MUSLIM MEMBER OF COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS CLAIMS “ISLAM REVERES JUDAISM, THE TORAH, MOSES & THE JEWISH PEOPLE”

MUSLIM MEMBER OF COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS CLAIMS “ISLAM REVERES JUDAISM, THE TORAH, MOSES & THE JEWISH PEOPLE”
BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/02/muslim-member-of-council-on-foreign-relations-claims-islam-reveres-judaism-the-torah-moses-and-the-jewish-people; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Qanta A. Ahmed “is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a member of the Committee on Combating Contemporary Anti-Semitism Through Testimony at the University of Southern California Shoah Foundation.” Here she claims that “Islam reveres Judaism, the Torah, Moses and the Jewish people as legitimate believers, and Jerusalem as belonging only to the Jews — all documented within the Quran.”
Unfortunately, none of that is true. There is a strong native strain of anti-Semitism in Islam, rooted in the Qur’an. The Qur’an puts forward a clear, consistent image of the Jews: they are scheming, treacherous liars and the most dangerous enemies of the Muslims.
The Qur’an presents Muhammad as the last and greatest in the line of Biblical prophets, preaching a message identical to theirs. The identical character of their messages may seem odd to those who know very well that the Qur’an’s contents are quite different in character from those of the Bible, but the Qur’an has an ingenious explanation for this: the original message of all the Biblical prophets was Islam, and they were all Muslims. Only later did their followers corrupt their messages to create Judaism and Christianity.
Consequently, in the Qur’an, Abraham is not a Jew or a Christian, but a Muslim (3:67); his message was identical to Muhammad’s. The Islamic claim is that the authentic Torah actually commands Jews to follow Muhammad and recognize his prophecy. Those who refuse to accept Muhammad as a prophet are, in the Muslim view, rejecting both Moses and the prophecies of the Torah. It is no surprise, then, that in the Qur’an both David and Jesus curse the disbelieving Jews for their disobedience (5:78).
Yet of course, Torah-observant Jews did not and do not accept Muhammad as a prophet, and this, according to Islamic tradition, enraged the prophet of Islam during his lifetime. According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad initially appealed energetically to the Jews, hoping they would accept his prophetic status. He even had the Muslims imitate the Jews by facing Jerusalem for prayers, and he adopted for the Muslims the Jews’ prohibition of pork. But he was infuriated when the Jews rejected him, and Allah shared his fury in Qur’anic revelation: “And when there came to them a messenger from Allah, confirming what was with them, a party of the people of the Book threw away the Book of Allah behind their backs, as if they did not know!” (2:101).
Another Jewish leader noted that “no covenant was ever made with us about Muhammad.” Allah again responded through his Prophet: “Is it ever so that when they make a covenant a party of them set it aside? The truth is, most of them do not believe” (2:100). In fact, Allah gave food laws to the Jews because of their “wrongdoing,” and “for their turning many from the way of Allah” (4:160), and by doing so, “repaid them for their injustice” (6:146). Some Jews are “avid listeners to falsehood” who “distort words beyond their usages.” These are “the ones for whom Allah does not intend to purify their hearts,” and they will be punished not just in hellfire but in this life as well: “For them in this world is disgrace, and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment” (5:41).
Jews dare to deny divine revelation, claiming that “Allah did not reveal to a human being anything,” to which Muhammad is told to respond, “Who revealed the Scripture that Moses brought as light and guidance to the people? You [Jews] make it into pages, disclosing some of it and concealing much” (6:91).
Muslims should not get close to such people: “O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as friends. They are friends of one another. And whoever is a friend to them among you, indeed, he is of them. Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people” (5:51). It would hardly be appropriate for Muslims to act peaceably toward the Jews when the Jews, according to the Qur’an, are prone to war – especially against Muslims. Whenever the Jews “kindle the fire of war,” says the Qur’an, “Allah extinguishes it” (5:64).
Ultimately, Allah transforms disobedient Jews into apes and pigs (2:63-66; 5:59-60; 7:166). While the Qur’an says that Muslims are the “best of people” (3:110), the unbelievers are “like livestock” (7:179). “Indeed, the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are those who have disbelieved, and they will not believe” (8:55).
The Jews also “strive to do mischief on earth” – that is, fasaad, for which the punishment is specified in Qur’an 5:33: “they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land.”
The rebellion against Allah that has resulted in the Jews’ degradation – the “terrible agony” that those who have rejected Islam are to feel “in this world” as well as in the next (3:56) – is a frequent preoccupation of the Qur’an. Departing from his earlier tendency to appeal to the Jews as the authorities on what Allah had revealed, Muhammad began to criticize them for concealing parts of that revelation. The Qur’an several times criticizes Jews for refusing to follow Muhammad, asking, “Why don’t the Jews’ rabbis stop their evil behavior?” (5:63)
Someone who believes in the Qur’an as the perfect and eternal word of Allah, and the authentic Hadith as the records of the statements and actions of the man whom the Qur’an designates as the “excellent example” (33:21) for Muslims to emulate will accordingly form a negative view of Jews.
How could such a believing Muslim ever accept being friends and neighbors with “the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers”? How can he carry out good-faith negotiations for peace with people who fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah (2:79; 3:75, 3:181)? How can he trust those who claim that Allah’s power is limited (5:64) and who are “avid listeners to falsehood” and “distort words beyond their usages” (5:41)?
A pious and knowledgeable Muslim will discover in his Qur’an that the Jews are busy hiding the truth and misleading people (3:78). They staged rebellion against the prophets and rejected their guidance (2:55), and even killed them (2:61). They prefer their own interests to the teachings of Muhammad (2:87). They wish evil for people and trying to mislead them (2:109), and even feel pain when others are happy or fortunate (3:120). They’re arrogant about their status as Allah’s beloved people (5:18) while devouring people’s wealth by subterfuge (4:161); slandering the true religion (4:46); and killing the prophets (2:61). They’re merciless and heartless (2:74); unrestrained in committing sins (5:79); cowardly (59:13-14) and miserly (4:53). They are under Allah’s curse (4:46, 9:30).
