrified onstage by the sudden revelation of what she has become, and she turns her back on both that downward spiral and her family's traditions, to find liberation in her own identity. But the transcendent ending of self-purification and newfound innocence feels utterly tacked-on, and it is too little, too late to rescue the film from the sense that we have been trapped in a pedophile’s dream.

END OF SPOILER

Cuties has lit such a firestorm of controversy and anti-Netflix backlash that the hashtag #CancelNetflix has been trending on Twitter as people cancelled their subscriptions en massein protest. Politicians have even weighed in. Sen. Josh Hawley called out Netflix on Twitter, with a screenshot highlighting posts to the parental guidance page of the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), where warnings about nudity and sexual scenes are shown. Those warnings (see below) have since mysteriously disappeared from IMDb.

Sen. Ted Cruz has written to Attorney General William Barr requesting an investigation into whether the production or distribution of the film has broken any laws against child pornography.

Netflix did concede that its marketing for the film – a movie poster depicting the little girls posing provocatively like strippers – was, to put it mildly, a mistake, and it apologized in the wake of an earlier tsunami of justifiable public outrage. But Netflix stands by the film itself. “Cuties is a social commentary against the sexualization of young children,” a spokesperson said in its defense. “It’s an award-winning film and a powerful story about the pressure young girls face on social media and from society more generally growing up — and we’d encourage anyone who cares about these important issues to watch the movie.”

It’s social commentary! It’s art! And it’s award-winning! But as Breitbart News’ John Nolte wrote in his review, “Cuties is not an indictment of the sexualization of children. Cutiessexualizes children,” and portrays the young girls’ twerking ultimately as a “path to enlightenment and growth.”

Predictably, the left-leaning mainstream film critics have leapt to the movie’s defense, calling it “extraordinary” and “inspired” and dismissing its detractors as uptight “scandal-mongers on the right.” “It’s actually a sensitive portrait of growing pains that deserves to be seen,” Rolling Stone reassured its few remaining readers.

The New Yorker’s Richard Brody dismissed the “scurrilous campaign” from conservatives he claims simply don’t understand the movie. “The subject of Cuties isn’t twerking,” he insists. “It’s children, especially poor and nonwhite children, who are deprived of the resources — the education, the emotional support, the open family discussion — to put sexualized media and pop culture into perspective.”

RogerEbert.com critic Monica Castillo also argued that the movie “actively critiques the very thing pearl-clutchers were mad about — the sexualization of children.” Mashable critic Angie Han chimed in similarly: “It’s upsetting, and it’s supposed to be — because the whole point of Cuties is how damn hard it can be for girls to navigate womanhood in a society that’s all too eager to tell girls and women what they should be, and not at all interested in what they might be or want to be.”

This argument is delusional; it is actually feminism, not “society,” that is all too eager to tell girls and women what they should be and is not at all interested in what they might be or want to be. Cuties reflects a sexualized pop culture that feminism has intentionally created, to “liberate” our daughters from the patriarchal chains of the nuclear family.

Tim Robey at the UK Telegraph praised the film as “a provocative powder-keg for an age terrified of child sexuality” (emphasis added) – a description that says much more about Tim Robey than it does about the purported prudes he is sneering at. He tittered approvingly that it has “pissed off all the right people” – by which he means people who vehemently oppose the sexual exploitation of children under a patina of art.

But Los Angeles Times critic Justin Chang praised the movie as not at all “exploitative,” condemning its detractors as “putative grownups” who “can never be bothered to do the hard work of looking at something, let alone learning from it.”

Well, I did the hard work. I watched Cuties, and I learned from it – or at least, it confirmed what I already knew, which is that the entertainment critics at mainstream media outlets will defend any perversity, any ugliness, any slog through the gutter, rather than seem judgmental or moralistic. None of them is willing to align themselves with the “scurrilous,” Philistine “pearl-clutchers” of the right who just don’t understand art. None of them is willing to admit that they are apologists for an inherently exploitative showbiz industry that is populated with pedophiles at the highest cultural and political levels who have a vested interest in normalizing the sexualization of children.

Breitbart’s Nolte points out that “a full 88 percent of critics approve of Cuties, Netflix’s piece of soft-core child pornography, while only three percent of the audience agree.” This speaks volumes about the vast chasm that lies between the worldview of our leftist cultural elites and that of everyday Americans, who are becoming increasingly repulsed by the sinful excesses of pop culture.

The critics are tragically correct about one thing: our culture hyper-sexualizes women and children and shows no sign of reining that in. We are submerged in a cultural cesspool of such bottomless degeneracy that the number one song in the country is a steaming pile of rap pornography called “WAP” (as in, “wet-ass pussy”), marketed by a music video that glamorizes self-proclaimed “whores” (that is the female rappers’ own word, not mine). Shame on us. And yet the Democrat Party legitimizes former stripper Cardi B, the Grammy-winning “recording artist” behind that hit song, by letting her interview empty-suit presidential nominee Joe Biden for Elle magazine (because even fashion magazines now are leftist propaganda outlets.)

So yes, Cuties’ purported message that today’s little girls don’t know how to navigate our sexualized culture is a very real issue. And who made our culture what it is today? Who dragged our values down to the point at which a movie like Cuties is nearly unanimously defended by our media elites? Answer: the secular libertines of the Marxist left, whose relentless aim has been, and still is, to undermine the values and family structure of Western civilization, to push the envelope of “art” until no envelope even exists anymore, until there are literally no moral boundaries, no limits, no line in the sand.

If a movie that sexualizes children can be defended by claiming it is a critique of the sexualization of children, then what cannot be defended? It’s hard to imagine how our culture could degenerate even lower, but it can and it will unless enough Americans with a moral compass find the backbone to say no more, to put an end to the left’s domination of our media and entertainment.

