HOROWITZ ON HUCKABEE DISCUSSING “THE DARK AGENDA TO DESTROY CHRISTIAN AMERICA”

HOROWITZ ON HUCKABEE DISCUSSING: 
“THE DARK AGENDA TO DESTROY CHRISTIAN AMERICA”

Freedom Center founder compares arrogant Dems to the serpent in the Garden of Eden

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273261/horowitz-huckabee-discussing-dark-agenda-destroy-frontpagemagcom; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
In the video below, Freedom Center founder David Horowitz joins Mike Huckabee on his show to discuss his new book, Dark Agenda: The War to Destroy Christian America. Horowitz compares the arrogant and seductive Democrats to the serpent in the Garden of Eden. Don’t miss it! [Order Dark Agenda: HERE.]
And make sure to watch David Horowitz discuss his new book at his recent appearance at the Freedom Center’s Wednesday Morning Club.

Transcript: 
Readers of my new book “Dark Agenda” might wonder how an agnostic Jew and ex-radical came to write about the war to destroy Christian America. Once I recognized the destructive character of the radical movement I had been part of forty years ago, I began a re-examination of everything I and my comrades had thought about the system we had set out to destroy.
In the course of this inquiry, I had a kind of epiphany. Thinking about the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which even radicals cherished, I realized that these rights were only unalienable because they were given by a Divinity – by God. If they were granted by government, then government could take them away.
It was a simple idea to understand but not so simple to embrace. Even though I was an agnostic, I had to face the fact that without a belief in God, or respect for such a belief, these rights could not exist. Without respect for believers and their belief, without respect for the Christians who created this country, our most cherished rights would have no foundation and could not be defended.
And that was just the beginning of my second thoughts. Ninety-eight percent of the people who settled and created America were protestant Christians fleeing religious persecution. Every element of our democracy – pluralism, inclusion, diversity, equality and protection for minorities – is Christian in origin, and more specifically a direct product of the Protestant Reformation.
The Reformation was a revolt against the authority of the Catholic Church whose role until then was mediator between God and His creatures. Before the Reformation no salvation was possible outside the Church and its priesthood. The reformers advanced two fundamental doctrines: “the priesthood of all believers” and “salvation by faith.”
“Salvation by faith” was the belief that we are such flawed creatures none of us deserves salvation, which can only be granted by God’s grace. This is the idea behind the checks and balances put in place by America’s founders who understood the dangers posed not only by the popular majority but by government itself, whose agents were as prone to the sins that lead to injustice as those whom they governed.
But the truly revolutionary protestant idea was “the priesthood of all believers.” It meant that every one of God’s creatures faced their Creator directly, without a mediator, and therefore that all human beings were equal in the eyes of God, and had to be treated equally by government, which existed to serve them.
This is the idea that made America the world leader in abolishing slavery, in empowering women, and in creating a society that was inclusive and diverse. In the protestant view, no Church was raised above others, no pope or priest or minister had the authority even to define what Christianity was, and neither could the state. That was left to the individual and his or her conscience.
Because the protestants who settled and created America were fleeing persecution by religions that had been established by the state, the American Founders made religious liberty, the first liberty and the foundation of all our other liberties.
The title of my book is Dark Agenda: The Left’s War to Destroy Christian America. In the last sixty years, the anti-religious, anti-American left has conducted a relentless assault on believers and their beliefs, suppressing religious liberty, stripping the public square of religious expression and memory, and in the process removing the underpinnings of our democratic order. What inspired me to write this book was the realization that the left’s hatred of Christianity is also its hatred for America itself.
The year 2008 marked the opening of a new $621 million Visitor’s Center adjacent to the U.S. Capitol. It was designed to serve as an informational museum about our republic. When it was opened, however, all references to God and the religious faith of the founders had been systematically edited out of its photos and historical displays. The lengths to which the designers went in their zeal to expunge religion were both extreme and petty:
  • An enlarged image of the Constitution, for example, was photo-shopped to remove the words, “In the Year of Our Lord” above the signatures of the signers.
  • The nation’s official motto was alleged to be E Pluribus Unum, when in fact it is, “In God We Trust.”
  • Even a replica of the Speaker’s rostrum in the House of Representatives omitted the gold-lettered inscription of the nation’s actual motto, because of its reference to a divinity.
It is not just visitors to the nation’s capital who have had God and religion airbrushed out of our nation’s founding. Thanks to a series of corrupt Supreme Court decisions beginning in 1962, children in the nation’s public schools are denied knowledge of the religious origins and foundations of our nation and its freedoms. Outrageously, because of the Court’s decisions this knowledge is now denied to our school children by the Constitution itself.
In 1986, a study of 60 textbooks used by 87% of public school children noted that, “the Pilgrims are described entirely without any reference to religion. Thus, the textbooks describe how at the end of their first year they ‘wanted to give thanks for all they had,’ which was the first Thanksgiving. But no mention is made of the fact it was God they were thanking…. The Pueblo Indians can pray to Mother Earth – but the Pilgrims can’t be described as praying to God. And never are Christians described as praying to Jesus.”
The study sums up its findings in these words, “There is not one story or article in all these books, in approximately 9-10 thousand pages, in which the central motivation or major content derives from Christianity or Judaism.”
If you don’t know where you come from, how do you know where you are going?
This is why the assault on religion has created a national crisis in our country, dividing us into warring camps whose fundamental views are not only in conflict, but irreconcilable.
The first Supreme Court decision banishing religion from the schools and eventually the public square occurred in 1962 and is known as Engel v. Vitale. Engel was a founding member of the New York chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, a radical organization hostile to America and its religious foundations. The ACLU suit objected to a 23-word non-denominational prayer devised by the New York Board of Regents which said, “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.”
For 170 years, prayers had been regular features of public schools, without a single constitutional challenge. Now Engel and his team claimed that this innocuous prayer violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which banned the state from establishing an official religion.
At the Supreme Court, seven unelected, appointed-for-life lawyers decided by a 6-1 vote in favor of the radicals. In his lone dissent, Justice Potter Stewart pointed out the hypocrisy of his colleagues whose sessions still began with the invocation, “God Save the United States and this Honorable Court.” The idea that a 23-word non-denominational prayer established a religion was transparently absurd, but 6 unelected justices decided it wasn’t.
The Greek scientist Archimedes famously said, “Give me a lever and a place to stand, and I will move the earth.” In the Supreme Court, a radical minority had found a lever that would circumvent the democratic process and allow them to change the world.
There were many democratic solutions available to the prayer issue. If atheists felt excluded by the non-denominational prayer, they could have petitioned the Regents, or the school board, or their elected officials to find a way to accommodate non-religious children. But as radicals they weren’t interested in the democratic process. They had found a branch of government which could change the practices of a nation overnight, make the new practices the fundamental law of the land, and do it for all fifty states at once.
How radical and anti-American were the plaintiffs who shaped America’s future through the leverage of the Supreme Court? The following year, America’s most notorious atheist, Madalyn Murray O’Hair, brought a parallel but far more influential ACLU suit to the Supreme Court claiming that school Bible readings violated the establishment clause.
Murray was the founder of Atheists of America. Life Magazine called her, “The Most Hated Woman in America.” She embraced this epithet to position herself as a victim. In fact, she was a deceitful manipulator of public opinion, who went so far as to blame Christians for the fatal heart attack her aged father suffered only hours after she had assaulted him over his morning coffee with these words: “I hope you drop dead. I’ll dump your shriveled body in the trash.”
Just prior to launching her anti-prayer campaign, Murray took her family to Europe where she tried to defect to the Soviet Union. Seeing what a troubled individual she was, the Kremlin rejected her. When she returned to the States and prepared to position her son as a victim of intolerant Christians, she asked him what he felt about the prayers at his school. He told her he didn’t mind them, to which she responded: “Don’t you understand what is going on yet?… The United States is nothing more than a fascist slave labor camp run by a handful of Jew-bankers in New York City…. The only way true freedom can be achieved is through the new socialist man…. Russia is close but not close enough or they would have let us in.”
The Russians were smart enough to see that Murray was a malicious crackpot, but not the U.S. Supreme Court, which, with one lone dissent, voted to impose her will on all Americans, and thereby suppress religious liberty, which is the foundation of all our freedoms.
The next two Supreme Court decisions engineered by the radicals were even more fraudulent. They led directly to the profound chasm in our society today. The fraudulent legal argument was common to both cases, but it was the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade that led to the nation-breaking political divisions that confront us today.
The suit was the work of the lawyers at Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, whose support had been enlisted by a chapter of the radical Sixties organization, Students for a Democratic Society at the University of Texas. Once again, the radicals chose to by-pass the democratic-legislative process to invoke the tyranny of 9 unelected, life-appointed lawyers, who voted to make the right to kill children in the womb the fundamental law of the land.
The “legal” basis for Roe was an imaginary constitutional “right to privacy,” invented by Planned Parenthood lawyers to justify their radical agendas. Even if the Constitution contained a right to privacy – and it does not –  the decision made no sense. As Justice Rehnquist said in dissent, there is nothing private about an abortion.
Nor are restrictions on abortions attacks on a woman’s right to choose. Unless she is a victim of rape, a woman makes a series of choices before arriving at the decision to kill a child – first to have sex, then with whom to have sex, then to have unprotected sex or to not use the day after pill. All these take place before a woman reaches the point where she makes a final choice: whether to go through with the birth and find her child an adoptive mother or kill it.
Roe v. Wade represented a fundamental break from the existing fabric of American life. It was imposed overnight, in every community in the country, and without the consent of the inhabitants of those communities who – according to the Constitution – were supposed to be sovereign.
This tyrannical, fraudulent Supreme Court decision split the nation in two. Its assault on traditional communities led directly to the creation of the religious right. Until Roe, the evangelical community had been wary of political involvements, but this unconstitutional assault on its communities thrust it into politics out of sheer concern for its self-defense.
The Moral Majority, Focus on the Family and the American Family Association – all pillars of this movement – were formed directly in the wake of Roe v. Wade. When the Democratic Party embraced Roe, it led to the wholesale defection of its Catholic base and shifted the party dramatically to the left. On the right, Roe prompted Catholics and evangelical protestants to unite in a political force that first elected Ronald Reagan and then Donald Trump.
The venom of liberals towards religious people is the product of a derangement parallel to their hatred both of Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump. It is manifest in the attacks on religion by the New Atheist movement whose spokesmen have accused religion of “poisoning everything” and whose leading voice, Richard Dawkins, has written, “Religious ideas are irrational. Religious ideas are dumb and dumber; super dumb.” Dawkins’ contempt for believers is the same wackiness we see in the claims that President Trump is a “white supremacist,” a “Russian agent,” and “unfit for office.” Every creator of the scientific revolution – Pascal, Galileo, Newton, Copernicus, even Darwin – believed in a Divinity and was inspired by this belief. Dumb? Really?
Why is the left at war with religious Christians? For the same reason leftists are at war with America, the democracy Christians created on the basis of Christian ideas.
Christians believe in the uniqueness and sanctity of the individual soul; they believe in free will, and they believe in “original sin” – in the flawed nature of human beings. It is our flawed nature that makes the utopias of the left – communism, socialism, social justice – impossible to achieve, and monstrous to pursue,
Free will means that individuals are accountable for their actions, not races and genders, as the social redeemers claim. Leftists, so-called liberals, progressives, communists, social justice zealots – all are reactionary adherents of the 4th Century heresy named after its author, Pelagius, a Christian monk. The Pelagian heresy is the most destructive ideology in all of human history.
Pelagius believed that people are born good, and that the sins they commit are against their true nature. Therefore, he believed that if people would only be true to their nature, resist temptation, and be good Christians, they could create heaven on earth, and do it without a divine intervention or grace.
Progressives are the modern followers of Pelagius. They believe that people are born good and that society makes them bad (as though society was not a reflection of the people who create it). Therefore, if people will just be true to their nature, if they will choose to be politically correct – or if the state can coerce them into being politically correct – we can achieve a world of perfect equality, justice and peace. These are the same seductive lies that led to the murder of more than 100 million people in the last century. They were killed because they stood in the way of totalitarian perfection, and were therefore condemned as politically incorrect.  
Pelagius’ antagonist was St. Augustine, who was in a way the godfather of modern conservatism. Augustine argued that sin is integral to human nature, that we all share in Adam’s original sin: wanting to know evil as well as good, aspiring to be god-like and create new worlds. This is why human beings corrupt movements for social change and government as surely as they corrupt society. Because it is human nature to corrupt. It is human corruption, which dooms all utopian schemes that aim to repair and redeem the world – a feat that only a Divinity could accomplish.
The battle we face today is one episode in a war as old as creation itself. It is a war that arises out of the human spirit, which is born to evil, but which is also capable of great beauty and great good. Our battle is for our lives and the lives of our children, and for this great country which is unique among the nations, and worth saving.



PASTOR SAYS CLAYTON JENNINGS SENT “NUDES” TO 16 YEAR OLD; POLICE NOTIFIED

PULPIT ABUSER
PASTOR SAYS CLAYTON JENNINGS SENT “NUDES” 
TO 16 YEAR OLD; POLICE NOTIFIED
SEE: https://pulpitandpen.org/2019/03/21/pastor-says-clayton-jennings-sent-nudes-to-16-year-old-police-notified/;  republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Clayton Jennings – once billed as “the new Billy Graham” – had his career as an itinerant evangelist scuttled when Pulpit & Pen began to report the accounts of various women who provided testimonies of his deep sexual problems and perceived spiritual abuse. A licensed minister of Harbor Shores church in Noblesville, Indiana, Jennings became a Facebook and Instagram icon, where he posted his ‘Spoken Word’ videos extolling Jesus and himself.
However, the evidence against Clayton was incontrovertible. Taking careful precaution not to expose the identities of these brave young women, we forwarded the screenshot and audio evidence to independent publications who could verify our reporting. We also sent the evidence to Jennings’ elders, who revoked his ministry license and ended his father’s professional relationship with the church (his father knew about his son’s use of the ministry as a means to sexually prey upon naive young women but chose not to act). Soon, Jennings’ mentor, Tony Nolan, announced that Jennings was leaving the restoration process, primarily because Jennings didn’t want to leave social media and work on his repentance. Penguin Books pulled his forthcoming book. Other forthcoming projects were canceled. Jennings had fallen among the ranks of other famous evangelists who were not walking what they were talking.
Catching us by surprise several weeks ago, Jennings began to threaten and intimidate the victims who had come forward, and told them if they did not recant he would release information about them, alluding to sensual photos and personal identities. Jennings held true to his promise, and ‘doxed’ his victims one by one, stating their names and employers and showing photos he used to claim they were “sluts” who entrapped him.
Of course, Pulpit & Pen is aware of many more women with similar stories, who simply didn’t want their stories put out there for Jennings to ruthlessly attack.
Jennings also began to attack me personally, as well as some of my other investigative journalists like Seth Dunn, and began to threaten death to anyone who continues to [report the facts regarding his debauchery]. Jennings repeatedly challenged me to fight him, claimed he was coming to my state to hunt “big fat game” (that would be me) and issued an actual death threat on Instagram, for which the FBI was notified. He went on to do a Spoken Word video in which – after using nearly every form of profanity known to man and repeatedly bragging about his genitals – claimed multiple times that my wife thinks about him when we make love. He even made threats to my children before stopping to say, “ah-hah, just kidding” in a dubiously devilish way.
Jennings has weaponized his million or so social media followers by convincing them that I am a “bully” (enlisting the help a disgraced and now defunct evangelical charlatan who has been brought down by his own scandals, Ergun Caner) and that someone out there had somehow threatened his wife and daughter (screenshots or evidence from Clayton have not been presented). Even pronouncing himself a ‘defender of women,’ Jennings tried to enlist the help of the #churchtoo movement to defend his actions and help attack the victims of his abuse (it didn’t work).
In his most recent videos, Jennings shows clear anger toward God, says he doubts the Bible and doubts Jesus, and credits the rap artist, Eminem, with teaching him more about God than the church.
Part of this metamorphosis seems to be the result of Hunter Frederick, a Hollywood public relations expert who works for disgraced evangelical celebrities (Frederick also works for Perry Noble) and some suggest that Frederick now works for Jennings. Someone with an IP from Noblesville, Indiana set about to hack the P&P website and Jennings’ victims’ personal computers and accounts, which is something we’ve attributed to Frederick in the past.
Denouncing the title ‘minister’ and so publicly going over to the dark side of profanity, anger, and celebration of sin, along with the doxing of his victims has been referred by many as the “Clayton Jennings Meltdown.”
It began to make more sense when we discovered that even more women – at our count, approximately 8, came forward with more recent stories of clergy sexual misconduct. Although Jennings might dismiss such women as “whores” and “sluts” who entrapped him, the sheer volume of women that Jennings has taken advantage of under the title of “preacher” is overwhelming.
Jennings rushed to make Spoken Word poems confessing different misdeeds as soon as we first reported them. After writing about his drug use, Jennings admitted it. After recent women had come forward, Jennings admitted to adultery during his marriage. After we wrote about nude photos floating around (and the threat that he would release the nude photos of others), Jennings admitted it in a Spoken Word a day or so later.
Jennings’ endless confessions (which his fans say means that he’s “real” and “transparent”) only come after it’s been written about here at this news site.
However, the real reason for Jennings’ “all or nothing” meltdown seems to be his awareness that the law is getting closer and closer to prosecuting him for acts that are criminal. Until recently, the bulk of his misdeeds have been in the realm of morality rather the legality. Yesterday, things seem to have changed. Parents began to post on Jennings’ Instagram:

That comment was soon deleted by Jennings. However, some came forward in person.
A North Carolina pastor has stepped forward to acknowledge that Jennings (age 32) has sent photographs of his genitalia to an underaged, 16-year-old girl in his congregation. He spoke about Jennings, the nude photos, the young girl, and how law enforcement is now involved in the situation on his radio broadcast, Brutal Planet.