An informed and committed believer will look at the Jews, and in particular at Zionism and the State of Israel, and not see a struggle over land or boundaries that can be solved through negotiations if a sufficient amount of good will exists on both sides. Such a believer is much more likely to see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an eschatological struggle against the great spiritual enemies of the Muslims, as the Jews are designated in the Qur’an: “You will surely find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers to be the Jews…” (5:82)
The Qur’an’s condemnations of the Jews are repeatedly sweeping: the Muslim holy book refers again and again to “the Jews,” not simply to one party among them. The Qur’an does include the Jews (along with “Christians and Sabeans”) among those who “will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve” (2:62), but mainstream Muslim commentators are not inclined to see this as an indication of divine pluralism. The Qur’an translators Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, and Muhammad Asad all add parenthetical glosses that make the passage mean that the Jews referred to in this passage will be saved only if they become Muslims. Qur’an.com adds “before Prophet Muhammad” in brackets after “Jews or Christians or Sabeans,” making it clear that those three could only be saved as such before the advent of Islam, but now they must convert to Islam to be saved.
What’s more, the Qur’an also says that “they who disbelieved among the People of the Book and the polytheists will be in the fire of hell, abiding eternally in it. Those are the most vile of created beings.” (98:6) Those who “disbelieved among the People of the Book” are the Jews and Christians who did not convert to Islam.
And Islamic tradition is no kinder to the Jews. The Hadith, reports of Muhammad’s words and deeds that, if deemed authentic by Islamic scholars, are normative for Islamic law, contain a great deal of anti-Semitic material. In one, as if apes and pigs weren’t bad enough, Muhammad says that a group of Jews “assumed the shape of rats.” In another, he exclaims: “May Allah’s curse be on the Jews for they built the places of worship at the graves of their Prophets.”
Islam’s most frequently repeated prayer is a passage from the Qur’an in which the believers ask Allah: “Guide us to the straight path, the path of those upon whom you have bestowed favor, not of those who have evoked anger or of those who are astray.” (1:6-7) Muhammad explains: “The Jews are those who Allah is angry with, and the Christians have strayed.”
The most notorious anti-Semitic passage in all of the Hadith is the one in which Muhammad is made to prophesy that Muslims will bring about the End Times by killing Jews wholesale: “The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.’”
This passage gives all the anti-Semitism in Islam an edge of menace. Muslims are taught in their holiest books not just to despise and mistrust Jews, but that they are doing a good and virtuous deed if they kill them, a deed that will bring about the consummation of all things and the dawning of eternal justice for mankind.
As for Qanta Ahmed’s claim that the Qur’an says Jerusalem belongs to the Jews, it is based primarily upon Qur’an 5:21, in which Moses declares, “O my people! Enter the holy land which Allah has assigned to you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then you will be overthrown, to your own ruin.” One might wonder why, if this exegesis is correct, the Islamic world from Morocco to Indonesia manifests such hostility to Israel. Why have so few Muslims ever noticed that Allah actually wants the Jews to possess the Land of Israel? One reason may be that they read such Qur’anic passages as 2:61, which says that some Jews who rebelled against Moses were “covered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of Allah. This because they went on rejecting the Signs of Allah and slaying His Messengers without just cause. This because they rebelled and went on transgressing.”
The Qur’an also says the Jews broke whatever covenant with Allah they had: “And because of their breaking their covenant, We have cursed them and made hard their hearts. They change words from their context and forget a part of that whereof they were admonished. You will not cease to discover treachery from all except a few of them. But bear with them and pardon them. Lo! Allah loves the kindly” (5:13).
Being thus accursed according to the Qur’an, the Jews are not the legitimate inheritors of the promise made in Qur’an 5:21. The ones who are the inheritors of that promise are those who have remained faithful to Allah – the Muslims – not those whom he has accursed – the Jews.
Does Qanta Ahmed know all this, and doesn’t want us to know it? Or is she claiming to be an expert on “Islamism” without being familiar with this material?
“OPINION: Ilhan Omar Brings Shame To American Muslims,” by Qanta Ahmed, Daily Caller, February 14, 2019:
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), an American Muslim of Somali origin, shames American Muslims with the anti-Semitism she has brought to Congress.
As a naturalized American and a Muslim woman myself, it was gratifying to see the first Muslim women in American history elected to Congress inaugurated this year….
But as a Muslim devoted to combatting contemporary anti-Semitism by serving within the University of Southern California Shoah Foundation, I am deeply dismayed to see Omar brandished anti-Semitic beliefs almost immediately after assuming office. They are beliefs she has held for years. (Leaders of Minnesota’s Jewish community approached her prior to her election to express deep concern regarding her anti-Semitic leanings)….
Worse, as a Muslim expert in Islamism, I recognize her anti-Semitism as emblematic of deep Islamist sympathies. Political scientists identify anti-Semitism clearly circumscribed within Islamist ideologies and charters to consistently lionize a new Islamist anti-Semitism as a central Islamist tenet contingent on the extinction of the Jewish people. Her affiliation with Islamists must be examined….
For Muslims in America, we are faced with the realization that Muslim anti-Semites claim to speak for our Islamic faith and our Muslim identity. They invite hostility to our own communities, and more misunderstanding of Islam within America. This is despite the reality that Islam reveres Judaism, the Torah, Moses and the Jewish people as legitimate believers, and Jerusalem as belonging only to the Jews — all documented within the Quran. The Quran’s truths will go unknown in the shadow of Muslim congresswomen spewing anti-Semitism and all Muslims will be thus branded anti-Semites….