 
 

FEDERAL JUDGE RULES GOVERNOR WOLF’S COVID RESTRICTIONS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The judgment says: “(1) that the congregate gathering limits imposed by defendants’ mitigation orders violate the right of assembly enshrined in the First Amendment; (2) that the stay-at-home and business closure components of defendants’ orders violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) that the business closure components of defendants’ orders violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

US District Judge William Stickman IV, a Trump appointee, ruled on the lawsuit brought by business owners and Republicans

SEE: https://christianaction.org/top-stories-of-the-day/u-s-judge-rules-pa-governors-strict-lockdown-measures-are-unconstitutional/

EXCERPT: "Like most Democrats Wolf is also obsessed with homosexuality, and, strangely, announced that the state would use COVID-19 data collection to also gather data on Pennsylvanians’ sexual orientations and “gender identity.”" 

SEE ALSO: https://christianaction.org/top-stories-of-the-day/leftist-pa-governor-gears-states-coronavirus-strategy-toward-homosexuality/

_________________________________________________________________________________

BY RAVEN CLABOUGH

SEE: https://christianaction.org/top-stories-of-the-day/leftist-pa-governor-gears-states-coronavirus-strategy-toward-homosexuality/

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

U.S. District Judge William Stickman IV ruled this week that Democratic Pennsylvania Governor's Tom Wolf’s coronavirus restrictions were unconstitutional.

“The liberties protected by the Constitution are not fair-weather freedoms — in place when times are good but able to be cast aside in times of trouble,” Stickman wrote in his 66-page opinion.

The plaintiffs in the case include various businesses such as hair salons and drive-in theaters, and several Republican lawmakers — U.S. Representative Mike Kelly and State Representatives Marci Mustello, Tim Bonner, and Daryl Metcalfe.

The original plaintiffs also included the counties of Washington, Butler, Greene, and Fayette, but the defendants argued that the County Plaintiffs were “not proper plaintiffs,” a point with which Judge Stickman agreed before dismissing the counties as plaintiffs.

“While counties may undoubtedly litigate in many circumstances, as Defendants aptly note, well established law prohibits the County Plaintiffs from bringing claims of constitutional violations.... As such, the County Plaintiffs are not proper parties and cannot obtain relief in this case,” Stickman wrote.

Monday’s ruling marks an important victory for Pennsylvania residents, as previous rulings rejected challenges to Wolf’s orders. The Hill observes that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had ruled in July that the state legislature could not end the coronavirus shutdown.

But Judge Stickman determined that Governor Wolf superseded his authority in his response to the public health crisis.

Judge Stickman determined that the administration’s actions were “undertaken with the good intention of addressing a public health emergency,” but added that emergencies do not grant government “unfettered” authority.

“There is no question that this country has faced, and will face, emergencies of every sort. But the solution to a national crisis can never be permitted to supersede the commitment to individual liberty that stands as the foundation of the American experiment,” Stickman wrote. “The constitution cannot accept the concept of a ‘new normal’ where the basic liberties of the people can be subordinated to open-ended emergency mitigation measures.”

Several coronavirus restrictions have been deemed unconstitutional by the ruling, including the state’s gathering limits, which Judge Stickman determined violates the First Amendment right to assembly. Pennsylvania’s stay-at-home and business closures violated the due process clause the Equal Protection clause of the Fourth Amendment, the judge ruled.

Thomas W. King, III, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told Pittsburgh's Action News 4."You can't tell 13 million Pennsylvanians that they have to stay home. That's not America. It never was. That order was horrible."

Thomas E. Breth, another attorney for the plaintiffs, asserts that the plaintiffs are not challenging some of the other guidelines, including wearing masks and maintaining social distance and are still willing to “abide by those guidelines.”

“They just want to be able to operate their businesses to make a living, go about their lives as they're protected by the U.S. Constitution," Breth said.

One plaintiff, Taste of Sicily in Lebanon, said the business had received more than $10,000 in fines from the Commonwealth for refusing to stay closed for more than two months. Owner Christine Wartluft celebrates Judge Stickman’s ruling, but is concerned that the fight is not over.

“The judge’s ruling is a victory, but we are not walking in ignorance and know that Governor Wolf will strike back due to his heartlessness and pride” Christine Wartluft, a co-owner of Taste of Sicily, told the Daily Caller. “We will continue to fight this governor and will show him the same relentlessness that he has shown our great state.”

Governor Wolf’s office has already indicated it will seek a stay of the decision and file an appeal. The governor’s press secretary states Wolf’s actions were no different from those taken by governors across the country.

"The actions taken by the administration were mirrored by governors across the country and saved, and continue to save lives in the absence of federal action,” Kensinger said. “This decision is especially worrying as Pennsylvania and the rest of the country are likely to face a challenging time with the possible resurgence of COVID-19 and the flu in the fall and winter."

Current restrictions in Pennsylvania include limiting indoor gatherings to 25 people, outdoor gatherings to 250 people, and indoor dining to 25-percent occupancy, though that is expected to rise to 50 percent on September 21, CBS Pittsburgh reports.

According to the New York Times, Pennsylvania’s cases are “lower and staying low.”

__________________________________________________________________________________

LEBANON/PALMYRA, PA TASTE OF SICILY RESTAURANT:

"WE AIN'T PAYING CRAP"

Mike Mangano speaks. Elected officials and community members gather at a protest in support of Taste of Sicily, a Palmyra-based restaurant that's been allowing customers to have sit-down meals in violation of Gov. Tom Wolf's reopening plan.
June 5, 2020. 
Dan Gleiter | dgleiter@pennlive.com

From left to write, Taste of Sicily owners Pero Popovic, Christine Wartluft, Silvana Drill and Christian Wartluft.