You can listen below.
Jennings admitted to sending ‘nudes’ in his “anti-bullying” video (replete with lots of bullying of innocent victims) entitled “Death to Bullies,” at about the 27.23 mark. Jennings did not say that his nudes were sent to or solicited from minors.
Proper legal authorities have been notified and are taking appropriate legal action.
For Jennings’ fans currently being weaponized to attack this publication or the innocent women he doxed, bullied, and blackmailed, grasp the reality that this has been done to deflect from the reality that Jennings is not a hero of bullies, but is the bully. Jennings is now allegedly caught for ‘sexting’ underaged girls. And according to reports, those girls’ parents are going after him hard and pursuing every legal avenue for the prosecution to the fullest extent of the law.
Looking back, it makes so much more sense now. Jennings, facing possible prison time, knew he had nothing to lose and so he threw all the intimidation he could muster at the press outlet that reported his abuse (including very public death threats) and the women who had come forward, all in an attempt to intimidate those who had yet to come forward.
In a moment of desperate panic, it appears that Jennings threw away his ‘ministry’ in a heartbeat (but not his fame) in order to say the vulgar things necessary to intimidate his victims in a hail-Mary attempt to save his freedom. If he could successfully bully news sites and victims to recant or not come forward, he had a chance at covering up his misdeeds.
It didn’t work. In the end, it may just be a 16-year-old alleged victim of Clayton Jennings who will be his undoing.
How fitting. The women who already bravely came forward did so under the belief there were even younger, more vulnerable girls who would be abused by Jennings if his behavior didn’t stop. As Jennings has ruthlessly attacked them in recent days, it seems that one of those younger, more vulnerable girls is the one who will finally and bravely end this sordid affair.
Hopefully, honest surveyors of the situation can now see what Jennings has attempted to do. He has attempted to rebrand himself as a women’s advocate and victim advocate and painted the truth-tellers as “bullies,” all the while being an abuser and predator of women who very likely will end up behind bars.
Please pray for Clayton Jennings that he will respond appropriately to this news, and serve as no threat to himself or others.
[Editor’s Note: Although P&P or our investigators have spoken to certain other women who have come forward through the Pastor, we have not spoken to this particular victim, believing that it is best to leave the matter up to professional counselors and advocates who are most able to help minors]
_________________________________________________________
JENNINGS: “DEATH TO BULLIES” VIDEO:

LGBT ACTIVISTS AT LIBERTY UNIVERSITY OUTRAGED THE FALWELL FAMILY IS RAISING GRANDDAUGHTER AS A GIRL

LGBT ACTIVISTS AT LIBERTY UNIVERSITY OUTRAGED THE FALWELL FAMILY IS RAISING GRANDDAUGHTER 
AS A GIRL 
SEE: https://pulpitandpen.org/2019/03/22/lgbt-activists-at-liberty-u-outraged-the-falwell-family-is-raising-granddaughter-as-a-girl/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Jerry Falwell Jr. recently said that his family was raising his granddaughter as a girl. LGBT activists at Liberty University – the nation’s largest Christian college – are outraged.
Liberty University, one of the largest Christian universities, founded by the well-known conservative firebrand and Moral Majority leader, Jerry Falwell, has been going steadily left culturally, even though they’ve remained steadily right politically. Embracing the larger secular culture is difficult to accomplish while remaining fiercely loyal to Republican politics. Liberty University, however, seems to have walked that fine line.
Long ago are the days that Liberty University fought against the College Democrats forming a chapter at the institution, which was spearheaded by Democrat Joel Krautter (who now serves as a state representative in Montana). It seems that today, Liberty University is filled with leftists. And those leftists are making their voice be heard.
Becki Falwell, the wife of Jerry Falwell Jr, was recently speaking about their granddaughter and said, “She’s our granddaughter, and we’re raising her as a girl. We’re not letting her have a choice. God makes the choice of what the babies are going to be and God decided she would be a girl.”
Of course, Mrs. Falwell’s statements are scientifically correct. Babies don’t get to decide their gender, and neither do adults. Gender has always been tied to biology, and never in the history of the world has anyone successfully transitioned their gender.
But alas, liberals don’t like biology when it comes to abortion or sexuality. They are primitive and superstitious creatures, who shun the scientific method and objective facts.

After Mrs. Falwell made the statement, more than 30 Liberty University students banded together to wave rainbow flags and touted about signs promoting ‘transgender’ rights at the student union.

Mrs. Falwell made the statement at a CPAC satellite event with Donald Trump Jr.

SOUTHEASTERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY ORDAINS “TRANS WOMAN”

This is Mr. Saunders. He thinks he’s a woman.
SOUTHEASTERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY ORDAINS “TRANS WOMAN”
SEE: https://pulpitandpen.org/2019/03/22/sebts-founding-church-ordains-trans-woman/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
 Note that ‘trans’ in the title is in scare quotes. As for why, click here.
Mr. Saunders goes by the name “Erica”, and everyone who doesn’t love him as much as Jesus does, calls him that. He is being ordained by Wake Forest Baptist Church. That church was founded in 1835.
The church is so-named because its original campus was in Wake Forest and many of its congregants belonged to Wake Forest College, which shared facilities with Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary since it was established in 1951 (the church is on the SEBTS campus enclosure). When Wake Forest College moved to its current location at Winston-Salem in 1956, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary spread out over the campus and took ownership of it entirely.
During the Conservative Resurgence of the 1980s, the increasingly liberal church grew distant from the Southern Baptist Convention. And now, the ‘paternal’ church (as their website calls it) of SEBTS is now ordaining someone who thinks they are transsexual.
Mr. Saunders is a ministry intern at Wake Forest Baptist Church and began to cross-dress, acting like a woman during his first semester at seminary.
As Baptist News Global reports, Saunders saying on Twitter, “Trans folks exist. God created us just the way we are, and God calls us good. Unfortunately, being trans means I’m not welcome in most churches as a visitor, let alone a leader. But we are Christians. We are called.”

Although SEBTS seminary and Wake Forest Baptist Church went on different paths during the Conservative Resurgence, it does appear that in another decade or so, their paths may again realign if SEBTS ‘woke’ trajectory is any indication. Some things come full circle.
______________________________________________________________

SEE ALSO:

EXCERPTS:

“Today gender identity and expression are protected by the university’s non-discrimination policy. A Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Questioning (LGBTQ) Center opened in 2011. Laverne Cox, a transgender actress best known for her role in the Netflix television series Orange Is the New Black, spoke in Wait Chapel in 2015.
Lia Scholl, pastor of Wake Forest Baptist Church, said the student’s sexuality has not been an issue this time around.
“Erica is a student at Wake Divinity and has the support of the office of diversity and the LGBTQ center,” Scholl said in an e-mail. “My how things have changed!””
_____________________________________________________________


AND:
https://pulpitandpen.org/2019/03/22/one-simple-reason-transgender-people-do-not-exist/


POLICE STATE NEW JERSEY: CALIFORNIA GUN PARTS DEALER, PATRIOT ARMORY, SUED BY N.J. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR LEGAL SALES

New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal
New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal
POLICE STATE NEW JERSEY: CALIFORNIA GUN PARTS DEALER, PATRIOT ARMORY, SUED BY N.J. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR LEGAL SALES 
BY DEAN WEINGARTEN
SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2019/03/california-gun-parts-dealer-patriot-armory-sued-by-new-jersey-ag-for-legal-sales/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Arizona –(Ammoland.com)- New Jersey has a reputation as one of the states most hostile to the Second Amendment. The reputation was upheld on Friday, 22 March 2019, when anti-Second Amendment Attorney General Gurbir Grewal (a practicing American Sikh) announced a lawsuit against a gun parts dealer based in California, U.S. Patriot Armory.  The parts dealer sold a kit to manufacture a gun at home to a New Jersey undercover investigator.  From nj.com:
State authorities say they’ve filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against a gun retailer accused of selling a kit to assemble an AR-15 rifle to an undercover investigator in New Jersey months after the Garden State banned “ghost guns.”
A complaint filed in state Superior Court in Essex County on Friday accuses a California gun dealer, U.S. Patriot Armory, of ignoring a cease-and-desist letter sent by the state attorney general in December, weeks after Gov. Phil Murphy signed a new law making it a third-degree crime to purchase firearm parts with the purpose of assembling a gun without a serial number.
U.S. Patriot Armory does not seem to have violated any law. It has always been legal to sell gun parts in the United States and to ship them through the mail. It has always been legal to manufacture your own gun in the United States. In the famous Heller decision, Justice Scalia mentioned that it might be Constitutional to regulate commercial sales of guns. Implied is that it would not be Constitutional to regulate private sales or the manufacture of guns by individuals for their own use.  From District of Columbia v. Heller:
The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Since Heller, we have found the above compromise language was inserted into the decision at the insistence of Justice Kennedy, as reported by former Justice Stevens:
The effort failed. But Justice Stevens wrote that he helped persuade Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who was in the majority, to ask for “some important changes” to Justice Scalia’s opinion. A passage in the opinion, which Justice Scalia had plainly added to secure a fifth vote, said the decision “should not be taken to cast doubt” on many kinds of gun control laws.
Major changes in gun law in the United States occurred in the Gun Control Act of 1968 when the Congress turned the purpose of the Commerce Clause on its head and used it to allow states to prevent commerce between the States instead of stopping the States from taxing or preventing trade.  The 1968 law made it illegal for federal dealers to sell guns to people from another state; and for individuals to send arms through the mail across state lines unless it was to a dealer.
In this case, the State is attempting to have their cake and eat it as well. They claim the kits are essentially guns, and they can argue they are not violating Second Amendment rights because they are not stopping the sale or transfer of guns.  Crucial to the case is the definition of “what is a gun”, or more precisely, what is a legal firearm?
In the United States, the BATFE had to answer the question as part of the administration of the 1968 GCA. A barrel is not a firearm. Clearly, a trigger is not a firearm. The BATFE concluded the part that other parts were assembled on would be legally considered the firearm. That part is called the receiver. Parts that are not receivers are not firearms under the law.
The definition begs the question: What is a receiver?.  Is a piece of metal a receiver? A portion of pipe? Is a can of epoxy a receiver? While these items can all be made into receivers, they are not receivers. The BATFE ruled that a receiver had to be more than 80% complete to be defined as a receiver under the law. A person who was willing to make their own receiver, or to complete one that was partially machined, could make their own firearm, which has always been legal under American law and the Second Amendment.
New Jersey is one of only six states that does not have a clause in the state Constitution protecting the right to keep and bear arms in some way.
New Jersey AG Gurbir Grewal is already being sued for violation of the First Amendment in an attempt to censor the publishing of instructions, online, on how to make guns.
The State of New Jersey has deep pockets. The lawsuit was filed in a New Jersey Superior Court. This is extending a trend where governments use the civil court system to create prohibitions they desire against actions that are not against the law. It is a perilous precedent. The state has deep pockets. They can bankrupt individuals with lawsuits, even though an individual has not violated any law.  San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera has been using this tactic against companies selling repair kits for gun magazines.

A possible counter-move to the lawsuit against U.S. Patriot Armory would be to sue the New Jersey AG for violation of rights under color of law, on the grounds that sale of gun parts are protected under the Second Amendment.

Many countries around the world prohibit their subjects from generally being armed. As part of those prohibitions, the subjects are prohibited from manufacturing their own firearms and are prohibited from buying gun parts.  The definition of what is a firearm is often carried to extremes. In one Australian state, the instructions on how to make a gun are considered the same as the gun itself. In another, plastic replicas that look like a gun are considered the same as a real gun.
The United States is indeed different than the rest of the world. Prior restraint of publication is generally prohibited under the First Amendment. When Progressives controlled nearly all media, they argued that instructions on how to make atomic bombs was protected speech.  The ability to own and carry guns is protected under the Second Amendment. Both First and Second Amendments are under assault by those who wish a disarmed population.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30-year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.


GLAZOV GANG: THE HIJAB’S REAL MEANING-A TEN PART SERIES

GLAZOV GANG: THE HIJAB’S REAL MEANING-
A TEN PART SERIES 
BY JAMIE GLAZOV
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/03/glazov-gang-the-hijabs-real-meaning-a-10-part-series; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
In light of the West’s accelerating surrender to Sharia, which includes the disallowance of truth-telling about the Hijab (i.e. Fox News’ suspension of Judge Jeanine) and non-Muslims’ donning of the Hijab (i.e. New Zealand’s Prime Minister), The Glazov Gang has deemed it urgent to bring attention to the true meaning of the Hijab. It is a meaning that, due to the Unholy Alliance’s control over the boundaries of our discourse, will never be mentioned in our establishment media and higher culture.
Below, make sure to watch our 10-Part Series on The Hijab’s Real Meaning!
Part 1: In Defense of Judge Jeanine.
WATCH: CLICK HERE. 
Part 2: Sinead O’Connor No Longer White After Islamic Conversion!
WATCH: CLICK HERE.
Part 3: Trying on Hijab and Liberation!
WATCH: CLICK HERE.
Part 4: Iranian Woman’s 20-Year Sentence for Protesting Hijab.
WATCH: CLICK HERE.
Part 5: Australian Broadcasting Corporation Celebrates Hijab.
WATCH: CLICK HERE.
Part 6: Freedom-From-Hijab Movement in Iran.
WATCH: CLICK HERE.
Part 7: Iran’s Martyrs and the Left’s Malicious Silence.
WATCH: CLICK HERE.
Part 8: Mattel’s Hijab-Wearing Enslaved Barbie.
WATCH: CLICK HERE.
Part 9: Lies About Hijab 101.
WATCH: CLICK HERE.
Part 10: What a Woman in Hijab is Really Saying to You.
WATCH: CLICK HERE.
*
Please donate through our new Unified-4-People Campaign or via our Pay Pal account.
Subscribe to the Glazov Gang‘s YouTube Channel and follow us on Twitter: @JamieGlazov.
_____________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272630/ten-truths-about-hijab-danusha-v-goska