DELAWARE (AB)NORMAL: ‘CREEPY UNCLE JOE’ (BIDEN) SET TO ANNOUNCE RUN FOR PRESIDENT~WANT TO ELECT A SEXUAL PREDATOR AGAIN?

“Biden is apparently unaware that grabbing on young women and children and whispering in their ear while on camera isn’t the best optics for a potential future President of the United States.”
'Creepy Uncle Joe' Set to Announce Run For President



DELAWARE (AB)NORMAL: ‘CREEPY UNCLE JOE’ (BIDEN) SET TO ANNOUNCE RUN FOR PRESIDENT~
WANT TO ELECT A SEXUAL PREDATOR AGAIN?

Will Democrats stay silent on questions surrounding Biden’s behavior around women in era of #MeToo?

BY PAUL JOSEPH WATSON
SEE: https://www.infowars.com/creepy-uncle-joe-set-to-announce-run-for-president/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Joe Biden is on the verge of announcing his run for president, according to multiple sources close to the former Vice President, a development that will resurrect questions about Biden’s behavior around women in the era of #MeToo.
ABC News reports that according to Robert Wolf, a top Democratic donor and former economic adviser to former President Barack Obama who has known Biden for over a decade, Biden is 90% sure of running for president.
“He feels he’s coming off an incredible midterm and he’s sitting in the best position to take on [President Donald] Trump across the country,” said Wolf.
Sen. Diane Feinstein also met with Biden last week and confirmed that she expected him to announce his candidacy.
“We are all anticipating it is not ‘if’ but ‘when’ he announces,” said James Smith, who ran for governor of South Carolina in 2018 and has been in recent touch with Biden’s staff.
With Bernie Sanders now having announced his candidacy, expect Biden, who routinely tops polls of likely Democratic victors, to quickly follow suit.
However, just as the Hollywood Access tape shortly before the election bolstered Democrats’ narrative that Donald Trump was a creep around women, Biden’s on-camera behavior towards females spanning a vast age range is arguably much worse.
Highlighting the viral nature of the issue, one 2017 Twitter thread on the subject which accused Biden of being a “sexual predator” received over 36,000 retweets.
Biden’s inappropriate behavior is by no means solely a right-wing obsession.
A February 2015 Washington Post article entitled What are we going to do about Creepy Uncle Joe Biden? highlighted the numerous instances of Biden putting his arms around women, many of whom looked incredibly uncomfortable at being accosted.
The Huffington Post also published an article (subsequently deleted) that acknowledged Biden running for president would be a “terrible idea in a post-Weinstein America”.
Back in November 2017, an ex-Secret Service agent even claimed that Biden engaged in “Weinstein-level” sexual assault and that he would walk around the VP residence late at night completely naked.
The agent, who spoke on condition of anonymity, revealed that Biden “would mess with every single woman or teen,” and that a Christmas get-together at the VP’s house had to be canceled “because Biden would grope all of our wives and girlfriends’ asses.”
As the video above documents, Biden is apparently unaware that grabbing on young women and children and whispering in their ear while on camera isn’t the best optics for a potential future President of the United States.
________________________________________________________
Biden does it in front of us! ‘Outraged’ Dems won’t talk ...

SCOTUS UNANIMOUSLY RULES AGAINST CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE

SCOTUS Unanimously Rules Against Civil Asset Forfeiture
SCOTUS UNANIMOUSLY RULES AGAINST 
CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE

Decision a victory against states imposing excessive fines, seizure of property

BY BEN WARREN
SEE: https://www.infowars.com/scotus-unanimously-rules-against-civil-asset-forfeiture/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The Supreme Court unanimously curbed the power of local governments to seize private property.
The nation’s highest court invoked the Constitution’s prohibition on excessive fines in Wednesday’s 9-0 decision, according to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s majority opinion.
“Protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history for good reason: Such fines undermine other liberties,” said Ginsburg. “They can be used, e.g., to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies.”
“They can also be employed, not in service of penal purposes, but as a source of revenue.”
The ruling stems from an Indiana case where the local court seized a man’s $42,000 Land Rover after he pleaded guilty to a crime that had the maximum fine of $10,000, one-fourth the value of the vehicle.
Prosecutors reportedly wanted to take the vehicle because they claimed the man used it to transport drugs.
Interestingly, Justice Clarance Thomas reached the same conclusion as Ginsburg but disagreed with her rationale.
“I cannot agree with the route the Court takes to reach this conclusion,” said Thomas. “I would hold that the right to be free from excessive fines is one of the ‘privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States’ protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.”
The case went to the Supreme Court in the first place because the Indiana court reportedly refused to extend the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines to a local level.
As such, this is the first time the court has applied the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines at the state level, according to Fox News.
The historical importance of the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights were referenced in the decision.