Elected officials and community members gather at a protest in support of Taste of Sicily, a Palmyra-based restaurant that's been allowing customers to have sit-down meals in violation of Gov. Tom Wolf's reopening plan.
June 5, 2020. 
Dan Gleiter | dgleiter@pennlive.com

SEE ALSO: https://www.pennlive.com/news/2020/07/lebanon-countys-taste-of-sicily-restaurant-has-10k-in-fines-but-no-plans-to-close-dining-room-we-aint-paying-crap.html?ref=hvper.com

 

 

 

POLLS FIND MANY DO NOT WANT COVID VACCINES

Polls Find Many Americans Do Not Want COVID-19 Vaccine as Soon as It’s Licensed

BY KATE RAINES

SEE: https://thevaccinereaction.org/2020/09/polls-find-many-americans-do-not-want-covid-19-vaccine-as-soon-as-its-licensed/;

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

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • More adults in the U.S. are expressing doubts about the safety of a newly licensed COVID-19 vaccine that might become available this year.
  • The number of poll respondents planning on getting a new coronavirus vaccine as soon as it is FDA approved has fallen from a reported high of 50 to 60 percent down to 21 percent currently.
  • Reduced trust in the fast-tracked vaccine process mirrors generally reduced trust in COVID-19 information being disseminated by public health officials and mainstream media.

As medical doctors and government health officials warn that there can be no return to normal until we have an effective COVID-19 vaccine that everyone uses, more and more Americans are expressing skepticism about accepting a newly licensed coronavirus vaccine that has been rushed through the approval process. In a poll of 2,493 registered U.S. voters across the country conducted on behalf of CBS News, only 21 percent of voters are still saying they would get a COVID-19 vaccine as soon as one becomes available, even if it is free.1

That same poll showed that two thirds of voters say they would not consider a vaccine made available this year as a scientific breakthrough (65 percent) but rather as one that had been “rushed through without enough testing” (35 percent). Among those who feel the vaccine testing has been rushed, only 13 percent say they would get the vaccine as soon as it was available.

Decreasing Trust in Fast-Tracked Vaccine Safety

The number of Americans willing to get a new vaccine against COVID-19 has been falling since polling began. In April/May, a poll of 1,056 adults conducted by the Associated Press’s NORC Center for Public Affairs Research showed that 49 percent said they planned to get vaccinated as soon as a vaccine was licensed, 20 per cent said they would not get the new vaccine and 31 percent were unsure.2 Morning Consult poll numbers from May showed an even higher number of respondents planning to get a new vaccine: 59 percent among 2,200 surveys of U.S. adults, with 14 percent saying they would not want the vaccine and 22 percent unsure.3 4

By late July, polls showed the number of people who would accept a newly licensed COVID-19 vaccine had dropped to 32 percent, with 17 percent against taking any coronavirus vaccine approved this year and 51 percent taking a “wait and see” stance.5 Most of those who have expressed reluctance about getting a new COVID-19 vaccine are concerned about safety and side effects, while others are uncertain a vaccine would be effective in protecting them from the mutated coronavirus.6

Polls results seem to indicate that there are divisions within political parties, with more registered Democrats viewing a new vaccine as being inappropriately rushed to market (77 percent) rather than a scientific achievement (23 percent) compared to Republicans (48 and 52 percent, respectively). Though more Republicans than Democrats plan to get the vaccine if one becomes available, most plan to wait or forego the vaccine altogether.7

Trust in Public Health Information Also on the Decline

That same CBS poll shows that voters as a whole have less trust in the coronavirus information provided by public health authorities, such as officials at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the President of the United States, state governors and the national media, compared to opinions reported earlier in the pandemic.8 Most dramatically, trust in the CDC to provide accurate information about COVID-19 has fallen from a high of 86 percent in March to 54 percent today.9

Also since March, trust in information provided by the national media has fallen from 45 percent to 35 percent currently. Trust in information disseminated by state governors has also fallen by 14 percentage points.10

Regardless of party, the majority of voters—65 percent of Republicans, 84 percent of Democrats and 76 percent of Independents—agree that whomever is elected president should publicly be vaccinated to demonstrate confidence in the safety of a new COVID-19 vaccine recommended by the government.11

References:

1 De Pinto J. Voters Skeptical About Potential COVID-19 Vaccine And Say That One This Year Would Be Rushed – CBS News PollCBS News Sept. 6, 2020.
2 Neergaard L, Fingerhut H. Expectations for a COVID-19 VaccineAssociated Press–NORC Center for Public Affairs Research May 27, 2020.
3 Just Over Half of Americans Say They Would Get Vaccinated if One Became Available. Morning Consult.
4 Solender A. Many Americans Say They Would Refuse A Coronavirus VaccineForbes May 8, 2020.
5 See Footnote 1.
6 TVR Staff. Poll: 69 Percent of Americans Worried Fast-Tracked COVID-19 Vaccines Won’t Be SafeThe Vaccine Reaction. Aug. 10, 2020.
7 See Footnote 1.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Meek A. Guess Who Americans Trust More On COVID-19 – Trump Or The National Press?BGR Sept.8, 2020.
11 See Footnote 1.

 

GERMANY: CHILD ABUSE-MOTHER SLAMS SCHOOL ORDER BANNING CHILDREN UNABLE TO WEAR MASKS (WATCH)

Child Abuse: Mother Slams School Order Banning Children Unable to Wear Masks (Watch)

BY AMY MEK

SEE: https://rairfoundation.com/child-abuse-mother-slams-school-order-banning-children-unable-to-wear-masks-watch/;

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

The German government is forcing children in schools across the country to wear compulsory coronavirus face masks. If children are unable to wear the state-mandated mask, even for medical reasons, they are not allowed on school premises.

In the following video (audio-only), a mother speaks out against the order banning her son from attending school without a face mask even though her son has a medical condition that precludes him from doing so.

He’s not allow to set foot on the school premises. He’s no longer able to participate. I find it to be quite alarming that it has come to this. Let me say this clearly: I think this is dangerous.

The mother is not only worried about her child, but also the effects of masks on all children. Her concerns include medical consequences such as lack of oxygen, psychological and mental effects and intellectual development delays.