REPORT: GOOGLE BANNED ANTI-SODOMITE MARRIAGE AD

REPORT: GOOGLE BANNED ANTI-SODOMITE 

MARRIAGE AD 
BY THE NEW AMERICAN
SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/report-google-banned-anti-sodomite-marriage-ad/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
So Bible-believing Christians can’t advertise on YouTube.
That isn’t true yet. But it might be soon, given Google’s banning an advertisement on the video site because the ad supported the Christian definition of marriage; i.e., marriage is between one man and one woman.
The Daily Caller News Foundation revealed internal Google communications that showed the search giant spiked the ad because it offended Google’s employees.
But the move to protect easily offended employees is no surprise given the company-wide hysteria after Google sponsored a presentation that wrongly used the word “family.”
The Ad
DCNF reported that the “video was flagged in June 2018 in an internal listserv, ‘Yes at Google,’ which is run by Google’s human resources department.” The “listserve has more than 30,000 members and is devoted to policing ‘microaggressions’ and ‘micro-corrections’ within the company.”
What were the microaggressions in the video by Chrisitan radio talker Michael L. Brown? Quoting the Bible, Brown says God “designed us for heterosexuality.” Brown discusses the biological, emotional, and spiritual complementarity of Adam and Eve, which is why “man plus man or woman plus woman can never equal man plus woman.”
Responding to “gay theologians,” Brown says the Bible rarely mentioned homosexual behavior because God designed men and women for the obvious, that “every single reference in the Bible to marriage, the family and relationships presupposes heterosexuality.”
“There’s not one single positive reference to homosexuality in the Bible, whereas every single reference to it is decidedly negative,” Brown says.
The Bible condemns homosexual behavior as detestable, Brown says, and it “doesn’t get any less detestable if you do it over and over with the same person.”
You know what happened next.
“Google HR highlighted in the listserv a ‘representative’ comment from an employee who took offense that Brown’s video had appeared as an advertisement on channels operated by gay and lesbian YouTubers,” DCNF reported.
Apparently, the employee turned pink with rage: “I cannot see how this can be allowed when the specific idea of LGBT videos is to allow the creators to feel free to share their content and be comfortable that anti-LGBT advertisers would not be attached to their content,” the employee wrote, DCNF reported. “This seems very counter to our mission, specifically around PRIDE 2018 timeframe.”
Not so shockingly, DCNF reported, “Google’s vice president for product management and ads, Vishal Sharma, agreed that the video was too offensive to air as an advertisement.”
Claiming that “YouTube is an open platform and we support the free expression of creators with a wide range of views,” Sharma wrote that “we don’t allow advertising that disparages people based on who they are — including their sexual orientation — and we remove ads that violate this basic principle.”
Thus, “after careful and multiple reviews over the course of a few days, our teams decided to remove the ad in question here as it violates our policy. We’ve communicated this to the advertiser.”
The video itself is still posted on YouTube, at least for now.
Google Hates “Family”
The ban on the ad comes after a “meltdown” among Google employees who were offended when a company presentation used the word “family.”
One employee ranted in a company forum that “the use of ‘family’ as a synonym for ‘with children’ has a long-standing association with deeply homophobic organizations. This does not mean we should not use the word ‘family’ to refer to families, but it means we must doggedly insist that family does not imply children.”
Another angry woman said the word “smacks of the ‘family values’ agenda by the right wing, which is absolutely homophobic by its very definition…. As a straight person in a relationship, I find the term ‘family’ offensive because it excludes me and my boyfriend, having no children of our own.”
“My family consists of me and several other trans feminine folks, some of whom I’m dating,” another raged, while yet another furious woman fumed that “using ‘family’ to mean ‘people with kids’ is also annoying to me as a straight-cis-woman who doesn’t have or want kids. My husband, my parents, and my pets are my family.”
Last year, DCNF divulged that Google employees debated manipulating search results for conservative media after Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election.
The company is notorious for crushing any dissent among employees from leftist orthodoxy.

OMAR HOLDING SECRET FUNDRAISERS WITH HAMAS LINKED “CAIR” & TERROR LINKED MUSLIM CHARITY

OMAR HOLDING SECRET FUNDRAISERS WITH HAMAS LINKED “CAIR” & TERROR LINKED MUSLIM CHARITY 
BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/03/omar-holding-secret-fundraisers-with-hamas-linked-cair-and-terror-linked-muslim-charity; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The Democrats won’t say a word about this. They have already learned that nothing negative whatsoever can be said about Omar, on pain of charges of “Islamophobia.” And support for Hamas-linked CAIR is mainstream among the Democrats. They routinely appear at CAIR events and have no apparent interest in what the group is all about. CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. CAIR officials have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR’s cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements about how Islamic law should be imposed in the U.S. (Ahmad denies this, but the original reporter stands by her story.) CAIR chapters frequently distribute pamphlets telling Muslims not to cooperate with law enforcement. CAIR has opposed virtually every anti-terror measure that has been proposed or implemented and has been declared a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates. CAIR’s Hussam Ayloush in 2017 called for the overthrow of the U.S. government. CAIR’s national outreach manager is an open supporter of Hamas.
“Omar Holding Secret Fundraisers With Islamic Groups Tied to Terror,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, March 22, 2019:
Democratic freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) has been holding a series of secret fundraisers with groups that have been tied to the support of terrorism, appearances that have been closed to the press and hidden from public view.
The content of these speeches, given to predominately Muslim audiences, remains unknown, prompting some of Omar’s critics to express concern about the type of rhetoric she is using before these paying audiences, particularly in light of the lawmaker’s repeated use of anti-Semitic tropes in public.
Omar recently spoke in Florida at a private event hosted by Islamic Relief, a charity organization long said to have deep ties to groups that advocate terrorism against Israel. Over the weekend, she will appear at another private event in California that is hosted by CAIR-CA PAC, a political action committee affiliated with the Council on American Islamic Relations, or CAIR a group that was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a massive terror-funding incident.
Omar’s appearance at these closed-door forums is raising eyebrows in the pro-Israel world due to her repeated and unapologetic public use of anti-Semitic stereotypes accusing Jewish people of controlling foreign policy and politics. With Omar’s popularity skyrocketing on the anti-Israel left, it appears her rhetoric is translating into fundraising prowess.
It remains unclear what Omar has told these audiences in her private talks. Washington Free Beacon attempts to obtain video of past events were unsuccessful, and multiple local news and television outlets in the Tampa, Fla., area, where Omar spoke to Islamic Relief last month, confirmed they were unable to gain access to the closed door event.
Islamic Relief has come under congressional investigation for what lawmakers have described as its efforts to provide assistance to terrorist group such as Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. The charity has been banned by some countries as a result of these ties.
In 2017, Congress sought to ban taxpayer funds from reaching the charity due to these terror links.
A representative from Islamic Relief declined to provide the Free Beacon with any material related to Omar’s appearance.
“The event was closed to the media. No materials are available,” the official said.
On Sunday, Omar will hold another meet and greet in Irvine, Calif., for CAIR-CA PAC. Those wishing to hear Omar speak are being asked to donate anywhere from $50 to $250 dollars, according to a flyer for the event.
The CAIR event also appears closed to the press. Free Beacon attempts to contact the organizer and obtain access were unsuccessful. Requests for comment on the nature of the speeches sent to Omar’s congressional office also were not returned.
CAIR, a Muslim advocacy group known for its anti-Israel positions, was named by the U.S. government as part of a large network of groups known to be supporting Hamas….

MUSLIM “TRUTHTELLING”: “MOHAMMED” GETS QUIZZED ABOUT JIHAD AND SHARIA, REVEALS ALL!

A MUSLIM SPOOF: “MOHAMMED” GETS QUIZZED 
ABOUT JIHAD AND SHARIA; REVEALS ALL!
THE RESPONSIBILITY LIES WITH WHOM?

Who’s Responsible for Terrorist Attacks?

After every terrorist attack, we hear contradictory rules about assigning blame for the attack. Should we only blame the perpetrators of the attacks? Or their ideologies as well? Or perhaps anyone who shares any views with the attacker, whether these views are related to the attack or not? Fortunately for us, history’s greatest authority on terrorism, the Prophet Muhammad himself, agreed to do an interview with David Wood. Now when someone brings up the Christchurch Mosque Massacre or some other mass shooting, you’ll have insights from Prophet Muhammad himself. (Guest starring Vocab Malone!)

PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=3615911
PAYPAL: https://www.paypal.me/Acts17Apologetics
TWITTER: https://twitter.com/Acts17
FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?…
MINDS: https://www.minds.com/Acts17Apologetics
BITCHUTE: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/davi…
WEBSITE: http://www.acts17.net

#Muhammad #DavidWood #VocabMalone

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY’S “PROGRESS” INTO ANTI-SEMITISM

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY’S “PROGRESS” 
INTO ANTI-SEMITISM 
BY ANDREW HARROD
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/03/the-democratic-partys-progress-into-antisemitism-part-three; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
America’s Democrats are a “new Nazi party,” the “party of jihad, Jew-hatred and communism,” Jewish anti-sharia activist Pamela Geller recently declared, in light of the Democrats’ inability to censure Representative Ilhan Omar for antisemitism. As previously noted, rationalizations and Muslim identity politics excuses have enabled Leftist and Islamic supremacists to normalize their anti-Semitic views on Israel, a development that has left American Jews questioning their political future.
A like-minded Jewish analyst, Deborah Weiss, described the Omar affair as a “wake-up call” for Jews, who have historically been loyal Democratic voters. Conservative commentator Eileen Toplansky agreed that Omar and her fellow Muslim Democratic congresswoman Rashida Tlaib“ should awaken even the most somnolent Jew to the Democratic Party’s being overwhelmed by the enemies of America.” The “Democrats into whom they invested everything have turned on them,” said the prominent orthodox rabbi Dov Fischer.
Conservative commentator Daniel Greenfield has analyzed various factors contributing to the rise in America’s leftist antisemitism, including the Democrats’ turn towards socialism. “Jew-hate and socialism have always gone hand in hand,” he has documented, while the virulent antisemitism often present on college campuses is now taking over progressive politics with anti-Jewish victimhood narratives. Conservative commentator Bruce Bawer has noted that progressives’ “current victim-group hierarchy…places Muslims at the very top” and “Jews at or near the bottom, if not eliminating them from the picture entirely.” “Sorry, honey, but Jews are not part of Intersectionality,” Fischer has stated.
Victimhood claims by Muslims such as Omar, observed conservative writer Steve Postal, act as “merely a Trojan horse to inject anti-Semitism into mainstream political discourse.” Thus the conservative activist and rabbi Aryeh Spero identifies a “strategy, as we have seen from Islamists in Europe,” of a “slow but inevitable seepage of anti-Jewish caricatures into the country’s political discourse.” Bawer in Norway confirms that the “Islamization of Western Europe has made everyday life nothing less than perilous for Jews.” Accordingly, Muslim reformer Asra Nomani, a former colleague of journalist Daniel Pearl, whom jihadists beheaded in 2002 in Pakistan, described a phone call in which Pearl’s father revealed that now “Jews in America are afraid.”
These new political realities confound many Jews, as political scientist Abraham Miller has noted that “Jews and Democrats have traditionally been in the vanguard of support for ‘minority’ rights.” This reflects the Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) leftist biases that reveal themselves in skewed hate crime statistics. Greenfield particularly noted how President Donald Trump’s election prompted the American Jewish Committee (AJC) to form the Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Greenfield scorned this “Wolf-Sheep Advisory Council,” given ISNA’s extensive links to jihadists and sharia supremacists.
As Greenfield explained, AJC had far greater expectations than ISNA for this “sick sad joke in which Jewish lefties ally with Jihadists against a pro-Israel administration.” Yet for Jews today often experience unrequited political love, Miller observed, for “increasingly, ‘minorities’ do not support Jews or Israel’s right to exist.” This includes not just Muslims, but many other minority groups that “mindlessly embrace intersectionality,” such as Berkeley, California’s “Gays for Palestine,” a decidedly LGBT-unfriendly society.
Washington Examiner editor Philip Klein has correspondingly examined why historic Jewish liberal political leanings and trends such as secularization among Jews will at least slow any political shift of Jews to the Republican Party. Miller bemoaned the fact that “Jews, for whom being a Democrat is a commandment from the Almighty, will find a rationale in it for their continued self-exploitation and self-hatred.” Political analyst Steve Feinstein concurred that Democratic Jews have an “almost unfathomably limitless capacity for self-deception.”
A good example of this leftist Jewish self-deception appears at the website of the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress (CAP). “The threat to American Jews comes from the growing white nationalist movement,” wrote Max Berger, co-founder of the radical anti-Israel group IfNotNow. Today “global anti-Semitism is on the rise, just as it was in the 1930s, when capitalism produced inequality on a massive scale.”
European Union statistics from 2018 decidedly refute Berger’s Marxist cant, as surveyed Jews reported that a preponderance of the antisemitism they encountered came from Muslims and Leftists. These were respectively the first and second largest reported ideological sources of antisemitism, followed by European rightwingers. Federalist editor David Harsanyi confirms that the “average American Jew is more likely to encounter an aggressively ‘anti-Zionist’ BDS activist on a campus (or a progressive march) than a white supremacist anywhere.”
Such facts explain why polling data in the years leading up to 2014 has suggested declining Jewish support for the Democratic Party. Following orthodox Jewry’s embrace of the Republican Party, Fischer, therefore, foresees a broader “formal political realignment of Jews away from the Democrat Party.” For example, the group Jexodus recently launched at the most recent Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), and Spero led a protest at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office.
Jewish alienation from the Democratic Party would have a significant impact because America’s small but successful Jewish minority possesses an outsized political influence. The Jerusalem Post reported in 2016 that perhaps half of all Democratic, and a quarter of all Republican, political donations, come from Jews. For Democrats such as Omar, that is indeed a lot of “Benjamins” at stake, should Jews like the legal authority Alan Dershowitz not feel welcome in the Democratic Party.
Jews would do themselves and the broader American society a favor by critically reflecting on their political affiliations. If the Democratic Party wants to victimize Jews and others by becoming the home of political Islam and leftist radicalism, then Jews should make the Democrats pay a price. Anti-Semitic and anti-American Democrats such as Omar must receive a clear rebuke by Jews who are not selling their political allegiances cheap on the basis of outdated habits.

UK HOME OFFICE REJECTS ASYLUM BID OF IRANIAN CONVERT TO CHRISTIANITY, SAYS “CHRISTIANITY IS NOT A RELIGION OF PEACE”

British Government Calls Christianity a Religion of Violence in Rejection of Iranian Asylum Seeker

In 2016, an Iranian ex-Muslim sent an application to Great Britain for asylum. The man said that he had converted to Christianity after studying the Bible and finding that Christianity is a religion of peace. The British Home Office rejected the application and insisted that the apostate was lying. The Home Office justified their rejection by quoting Bible verses from Exodus, Leviticus, and Revelation that were meant to prove that Christianity is not peaceful and that no one could ever conclude that it is peaceful by reading the Bible. Is there a problem in the British Government? Should Prime Minister Theresa May and Home Secretary Sajid Javid intervene? David Wood discusses the issue.

UK HOME OFFICE REJECTS ASYLUM BID OF IRANIAN CONVERT TO CHRISTIANITY, SAYS 

“CHRISTIANITY IS NOT A RELIGION OF PEACE”
BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

In a shocking declaration, the UK Home Office “has claimed Christianity is not a religion of peace after turning down a Christian convert’s bid for asylum in an ‘unbelievably offensive’ letter quoting bloodthirsty passages from the Bible…..The Iranian national was turned down for asylum in 2016, with the Home Office claiming his conversion from Islam was inconsistent’ with his claim Christianity is a peaceful religion.”



The Home Office also mocked the Iranian national for believing in Christ: “You affirmed in your AIR that Jesus is your saviour, but then claimed that He would not be able to save you from the Iranian regime….It is therefore considered that you have no conviction in your faith and your belief in Jesus is half-hearted.”



The passages cited in the Iranian national’s rejection letter were from the book of Revelation, as well as Leviticus and other parts of the Old Testament. Nice try, but Revelation is a prophetic account, not a call to violence; also, there is no global problem of Christians and Jews citing violent verses from Revelation or the Old Testament and acting upon them. Jihadists, however, are citing the Qur’an to justify their violence, and doing so repeatedly and openly.



Despite this, the UK government continues to allow in the worst jihadist hate preachers, who further the jihad against its own people. Over 100 jihadist hate speakers were invited in and hosted at British universities during the academic year of 2016 and 2017. And as previously reported on Jihad Watch:


    

  • Britain has a steadily lengthening record of admitting jihad preachers without a moment of hesitation.
    • 

  • Syed Muzaffar Shah Qadri’s preaching of hatred and jihad violence was so hardline that he was banned from preaching in Pakistan, but the UK Home Office welcomed him into Britain.
    • 

  • The UK Home Office also admitted Shaykh Hamza Sodagar into the country, despite the fact that he has said: “If there’s homosexual men, the punishment is one of five things. One – the easiest one maybe – chop their head off, that’s the easiest. Second – burn them to death. Third – throw ’em off a cliff. Fourth – tear down a wall on them so they die under that. Fifth – a combination of the above.”
    • 

  • Theresa May’s relentlessly appeasement-minded government also admitted two jihad preachers who had praised the murderer of a foe of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. One of them was welcomed by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
    • 

  • Nor does the UK admit only preachers of jihad terror. It admits jihad terrorists as well, even when it knows they are jihad terrorists. The Muslim migrant teen who bombed the London Tube told border officials that he was trained by ISIS, but was admitted anyway.
    • 

  • Meanwhile, the UK banned three bishops from areas of Iraq and Syria where Christians are persecuted from entering the country.
    • 




The UK government also paid out $250,000 in taxpayer dollars to protect a jihad preacher and give him medical care in Jordan, while the “most dangerous” jihad preacher, Anjem Choudary, was released from prison.