SWAMPY: OCASIO-CORTEZ REPORTEDLY USED PAC TO FUNNEL CASH TO BOYFRIEND

Swampy: Ocasio-Cortez Reportedly Used PAC To Funnel Cash To Boyfriend
SWAMPY: OCASIO-CORTEZ REPORTEDLY USED PAC 
TO FUNNEL CASH TO BOYFRIEND

PAC likely served as pass-through to mitigate campaign’s mounting debt, reporter claims

BY JAMIE WHITE
SEE: https://www.infowars.com/swampy-ocasio-cortez-reportedly-used-pac-to-funnel-cash-to-boyfriend/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) used a political action committee (PAC) to funnel campaign funds back to her boyfriend, according to reports.
Republican strategist Luke Thompson first made known on Twitter last week that Ocasio-Cortez’s boyfriend Riley Roberts had a house.gov email address and was designated as one of her “Staff,” therefore “drawing a salary on the taxpayer’s dime.”
View image on Twitter

View image on Twitter

Luke Thompson@ltthompso

While you were having a nice Valentine’s Day, @AOC decided to put her boyfriend on staff – drawing a salary on the taxpayer’s dime. Nice to see her adapting to the swamp so quickly.

12.4K

8:54 AM – Feb 15, 2019

8,730 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy
The revelation was met with fierce opposition by Ocasio-Cortez and her Chief of Staff Saikat Chakrabarti, who accused Thompson of “doxxing” Roberts despite the information being publicly available, and failed to explain why Roberts would need such access.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

✔@AOC

Replying to @ltthompso
Actually this cal designation is a permission so he can have access to my Google Cal. Congressional spouses get Gcal access all the time.

Next time check your facts before you tweet nonsense.

65.2K

9:45 AM – Feb 15, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

11.3K people are talking about this

Saikat Chakrabarti@saikatc

Replying to @rkylesmith and 2 others
He started doxxing him. That’s a violation of terms in Twitter.

235

11:34 AM – Feb 15, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

112 people are talking about this

“Per the House Admin office, a family member can, in special circumstances, get a house.gov email address,” Thompson reported Wednesday.
“But Roberts is not a family member, and although AOC referred to him as her partner in November of last year, she omitted him from her mandatory candidate financial disclosures for 2017 and 2018. Perhaps they’ve gotten married since. If so — if he is her spouse now — we should see his finances disclosed along with hers in her 2019 disclosure form due in May. But to be clear, AOC did not disclose Roberts’s finances as a spouse during her campaign.”
As Chakrabarti noted, Roberts also isn’t an unpaid volunteer and “isn’t doing any government work.”

Saikat Chakrabarti@saikatc

Replying to @ltthompso @AOC
He’s not paid. We have no volunteers in the office. He’s not doing any government work. He can see her calendar just like spouses/partners/family members in other congressional office. Check your damn facts before you report bullshit. Lazy journos need to learn to do their jobs.

6,374

9:59 AM – Feb 15, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

1,323 people are talking about this

Additionally, instead of producing the appropriate evidence to refute Thompson’s claims, the mainstream media attempted to provide cover for Ocasio-Cortez using their own talking points.
“Instead of asking if Roberts had been supplied with the badge and pin appropriate to a Congressional spouse, evidence of which her office should have been able to produce easily, AOC’s worshipful stenographers in the press went into overdrive witlessly repeating her talking-points,” Thompson wrote.
Former chairman of the House Oversight Committee Jason Chaffetz said Friday that such an arrangement was “inappropriate.”
“It’s totally naïve and inappropriate – you wouldn’t allow it in most companies, let alone the House of Representatives. There should be real consequences,” he told Fox News.
“When I was in the House, my scheduler would forward my wife my schedule once a week. But you’re not allowed unfettered access. And he isn’t even her spouse…It should be referred to the ethics committee for further investigation,” he added.
It gets deeper: Chakrabarti co-founded a PAC called Brand New Congress LLC in 2017, which Ocasio-Cortez paid for “strategic consulting” for her campaign.
Brand New Congress LLC then hired Roberts as a “marketing consultant” for AOC’s campaign, paying him approximately $6,000.

Luke Thompson@ltthompso

A rich guy used a PAC to pay @AOC‘s boyfriend $6,000 when her campaign was running out of money. After AOC won, she gave that rich guy a job in her office. Follow me on a journey.https://medium.com/@ltthompso/the-congresswoman-loves-the-swamp-d33296ec251e …