Many parents are terrified to challenge the state’s totalitarian coronavirus regulations being enforced against children and their families. Not only can failure to comply with mask requirements lead to expulsion from school, but now the state has been granted the power to remove sick children from their parents’ custody and place them in ‘forced isolation’ corona facilities.

Despite German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s governments oppressive ordinances, the mother urges people to unite and stand together in protest:

Where are the people who resist? The ones who are going to say: “I’m taking this thing off! Who’s going to forbid me from breathing freely in this country?”

If we do not resist, where will the demands end, asked the mother:

Mandatory vaccines? And the chip that will probably follow that? Where does it end? When do we say, I don’t want my child to live in such a world? We were talking about digitization. In the future will it be my job as a teacher to speak to every student online in their house? With everything under surveillance.”

Watch to the following RAIR translated video (audio-only), of the mother addressing her child’s school board

Read the following RAIR articles on Germany and the coronavirus, ranging from mandatory and forced vaccinations, to politicians warning of the false information being spread by Merkel’s government:

Support our work at RAIR Foundation USA! We are a grassroots activist team and we need your help! Please consider making a donation here: https://rairfoundation.com/donate/

Many thanks to Miss Piggy for the translation:

A recording of a mother speaking at a school parents meeting in North Rhine-Westphalia

I would like to say something to you all. [Name] is no longer attending school. I think it is sad, 
because we had a certificate from his doctor stating he can’t wear a mask. Now the school says, 
after the summer break, that he is no longer able to attend school. He’s not allow to set foot 
on the school premises. He’s no longer able to participate. I find it to be quite alarming that 
it has come to this. Let me say this clearly: I think this is dangerous.

If there are any other parents that see this critically and think it is strange that their 
children have to wear a mask for six to eight hours. The entire time. It would be great 
if you contact me, because I think it is time that we start to become active. 

Our children are being made sick by being made to wear these masks. They breath CO2 back in 
constantly, so they are constantly suffering from a lack of oxygen. Of course the body gets 
used to it. They don’t pass out right away, but it means the brain receives less oxygen. 
The muscles also receive less oxygen. It also causes psychological problems, if they 
constantly see masked people. They can’t see the facial expressions of others. When they 
are constantly told to practice social distancing. I wanted to say this clearly and wish 
more parents would take a stand and refuse to allow their children to be placed into 
such conditions.

I think what makes it worse here at this school, more then any other school, is that this 
school has a flag with the pledge: “Responsible for the emotional, cognitive and physical 
well-being of children”. And it is supposed to ensure our children are doing well. 
I had to say that at least. My child will not attend school as long as this ordinance 
is in place, because I don’t want him to get sick from it.

Today I heard from the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), after the constant warnings 
circulating about a second lockdown, the second wave, etc. — there isn’t a single 
positive sample of SARS-COV 2. Not one. There’s all this talk about testing, testing, 
testing, Which is just showing that someone might have fragments of the virus, but is healthy,
and that there are many false positive included in the results. So where are all the 
dead people? Where are all the corpses from this pandemic? I keep asking myself that 
the entire time. WHERE ARE THEY!?

I have to ask. I want the truth. No one is talking about this and everyone is just believing it. 
We’re so very obedient. It makes me want to puke. Where are the people who resist? The ones 
who are going to say: “I’m taking this thing off! Who’s going to forbid me from breathing 
freely in this country?” Outside or wherever? In Israel they have to wear masks everywhere! 
I’m going to protest! It’s probably going to happen here too, if we don’t put a stop to it. 
Are we going to do that too? Mandatory vaccines? And the chip that will probably follow that?
Where does it end?

When do we say, I don’t want my child to live in such a world? We were talking about 
digitization. In the future will it be my job as a teacher to speak to every student 
online in their house? With everything under surveillance. 

I don’t want to live like that, and that’s why I am taking a stand against it. I’m a good 
person. I don’t do stupid things. I’m not a right-wing extremist or anything like that. 
I’m fighting for the children, for all of our children.

You can follow Amy Mek on Twitter at @AmyMek, and on Parler at @AmyMek.

 

BIDEN SAYS WE NEED A PRESIDENT WHO TELLS THE TRUTH?~THEN HERE ARE 8 BIG WHOPPERS THAT DISQUALIFY HIM

Joe Biden's lies are legendary. He's still the same dishonest plagiarist he was 33 years ago.

BY STACEY LENNOX

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/election/stacey-lennox/2020/09/11/biden-says-we-need-a-president-who-tells-the-truth-then-here-are-8-big-whoppers-that-disqualify-him-n917014;

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

Following the manufactured crisis of the leaked audio between President Trump and Bob Woodward, Joe Biden’s social media team had to take a swipe. However, the intern that is running the account decided to blast out some truly mockable posts. If you have been sentient for more than a decade, you may laugh out loud:

We certainly do. The reader must assume that the implication is that Joe Biden is as honest as Abe and will never tell a lie. Once you make that connection, you should collapse into hysterical laughter. The aging septuagenarian has a long history of whoppers. In fact, one cost him the nomination previously.

One has to wonder how many people have or will have to suffer because of Biden’s lies. Here is a quick list of some of the more egregious examples of Biden’s casual relationship with the truth.

1. Biden’s College Years

During a campaign stop in April of 1987, a member of the audience asked him about his academic record. Here is the press coverage from the time:

Note the final comment after Biden had to concede that the account he gave was not correct. He said his memory had failed him. This event was thirty-three years ago, and shortly before he underwent the first of two brain surgeries for a ruptured aneurysm.

2. Biden’s Plagiarism Problem

Biden was forced to drop out of the 1988 race following accusations of plagiarism. Under scrutiny, he had to admit he had a history of using other people’s work. From The Washington Post:

The collapse had begun 11 days earlier, with news that Biden had lifted phrases and mannerisms from a British Labour Party politician while making closing remarks at a debate. Examples soon surfaced of Biden using material from other politicians without attribution, and he acknowledged he had been accused of plagiarism in law school. To make matters worse, a video emerged of Biden exaggerating his academic record while speaking angrily to a voter in New Hampshire.