Attacking Christianity to justify the welcoming of jihadists into the UK is appalling and reprehensible. And meanwhile, peaceful truth tellers are being banned from Britain, including the free speech activists Martin Sellner and Brittany Pettibone, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller.



Now an apostate is facing death in Iran after being rejected by the Sharia-compliant UK. Legal expert Conor James McKinney stated:



“This case seems to be an extreme example of an individual official manufacturing a reason to refuse an asylum claim, and the Home Office acknowledges that it was out of line, but those working with asylum seekers do report horror stories almost as bad on a regular basis.”







“Christianity NOT a religion of peace HOME OFFICE says citing bloodthirsty passages,” by Paul Withers, Express, March 21, 2019:





THE Home Office has claimed Christianity is not a religion of peace after turning down a Christian covert’s bid for asylum in an “unbelievably offensive” letter quoting bloodthirsty passages from the Bible.



The Iranian national was turned down for asylum in 2016, with the Home Office claiming his conversion from Islam was “inconsistent” with his claim Christianity is a peaceful religion. In the rejection letter from the Government department, published by the Iranian’s immigration case worker this week, six passages from the Bible are listed, with a claim made that Revelations [sic] is filled with “images of revenge, destruction, death and violence”. The letter also uses six examples from searchable online holy book Bible Gateway, and quotes parts of The Book of Leviticus from the Old Testament.



The full statement below the verses says: “These examples are inconsistent with your claim that you converted to Christianity after discovering it is a peaceful religion, as opposed to Islam which contains violence, rage and revenge.”



Nathan Stevens, an immigration caseworker, posted excerpts from the letter on his Twitter page, launching into a stinging attack against the Home Office for the “unbelievably offensive diatribe”.



He wrote: “I’ve seen a lot over the years, but even I was genuinely shocked to read this unbelievably offensive diatribe being used to justify a refusal of asylum.



“Whatever your views on faith, how can a government official arbitrarily pick bits out of a holy book and then use them to trash someone’s heartfelt reason for coming to a personal decision to follow another faith.”



In another post on Twitter, Mr Stevens said his client will be appealing the decision and will resubmitting a complaint to the Home Office.



He referred to text from another rejection letter, and wrote: “You affirmed in your AIR that Jesus is your saviour, but then claimed that He would not be able to save you from the Iranian regime…..



______________________________________________________________

DAVID WOOD: 



British Government Mocks Ex-Muslim Asylum Seeker’s Faith in Jesus



When an Iranian ex-Muslim Christian applied to Great Britain for asylum, the Home Office called her faith "half-hearted" and insisted that if she were a true Christian, she would simply trust Jesus to protect her from people who want to kill her. Can we even imagine the British Home Office responding to Muslim asylum seekers with such contempt and hostility? Why aren't Prime Minister Theresa May and Home Secretary Sajid Javid taking more action against this hostility towards apostates and Christian asylum seekers? David Wood discusses the issue.

ICE FOILS TWO N.Y. ATTEMPTS TO HELP ILLEGALS ESCAPE; ONE BITES OFF AGENT’S FINGERTIP

Finger Photo
ICE FOILS TWO N.Y. ATTEMPTS TO HELP ILLEGALS ESCAPE; ONE BITES OFF AGENT’S FINGERTIP 
BY R. CORT KIRKWOOD
New York City’s sanctuary policy proved yet again why illegal aliens must be rounded up and deported, but at least the victim in this crime lived.
An illegal immigrant, who has been deported previously and faces a local assault charge, attacked an Immigration and Customs and Enforcement agent. The illegal bit off the tip of the agent’s finger.
That was the first of two detainers New York law enforcement refused to honor of late. The second involved another of those immigrants who “do the jobs Americans won’t do.” He had been charged with rape.
But sanctuary policies often cause more than the loss of a finger. Too often, murder is the result.
The Biter
Christopher Santos Felix, ICE alleges, is the man who chowed down on the ICE agent’s left ring finger, Bretibart.com reported. A statement from the agency said the city’s “dangerous ‘sanctuary’ policies are directly responsible for the egregious and violent harm suffered by this courageous ICE officer.”
The Dominican national, ICE said, “entered the United States on a visitor’s visa in June 2015, but failed to leave within the required timeframe.” Like so many illegals, he is a criminal, and like so many illegals, he has a drunk-driving conviction. Police arrested him for assault on September 29.
On that same date, ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) officer lodged a detainer for Santos Felix, however, the detainer was not honored and he was released from local custody. On March 3, 2019, Santos Felix was arrested by ERO for immigration violations. At the time of the arrest, Santos Felix allegedly assaulted an ERO officer and is now facing federal prosecution.
The criminal complaint against the Caribbean Chomper, the Daily Caller reported, alleges “he attacked ICE officers after his handcuffs were temporarily removed so that he could put on some clothing. Officers quickly moved to secure Felix and while they were restraining him, he bit the officer’s finger.”
Federal officials rightly aimed fire at New York and its crazy leftist activists and politicians. “The officer’s injury was the direct, foreseeable and entirely avoidable result of New York’s criminal alien sanctuary policies,” DHS official said, the websites reported. “Proponents of sanctuary policies claim they make communities safer, but in many cases they are causing more harm than good.”
Another One
Felix wasn’t the only border-jumping illegal that ICE collared recently in New York, no thanks to the local authorities. They also caught another illegal whom police had charged with rape.
ICE reported that Enforcement and Removal Operations arrested a 28-year-old border-jumping Guatemalan on March 14 after locals freed him so he could disappear again. Westchester County authorities loosed the illegal upon unsuspecting residents because of the county’s Immigrant Protection Act:
On Feb. 14, he was arrested by the New Rochelle Police Department and charged with Rape 3rd Degree. On Feb. 19, ICE issued a detainer to the Westchester County Department of Corrections. On Feb. 25, the active detainer was not honored, and he was released on bond from the Westchester County Jail. This individual was previously removed by ICE on July 22, 2009, and unlawfully returned to the U.S on an unknown date, and place. On March 14, ERO deportation officers arrested him in New Rochelle, New York. He is currently detained in ICE custody pending removal to Guatemala.
Thomas Decker, chief of the ERO field office in New York, explained again why sanctuary policies are so harmful: “This man with pending rape charges in Westchester, was released back into the unsuspecting community as the local authorities were prevented from honoring our detainer because of their new immigrant protection act.”
In January, ICE agents rounded up more than 100 illegal-alien criminals in New York that local authorities should have turned over to police.
Unhappily, ICE can’t always catch an illegal released under sanctuary policies before he murders someone.
In December 2017, ICE placed a detainer on an illegal alien who was jailed for domestic violence in Middlesex County, New Jersey. The county ignored that detainer, pursuant to its sanctuary law. The illegal murdered three people in Missouri a year later.
More recently, authorities in California blamed the state’s sanctuary laws for the murder of a policeman.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo says ICE agents are a “bunch thugs.”

NEW ZEALAND PLAYS INTO TERRORIST’S HANDS; EMBRACES CENSORSHIP IN WAKE OF DEADLY ATTACKS

NEW ZEALAND PLAYS INTO TERRORIST’S HANDS; EMBRACES CENSORSHIP IN WAKE OF DEADLY ATTACKS 
BY C. MITCHELL SHAW
Following last week’s deadly shootings at two New Zealand mosques that left 50 dead and many more seriously injured, Internet Service Providers in New Zealand have responded by implementing outright censorship of content related to the shootings. That censorship is manifested in different ways — from blocking certain content to barring access to entire alternative news sites. Major social media companies had already begun purging and censoring posts about the shootings, but the CEOs of major telecommunications firms in New Zealand and Australia have gone even further — creating what could be described as “The Great Trans-Tasman Firewall.” And the government of New Zealand is threatening citizens with harsh fines and jail time for possessing or sharing the video showing the shootings.
After the shootings were streamed live on Facebook by the shooter himself, the social media giant deleted the video and froze the account belonging to Brenton Tarrant, who is identified as the shooter. In the next 24 hours, Facebook blocked another 1.2 million attempts to upload the video and removed another roughly 300,000 uploads that managed to get through the filters.
While it may seem reasonable for Facebook to ban and block the video of the shooting, the social media platform has gone even further, censoring even some discussions of the shooting. And Scribd, a social media document-sharing website, has been busily scrubbing the site of all copies of Tarrant’s manifesto.
Perhaps worst of all, though, is Twitter. The so-called free-speech platform forced journalist Nick Monroe to delete eight tweets he posted as he covered the shootings as they were happening.
Of those eight tweets, only one included a link to the shootings. Of the other seven, one included a link to the manifesto, one included a paraphrase from the manifesto about wanting to start a civil war in America, one included a link to a “catbox” video (no, this writer does not know what that is, either) that has since been deleted, one is a quote of the shooter saying “subscribe to pewdiepie” before starting the shooting, one is a link to the shooter’s post on 8chan’s /pol/ board about his weapons, and two are links to the shooter’s Twitter account. One of the Twitter links was a tweet showing that two days before posting on 8chan about the weapons, the shooter posted the same thing to Twitter. The other Twitter link was to show that the Twitter account was a relatively new one.
Monroe used the tweet showing Tarrant posting about his weapons to display the hypocrisy of Twitter banning 8chan for having that post. Since Tarrant tweeted his weapons two days before posting the same content to 8chan, Monroe tweeted, “You can’t ban 8chan for this without banning Twitter.”
It appears, however, that while Twitter is strong in the hypocrisy column, it is conversely weak in the logic column, since under threat of banning Monroe, the social media “free-speech” platform demanded he take down the tweet. Oh, the irony.
Following the censorship practiced by Facebook, Scribd, Twitter and other social media platforms, the CEOs of three of New Zealand’s largest Internet Service Providers — Spark, Vodaphone, and 2degrees — published an open letter to Twitter, Facebook, and Google. That letter — available in both PDF and Text formats — states, “Consumers have the right to be protected, whether using services funded by money or data. Now is the time for this conversation to be had and we call on all of you to join us at the table and be part of the solution.” The letter calls for “following European proposals which include taking down material within a specified period, proactive measures and fines of up to $80m for failure to do so,” according to NZHerald.
NZHerald is not merely an innocent bystander reporting on this, by the way. As Monroe reported in tweets which somehow evaded Twitter’s censorship, NZHerald quietly edited an article about the shooting to remove a reference to a “well known Muslim local” who “chased the shooters and fired two shots at them as they sped off.” This can clearly be seen by looking at the “before” and “after” versions of the article.
NZHerald also reported that the CEOs — Spark’s Simon Moutter, Vodafone’s Jason Paris. and 2degrees’ Stewart Sherriff — wrote, “You may be aware that on the afternoon of Friday 15 March, three of New Zealand’s largest broadband providers, Vodafone NZ, Spark and 2degrees, took the unprecedented step to jointly identify and suspend access to web sites that were hosting video footage taken by the gunman related to the horrific terrorism incident in Christchurch.”
Those CEOs lamented that “it is impossible as internet service providers to prevent complete access to this material,” adding, “hopefully we have made it more difficult for this content to be viewed and shared – reducing the risk our customers may inadvertently be exposed to it and limiting the publicity the gunman was clearly seeking.”
Part of “mak[ing] it more difficult for this content to be viewed and shared” includes not only removing or blocking the video and manifesto as well as discussions of them, but blocking access to websites that are even suspected of making “this content” available.
The letter goes on to say “Internet service providers are the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, with blunt tools involving the blocking of sites after the fact. The greatest challenge is how to prevent this sort of material being uploaded and shared on social media platforms and forums.” And the CEOs wrote that they “call on Facebook, Twitter and Google, whose platforms carry so much content, to be a part of an urgent discussion at an industry and New Zealand Government level on an enduring solution to this issue.”
That “discussion at an industry and New Zealand Government level” will almost certainly end with demands on the part of government and acquiescence on the part of Internet businesses with the end result being even greater restrictions on free speech.
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern told reporters this week, “It’s our view that it cannot, should not be distributed, available, able to be viewed. It is horrendous,” adding, “While they’ve given us those assurances, ultimately the responsibility does sit with them. I want them, very much, to focus on making sure that [the video] is unable to be distributed.”
Given the close (read: symbiotic) relationship between Internet Service Providers and the government in New Zealand, this should serve as a cautionary tale for those who favor Net Neutrality and other government regulation of the Internet in the United States.
Ardern’s heavy-handed approach is not mere bluff and bluster, either. New Zealand police posted to Facebook to “remind the public that it is an offense to share an objectional publication which includes the horrific video from yesterday’s attack.” The post went on to say, “If you see this video, report it immediately. Do not download it. Do not share it. If you are found to have a copy of the video or to have shared it, you face fines & potential imprisonment.” Keeping with the 1984 theme of the post, New Zealand Police continued by asking, “What are the penalties for possession or trading in objectionable material?” and answering:
Anybody found “knowingly” in possession of objectionable material can receive a maximum of 10 years imprisonment.
Every time a person downloads objectionable material onto their screen, there is the potential for a possession offense having been committed.
Anybody who knowingly makes or knowingly trades, distributes, or displays an objectionable publication via the Internet can receive a maximum of 14 years imprisonment.
It appears that while pretending to limit “the publicity the gunman was clearly seeking,” Big Internet and Big Government in New Zealand are bending over backward to give him what he said he wanted: a fight between those who value liberty and those who would take it away. Of course, since he said that in his manifesto and Kiwis aren’t allowed to even possess (much less read) it, many of them may be unaware that they are being played as pawns in a game they are deliberately being kept from understanding.

CHUCK BALDWIN’S OPEN LETTER TO SENATORS LINDSEY GRAHAM, MARCO RUBIO, ET AL. REGARDING TYRANNICAL GUN LAWS

Chuck Baldwin’s Open Letter To Senators Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Et Al. Regarding Tyrannical Gun Laws

SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/chuck-baldwins-open-letter-senators-lindsey-graham-marco-rubio-et-al-regarding-tyrannical-gun-laws/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has announced that the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to begin conducting hearings next Tuesday, March 26, on Senate Bill 7, the Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2019—otherwise known as a national “red flag” gun confiscation bill. The bill was introduced in the Senate by Marco Rubio (R-FL). If this gun confiscation bill passes the U.S. Senate, it will most certainly pass the Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Representatives, and President Donald Trump absolutely WILL sign it into law.
I am writing this open letter to Senators Rubio and Graham, President Trump and the untold numbers of legislators, judges and lawmen that will be working together to facilitate and execute the confiscation of the arms of innocent American citizens—citizens who have not even been charged with a crime.
I have purchased a full-page ad in the capital city newspaper in my home State of Montana, the Helena Independent Record, in which the following letter will appear this Sunday, March 24. I urge readers to feel free to use, copy, promote, publish, etc., this open letter in an attempt to bring this information to the attention of as many people as possible.
The GOP faithful are mostly in denial about what Donald Trump and many Republican senators are up to. They refuse to acknowledge that Trump, Graham, Rubio, et. al are about to enact a gun confiscation bill that rivals anything in Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Russia.
If S.7 becomes law, NO gun owner (and that means YOU) will be protected from the seizure of their firearms. It will not matter that they have not committed a crime; it will not matter that they have not been charged with a crime; and it will not matter that they have never even threatened to commit a crime. And they won’t even realize that it’s happening until the SWAT team bangs on their door at 5am to seize their guns.
The letter below is an in-depth, passionate appeal to everyone involved to STOP S.7 from becoming law. The letter speaks for itself.
Again, I urge everyone to take this open letter and get it into the hands of as many people as you can. If the American people do not arise in massive numbers against this bill, it WILL pass. We are getting NO HELP on this from the NRA or the vast majority of so-called pro-Second Amendment Republicans. Ron Paul, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and a few others are trying to warn the American people about this communistic bill. But that’s about it.
I beg you, folks, distribute this open letter to your friends, your family members, your neighbors, your sheriffs, your chiefs of police, your legislators, your local judges—distribute this letter to EVERYONE. We don’t have much time. And I mean that literally.
[Begin my open letter to Senators Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, et. al]
I know I am speaking for tens of thousands of my fellow Montanans and tens of millions of my fellow Americans when I say what I’m about to say.
“Red flag” gun confiscation laws violate every principle of liberty upon which our country was founded. There is no due process associated with “red flag” laws. A judge’s order to seize the firearms from an American citizen who has not been accused of a crime, charged with a crime, convicted of a crime—or who never even threatened to commit a crime—based on the accusation of a single individual is anything but due process.
Our accuser could be a disgruntled employee, a bitter ex-spouse or relative, a vengeful neighbor, an anti-gun liberal or even an anti-gun policeman. By definition, “red flag” laws use mere suspicion of what one “might” do as justification to seize a person’s firearms. Tactics such as these have been used in virtually every despotic regime of history. In the name of protecting society, the rights and liberties of individuals were denied. Eventually, these repressive governments included political or religious persuasion as triggering “red flags,” which led to their disarmament—all in the name of public safety, of course.
You know as well as I do that when the rights of ONE American are abridged, the rights of ALL Americans are abridged. This is not yet a communist nation where the rights of the state—or even the rights of a majority of citizens—supersede the rights of the individual.
Furthermore, it is a fallacy to suggest that a mental health diagnosis, by itself, indicates that someone is automatically a threat to himself or others. Dr. Ann Bukacek, a highly respected medical doctor in the community in which I live, recently wrote:
Mental health diagnoses given by physicians or other mental health care workers do not predict firearm violence. As a physician for over 30 years who has treated many patients with mental health diagnoses and some autistic spectrum patients, I have not had one of those patients commit an act of gun violence. I did have a patient who bludgeoned a man to death with a blunt object, and that patient carried no mental health diagnosis. Psychopaths with no conscience, especially the more intelligent ones, usually escape detection and/or a particular diagnosis.
This doctor’s examination of the issue reflects reality.
Besides, under these “red flag” laws, exactly who is it that determines that someone is “crazy”? Is it one judge, who bases his or her conclusion on the accusations of just one individual? Is it up to politicians or government bureaucrats to define who is and who is not “crazy”?
There are some people who believe that anyone who would even own a firearm is “crazy.” Others believe one’s political or religious beliefs qualify him as “crazy.” Heck! We have all read the documentation of various governments (local, State and federal) that have assigned all kinds of “crazy” (even “dangerous”) definitions against people based on their interpretation of Bible prophecy or their association with political candidates such as former Congressman Ron Paul or their opposition to politically correct ideologies, etc.
Does the judge who issues a warrant to seize a person’s firearms under a “red flag” law provide the accused with an opportunity to defend himself BEFORE violating his constitutional and Natural rights? No. Does the judge provide an opportunity for a close examination of the accusations against the accused (including investigating the accuser) BEFORE violating his constitutional and Natural rights? No. Does the judge allow the accused to face his accuser BEFORE violating his constitutional and Natural rights? No.
“Red flag” laws turn the Bill of Rights and the fundamental legal doctrine that a man is innocent until proven guilty completely upside down. “Red flag” laws are a mockery to every constitutional principle of liberty since the Magna Carta. Seizing a citizen’s firearms by force (and thereby rendering him defenseless) without a crime being committed—or even the accusation of a crime being made—is old-fashioned TYRANNY. Such an act presumes a person is guilty until proven innocent.
Then there is this: After the guns are seized, it could take years for the victim to prove his innocence (or competence) and have his guns returned—and in what condition would they be when (and IF) returned? Furthermore, will you legislators, judges and police officers who collaborate to strip an innocent person’s ability to defend himself accept any responsibility when the real bad guys take advantage of this person’s vulnerability and invade his home and bludgeon or rape or even kill his family? Of course you won’t. But mark it down: You will be held responsible in the eyes of Almighty God—and in the eyes of the citizens you have victimized.
And are you really going to try and tell us that police officers are more competent and mentally stable than the rest of us? Are you kidding? The examples of improper, unsafe, careless and even homicidal acts of cops with guns are ubiquitous.
It was an FBI agent who was armed at a nightclub in Denver and then started gyrating and dancing like a madman until his handgun fell on the floor, discharged and wounded a fellow patron. But no official even questioned this officer’s fitness to possess a firearm—even AFTER that event took place.
Then there is the case of the Dallas police officer who walked into the wrong apartment and shot and killed the man who lived inside. Where was the “red flag” regarding this officer? And what about the two police officers in St. Louis who used a revolver to play Russian roulette, and one of the two wound up shooting and killing the other one? Why wasn’t a “red flag” raised about these nincompoops? These stories could go on forever.
Where are the “red flag” laws for the policemen and sheriff’s deputies in this country? The only difference between them and the rest of us who are being victimized by these draconian “red flag” laws is that they wear badges, and we do not—and the other difference is the vast majority of private citizens who carry firearms are not nearly as stupid and incompetent as the policemen mentioned above.
So much for equal justice under the law.
It has taken many of us a lifetime of hard work and labor to be able to obtain our gun collections; we have successfully passed FBI background checks and local and State requirements and obligations for responsible gun ownership, yet our guns are going to be confiscated overnight on the word of someone (an anonymous someone, at that) who claims we “might” be unsuitable to own a gun? Again, such an act turns American history and our Bill of Rights upside down.
Kris Kobach is the former Secretary of State of Kansas. He is a former professor of constitutional law at UMKC School of Law. He wrote an excellent analysis of the constitutional violations of these “red flag” laws:
  1. The seizure of guns without any hearing at all.The laws all contain an ex parte provision that allows the state to temporarily seize a person’s guns without even notifying the gun owner or giving him a chance to be heard. This is the quintessential denial of due process. The Fourth Amendment makes clear that a person cannot be denied of liberty (to exercise one’s constitutional right to bear arms) without due process of law. This confiscation is “temporary,” but it can easily lead to long-term or permanent confiscation.
  2. Based on the testimony of one unrelated person.The confiscation order can be based on the testimony of only one person claiming that the gun owner poses a risk to the safety of himself or others. The law [proposed in Kansas] deceptively says that it has to be the testimony of a “family member.” But “family member” is defined to include “former dating partners” and anyone who has ever lived with the defendant. So a jilted former boyfriend or girlfriend, or even a roommate from years ago, could easily set in motion the disarming of a lawful gun owner.
  3. Using a very low standard of proof.The standard for obtaining an ex parte order against a gun owner is absurdly low – one need only show “reasonable cause” to believe that the person may pose a risk. That’s even lower than the “probable cause” standard for obtaining a search warrant. In addition, the judge is forced to rush his decision and issue the confiscation order on the same day of the ex parte hearing. Within two weeks of the ex parte hearing, a hearing with the gun owner present must occur; the purpose is to put in place a long-term confiscation order. But even at that hearing, the standard of proof is far below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal trials. Rather, it need only be shown by “a preponderance of evidence” that the person poses a risk of injury to self or others. What kind of evidence? Things like the “reckless storage” of firearms and drinking habits can be considered. If you keep a handgun in the bedside table and drink beer regularly, you may [be] in trouble.
  4. Shifting the burden of proof to the gun owner.The long-term confiscation order lasts up to a year, but may be renewed indefinitely. Once it is in place, it becomes very difficult to remove. To have the confiscation order lifted, the gun owner must provehe does not pose a threat to himself or others. Proving a negative is nearly impossible. Adding insult to injury, the bill even authorizes local law enforcement to charge the gun owner a storage fee for confiscating and storing his guns.
The implementation of “red flag” laws (at any level) is unconscionable and totally unacceptable. And I am here to warn you that there are millions of Americans who will never submit to such oppression. None of us wants to see acts of violence committed against law enforcement personnel in America, but when law enforcers begin carrying out these draconian “red flag” laws, they will begin lighting the matches of resistance in the hearts of freedom-loving people in this country like hasn’t been seen in over 150 years.
We have already heard about Gary Willis, the Maryland man who was killed by police officers in his own home as they attempted to carry out a “red flag” order to seize his guns. This man had committed no crime; he had not been accused of committing a crime; he was given no hearing and no due process. Mr. Willis did not attempt to harm the officers; he merely resisted their efforts to disarm him, and he was killed on the spot—in his own home—by police officers who had taken an oath to protect the liberties of this poor innocent man.
I assure you, Mr. Willis will not be the last American to resist the attempted confiscation of his firearms.
Do you legislators, judges, county sheriffs, chiefs of police, sheriff’s deputies and city policemen not realize that “red flag” laws are tantamount to a declaration of war against the American people? Are you so far removed from “the laws of Nature and Nature’s God” that you cannot see this? Do you not realize that in spite of all of Great Britain’s abuses of power, our colonist forebears did not openly rebel against the Crown until King George sent troops to Lexington and Concord to confiscate the colonists’ firearms? You do understand that, right? And you do understand, do you not, that the blood of the colonists flows in the veins of we Americans?
At what point do the American people come to believe that you truly do NOT wish to honor your oath to the Constitution or behave in a manner that truly honors America’s Second Amendment and the heritage of liberty that we all share as Americans? At what point do we Americans lose all respect for our civil magistrates and peace officers? For many Americans, that point will come when policemen bang on their doors at 5am and attempt to seize their guns.
Do you not realize that every single instance of an innocent person being subjected to a “red flag” gun confiscation order will only magnify and strengthen the resentment and animosity in the hearts of the community against these laws—and against the ones who are creating and implementing them? Do you not understand that this is a powder keg that could explode into all-out rebellion at any time? Do you want that? I don’t want that! I don’t want that for my wife and me, my children and grandchildren, my friends or my community.
Why would you legislators, judges and policemen even think about doing such a thing?
In the name of all that we hold dear, in the name of the brave men at Lexington Green and Concord Bridge, in the name of every American who has given his life in defense of the principles contained in our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and our Bill of Rights—including many of our brave police officers and sheriff’s deputies—and in the name of the Natural Laws of our Creator, please STOP this madness before you literally tear our communities and our country apart.
As a legislator, you must not pass any semblance of a “red flag” law; as a judge, you must not issue a gun confiscation warrant on the basis of a “red flag” law; as a sheriff or chief of police, you must not order your officers to confiscate a citizen’s guns on the basis of a “red flag” warrant; and if you are a sheriff’s deputy or city policeman, you must not obey an order to confiscate your fellow citizens’ guns on the basis of a “red flag” law.
I beg you to realize what you are doing. I beg you to refuse to participate in this madness. I beg you to join your fellow churchmen, clubmen, neighbors, friends and townsmen and help us turn back this dastardly attempt to transform our constitutional republic into another repressive regime that, in the end, would require The People to tear it down.
Again, I beg you to think about what you are doing, about the pain you are causing, about the lives you are ruining and about the potential harm you are inflicting on our country.
“Red flag” laws are on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of our Constitution, the wrong side of liberty and on the wrong side of the laws of God.

NEW ZEALAND’S PRIME MINISTER DONS HIJAB, ORDERS NATIONAL BROADCAST OF ISLAMIC CALL TO PRAYER

NEW ZEALAND’S PRIME MINISTER DONS HIJAB, ORDERS NATIONAL BROADCAST OF ISLAMIC CALL TO PRAYER
BY ROBERT SPENCER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

New Zealanders — men as well as women — are also being asked to wear the hijab this Friday. The shock and horror that Jacinda Ardern and other New Zealanders are feeling over the attack is understandable. The good intentions of these initiatives are obvious. Unfortunately, however, it will henceforth be difficult, if not completely impossible, to discuss the jihad threat in New Zealand; anyone who does so will be accused of fueling the hatred that led to the Christchurch massacre. 

So it can reasonably be expected that in the coming years, New Zealand will be a hospitable place for jihadis and Sharia supremacists, and any resistance to their initiatives will be stigmatized into insignificance.







“NZ Prime Minister orders national broadcast of Muslim call to prayer this Friday,” Michael Smith News, March 21, 2019 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):





On television.



On radio.



In the New Zealand Parliament and government buildings.



There’ll be no escaping Islam’s Adhan (Muslim call to prayer) this Friday, the Muslim sabbath.



Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has announced a two-minute silence will be observed on Friday to mark a week since the Christchurch mosque shootings.



Ms Ardern spoke at a press conference in Christchurch this afternoon when she made the announcement.



“I know from many there is a desire to show support to the Muslim community as they return to mosques, particularly on Friday.



“There is also a desire amongst New Zealanders to mark the week that has passed since the terrorist attack.



“To acknowledge this, there will be a two-minute silence on Friday. We will also broadcast nationally via TVNZ and RadioNZ the Call to Prayer.”…



_______________________________________________________________

SEE ALSO:

https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/australia/item/31807-new

-zealand-plays-into-terrorist-s-hands-embraces-censorship-in-wake-of-deadly

-attacks?vsmaid=3922&vcid=3987 



"Allahu Akbar": New Zealand Recognizes Muslim Call to Prayer as News Anchors Wear Hijabs

AND: 

“ALLAHU AKBAR”: NEW ZEALAND RECOGNIZES MUSLIM CALL TO PRAYER AS NEWS ANCHORS WEAR HIJABS



Mosque leader calls on governments to ban 



“hate speech”

TRUMP SIGNS EXECUTIVE ORDER ON CAMPUS FREE SPEECH

SHORT VIDEO:
LONGER VIDEO:
TRUMP SIGNS EXECUTIVE ORDER 
ON CAMPUS FREE SPEECH

Colleges and universities that won’t protect free speech may lose federal research grants

BY MATTHEW VADUM
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

President Trump signed an executive order yesterday directing the nation’s colleges and universities to defend free speech on campus or lose federal research funding.



“In America, the very heart of the university’s mission is preparing students for life as citizens in a free society,” the president said March 21 in the East Room of the White House.



“But even as universities have received billions and billions of dollars from taxpayers, many have become increasingly hostile to free speech and to the First Amendment. You see it all the time. You turn on the news and you see things that are horrible.”



Trump continued:





Under the guise of “speech codes” and “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings,” these universities have tried to restrict free thought, impose total conformity, and shut down the voices of great young Americans like those here today. These are great people.



All of that changes starting right now … Taxpayer dollars should not subsidize anti-First Amendment institutions. And that’s exactly what they are: anti-First Amendment. Universities that want taxpayer dollars should promote free speech, not silence free speech.





Addressing college students and recent graduates on the stage beside him who fought for free speech on campus, the president added:





You refused to be silenced by powerful institutions and closed-minded critics, of which there are many. You faced down intimidation, pressure and abuse. You did it because you love your country and you believe in truth, justice, and freedom.





Trump signed the document, titled an Executive Order on Improving Free Inquiry, Transparency, and Accountability at Colleges and Universities, during a ceremony. He described the order as “the first in a series of steps we will take to defend students’ rights” and said it was intended to combat “ideological intolerance on campus.”



The order declares that it is the policy of the federal government to “encourage institutions to foster environments that promote open, intellectually engaging, and diverse debate, including through compliance with the First Amendment for public institutions and compliance with stated institutional policies regarding freedom of speech for private institutions[.]”



The order directs the heads of the Departments of Defense, the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Transportation, Energy, and Education; the Environmental Protection Agency; the National Science Foundation; and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “to ensure institutions that receive Federal research or education grants promote free inquiry, including through compliance with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies.”



The order also, among other things, demands greater transparency in the world of student loans. It directs the Office of Federal Student Aid to develop “a secure and confidential website and mobile application that informs Federal student loan borrowers of how much they owe, how much their monthly payment will be when they enter repayment, available repayment options, how long each repayment option will take, and how to enroll in the repayment option that best serves their needs.”



Trump teased the executive order March 2 during a speech at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).



“We reject oppressive speech codes, censorship, political correctness and every other attempt by the hard left to stop people from challenging ridiculous and dangerous ideas. These ideas are dangerous,” he said at the time.



“If they want our dollars, and we give it to them by the billions, they’ve got to allow people like Hayden [Williams] and many other great young people and old people to speak. Free speech. If they don’t, it will be very costly.”



Trump was referring to Hayden Williams, a conservative victim of leftist violence on UC Berkeley campus, who was standing beside him on the CPAC stage.



Since Trump was inaugurated his administration has been using legal resources to insist that institutions of higher learning protect freedom of expression on their campuses.



In September 2017, the Department of Justice filed a statement of interest to support students Chike Uzuegbunam and Joseph Bradford in their lawsuit against Gwinnett College in Georgia. The college had an oppressive policy that prevented the communication of religious messages and the distribution of religious material on campus – even in the campus' so-called free speech zones.



“A national recommitment to free speech on campus and to ensuring First Amendment rights is long overdue,” then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions said at the time. “Which is why, starting today, the Department of Justice will do its part in this struggle. We will enforce federal law, defend free speech, and protect students’ free expression.



When Kevin Shaw, a student at Pierce College in Los Angeles, was informed he would only be permitted to distribute Spanish-language copies of the U.S. Constitution in a limited free speech zone on campus, he filed a lawsuit. The Justice Department filed a statement of interest in support of Pierce in late 2017. The case was settled the following year. The college agreed to expand the free speech zone.