19.7K

8:48 AM – Feb 20, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

The Congresswoman Loves the Swamp – Luke Thompson – Medium

Her Wealthy Chief of Staff used a PAC to Pay Her Boyfriend

medium.com

12.1K people are talking about this

“Why would Chakrabarti, a founding engineer at Stripe and a wealthy veteran of Silicon Valley, be hiring a no-name ‘UX Experience’ guy with little discernible marketing experience to serve as Brand New Congress PAC’s sole marketing consultant?” Thompson asked.
“The answer seems to be that Chakrabarti was funneling money paid to him by AOC’s campaign back to Roberts and by extension to AOC,” Thompson wrote.
In effect, Chakrabarti likely reimbursed AOC through Brand New Congress LLC to mitigate her campaign’s mounting debt, he says.
“Regardless of whether or not Roberts was officially AOC’s spouse at that time, it seems probable Chakrabarti was reimbursing her for her campaign expenses off-books. Brand New Congress PAC simply served as a pass-through to do so,” Thompson continued.
After Ocasio-Cortez won in the 2018 midterms, she then hired Chakrabarti as her Chief of Staff.
“That’s definitely unethical and potentially illegal,” Thompson wrote. “Chakrabarti may have made an illegal campaign contribution in excess of federal limits. Regardless, it raises questions about Chakrabarti’s hiring as AOC’s Chief of Staff after her election.”
A shocking aspect of this is that the mainstream media failed to uncover (or simply ignored) any of this information despite the fact it was publicly available for scrutiny.
For now, it appears AOC is adjusting to the swamp just fine.

HOW TO IMMUNIZE YOURSELF AGAINST VACCINE PROPAGANDA~LISTENING VS COERCION ON “VACCINE HESITANCY”~BABY DIED AFTER VACCINATION

FDA THREATENS TO ENFORCE MANDATORY VACCINATION LAWS COUNTRYWIDE

Federal government set to override state laws, force vaccines amid MSM-fueled measles hype

_______________________________________________________________

HOW TO IMMUNIZE YOURSELF AGAINST 

VACCINE PROPAGANDA 
BY Jeremy R. Hammond 
SEE: https://thevaccinereaction.org/2019/02/how-to-immunize-yourself-against-vaccine-propaganda/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
A New York Times editorial attacks “anti-vaxxers” as “the enemy”, but it’s the Times editors who are dangerously irrational and ignorant of the science.
On January 19, 2019, the New York Times published an editorial mischaracterizing anyone who dares to criticize or dissent from public vaccine policy as dangerously irrational and ignorant.1 In doing so, the Times avoided having to seriously address any of the countless legitimate concerns that parents have today about vaccinating their children according to the CDC’s routine childhood vaccine schedule. Consequently, the Times fulfills the mainstream media’s typical function of manufacturing consent for government policy by manipulating public opinion through deception.2 In this case, the consent being manufactured in service of the state is for public vaccine policy, which constitutes a serious threat to both our health and our liberty.
What the Times editorial represents is not journalism, but public policy advocacy. And to persuade its readers to strictly comply with the CDC’s vaccine schedule, the Times blatantly lies to its readers both about the nature of the debate and what science tells us about vaccine safety and effectiveness.
The first clue that the Times editorial aims to avoid any serious discussion of the issue is the title: “How to Inoculate Against Anti-Vaxxers”. The term “anti-vaxxer”, of course, is the derogatory label that the media apply to anyone who dares to question public vaccine policy. It is reflective of the mainstream media’s routine use of ad hominem argumentation in lieu of reasoned discourse. Rather than substantively addressing their arguments, the media simply dismiss the views of and personally attack critics and dissenters—and this Times editorial is certainly no exception.
The second clue is in the editorial’s subtitle: “The no-vaccine crowd has persuaded a lot of people. But public health can prevail.” To equate public vaccine policy with “public health”, of course, is the fallacy of begging the question. It presumes the proposition to be proven, which is that vaccinating the US childhood population according to the CDC’s schedule is the best way to achieve a healthy population. Many parents, researchers, doctors, and scientists strongly and reasonably disagree.
The Times would have us believe that the science on vaccines is settled. The reality is that there is a great deal of debate and controversy in the scientific literature about the safety and effectiveness of CDC-recommended vaccines. The demonstrable truth of the matter, as the Times editorial so amply illustrates, is that what the government and media say science says about vaccines and what science actually tells us are two completely different and contradictory things.
Indeed, the underlying assumption that the CDC is somehow infallible in its vaccine recommendations is indicative of how vaccination has become a religion, with those who dare to question official dogma being treated as heretics.