“I made some mistakes,” Biden, then a U.S. senator, told the press as he announced the end of his candidacy, in a speech that was by turns regretful and defiant. “But now, the exaggerated shadow of those mistakes has begun to obscure the essence of my candidacy and the essence of Joe Biden.”

Notice, it was other people exaggerating his lying and using the work of others that was the problem. Not the fact that he made things up out of whole cloth. Joe Biden dropped out of his last presidential race because he was a liar. But now he’ll be the president who doesn’t lie. M’kay.

In this campaign, his team has lifted a slogan and climate plan directly from the United Nations, and much his latest economic and COVID policies sound eerily like President Trump’s.

3. The Bidens’ Love Story

Joe and his wife, Jill, are fond of telling the story of their romance. However, the information has varied over time. In one, Biden’s brother, Frank, fixes them up after Joe sees Jill’s picture in an ad at the airport. In another, they are fixed up on a blind date, and Joe had no idea who he was meeting until he picked her up.

Jill’s ex-husband tells a very different story. Bill Stevenson alleges he and Jill worked on Biden’s first campaign for the Senate in 1972 before Biden’s wife died in a car crash. He says he considered Biden a friend.

Stevenson owned the Steel Balloon, which hosted high-profile rock bands. He first became suspicious when Jill had the opportunity to meet Bruce Springsteen and declined because she was going to take care of Biden’s young sons, Beau and Hunter, after their mother’s death.

He believes Biden and Jill began an affair at some point after Neilia Biden’s death, which was confirmed to him in October of 1974 when Biden and Jill were allegedly in a fender-bender in Jill’s car. At that point, Stevenson asked Jill to leave, and she did.

Stevenson was listed as one of the top 50 most influential men in the last 50 years in Delaware, along with Biden on a 2012 list. He is an entrepreneur and businessman who recently sold a product to Scotts Miracle-Gro. It doesn’t seem like he’s telling tales for a payday, and the Biden’s have not commented.

4. Biden’s Tragic Loss

Joe Biden’s wife Neilia and one-year-old daughter Naomi were killed in an auto accident after Biden won his Senate seat, but before he was sworn in. This loss in and of itself was tragic. Indeed, a story that needed no embellishment. But Biden can’t resist.

“A tractor-trailer, a guy who allegedly — and I never pursued it — drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch, broadsided my family and killed my wife instantly and killed my daughter instantly and hospitalized my two sons,” Mr. Biden said in 2007.

In a 2001 speech at the University of Delaware, he referred to an “errant driver who stopped to drink instead of drive” and “hit my children and my wife and killed them,” according to a 2008 report in NewsBusters, citing a 2001 “Inside Edition” report.

According to the investigator on the case:

Now-retired Delaware Superior Court Judge Jerome O. Herlihy, who oversaw the investigation as chief deputy attorney general, told Politico, “She had a stop sign. The truck driver did not.”

In 2008, he told the Post that rumors about alcohol playing a role in the accident were “incorrect.”

The driver’s daughter says Biden called and apologized for these statements. However, one has to wonder why he started making them thirty years after the fact.

5. Where’s Hunter?

While the scandal-ridden son did appear at the DNC, it was mostly to give a brief speech about how great his dad is and give an introduction to a memorial video for his deceased brother Beau. Neither Joe Biden nor his son has been honest about their dealings in Ukraine and China. At least Hunter was honest enough to say a lot of things have come his way because of his last name. The real question is how many things were given in exchange for those opportunities.

The graft of the Biden family is extensive enough that it takes up 44 scrupulously sourced pages in Peter Schweizer’s book Profiles in Corruption. It also takes up countless articles and podcasts from the likes of John Solomon, Sara Carter, Greg Jarrett, and Dan Bongino.

Biden says he didn’t know about his son’s business deals. This assertion is beyond parody given the number of photos and meetings that have been disclosed of Biden with Hunter’s business associates and the documented meetings and communications.  The nominee is rarely asked about these issues and typically evades them.

6. Biden’s Mask Is Ripped Off

When Joe Biden was asked about the rash of unusual unmaskings of Trump’s incoming national security advisor, General Michael Flynn, and the investigation that was launched, he initially said he knew nothing about it. Later his name showed up on the declassified list of unmasking requests related to Flynn. Even more damning, according to declassified extemporaneous notes taken by Peter Strozk, Biden was at a critical meeting where the investigation into Flynn was discussed and was the person who suggested Flynn be investigated under the Logan Act.

7. To Frack or Not to Frack?

Biden could not have been more explicit in the primary debates and policy proposals. To reduce carbon emissions and save Gaia, he was going to end new fracking permits and prohibit the practice on federal land. In fact, when he was asked if he was willing to sacrifice thousands of jobs in the oil and gas industry for his green policies, he said yes. Here is a montage of his primary promises.

Because Pennsylvania is a must-win state for him and industries related to fracking are influential there, Biden made a trip and reversed himself. Did he lie to AOC and the radical left, or is he lying to union workers in Pennsylvania? One will cost him enthusiasm; the other will cost him votes.

8. Biden’s Voting Record

Biden was a sponsor of the 1994 crime bill he now runs away from. It is his single biggest legislative accomplishment and one the Obama administration never sought to remedy despite the sentencing disparities it caused. There is so much in this video that Biden has run away from—especially regarding racial oppression and economic disadvantage—that it is wildly funny. Will the real Joe Biden please stand up?

Just yesterday, during an interview with CNN, Joe Biden ran away from his vote on NAFTA.

Here is Joe Biden defending his vote in 2007.

Nobody Knows Joe
This list is by no means comprehensive. Biden suddenly says he will bolster manufacturing in America while telling Jake Tapper we want China to grow. Yes, he actually said we want our biggest ideological and economic foe to grow. The primary vehicle for China’s growth is American investment. He has also said he will take on some elements of the Sanders/Warren economic demands, like making the U.S. Postal Service capable of making small loans. His team assured the banking industry that this is never going to happen.