In December 2018, UC Berkeley agreed to compensate Young America’s Foundation and Berkeley College Republicans for trampling the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of conservative speakers and students on its campus. The Trump administration sided with campus conservatives against the school. The Department of Justice filed a statement of interest on behalf of the two groups. The department “will not stand by idly while public universities violate students’ constitutional rights,” Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand said at the time.



Will President Trump’s new executive order improve the situation on the nation’s college and university campuses?



It can’t hurt.

CONTACT SENATORS NOW: DEADLY RED FLAG BILL BEING HEARD IN U.S. SENATE ON MARCH 26~CHUCK BALDWIN’S OPEN LETTER TO SENATORS & PUBLIC

CONTACT YOUR SENATORS, 
TRUMP & PENCE NOW!
DEADLY RED FLAG BILL BEING HEARD IN U.S. SENATE 
ON MARCH 26
BY PHILP VAN CLEAVE
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:Virginia – VIRGINIA-(AmmoLand.com)- This Tuesday, March 26, 2019, the U.S. Senate Judiciary committee is going to be hearing a Red Flag gun-control/gun confiscation bill put in by Florida Republican Marco Rubio.  Yes, the Republican controlled Senate is going to hear a bill that a Republican put in.
President Trump said right after the Florida school massacre that he thought Red Flag laws were a good idea.



We need to let our Senators, hear from us on this AND the President and Vice President, too.  I think the President can be swayed if he learns the truth about what Red Flag laws really do and don't do.  The Vice President might be able to help, as he as the President's ear.



I know, I know – we in Virginia are not likely to sway either of our Senators.  But by reminding them in large numbers that we are here, we don't want any more gun control, and we are watching, that might at least slow down any pro-active gun control coming from them.  I'm thinking a Virginia Citizens Defense League protest at some of their district offices this year might also be in order.



Thanks to our sister organization, the Arizona Citizens Defense League, for setting up a special version of their Congressional contact system for us Virginians to use.  The Board is considering getting our own Congressional contact system.



ACTION ITEM 1:



Click here to send the pre-written message to Senators Kaine, Warner, President Trump, and Vice President Pence (NOTE:  uncheck “Email Opt-in” if you don't want to get future emails from the Arizona Citizens Defense League):




Let's get a few thousand emails headed their way to get their attention and to educate them as well!  We dare not ignore Red Flag bills.



ACTION ITEM 2:



Let's contact the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, so he knows that gun owners do NOT want Red Flag laws.  He can help keep the bill from getting a Floor vote if it clears the committee.



Here's a link to his contact form on the web:




For the Topic, select “Congressional Rules and Procedures”



Suggested subject: “Please do not let any ‘Red Flag' gun bills get a vote on the Senate Floor!



Suggested message:



Extreme Risk Protection Orders, also known as “Red Flag” laws, such as S. 7, are about gun confiscation, not public safety.



Red Flag laws leave the “dangerous” person free to kill himself or others, as the law merely takes away his guns (assuming the police even find all his guns).  If a person is too dangerous to have guns, how is anyone safer if he is still walking around with the rest of us?  Red Flag laws also violate due process, as the accused doesn't have his day in court for weeks after his property (guns) has already been taken and he then has the almost impossible task of proving he's not dangerous.  How do you prove a negative?



Protect America's gun owners and the Constitution – don't let S. 7, or any other Red Flag bills, get to the Floor!




Virginia Citizens Defense LeagueAbout Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL):



Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.





For more information, visit: www.vcdl.org.
























_____________________________________________







Chuck Baldwin’s Open Letter To Senators Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Et. Al Regarding Tyrannical Gun Laws



SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/chuck-baldwins-open-letter-senators-lindsey-graham-marco-rubio-et-al-regarding-tyrannical-gun-laws/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:





Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has announced that the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to begin conducting hearings next Tuesday, March 26, on Senate Bill 7, the Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2019—otherwise known as a national “red flag” gun confiscation bill. The bill was introduced in the Senate by Marco Rubio (R-FL). If this gun confiscation bill passes the U.S. Senate, it will most certainly pass the Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Representatives, and President Donald Trump absolutely WILL sign it into law.



I am writing this open letter to Senators Rubio and Graham, President Trump and the untold numbers of legislators, judges and lawmen that will be working together to facilitate and execute the confiscation of the arms of innocent American citizens—citizens who have not even been charged with a crime.



I have purchased a full-page ad in the capital city newspaper in my home State of Montana, the Helena Independent Record, in which the following letter will appear this Sunday, March 24. I urge readers to feel free to use, copy, promote, publish, etc., this open letter in an attempt to bring this information to the attention of as many people as possible.



The GOP faithful are mostly in denial about what Donald Trump and many Republican senators are up to. They refuse to acknowledge that Trump, Graham, Rubio, et. al are about to enact a gun confiscation bill that rivals anything in Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Russia.



If S.7 becomes law, NO gun owner (and that means YOU) will be protected from the seizure of their firearms. It will not matter that they have not committed a crime; it will not matter that they have not been charged with a crime; and it will not matter that they have never even threatened to commit a crime. And they won’t even realize that it’s happening until the SWAT team bangs on their door at 5am to seize their guns.



The letter below is an in-depth, passionate appeal to everyone involved to STOP S.7 from becoming law. The letter speaks for itself.



Again, I urge everyone to take this open letter and get it into the hands of as many people as you can. If the American people do not arise in massive numbers against this bill, it WILL pass. We are getting NO HELP on this from the NRA or the vast majority of so-called pro-Second Amendment Republicans. Ron Paul, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and a few others are trying to warn the American people about this communistic bill. But that’s about it.



I beg you, folks, distribute this open letter to your friends, your family members, your neighbors, your sheriffs, your chiefs of police, your legislators, your local judges—distribute this letter to EVERYONE. We don’t have much time. And I mean that literally.



[Begin my open letter to Senators Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, et. al]



I know I am speaking for tens of thousands of my fellow Montanans and tens of millions of my fellow Americans when I say what I’m about to say.



“Red flag” gun confiscation laws violate every principle of liberty upon which our country was founded. There is no due process associated with “red flag” laws. A judge’s order to seize the firearms from an American citizen who has not been accused of a crime, charged with a crime, convicted of a crime—or who never even threatened to commit a crime—based on the accusation of a single individual is anything but due process.



Our accuser could be a disgruntled employee, a bitter ex-spouse or relative, a vengeful neighbor, an anti-gun liberal or even an anti-gun policeman. By definition, “red flag” laws use mere suspicion of what one “might” do as justification to seize a person’s firearms. Tactics such as these have been used in virtually every despotic regime of history. In the name of protecting society, the rights and liberties of individuals were denied. Eventually, these repressive governments included political or religious persuasion as triggering “red flags,” which led to their disarmament—all in the name of public safety, of course.



You know as well as I do that when the rights of ONE American are abridged, the rights of ALL Americans are abridged. This is not yet a communist nation where the rights of the state—or even the rights of a majority of citizens—supersede the rights of the individual.



Furthermore, it is a fallacy to suggest that a mental health diagnosis, by itself, indicates that someone is automatically a threat to himself or others. Dr. Ann Bukacek, a highly respected medical doctor in the community in which I live, recently wrote:



Mental health diagnoses given by physicians or other mental health care workers do not predict firearm violence. As a physician for over 30 years who has treated many patients with mental health diagnoses and some autistic spectrum patients, I have not had one of those patients commit an act of gun violence. I did have a patient who bludgeoned a man to death with a blunt object, and that patient carried no mental health diagnosis. Psychopaths with no conscience, especially the more intelligent ones, usually escape detection and/or a particular diagnosis.



This doctor’s examination of the issue reflects reality.



Besides, under these “red flag” laws, exactly who is it that determines that someone is “crazy”? Is it one judge, who bases his or her conclusion on the accusations of just one individual? Is it up to politicians or government bureaucrats to define who is and who is not “crazy”?



There are some people who believe that anyone who would even own a firearm is “crazy.” Others believe one’s political or religious beliefs qualify him as “crazy.” Heck! We have all read the documentation of various governments (local, State and federal) that have assigned all kinds of “crazy” (even “dangerous”) definitions against people based on their interpretation of Bible prophecy or their association with political candidates such as former Congressman Ron Paul or their opposition to politically correct ideologies, etc.



Does the judge who issues a warrant to seize a person’s firearms under a “red flag” law provide the accused with an opportunity to defend himself BEFORE violating his constitutional and Natural rights? No. Does the judge provide an opportunity for a close examination of the accusations against the accused (including investigating the accuser) BEFORE violating his constitutional and Natural rights? No. Does the judge allow the accused to face his accuser BEFORE violating his constitutional and Natural rights? No.



“Red flag” laws turn the Bill of Rights and the fundamental legal doctrine that a man is innocent until proven guilty completely upside down. “Red flag” laws are a mockery to every constitutional principle of liberty since the Magna Carta. Seizing a citizen’s firearms by force (and thereby rendering him defenseless) without a crime being committed—or even the accusation of a crime being made—is old-fashioned TYRANNY. Such an act presumes a person is guilty until proven innocent.



Then there is this: After the guns are seized, it could take years for the victim to prove his innocence (or competence) and have his guns returned—and in what condition would they be when (and IF) returned? Furthermore, will you legislators, judges and police officers who collaborate to strip an innocent person’s ability to defend himself accept any responsibility when the real bad guys take advantage of this person’s vulnerability and invade his home and bludgeon or rape or even kill his family? Of course you won’t. But mark it down: You will be held responsible in the eyes of Almighty God—and in the eyes of the citizens you have victimized.



And are you really going to try and tell us that police officers are more competent and mentally stable than the rest of us? Are you kidding? The examples of improper, unsafe, careless and even homicidal acts of cops with guns are ubiquitous.



It was an FBI agent who was armed at a nightclub in Denver and then started gyrating and dancing like a madman until his handgun fell on the floor, discharged and wounded a fellow patron. But no official even questioned this officer’s fitness to possess a firearm—even AFTER that event took place.



Then there is the case of the Dallas police officer who walked into the wrong apartment and shot and killed the man who lived inside. Where was the “red flag” regarding this officer? And what about the two police officers in St. Louis who used a revolver to play Russian roulette, and one of the two wound up shooting and killing the other one? Why wasn’t a “red flag” raised about these nincompoops? These stories could go on forever.



Where are the “red flag” laws for the policemen and sheriff’s deputies in this country? The only difference between them and the rest of us who are being victimized by these draconian “red flag” laws is that they wear badges, and we do not—and the other difference is the vast majority of private citizens who carry firearms are not nearly as stupid and incompetent as the policemen mentioned above.



So much for equal justice under the law.



It has taken many of us a lifetime of hard work and labor to be able to obtain our gun collections; we have successfully passed FBI background checks and local and State requirements and obligations for responsible gun ownership, yet our guns are going to be confiscated overnight on the word of someone (an anonymous someone, at that) who claims we “might” be unsuitable to own a gun? Again, such an act turns American history and our Bill of Rights upside down.



Kris Kobach is the former Secretary of State of Kansas. He is a former professor of constitutional law at UMKC School of Law. He wrote an excellent analysis of the constitutional violations of these “red flag” laws:


    

  1. The seizure of guns without any hearing at all.The laws all contain an ex parte provision that allows the state to temporarily seize a person’s guns without even notifying the gun owner or giving him a chance to be heard. This is the quintessential denial of due process. The Fourth Amendment makes clear that a person cannot be denied of liberty (to exercise one’s constitutional right to bear arms) without due process of law. This confiscation is “temporary,” but it can easily lead to long-term or permanent confiscation.
    2. 

  2. Based on the testimony of one unrelated person.The confiscation order can be based on the testimony of only one person claiming that the gun owner poses a risk to the safety of himself or others. The law [proposed in Kansas] deceptively says that it has to be the testimony of a “family member.” But “family member” is defined to include “former dating partners” and anyone who has ever lived with the defendant. So a jilted former boyfriend or girlfriend, or even a roommate from years ago, could easily set in motion the disarming of a lawful gun owner.
    3. 

  3. Using a very low standard of proof.The standard for obtaining an ex parte order against a gun owner is absurdly low – one need only show “reasonable cause” to believe that the person may pose a risk. That’s even lower than the “probable cause” standard for obtaining a search warrant. In addition, the judge is forced to rush his decision and issue the confiscation order on the same day of the ex parte hearing. Within two weeks of the ex parte hearing, a hearing with the gun owner present must occur; the purpose is to put in place a long-term confiscation order. But even at that hearing, the standard of proof is far below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal trials. Rather, it need only be shown by “a preponderance of evidence” that the person poses a risk of injury to self or others. What kind of evidence? Things like the “reckless storage” of firearms and drinking habits can be considered. If you keep a handgun in the bedside table and drink beer regularly, you may [be] in trouble.
    4. 

  4. Shifting the burden of proof to the gun owner.The long-term confiscation order lasts up to a year, but may be renewed indefinitely. Once it is in place, it becomes very difficult to remove. To have the confiscation order lifted, the gun owner must provehe does not pose a threat to himself or others. Proving a negative is nearly impossible. Adding insult to injury, the bill even authorizes local law enforcement to charge the gun owner a storage fee for confiscating and storing his guns.
    5. 




The implementation of “red flag” laws (at any level) is unconscionable and totally unacceptable. And I am here to warn you that there are millions of Americans who will never submit to such oppression. None of us wants to see acts of violence committed against law enforcement personnel in America, but when law enforcers begin carrying out these draconian “red flag” laws, they will begin lighting the matches of resistance in the hearts of freedom-loving people in this country like hasn’t been seen in over 150 years.



We have already heard about Gary Willis, the Maryland man who was killed by police officers in his own home as they attempted to carry out a “red flag” order to seize his guns. This man had committed no crime; he had not been accused of committing a crime; he was given no hearing and no due process. Mr. Willis did not attempt to harm the officers; he merely resisted their efforts to disarm him, and he was killed on the spot—in his own home—by police officers who had taken an oath to protect the liberties of this poor innocent man.



I assure you, Mr. Willis will not be the last American to resist the attempted confiscation of his firearms.



Do you legislators, judges, county sheriffs, chiefs of police, sheriff’s deputies and city policemen not realize that “red flag” laws are tantamount to a declaration of war against the American people? Are you so far removed from “the laws of Nature and Nature’s God” that you cannot see this? Do you not realize that in spite of all of Great Britain’s abuses of power, our colonist forebears did not openly rebel against the Crown until King George sent troops to Lexington and Concord to confiscate the colonists’ firearms? You do understand that, right? And you do understand, do you not, that the blood of the colonists flows in the veins of we Americans?



At what point do the American people come to believe that you truly do NOT wish to honor your oath to the Constitution or behave in a manner that truly honors America’s Second Amendment and the heritage of liberty that we all share as Americans? At what point do we Americans lose all respect for our civil magistrates and peace officers? For many Americans, that point will come when policemen bang on their doors at 5am and attempt to seize their guns.



Do you not realize that every single instance of an innocent person being subjected to a “red flag” gun confiscation order will only magnify and strengthen the resentment and animosity in the hearts of the community against these laws—and against the ones who are creating and implementing them? Do you not understand that this is a powder keg that could explode into all-out rebellion at any time? Do you want that? I don’t want that! I don’t want that for my wife and me, my children and grandchildren, my friends or my community.



Why would you legislators, judges and policemen even think about doing such a thing?



In the name of all that we hold dear, in the name of the brave men at Lexington Green and Concord Bridge, in the name of every American who has given his life in defense of the principles contained in our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and our Bill of Rights—including many of our brave police officers and sheriff’s deputies—and in the name of the Natural Laws of our Creator, please STOP this madness before you literally tear our communities and our country apart.



As a legislator, you must not pass any semblance of a “red flag” law; as a judge, you must not issue a gun confiscation warrant on the basis of a “red flag” law; as a sheriff or chief of police, you must not order your officers to confiscate a citizen’s guns on the basis of a “red flag” warrant; and if you are a sheriff’s deputy or city policeman, you must not obey an order to confiscate your fellow citizens’ guns on the basis of a “red flag” law.



I beg you to realize what you are doing. I beg you to refuse to participate in this madness. I beg you to join your fellow churchmen, clubmen, neighbors, friends and townsmen and help us turn back this dastardly attempt to transform our constitutional republic into another repressive regime that, in the end, would require The People to tear it down.



Again, I beg you to think about what you are doing, about the pain you are causing, about the lives you are ruining and about the potential harm you are inflicting on our country.



“Red flag” laws are on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of our Constitution, the wrong side of liberty and on the wrong side of the laws of God.