How the New York Times Characterizes the Vaccine Issue

The New York Times begins by noting that the World Health Organization (WHO) recently listed “vaccine hesitancy” among ten “threats to global health”.3 The term “vaccine hesitancy” refers to a person’s reluctance or refusal to strictly comply with public vaccine policy, which in the US is determined principally by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and state legislatures making compliance with the CDC’s recommendations mandatory for school entry.
For context, children in the US today who are vaccinated according to the CDC’s schedule will have received 50 doses of 14 vaccines by age six and 72 or more doses of 19 vaccines by age eighteen.4This has naturally led many parents to wonder what the potential unintended consequences might be of their children receiving so many vaccines, including sometimes many at once.
The Times laments that an estimated 100,000 American infants and toddlers remain totally unvaccinated, with millions more having received some but not all of the CDC’s recommended vaccines, all of which the Times describes as “crucial shots”.
The Times characterizes parents who choose not to strictly comply with public vaccine policy as irrational and ignorant of the science. According to its narrative, the internet abounds with “anti-vaccine propaganda” that “has outpaced pro-vaccine public health information.” The “anti-vaxxers” have “hundreds of websites”, media influencers, and political action committees engaged in an “onslaught” of this “propaganda”, which consists of “rumors and conspiracies”.
The response to this “onslaught” by public policy advocates, by contrast, “has been meager.” The CDC “has a website with accurate information, but no loud public voice”, and the rest of the government “has been mum”, leaving “just a handful of academics who get bombarded with vitriol, including outright threats, every time they try to counter pseudoscience with fact.”
The public policy critics and dissenters, according to the Times, are responsible for causing “outbreaks of measles, mumps, and pertussis”, as well as “an increase in influenza deaths” and “dismal rates of HPV vaccination”, the latter of which the Times editors believe otherwise “could effectively wipe out cervical cancer”.
The Times editors further argue that vaccines are “victims of their own success” because people don’t remember “how terrible those diseases once were”. To counter vaccine hesitancy, there are “some hard truths that deserve to be trumpeted. Vaccines are not toxic, and they do not cause autism. Full stop.”
“Trust in vaccines” is being “thoroughly eroded”, the editorial argues, threatening to cause “the next major disease outbreak”. To thwart this “danger”, the Times advocates that other states follow California’s example in eliminating nonmedical exemptions for mandatory vaccinations.
Describing critics and dissenters as “the enemy”, the Times asserts:
The arguments used by people driving the anti-vaccination movement have not changed in about a century. These arguments are effective because they are intuitively appealing—but they are also easily refutable. Instead of ignoring these arguments, an effective pro-vaccine campaign would confront them directly, over and over, for as long as it takes. Yes, there are chemicals in vaccines, but they are not toxic. No, vaccines can’t overwhelm your immune system, which already confronts countless pathogens every day.
Instructively, while the Times asserts that the arguments used by public policy critics are “easily refutable”, the editors avoided having to actually do so by simply lying that they ignore the past hundred years of science. While urging public policy advocates not to ignore the arguments against vaccinating, the Times editors do precisely that.
On the contrary, the critics most certainly cite modern science to support their arguments and to expose how the public is being blatantly lied to by the government and mainstream media, such as how the Times here lies that aluminum and mercury, both used as ingredients in vaccines, “are not toxic.”
Since the Times utterly fails to do so, let’s now take a serious and honest look at the subject and examine the real issues and legitimate concerns that the Times goes so far out of its way to avoid discussing.
To read the rest of this article on the author’s website, please click “How to Immunize Yourself Against Vaccine Propaganda“…
Note: This article was reprinted with the author’s permission. It was originally published on Jeremy Hammond’s blog at JeremyRHammond.com.
References:
1 Editorial Board. How to Inoculate Against Anti-Vaxxers. The New York Times, Jan. 19, 2019.
2 I am borrowing the phrase “manufacturing consent” from Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, whose treatise Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (Pantheon, 1982) describes the mechanisms by which the mainstream media in the US manipulate information, delivering propaganda instead of real journalism in service of the state. They were in turn borrowing the phrase from Walter Lippmann, who had likewise described this phenomenon in his 1921 book Public Opinion.
3 World Health Organization. Ten threats to global health in 2019. WHO.int January 2019
4 Hammond JR. How You’re Being Lied to about the Risks of Getting a Flu Vaccine Annually. JeremyRHammond.com Jan. 11, 2019. A note on citing previous writings of mine as a source to support my arguments in this article: Where I’m citing previous writings of mine as a source for this article, it is because I’ve already written about it in more detail it elsewhere. I encourage readers to read these previous writings and to check the sources I cite to verify the accuracy of what I’m saying for themselves.
____________________________________________________________

Listening vs Coercion on ‘Vaccine Hesitancy’