The simple truth is that Joe Biden lied about his own life story when there was no reason to. It should make you question the emergence of the “stutter” story this cycle. He has been lying about his record as well as his own stated policies during the campaign. Kamala Harris was no better during the primary. The gall of his campaign to accuse anyone of lying is pretty astonishing. Lying is the reason he failed to become president before. It should prevent him from ascending to the highest office in the land again.

 

SOUTHERN BAPTIST PASTORS TO RELEASE JOINT STATEMENT ENDORSING PRO-ABORTION, PRO-LGBT, “TRUE CHRISTIAN” JOE BIDEN

IMG-0223.jpg

SEE: https://reformationcharlotte.org/2020/09/10/sbc-pastors-to-release-joint-statement-endorsing-pro-abortion-pro-lgbt-true-christian-joe-biden/;

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

David Bumgardner describes himself as a “21-year-old student, theologian-in-training, preacher, and content-creator” who is a regular on several podcasts and radio shows, a speaker, and serves as a Pastoral Intern at Faith Memorial Baptist Church in Archer City, Texas.

Bumgardner, according to his Facebook page, is a student at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, a prominent Southern Baptist seminary that, like most Southern Baptist entities, has been given over to unbiblical thinking and “woke” theology.

Unsurprisingly, Bumgardner, like many Southern Baptist pastors and students, has also made a sharp turn to the left and bought into the false narrative that the current president, Donald Trump, is some kind of egotistic white supremacist that, for whatever reason, needs to be removed from office at all costs — even at the expense of innocent lives, religious freedom, and the right to live out a Christian worldview.

The implications are far more than political, they are theological. The line of reasoning that Bumgardner employs stems from a vastly deficient and sub-biblical epistemology and worldview.

“Very soon I, along with trusted and respected evangelical ministers and leaders, will be releasing a joint evangelical declaration outlining the case for #BidenHarris2020,” he wrote on his Facebook page.

“I believe Donald Trump is a threat to the flourishing of my neighbors,” he continued, “I believe he is a threat to national security. I believe he is a threat to national unity. I believe he is stoking the fires of civil and racial unrest. I believe his hypocrisy is palpable and manifest. I believe he is a blasphemer who does not care about evangelicals.”

Apparently, however, he believes that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are not? Maybe. I don’t know. He sounds foolish, though.

“I believe Republicans have failed to introduce any meaningful legislation to reduce the number of abortions performed in the Unites States,” he continued, as though he actually believes what he’s writing here. And even if it were true, it’s not the point.

He continues, “I believe single-issue voting is an abdication of civic duty.”

The argument of “single-issue voting” is massively uninformed, at best. It is completely absurd. While the killing of innocent children is certainly at the top of the priority list for many — and rightfully so — there is absolutely nothing that the Democrats endorse on their platform that a biblically-minded Christian could endorse. Nothing. We’re talking not just about abortion, but religious freedom, freedom of speech, theft and wealth redistribution, lawlessness and open borders, anti-police sentiment, the advancement of LGBTQ indoctrination and the promotion of sexual anarchy, and the list goes on. This is who Bumgardner says he and his “Evangelical” friends will be officially endorsing.

“I am voting for Joe Biden because he is the *true* “Christian option” in this election,” he says. He then goes on to try to neutralize his opponents by saying that he will not question the salvation of those who disagree with him and implies that it would be foolish to “deride” him for his decision by citing Proverbs 18:13.

Yet, the Scriptures tell us that we will know them by their fruits — and it is clear that his fruits are in opposition to the biblical teachings on priorities. Therefore, it is Bumgardner who is foolish, and we have every right — and duty — to judge him for it (1 Corinthians 5:12). It would be foolish not to.

If someone who claims to be a Christian and has studied the Bible for a considerable amount of time actually believes this way, there is no way around it; this person has not been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and has no business preaching or leading a church.

See also: If You’re a Democrat, You’re Probably Not Saved

The entire post can be read at this link and has been screenshot below for safe-keeping.

READ  Southern Baptist Pastor Who Committed Suicide Said "Gay Christians" Represent Jesus' Love More Than Straight Christians
READ  Southern Baptists, Calvary Chapel Supporting Ministry That Tells Women How to Have an Abortion
READ  Pastor Joins Stripper to Raise Funds to Aid Illegal Aliens
___________________________________________________________________________________
CONTINUATIONIST TOO, LIKE WAYNE GRUDEM?

THE CONTINUATION OF THE “MIRACULOUS” AND SPIRITUAL GIFTS

The miraculous gifts recorded and described in the New Testament did not cease at the end of the apostolic era. While the apostolic office is closed, God the Holy Spirit continues to sovereignly dispense spiritual gifts (including those we may classify as “miraculous”) for the edification of the local assembly of believers, the furtherance of the Kingdom, and the vindication of the Gospel believers boldly proclaim. Believers should earnestly desire and pursue the spiritual gifts; they should seek to practice their gifts in the gathered assembly in an orderly and edifying manner while submitting to the pastor/elders God has placed over them.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Christians Cannot And MUST Not Vote Democrat - John MacArthur

Why Christians can't vote for the Democrat Party

Todd Friel asks John MacArthur what Christians can do on a practical level to stand against the Holocaust of abortion.

 

SEATTLE CLOSES PARK AHEAD OF RAYER RALLY; BELIEVERS WORSHIP OUTSIDE ANYWAY

Sean Feucht Ministries held a Labor Day "worship protest" on the Seattle streets after the Parks and Recreation Department shut down Gas Works Park to stop the group from gathering there, citing the novel coronavirus risk. Photo courtesy Sean Feucht Ministries. (Sean Feucht Ministries)

BY BOB ADELMANN

SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/36984-seattle-closes-park-ahead-of-prayer-rally-believers-worship-outside-anyway;

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

Sean Feucht, head of the international Sean Feucht Ministries, planned to hold a prayer meeting at Seattle’s Gas Works Park on Labor Day, but the city issued a statement on September 4 saying that the park would be shut down on Labor Day due to COVID-19. Temporary fencing was set up to keep people out, with the city claiming that any Labor Day gatherings at the park could lead to “crowding that could impact the public health of residents.”