MISSOURI VOTES TO BLOCK ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL GUN LAWS WITH SECOND AMENDMENT PRESERVATION ACT

MISSOURI VOTES TO BLOCK ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL GUN LAWS WITH SECOND AMENDMENT 
PRESERVATION ACT 
BY DEAN WEINGARTEN
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- -In 2019, Missouri Senator Eric Burlison, Representative Jered Taylor, and representative Jeff Pogue have introduced versions of the Second Amendment Protection Act or SAPA.  Here is a link to SB 367 introduced by Senator Burlison.



The bill uses several legal and Constitutional strategies to protect Second Amendment rights from infringement by both the Federal government and various Missouri governments.



The principle Constitutional strategy is the anti-commandeering doctrine, which has been well established in Constitutional law and in the Supreme Court cases of New York v. United States (1992, decided 6-3) and Printz v. United States (1997) and  Independent Business v. Sebelous (2012).



These cases validate the doctrine that the Federal government has no power to force state agencies or officers to do what the Federal government orders them to do. The Federal government can require actions for the state to receive funds from the Federal government, but that is all.



Legislatively, the bill would protect Second Amendment rights by refusing to allow any state officers to enforce any Federal laws considered infringements on Second Amendment rights by the definitions of the bill.  Those include any taxes, stamps, or fees exclusively applied to firearms, accessories, or ammunition.  It applies to any registration or tracking of those items.



No person would have the authority, under the State of Missouri, to enforce those measures.



The proposed bill has teeth.

Text from MO SB 367, the MO Second Amendment Act Takes No PrisonersText from MO SB 367, the MO Second Amendment Act Takes No Prisoners

Anyone who deprives a citizen of Missouri of Second Amendment rights under color of law would be subject to lawsuit or other redresses. Sovereign, official or qualified immunity would not apply.  State officers who violate the law would be ineligible for employment by the state in any law enforcement or law enforcement supervisory capacity, or by any political subdivision of the state.





This is a very tough, very comprehensive bill.





It seems to nullify several existing federal statutes, such as the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Brady law. Such measures could be enforced by federal agents, but not by people employed by the State of Missouri or its political subdivisions.  Very few cases could be brought by Federal Agents alone.



This is not the first time SAPA has been pushed in Missouri.  In 2013, a very similar bill to SB 367 was passed by the House and the Senate. Governor Jay Nixon vetoed it. A veto override failed because two senators switched their votes.



In 2014, a similar bill had passed the House. It looked likely to pass the Senate, but legislative maneuvering by the House leader, John Diehl allowed for an amendment of the bill just minutes before the end of the session. According to mofirst.org:





John Diehl chose none of those options. Instead, he waited, and waited, until 5:40 pm when there was only 20 minutes left, to pass an amended HB 1439 and send it to the Senate. That made the bill an easy target for a liberal filibuster. HB 1439 was on the senate floor with ultra-liberal Sen. Jolie Justus filibustering it when the final bell rang on the last day of the year's legislative session..





The final entry on HB 1439's Action page tells the rest of the story: “Taken Up – Time expired pursuant to the Constitution.” John Diehl purposely killed the Second Amendment Preservation Act and tried to make it look like it was the Senate's fault.



Several of the key players who opposed SAPA in 2013 and 2014 are gone. John Diehl resigned over a sex and text scandal. Senators who opposed the bill have left.



Both the current Governor, Mike Parson, and Lt. Governor Mike Hehoe supported the bill previously.



Exactly what will happen if the bill passes is unknown.



If signed into law I am sure law enforcement officers in Missouri will not be sending people found with short barreled rifles or silencers to the BATFE for prosecution since under this law they would lose their jobs.





Exactly what else will happen remains to be seen.






Bonus Video Explanation of SB 367








About Dean Weingarten:



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

_______________________________________________________________

SEE ALSO:

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/03/deadly-red-flag-bill-being-heard-in-u-s-senate-on-march-26/

TOP MILITARY OFFICIAL SLAMS GOOGLE WORKING WITH CHINA~SAYS COOPERATION HELPING COMMUNIST PARTY CONTROL ITS POPULATION

TOP MILITARY OFFICIAL SLAMS GOOGLE WORKING WITH CHINA~SAYS COOPERATION HELPING COMMUNIST PARTY CONTROL ITS POPULATION
BY INFOWARS.COM
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

America’s top military officer stressed that Google’s ventures in China are aiding its military and communist regime’s ability to control its people.



Companies doing business in China are required to have a cell of the Communist Party present, said Gen. Joseph Dunford during a forum at the Atlantic Council in D.C. Thursday.



“That will to lead to intellectual property from that company finding its way to the Chinese military,” said Dunford. “This is not about me and Google.”



“This is about us looking at the second and third-order effects of our business ventures in China, China’s form of government, and the impact that’s going to have on the United States’ ability to maintain a competitive military advantage and all that goes with it.”



Last year, Google drew the ire of politicians like Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) for refusing an artificial intelligence contract with the Pentagon less than a year after starting an AI research center in China.



“All of it will be shared with the military and with the repressive forces that are doing this,” said Rubio. “[Google] doesn’t want to give AI technology to the [U.S.] military because, God forbid, we may use it someday to target a terrorist or someone who wants to harm America. But [Google] has no problem opening up a center of AI in China, knowing full well how anything you do in China — if it’s a benefit to the military, they’re going to use it; if it’s a benefit to the security services, they’re going to use it.”



Correspondingly, Dunford further expressed his concern on how China is using developments in artificial intelligence to “control” the vast majority of its people, indirectly referring to the country’s Orwellian social creditsystem that blacklists people based on “trustworthiness.”



“My concern when you think about things like artificial intelligence… They’re gonna help an authoritarian government assert control over its own population,” said Dunford. “What China is able to do is identify patterns of behavior amongst people and determine who’s reliable and who’s not reliable.”



“There is no question in my mind that China will leverage technology to assist the 6% of the Chinese population in controlling the other 94%.”

SUPREMES: FEDS MUST ARREST, DETAIN CRIMINAL ALIENS, EVEN YEARS AFTER THEY’RE RELEASED FROM JAIL

SUPREMES: FEDS MUST ARREST, DETAIN CRIMINAL ALIENS, EVEN YEARS AFTER 
THEY’RE RELEASED FROM JAIL
BY R. CORT KIRKWOOD
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week that the law means what it says.



The nut of its 5-4 ruling in Nielsen v. Preapis this: Pursuant to federal law, immigration authorities must detain, without the possibility of release on bond, a deportable criminal immigrant until his immigration status is settled. And no matter long how he was free from custody for the criminal offense, the government can lock him up again.



Those who don’t want to read the whole decision can skip down to Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s laconic concurring opinion.



The Case
Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Samuel J. Alito explained that the case involved plaintiffs who challenged the federal law, passed in 1996, that says criminal immigrants must be arrested “‘when [they are] released’ from custody on criminal charges and ... must be detained without a bond hearing until the question of their removal is resolved.”



The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law requires immigration authorities to arrest those criminal foreigners nearly the minute they are released, say, from jail. In other words, immigration cops can’t arrest a criminal immigrant a year after his release.



Alito wrote that “four other Circuits have rejected this interpretation of the statute, and we agree that the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation is wrong.”







The question the court had to settle, Alito wrote, was whether or not “the executive branch’s mandatory duty to detain a particular noncitizen when the noncitizen is released from criminal custody remains mandatory if the executive branch fails to immediately detain the noncitizen when the noncitizen is released from criminal custody.”



That, he wrote, can’t be, because Congress cannot have intended that immigration authorities lose their legal power to detain a criminal alien “if the executive branch fails to immediately detain the noncitizen because of resource constraints or because the executive branch cannot immediately locate and apprehend the individual in question.”



“Especially hard to swallow,” Alito continued, is the notion that “for an alien to be subject to mandatory detention ... the alien must be arrested on the day he walks out of jail (though respondents allow that it need not be at the jailhouse door — the ‘parking lot’ or ‘bus stop’ would do).”



Why is that hard to swallow?



Assessing the situation in realistic and practical terms, it is inevitable that respondents’ unsparing deadline will often be missed for reasons beyond the Federal Government’s control.... To give just one example, state and local officials sometimes rebuff the Government’s request that they give notice when a criminal alien will be released. Indeed, over a span of less than three years (from January 2014 to September 2016), the Government recorded “a total of 21,205 declined [requests] in 567 counties....



Under these circumstances, it is hard to believe that Congress made the Secretary’s mandatory-detention authority vanish at the stroke of midnight after an alien’s release.



Thus, Alito wrote, “an official’s crucial duties are better carried out late than never.”



Kavanaugh’s Opinion
In less than 600 words, Kavanaugh explained the “narrowness of the issue before us” and, in particular, to emphasize “what this case is not about.”



The case was not about the authority of the government to deport criminal immigrants, or “whether Congress may mandate that the Executive Branch detain noncitizens during removal proceedings or before removal, as opposed to merely giving the Executive Branch discretion to detain.”



Rather, Kavanaugh wrote, “the sole question” is whether immigration authorities’ “duty to detain a particular noncitizen when the noncitizen is released from criminal custody remains mandatory if the Executive Branch fails to immediately detain the noncitizen when the noncitizen is released from criminal custody.”



Noting that the question before the court was strictly statutory, not constitutional, with regard to the 1996 immigration law, Kavanaugh explained that “it would be odd [if the law] mandated detention of particular noncitizens because the noncitizens posed such a serious risk of danger or flight that they must be detained during their removal proceedings,” yet “allowed the noncitizens to remain free during their removal proceedings if the Executive Branch failed to immediately detain them upon their release from criminal custody.”



But the law “does not require such an odd result,” he continued. “On the contrary, the relevant text ... is relatively straightforward, as the Court explains. Interpreting that text, the Court correctly holds that the Executive Branch’s detention of the particular noncitizens here remained mandatory even though the Executive Branch did not immediately detain them.”

BIG: KENTUCKY GOVERNOR STANDS AGAINST FORCED VACCINATIONS

Big: Kentucky Governor Stands Against Forced Vaccinations
BIG: KENTUCKY GOVERNOR STANDS AGAINST 
FORCED VACCINATIONS

Republican attacked for naturally exposing his nine children to chickenpox

BY KELEN MCBREEN
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

Kentucky’s Republican Gov. Matt Bevin made headlines after revealing he purposely exposed his nine children to chickenpox during an interview with Bowling Green radio station WKCT on Tuesday.



“Every single one of my kids had the chickenpox. They got the chickenpox on purpose because we found a neighbor that had it and I went and made sure every one of my kids was exposed to it, and they got it. They had it as children,” Bevin said in the interview.



“Why are we forcing kids to get it?” he continued. “If you are worried about your child getting chickenpox or whatever else, vaccinate your child. … And in many instances, those vaccinations make great sense. But for some people, and for some parents, for some reason they choose otherwise.”



The governor addressed his stance on vaccinations as his home state of Kentucky is in the midst of a controversy about students being banned from school for being unvaccinated.



Click the screenshot below to read more about a Kentucky high schooler’s battle for religious freedom:







Governor Bevin and his wife, Glenna, have nine children, four of whom are adopted.



Despite the fact that most people alive today were naturally exposed to chickenpox as children, the establishment is pushing vaccination as a safer alternative while condemning those who choose not to.



Addressing parents who opt-out of the chickenpox vaccine, Dr. Robert Jacobson, a Mayo Clinic pediatrician, said, “I would never recommend or advise it. It’s just dangerous.”



Left-wing media outlets like Salon are criticizing the governor’s comments, saying he’s “setting a dangerous precedent.”







According to the CDC website, “chickenpox can be serious and can lead to severe complications and death, even in healthy children.”



Less than 100 people die from chickenpox every year in the United States, however, the number of vaccine-related deaths is unknown.



What is known is that a secret federal vaccine court has paid billions of dollars to victims of vaccine injuries.



Even Salon, the same leftist publication now pushing for mandated vaccinations, admitted just months ago that over 6,000 injury and death claims have been compensated since 1989.







The vaccination debate is heating up and Governor Bevin’s stance against forced vaccinations is sure to infuriate authoritarians who wish for them to be made mandatory.



Follow the author on Twitter: @Kelenmcbreen



______________________________________________________________



The Case Against Mandatory Vaccination



BY Peter T. Szymonik




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



Public policy in our country and state today is being driven by many dangerous elements and forces. Of substantial concern are policies, agendas and legislation being driven by claims of crises, which do not exist and are unsupported by reality, fact or science. It is dangerous when these claims are driven by the politics of fear mongering, hate and division. This is especially concerning when specific groups of people are targeted and attacked to incite fear and to promote misguided and harmful policies.



Our country’s system of checks and balances is being circumvented and ignored by those we have placed in positions of authority and accountability. Intelligent and rational debate have fallen victim to hysteria and the politics of misinformation and fear. It is precisely this kind of politics that is being used by legislators across the country to promote government mandated vaccination in response to a manufactured crisis—one based on dated or misleading information.



To be clear, I am not anti-vax. I have worked in the pharma industry and now work in the healthcare insurance industry. My family came here from a former communist country. We understand well what happens when government is allowed to deny individual liberties and personal freedoms. We know quite well what happens when the state considers its interests to be more important than protecting the rights of its citizens.



The scientific benefits of vaccination are not in dispute. However, concerns regarding vaccine injury, today’s vaccine schedule and our government’s much too close relationship with the vaccine industry—should also not be in dispute. When it is well documented, admitted and scientific fact that many children have been severely injured or even killed1 as a result of adverse vaccine reactions—then government has no right or authority of any kind to place parents in a situation where our government forces them to expose their children to admitted risk and risk they deem to be unacceptable.



Our system of modern medicine only works because it was founded on the concept of doing no harm and importance of informed consent. A person has a fundamental and protected right to control what happens to their own bodies. Parents have a fundamental right to the care, custody and control of their children and their family’s medical care. Not the state.



Once we hand over that control, where does it stop?



The solution to the vaccine issue is not government mandates and more draconian government infringement of parental rights and decision-making.



If our state and federal governments want people to vaccinate, the solution is better education and promoting informed consent. It would start promoting full disclosure. By addressing and responding to the valid concerns being expressed by concerned parents who are asking all of the right and legitimate questions. The answer is not by engaging in the politics of hate and fear. It is not found in labeling parents raising these issues as being “crazy,” “uninformed” or worse, to promote a political agenda.



A further serious concern is that the vaccine issue has made the recent headlines in some states not due to any crisis or emergency of any kind. A few dozen cases of measles in Washington state or 1,200 parents opting not to vaccine, or to vaccinate on a limited schedule in Connecticut, is not a medical crisis or threat to the national health. It certainly does not justify sensationalist news media headlines designed to scare people using words like “Outbreak!”



All of us should also be very concerned that some legislators are using this issue as a basis and justification to allow states to further infringe upon and deny parental rights and parental decision-making.



A very dangerous combination indeed.




Note: This article was reprinted with the author’s permission. 



This article or commentary provides referenced information and perspective on a topic related to vaccine science, policy, law or ethics being discussed in public forums and by U.S. lawmakers. The websites of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) provide information and perspective of federal agencies responsible for vaccine research, development, regulation and policymaking.



References:





1 Health Resources & Services Administration. Data & Statistics. HRSA.gov.

MAINE GOP LEADER ATTACKED FOR OPPOSING OPEN BORDERS

MAINE GOP LEADER ATTACKED FOR OPPOSING 
OPEN BORDERS

Party vice chairman Nick Isgro is under fire 

for daring to be a conservative

BY MATTHEW VADUM
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

The vice chairman of the Maine Republican Party, Nick Isgro, is under fire for inveighing against open borders and the health problems that unvaccinated migrants from Third World countries are bringing with them to America.



This blowback against Isgro is part of the Left’s ongoing effort to stigmatize conservatives by presenting their views as abnormal, antisocial, racist, and xenophobic. Isgro hasn’t said anything millions of conservatives haven’t said before, but the open-borders movement and its attack dogs in both political parties are always on the lookout for new scalps.



Some Republicans like Maine Senate Minority Leader Dana Dow attack Isgro for standing up for America and American values, while others praise him for his principled stands. Isgro, who said he has received “a massive outcry of support,” is also mayor of Waterville, Maine. He survived a recall election in June.



Isgro said he wrote the controversial tweets “to open a dialogue concerning all of the things that are in play when affecting public health policy.”





As the father of five children, I know exactly what it's like to be a parent up in the middle of the night, with a child with high fever and wondering if things are going to be okay. It angers me to see families like mine attacked for simply wanting to do with [sic] they know what is best for their own children rather than the government. Families should be engaged and respected - not attacked. [M]y own family will always be my first priority and I will continue to defend the families of Maine and their freedoms.