BY KATE RAINES
SEE: https://thevaccinereaction.org/2019/02/listening-vs-coercion-on-vaccine-hesitancy/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The rhetoric surrounding vaccination has long been dismissive of anyone who questions the safety or effectiveness of vaccines or refuses to follow vaccine use recommendations by public health officials and physicians, but the vitriol has reached new heights of late. On one end of the spectrum is the relentless bashing of a young mother who had the audacity to ask on social media what she might do to protect her unvaccinated three-year-old from outbreaks of measles.1
On the other end of the spectrum is the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) declaration of vaccine hesitancy as “one of the top ‘Ten Threats to Global Health in 2019’, alongside air pollution and climate change; noncommunicable diseases; global influenza pandemic; antimicrobial resistance and infectious diseases such as Ebola, dengue fever and HIV.”2
However, one thing many studies have found is that people who favor exercising their informed consent rights with regard to vaccination tend to be among the most educated and conscientious of parents. Several of those studies are summarized and referenced by pediatrician Paul Thomas, MD.3 Commonalities that arose from those studies indicated that while the parents of incompletely vaccinated children trended toward being single, young, poor and less well educated, those of deliberately unvaccinated children were more likely to be college educated and married, with a higher income and had spent time rigorously researching vaccine information.3  
Other researchers have shown a prevalence among vaccine-hesitant parents “salutogenic parenting,” defined as those who “practiced health-promoting activities which they saw as boosting the natural immunity of their children and protecting them from illness (reducing or negating the perceived need for vaccinations). Salutogenic parenting practices included breastfeeding, eating organic and/or home-grown food, cooking from scratch to reduce preservative consumption and reducing exposure to toxins.”4
Another quality identified as common among those who question the recommended schedule of childhood vaccinations or forced vaccination policies is distrust of conventional Western medicine.5
Some mainstream doctors, who restrict health care to use of pharmaceutical products and interventions that conform to the medical model, may attempt to shame caring, educated parents into giving their children every single vaccination recommended by government health officials and medical trade associations. However, this tactic has often met with mixed results. Some parents choose to acquiesce, while other parents dig in their heels and opt to delay recommended vaccinations or stop vaccinating altogether. For the more reluctant or “vaccine hesitant” parents, the preferred methods of persuasion today are to educate them about the dangers of not vaccinating, or to incentivize them by citing insurance premium penalties for not vaccinating, or threatening to exclude them from a medical practice for being “non-compliant.”6
The one thing that hasn’t been widely tried by mainstream medical professionals is listening with an open mind to parents who are hesitant about vaccination and working as partners with them rather than taking an authoritarian adversarial approach. This may be changing. On its list of six recommendations for responding to “vaccine hesitant parents,” the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) first lists listening to “parents’ concerns” and acknowledging them in a “non-confrontational manner.”7
It is unclear whether this recommendation is a serious attempt to be open to parental concerns about vaccination and respectful of the informed consent ethic or merely another tactic to coerce parents,8 but the idea of vaccine providers at least being willing to listen to their patients is a good start toward developing a mutually civil and respectful conversation about vaccination.
References:
1 Wv K. Anti-Vaxx Mom Asks How To Protect Her Unvaccinated 3-Year-Old From The Measles Outbreak, Internet Delivers. BoredPanda.com.2 Fisher BL. WHO, Pharma, Gates & Government: Who’s Calling the Shots? NVIC.org Jan. 27, 2019.3 Thomas P. Education Levels of Non-Vaccinated Parents. DrPaulApproved.com 2019.4 Ward PR, et al. Understanding the Perceived Logic Of Care By Vaccine-Hesitant And Vaccine-Refusing Parents: A Qualitative Study In Australia. PLOS ONE Oct. 12, 2017.5 Gullion JS, et al. Deciding to Opt Out of Childhood Vaccination Mandates. Publ Health Nurse September-October 2008; 25(5): 401-8.6 Raines K. Tactics Doctors Use to Pressure Hesitant Parents to Vaccinate. The Vaccine Reaction May 31, 2017.7 American Academy of Pediatrics. Vaccine Hesitant Parents. AAP.org.
8 VAXOPEDIA. How Pediatricians Should Talk to Vaccine Hesitant Parents. VAXOPEDIA.org.

One Response to “Listening vs Coercion on ‘Vaccine Hesitancy’“

  1.  redpill  February 20, 2019 at 6:31 pm

    “listening with an open mind to parents who are hesitant about vaccination and working as partners with them rather than taking an authoritarian adversarial approach”.
    Not going to happen with the majority of Doctors that push vaccines. Why? EGO. The idea that a lay person is trying to tell them about medicine. They think they spent over a decade learning how to practice medicine and no google MD is going to tell me anything. Please note I said how to practice medicine and not how to be a Doctor or a Healer.
    PLUS: Regardless if they agree with the parents and know vaccines cause damage they have to weigh money against what’s best for the child. Drs’ practices are given money by the insurance companies when they reach a 100% vaccination rate in their practices. This is one of the reasons Doctors were kicking children out of their practices. The family’s vaccine refusals were messing with their averages. Doctors Incentivized by CDC to Increase Vaccination Coverage -https://thevaccinereaction.org/2016/08/doctors-incentivized-by-cdc-to-increase-vaccination-coverage/.
    https://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/08/08/proof-surfaces-insurance-co-pays-massive-bonuses-doctors-vaccinating-babies/-https://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/08/08/proof-surfaces-insurance-co-pays-massive-bonuses-doctors-vaccinating-babies/.
    It is difficult to get a doctor to listen to a parent, when his/her income depends on his/her not “hearing” what the parent is saying.
  2. _____________________________________________________

  3. A Baby Died After Vaccination

  4. BY CAMMY BENTON, M.D.
  5. SEE: https://thevaccinereaction.org/2019/02/a-baby-died-after-vaccination/
  6. republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

  7. 
I watched every mother’s nightmare unfold yesterday in a conversation on a local online mom’s group.  It began when the baby’s aunt asked frantically for prayers for her nephew, who had gotten his four-month shots that day and was found unresponsive in the evening.  Then we learned the baby had apparently bled from every orifice and had swelling of the brain. The aunt shared that they kept the baby “alive” to give family time to arrive at the hospital.  And then, the baby died.
    

    
The aunt told us the probable diagnosis was SIDS. When the family questioned the doctor about whether the vaccines (pneumococcal, H. influenza (HIB), rotavirus, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus (DTaP) and polio, and perhaps hepatitis B if he had not yet received that at birth) administered just hours before could have caused this massive organ failure and death, the doctor denied the possibility of any causal relationship between the baby’s death and the vaccinations he was given. The doctor justified that conclusion on the basis of the infant not reacting poorly to the series of shots given at two months.
    

    
So a healthy baby goes in for a well child check with a minor cold, receives multiple vaccines and is dead within hours but there is no possibility the vaccinations played any role in the infant’s sudden death?
    

    
It is always tragic when an infant dies. As a family physician responsible for the care of many children, my distress is felt at a professional as well as a personal level when a child dies. Why did this child die and what could have been done to prevent this baby’s death and saved these parents from the lifetime of grief that results from such a loss?
    