When Feucht learned of the shutdown, he posted the following to his Facebook page:

This is the height of hypocrisy for the city of Seattle to turn a blind eye to riots, looting, and AntiFa, while refusing the let Christians gather in a public park to sing and worship.

First the government shuts down churches. Now it’s shutting down parks to stop us from worshipping.

Time to stand up, church!

More than two thousand worshippers showed up outside the fences, in the street, on Labor Day to pray, sing, and worship God. Afterwards, Feucht posted this on Twitter:

At the same time, Feucht’s organization, which started out of his college dorm room and now spans six continents with presence in more than 250 cities, was holding a similar rally at the California state capitol in Sacramento. There, more than 12,000 believers celebrated in violation of Governor Gavin Newsom’s edicts against large gatherings.

Feucht told America’s Newsroom that this was the 21st city where his Let Us Worship rallies are being held, calling it a “rising up” against the state:

What we’re experiencing across America is especially with the churches being closed and, you know, these godless politicians that are taking aim at the church, you know, people are rising up.

There’s a backlash that’s growing. We had 12,000 people that gathered with us at the capitol in Sacramento two nights ago and it’s just continuing to build momentum.

Among those taking early positions against California’s illegal and unconstitutional edicts is Pastor John MacArthur of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley. When he first learned that the virus could wind up killing millions, he closed his church and went online instead.

And then he discovered it was a lie.

He told Gabe Lyons, host of Q Ideas:

Being a pastor means you’re a truth teller. That means you’re a truth teller when it comes to the Bible. That means you protect your people from deception that comes from the world. That’s part of being a shepherd. You don’t want to aid and abet the lie.

This is a lie and you can’t necessarily say that everybody that’s involved in it has an ulterior motive but the lie is dominating and you need to be a truth teller and you need to do your homework.

I would say to pastors, “Have church, open up, have church.” You don’t have to fear someone’s going to die. You don’t have to fear you’re going to get sick, because they’re not going to be able to trace this back. I haven’t seen anything like that anywhere….

Health mandates and governors’ orders are not law. I don’t think you have to fear [them]. You need to open the church because this, of all times, when people fear, is where they need to come.

MacArthur explained how he discovered that the COVID threat was a lie:

In the beginning, we heard millions are going to die. Well, anybody with any common sense is going to say, “We don’t want to be responsible for millions of people dying.” So we did livestream and we went on doing that for four weeks until we were trying to figure out the realities.

And then just in kind of a personal transition people started coming to church. They knew we were doing livestream, they knew the auditorium was empty. They just started coming in and more every week, every week, every week, and they did that because every week it became more clear that millions were not going to die. And at that point, I finally said, “We need to be here.”

We heard the other day that there is one death per 100,000 people from COVID in California at this present time, so the narrative doesn’t work. They can’t sell us this lie anymore that makes you shut down the church. We've had about 7,000 people in church the last couple of weeks. We don’t know of anybody sick. We’ve never had anybody in the hospital with COVID.

The church in America appears finally to be awakening, not only to the lie, but to its responsibility to follow the Holy Scriptures’ demand. From Acts 2:46: “And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts.” From Hebrews 10:24-25: “And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.”

Image: screenshot from YouTube video

An Ivy League graduate and former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American, writing primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at badelmann@thenewamerican.com.

Related article:

California Mega-church Defies Appeals Court Override, Opens Unmasked Without Social Distancing

 

GUN SALES SKYROCKET AS MASS EXODUS FROM CITIES FORGES NEW CONSERVATIVE ALLIANCE

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

Gun sales are skyrocketing as a mass exodus from Democrat ruined cities may be forging a new conservative force that will dominate politics like never before! In this video, we’re going to look at the implosion of leftwing cities throughout our nation as more and more residents flee, and how the surge in gun sales, especially among first-time buyers, suggests that a new conservative coalition is forming that may dominate politics as far as the eye can see! You are not going to want to miss this!

NEW CDC DATA SHOWS 94% OF COVID-19 DEATH CASES HAD UNDERLYING POOR HEALTH CONDITIONS

BY BARBARA CACERES

SEE: https://thevaccinereaction.org/2020/09/new-cdc-data-shows-94-percent-of-covid-19-death-cases-had-underlying-poor-health-conditions/;

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

The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Sept. 2 weekly update on COVID-19 mortality in the U.S., which is published by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), reported 170,566 deaths “involving COVID-19” that occurred between Feb. 1, 2020 and Aug. 29, 2020.1 During the same time period there were 1,841,678 deaths from all causes. About 94 percent of the death cases confirmed to be COVID-19-related involved other coinciding infections or underlying poor health conditions, including influenza, pneumonia, hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease.

Child Deaths from COVID-19 Rare

Of the deaths involving COVID-19, 79 percent were over age 65 and 31 percent were over age 85. Children under age 14 accounted for 0.00035 percent of deaths.

Fifty four percent of all deaths involving COVID-19 were male. Provisional death reports for COVID-19 peaked on Mar. 18, 2020, which also coincides with the peak for deaths from all causes in the United States.2 Hispanic and non-Hispanic black residents experienced disproportionate deaths involving COVID-19.3

Most COVID-19 Deaths in Nursing Hospitals, Inpatient Facilities

Almost 65 percent of deaths involving COVID-19 occurred in a nursing home or other inpatient healthcare facility, whereas 29 percent of all-cause deaths during the same period occurred in an inpatient setting. Roughly 21 percent of COVID-19 deaths occurred in nursing homes, while approximately 18 percent of all-cause deaths occurred in nursing homes.