Senate Republicans reportedly demanded that “swift action” be taken against Isgro. Dow said March 18 that he did not approve of Isgro’s statements and was “in the process of taking some actions.” Later that day, Isgro issued a statement in which he made it clear that his tweets, although published on the Maine Republican Party’s Twitter page, “came from me and not the GOP at large.”



A hatchet job of a report by Rachel Ohm in the Waterville-based Morning Sentinel attempts to turn Isgro into a caricature. She writes that Isgro “falsely blamed immigrants for outbreaks of infectious diseases.”



But there is more to the real story than Ohm’s simplistic telling of it.



Using the Maine Republican Party’s account, Isgro tweeted three times on March 14.



The first tweet reads:





We need a serious talk not only about vaccination but migration. Portland, & many US cities, have homeless crises driven by asylum claims & a record number of migrants crossing the border from countries lacking vaccinations. This causes certain diseases to return. 1/3 #mepolitics[.]





The second tweet reads:





.@GovJanetMills & far-left elites are reacting to this with demands for more vaccines for #Maine citizens and demands that Maine families relinquish their longstanding natural rights-despite the risk of over-vaccination-to please financial backers. Wrong policy. 2/3 #mepolitics[.]





The third tweet reads:





Even in states with strict vaccination laws, like California, near-extinct diseases are making a comeback. To protect Mainers & Americans, we need a pause on migration from countries that haven’t eradicated these diseases until we can figure out what is going on. 3/3 #mepolitics[.]





Isgro’s statements are well within the conservative mainstream and not much different from President Trump’s.



Trump has said a border wall is needed to prevent a “tremendous medical problem” related to the flow of migrants into the U.S.



“One of the problems that people don’t talk about, you have a tremendous medical problem coming into our country,” Trump said in December. “Tremendous problems. People don’t want to talk about it.”



Contrary to open-borders propaganda and mainstream media disinformation, these concerns are legitimate.



Andrew R. Arthur, Resident Fellow in Law and Policy at the nonpartisan Center for Immigration Studies who served eight years as an Immigration Judge, wrote in a report that Americans are right to be concerned about the importation of diseases.



In fiscal 2018 the Yuma Border Patrol Sector of the United States Border Patrol in Arizona apprehended 1,700 aliens who required medical care, Arthur wrote.



Aliens “show up sick, particularly children, some of whom are suffering from illnesses not generally seen in modern American society, including mumps, measles, and tuberculosis, as well as others with influenza, scabies, and other skin diseases.”



Arthur makes it clear he is opposed to border-busting caravans and unlawful entry into the United States, not to immigration in general.





None of this should be understood as a stigmatization of children or of migrants from Central America. Regular immigration, in which a foreign national obtains a visa from a U.S. consulate abroad and travels to this country through a port of entry, however, provides for the screening of foreign nationals before they arrive in this country and interact with the public, including other foreign nationals lawfully present.



Irregular migration, on the other hand, by which a foreign national enters the United States illegally between the ports of entry, does not provide any of those safeguards. Once they are here, they are here, regardless of whether they are apprehended and detained, or make their way to their final destinations without apprehension.





Arthur recounts an article by Peter Edelstein, M.D., in Psychology Today in January 2017.



Edelstein wrote:





In the end, it is hard to completely ignore the health risks posed by those whose entry into the country avoids medical examination and treatment. Whether you sit on the ‘build a wall’ end of the spectrum or the ‘they’re just seeking a better life’ end, accepting that treatable major health risks are freely entering into our general population is an unwise strategy, regardless of your political leaning (assuming those risks are meaningful, a debate we can have).





Few have considered the issues raised by Edelstein, Arthur writes.



“The danger posed by communicable diseases … is yet another reason to discourage a wave of aliens who are only apprehended after they have entered the United States, as we have seen in recent months. Especially from places that have recently been under ‘medical state[s] of emergency’ for contagious diseases.”



There is plenty of evidence that illegal aliens are bringing illnesses into America.



As of March 7, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had 2,287 detainees in quarantine for infectious diseases including mumps.



“The numbers of immigrants in custody with a contagious diseases [sic] has spiked in the past year,” CNN reports. “For the previous two years, the agency has not encountered a single case of mumps among its detainees.”



“In the past 12 months, there have been health investigations at 51 ICE detention facilities for mumps, chickenpox and influenza,” according to an ICE spokesman. “There have been 236 reported cases of mumps, with another 16 suspected cases during this time period.”



The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that “[t]ravelers with measles continue to bring the disease into the U.S.” So far this year the CDC has confirmed 268 individual cases of measles in 15 states, including three states that border Mexico (Arizona, California, and Texas).



Nick Isgro has the facts on his side, but when have facts ever mattered to leftists and open-borders fanatics?

PENNSYLVANIA STUDENT FILES COMPLAINT WITH DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AFTER ENCOUNTERING BOY IN GIRLS’ LOCKER ROOM

PENNSYLVANIA STUDENT FILES COMPLAINT WITH DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AFTER ENCOUNTERING 
BOY IN GIRLS’ LOCKER ROOM 
BY HEATHER CLARK
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
HONESDALE, Pa. — A high school student in Pennsylvania has filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights after a male student who identifies as female was permitted to change his clothes in the girls’ locker room.
The unnamed female complainant, who attends Honesdale High School, outlined in a video posted to social media that she was changing her clothes before gym class in September 2018 when she heard a male voice, and turned to see the student, also partially undressed, looking at her.
“I glanced down and I could tell that he was wearing women’s underwear and what was underneath it,” she stated. “When I knew that a man was looking at me, I felt very violated and very scared, especially [since he was] looking at me while I am getting dressed.”
According to the complaint filed with the Department of Education, the male student is “female attracted” as he “has been seen at school events holding hands with girls.”
The girl told her parents what had occurred, who in turn called the principal and superintendent and were advised that the district attorney had counseled them to allow students to use the locker room that correlates with their gender identity.
However, officials sought to address the concern by approaching the male student and asking him to change behind a shower curtain. The female complainant was also permitted to wait outside of the locker room until after the male student exited.
Her attorney, Andrea Shaw of Carlisle, says that the arrangement did not completely assuage the concerns.
“This hardly remedied the girls’ right to privacy, because the female attracted male student can still view all of the girls while they are in various stages of undress [as he walks through the locker room],” the complaint reads.
“Second, … [w]hile she was no longer required to remove her clothing in front of a male student, her only option was to take refuge outside of the locker room, a place designated by state law to be used exclusively by her sex, while the male student used the girls’ locker room,” it states.
While the female student no longer has gym class with the male student, she does still have to share the locker room with him as both run cross country, and says that she has decided to “hide[] while she changes her clothes.”
Her attorney contends that the entire reason that there are separate male and female locker rooms and restrooms is so that girls and boys can feel that they have the privacy to undress without being in the presence of the opposite sex.
“All girls in the Wayne Highlands schools, once they learn of the school’s practice … will have reason to fear that they cannot participate in school life without being at risk of loss of their bodily privacy and without fear and apprehension of being confronted by a male in a private setting for girls,” the complaint reads. “The school’s practice thus creates a hostile environment for girls.”
Wayne Highlands School District Superintendent Gregory Frigoletto told local television station WNEP that he is not able to comment on the case, but stated that district policy is in consonance with a recent court ruling permitting students to use the facilities that correlate with their gender identity.
____________________________________________________________

Girl Finds “Transgender” Boy Staring at Her in Locker Room~

Told to Go OUTSIDE Until He Was Done

BY SELWYN DUKE
Proving again that “the eye altering alters all,” a Pennsylvania high-school girl recently found a boy’s lustful eye fixed upon her in her locker room — then was told her only recourse was to wait outside until he was done changing.
Of course, at issue is changing school policy that allows a boy who changes his so-called “gender identity” and claims girlhood status to use the girls’ facilities. As the Family Research Council reports:
There are at least 787 students at Pennsylvania’s Honesdale High — but only one of them seemed to know about a major change in the school’s rules. The others found out the most traumatic way possible: when they walked into the girls’ locker room and found a teenage boy in women’s underwear.
For at least one 15-year-old sophomore, the situation was terrifying. “It was first period,” she remembers, “and I had gym class. And I walked in [to change] with all my friends, and while I was putting on my pants, I heard a man’s voice. So I turned around, and he’s standing there on the opposite aisle looking at me. I glanced down, and I could tell that he was wearing women’s underwear and what was underneath it.” When the boy stared back at her — and the entire group of partially-dressed girls — she was horrified.
When she got home that afternoon, she told her mom and dad what happened. Turns out, the students weren’t the only ones who’d never been notified about the policy. Still in shock, they called the principal and Wayne County superintendent. Neither were particularly sorry about the girls’ experience. And to prove it, they refused to lift a finger to help. The girls’ only option was to wait outside the locker room — a place designated for them — until the boy inside was finished.
The girl’s family has since obtained legal representation and has filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Civil Rights Division. Her lawyers have also “posted a video online [below] along with their complaint alleging the school’s policy on transgender use of locker rooms violated the girl’s civil rights,” informs WNEP.com.
“‘Opening up restrooms and locker rooms to members of the opposite sex is sexual harassment. Like most forms, the girls have little power over their situation,’ said attorney Andrea Shaw,” WNEP further informs.
“The Wayne Highlands superintendent says he’s not able to comment on this incident or complaint but does say the district’s policy is in keeping with a recent court decision allowing trans students to use the facilities of their choosing. Now, the Supreme Court is expected to take up that case,” the site continues.
It should first be said here that there’s no such thing as a “transgender” student, not any more than there could be a “trans-species” student who’d really become a cat (and there is a woman who thus masqueraded, by the way). As Australian Alan Finch, who’d once claimed trans status, put it in 2004, “You fundamentally can’t change sex…. Transsexualism was invented by psychiatrists.” 
Weighing in likewise just last year was philosopher Dr. Ryan T. Anderson, who wrote that “transgenderism” is delusion and just amounts to playing “pretend,” since sex change is biologically impossible. As I reported at the time:
“Modern science shows that our sexual organization begins with our DNA and development in the womb, and that sex differences manifest themselves in many bodily systems and organs, all the way down to the molecular level,” writes Anderson in his March 5 article, which was adapted from his new book, When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment.
“Cosmetic surgery and cross-sex hormones can’t change us into the opposite sex,” Anderson, a Heritage Foundation senior fellow, further explains. “They can affect appearances. They can stunt or damage some outward expressions of our reproductive organization. But they can’t transform it. They can’t turn us from one sex into the other.” They merely amount to the donning of “counterfeit sexual garb,” as Johns Hopkins University (JHU) psychiatrist Dr. Paul McHugh put it.
But what of the “transgender” diagnosis? It is made by actual people of medical science, but there’s nothing scientific about it.
Note that when a doctor diagnoses someone with “gender dysphoria” — the persistent sense that you’re a member of the opposite sex but are stuck in the wrong body — there’s no way for him to determine that at issue is a biological phenomenon as opposed to a psychological one. There is no brain-scan; genetic test; blood, urine or any other body-chemistry test for “biologically induced gender dysphoria.” The physician will make his diagnosis based only on feelings — strong feelings of “cross-gender identification” lasting for at least six months. On this basis alone he may ultimately recommend the patient undergo body-rending sex-mutilation surgery.
It’s as if you went to a cardiologist and said, “Doc, I’m certain I have heart disease! I can just feel it!” and he replied, without performing any diagnostic tests, “Oh, have the feelings been strong and persistent? Have they lasted for at least six months? Alright, then, I’ll cut open your chest and perform a bypass!” 
So while Professor Harold “Hal” Lewis said in 2016 that “the global warming scam” is the world’s “greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud,” the “transgender” scam may soon contend for that title.
This Made-up Sexual Status (MUSS) agenda’s unscientific nature raises another issue: Why are the feelings of a majority of people — e.g., the high-school students uncomfortable with having opposite-sex classmates invade their spaces — subordinated to the feelings of less than one percent of the population?
Answer: Because the feelings-based prejudices of pseudo-intellectual pseudo-elites are holding sway.
Meanwhile, Democrat-sponsored House bill “the Equality Act” would force even churches to allow faux (same-sex) weddings and MUSS people to use the opposite sex’s facilities, according to WND.com, and a British Catholic mother is being investigated by police for “misgendering” a MUSS individual.
So what’s really going on here? At bottom, this has nothing to do with compassion, equality, legitimate tolerance, or inclusiveness. Moreover, the problem with it isn’t mainly, as conservatives aver, that predators will use a MUSS ruse to access women’s private spaces (though this is an issue).
Rather, “This is about socially reengineering society — about changing hearts and minds — by legitimizing made-up sexual statuses,” as I wrote in 2016.
This is the real cause of the Bathroom Wars. It’s also why traditionalists shouldn’t budge an inch on this issue. If you can make people believe an objective reality such as sex is mere illusion, you can make them believe anything.

ITALY: MUSLIM MIGRANT BUS DRIVER RAMS BUS FULL OF CHILDREN INTO CARS ON HIGHWAY, SETS IT ON FIRE~CHILDREN ESCAPE UNHURT AFTER THEIR HANDS WERE BOUND

Driver hijacks school bus in Italy and sets it on fire, children escape unhurt


ITALY: MUSLIM MIGRANT BUS DRIVER RAMS BUS FULL OF CHILDREN INTO CARS ON HIGHWAY, 
SETS IT ON FIRE 
BY ROBERT SPENCER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

Bring in people who were raised in a culture of violence, you’re going to get this.



“Police said the suspect had a criminal record, with convictions for sexual molestation and driving while drunk. He obtained Italian citizenship in 2004. Mr Salvini, the interior minister and head of the anti-immigration League party, asked why a person with a criminal record was allowed to drive a school bus.”



Good question. Especially when the conviction is for sexual molestation. But that such a conviction is on Ousseynou Sy’s record is not surprising, given the widespread belief among Muslim migrants that infidel women are theirs for the taking, in accord with the Qur’an’s permission to have sexual relations with the “captives of the right hand” (4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50, 70:30).



“Interior minister officials said they were studying the possibility of revoking the driver’s Italian citizenship.”



Great idea. This incident should lead to a large-scale reevaluation of the wisdom of importing massive numbers of Muslim migrants, but given Sy’s stated grievance, it will more likely lead to more pressure from the political and media elites to shut down all opposition to the migration project.







“Bus full of children in Italy set alight by angry driver ‘in retaliation’ for migrant drownings in Mediterranean,” by Nick Squires, Telegraph, March 20, 2019:





An Italian bus driver of Senegalese descent was arrested on Wednesday after hijacking his own vehicle and setting it on fire, allegedly threatening to kill more than 50 children on board whose hands he had bound.



The 47-year-old man said he was acting in revenge for the thousands of migrants, many of them African, who have drowned in the Mediterranean in recent years while trying to reach Europe from Libya.



“No one will survive,” he said, according to police.



“He shouted ‘Stop the deaths at sea, I’ll carry out a massacre’,” said Marco Palmieri, a police spokesman.



The man, named as Ousseynou Sy, was driving 51 children from their middle school near the city of Cremona to a sporting event when he started making threats, brandishing a knife.



In an ordeal that lasted around 40 minutes, he started driving towards nearby Milan.



He rammed the bus into cars on a busy highway before it came to a stop at a roadblock set up by police.



He then doused it in petrol and set it on fire.



Police smashed the windows of the vehicle to allow the children to escape.



Television footage showed thick black smoke and flames billowing from the bus, which was reduced to a burnt-out hulk…



One of the children told reporters that the driver had threatened to pour petrol on them and set them alight.



“He handcuffed us and threatened us. He said that if we moved he would pour out the petrol and set fire to it.



“He kept saying that people in Africa are dying and the fault is Di Maio and Salvini’s” – a reference to Luigi Di Maio and Matteo Salvini, the leaders of the two parties that make up the populist coalition.



Mobile phone footage taken by passing motorists showed dozens of children screaming in panic as they ran away from the vehicle.



At least 12 children were taken to hospital for bruises, smoke inhalation or because they were suffering from shock.



Police said the suspect had a criminal record, with convictions for sexual molestation and driving while drunk. He obtained Italian citizenship in 2004.



Mr Salvini, the interior minister and head of the anti-immigration League party, asked why a person with a criminal record was allowed to drive a school bus.



Interior minister officials said they were studying the possibility of revoking the driver’s Italian citizenship….
1 … 482 483 484 485 486 … 794