Home is the most common location (33.6 percent) for people who die of all causes in the U.S.4

94 Percent of COVID-19 Death Cases Had Other Underlying Health Problems

For six percent of the coronavirus-associated deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For COVID-19-related death cases in persons who had other infections or conditions in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per COVID-related death. The most common respiratory conditions included influenza, pneumonia, respiratory failure, and adult respiratory distress syndrome.

Comorbid circulatory diseases included hypertension, cardiac arrest, ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and cardiac arrhythmia. Approximately 16 percent of the death certificates listed diabetes, and 11 percent stated that vascular and unspecified dementia contributed or was the cause of death. Three percent had intentional or unintentional injury, poisoning or other type of adverse event listed.5

Reports of COVID-19 Deaths Based on Provisional Data

The NCHS uses incoming data from death certificates to produce provisional COVID-19 death counts.6 These include deaths occurring within the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death—or when it is listed as a “probable” or “presumed” cause—the death is coded using a new ICD-10 code, and this code can include cases with or without laboratory confirmation.

Provisional death counts may not match counts from other sources, such as media reports or numbers from county health departments. Counts by NCHS often track 1–2 weeks behind other data, and may be delayed for the following reasons:

  • Death certificates take time to be completed. There are many steps to filling out and submitting a death certificate. Waiting for test results can create additional delays.
  • States report at different rates. Currently, 63 percent of all U.S. deaths are reported within 10 days of the date of death, but there is significant variation between states.
  • It takes extra time to code COVID-19 deaths. While 80 percent of deaths are electronically processed and coded by NCHS within minutes, most deaths from COVID-19 must be coded by a person, which takes an average of seven days.
  • Other reporting systems use different definitions or methods for counting deaths.

Provisional counts are not final and are subject to change. Counts from previous weeks are continually revised as more records are received and processed. Counts do not include all deaths that occurred during a given time period, especially for more recent periods.

However, NCHS estimates how complete their numbers are by looking at the average number of deaths reported in previous years. Death counts should not be compared across states since some states report deaths on a daily basis, while other states report deaths weekly or monthly. State vital record reporting may also be affected or delayed by COVID-19 related response activities.

CDC Guidelines for Certifying Coronavirus Deaths

Death certificates contain two parts. Part I is for reporting the sequence of conditions that led directly to death. The immediate cause of death, which is the disease or condition that directly preceded death and is not necessarily the underlying cause of death (UCOD), are reported first and the conditions that led to the immediate cause of death should be reported in a logical sequence in terms of time and etiology below it. The UCOD, which is “the disease or injury which initiated the train of morbid events leading directly to death or… the circumstances of the accident or violence which produced the fatal injury,” should be reported on the lowest line used in Part I.7

Other significant conditions that contributed to the death, but are not a part of the sequence in Part I, should be reported in Part II. Not all conditions present at the time of death have to be reported—only those conditions that actually contributed to death.8

In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID-19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), CDC reporting guidelines state:

It is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate as “probable” or “presumed.” In these instances, certifiers should use their best clinical judgement in determining if a COVID–19 infection was likely. However, please note that testing for COVID-19 should be conducted whenever possible.9

Jeff Lancashire, acting associate director for communications at the NCHS, said that, while 94 percent of death certificates that mention COVID-19 also listed other conditions, the underlying cause of death was COVID-19 in almost all of them. “ The underlying cause of death is the condition that began the chain of events that ultimately led to the person’s death,” he said. “In 92 percent of all deaths that mention COVID-19, COVID-19 is listed as the underlying cause of death.”10

Are CDC guidelines used to “pad” COVID-19 numbers?

Scott Jensen, MD, a family physician and Minnesota state senator, has publicly challenged the CDC’s guidelines for permitting presumed or probable cases of COVID to be listed on death certificates, saying they are “ridiculous” and could be misleading the public. Dr. Jensen states that the CDC’s death certificate manual tells physicians to focus on “precision and specificity,” but the coronavirus death certification guidance runs completely counter to that axiom.11

Dr. Jensen also reacted to Dr. Anthony Fauci’s response to a question about the potential for the number of coronavirus deaths being “padded,” in which the NIAID director described the prevalence of “conspiracy theories” during “challenging” times in public health. Dr. Jensen said:

I would remind him that anytime health care intersects with dollars it gets awkward. Right now Medicare has determined that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital you’ll get paid $13,000. If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator, you get $39,000; three times as much. Nobody can tell me, after 35 years in the world of medicine, that sometimes those kinds of things [don’t have] impact on what we do.

Most Americans Live with Chronic Disease

That so many COVID-19 deaths are associated with chronic disease highlights the risk factor inherent in underlying poor health conditions. The CDC reports that six in ten Americans lives with a chronic disease, and four in ten have two or more. These chronic diseases—heart, lung and kidney disease, cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s disease—are the leading cause of death and disability, and are the leading drivers in the nation’s $3.5 trillion in annual health care costs,12 as well as raise the risk of severe illness from the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus infection.13

Obesity is one of the most common underlying conditions increasing one’s risk for severe illness and about 40 percent of U.S. adults are obese.  The more underlying medical conditions people have, the higher their risk.14

References:

1 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Weekly Updates by Select Demographic and Geographic Characteristics. Sept 2, 2020
2 Ibid.
3 CDC. Health Disparities: Race and Hispanic Origin. Sept 2, 2020.
4 See Footnote 1.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 CDC. Guidelines for Certifying Deaths Due to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) National Vital Statistics Service April 2020.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Funke D Fact check: Did the CDC ‘quietly’ adjust US coronavirus death tally? MSN Sept. 2, 2020.
11 Creitz C Minnesota doctor blasts “ridiculous” CDC coronavirus death count guidelines Fox News Apr. 9, 2020.
12 CDC. Chronic Diseases in America. Oct. 23, 2019.
13 CDC. CDC updates, expands list of people at risk of severe COVID-19 illness. June 25, 2020.
14 Ibid.

 
1 88 89 90 91 92 100