    
I reached out privately to my colleagues for support.  Some responded with sincere sadness and worry. One physician friend recalled a night on call as a resident when a two-month-old died following a hepatitis B vaccination given earlier that day. The attending physicians wouldn’t let my friend report the death to VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) because they deemed the death after the hepatitis B vaccination to be “a coincidence.” My story brought back those memories for her and she felt awful and conflicted.
    

    
Another physician friend told me “It’s sad when babies die,” and went on to admit concerns about vaccines, but ended by saying, “But of course the benefits outweigh the risks.” In response to my concern about the temporal relationship between a healthy child receiving vaccines and that child dying within hours, a common theme among these doctors seemed to be, “correlation does not equal causation,” and “they may harm some but overall they’re more beneficial to the majority.” No one seemed interested in exploring the deadly correlation in this case or in learning more about how injecting not just disease antigens but many other chemicals, adjuvants and foreign DNA into infants might affect them.
    

    
As a physician, stories like this one make me ask some difficult questions. Since nothing in our medical training has prepared us to recognize or respond to treat vaccine reactions, and we don’t seem to be able to recognize death as an adverse reaction when it happens within 24 hours of receiving a vaccine, how in the world are we going to recognize any of the other milder warning signs of vaccine adverse events that could harm a child’s health? Is it possible that this baby had symptoms that his body wasn’t handling his earlier shots, and due to adherence to the prevailing one-size-fits-all mindset, those signs went unnoticed?
    

    
A colleague of mine stumbled upon a book called Every Second Child by Archie Kalokerinos, MD. Dr. Kalokerinos found that many babies who presented similarly to the baby in my town turned out to have vitamin C deficiency (scurvy). He found old studies supporting the use of high dose vitamin C, and began using that treatment. Dr. Kalokerinos won the Australian Medal of Merit in 1978 for lowering the infant mortality rate from 50 percent to almost none. He felt so strongly about sharing his findings that he gave his book away rather than selling it.1
    

    
If we care about protecting the “greater good” then why is it so politically incorrect to care about the individual casualties of what is presumed to be a “good” medical intervention? If we are so smart and have so much science behind our decisions, why would we not look at those who die after vaccination to find commonalities for the purpose of finding ways to prevent a vaccine-related death or injury?    
    

    
We should not be afraid to explore the relationship between vitamin levels, electrolytes, genetics, family history, breastfed versus formula fed status, method of birth, prenatal history and antibiotic use, and the specific and nonspecific negative effects of vaccines. It seems unethical for physicians to demand the full cooperation of parents in vaccinating their children with every one of the 50 doses of 14 vaccines currently recommended by the CDC starting on the day of birth through age six, only to be abandoned with a shrug and “it’s for the greater good” when their child is injured or dies after receiving those vaccines.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
    

    
I want to know why the lives of those who might die from “vaccine preventable diseases” matter more than those who die from vaccines? If we don’t know why a four-month-old baby in our community died, don’t we owe it to that child and his family to at least be curious?
  8. References:
    1 Kalokerinos A. Every Second Child. Sept. 1, 1981.
    2 Buttram HE. Shaken Baby Syndrome or Vaccine-Induced Encephalitis? Hacienda PublishingFall 2001.
    3 Innis MD. Autoimmune Tissue Scurvy Misdiagnosed as Child Abuse. Clinical Medicine Research Nov. 10, 2013 (6); 154-157
    4 Ward  Iwasa S, Ishida S, Akama K. Swelling of the brain in mice caused by pertussis vaccine: its quantitative determination and the responsible factors in the vaccine. Jpn J Med Sci Biol April 1985; 38(2): 53-65.
    5 Beckenhauer WH, Gill MA. Immunosuppression with combined vaccines. J Am Vet Med Assn1983; 183(4): 389-390.6 Munoz JJ, Bernard CC, Mackay IR. Elicitation of experimental encephalomyelitis in mice with the aid of pertussigen. Cell Immunol January 1984; 83(1): 92-100.7 Behan PO, Moore MJ, Lamarche JB. Acute necrotizing hemorrhagic encephalopathy. Postgraduate Medicine 1973; 54(4): 154-160.
    8     Flexner S. Post-vaccinal encephalitis and allied conditions. JAMA Feb. 1, 1930; 94: 305-311.
    9 Karlsson L, Scheibner V. Association between non-specific stress syndrome, DPT injections and cot death. Presented at Second Immunization Conference, Canberra, May 27-29, 1991.
  9. ___________________________________________________________
  10. SEE ALSO:
  11. https://www.infowars.com/plague-inc-video-game-to-cast-anti-vaxxers-as-disease-spreaders/

TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN TO DECRIMINALIZE HOMOSEXUALITY~FOREIGN POLICY OVERREACH

Ambassador Richard Grenell
FOREIGN POLICY OVERREACH: TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN 
TO DECRIMINALIZE HOMOSEXUALITY
BY RAVEN CLABOUGH
President Trump has launched a global campaign to end criminalization of homosexuality in countries where homosexual activity is illegal, NBC News reports. But while the effort may be considered a noble one, there is little hope that it will win the administration any support from the LGBTQ community. Instead, the campaign merely exemplifies the overreach of America’s foreign policy and has the potential to do untold damage to alliances.
The campaign is being led by U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, an openly gay official in the Trump administration. As part of the effort, the U.S. embassy is bringing in LGBT activists from Europe for a dinner at which guests will discuss strategies to advocate for decriminalization in places such as the Middle East and Africa. Officials contend that the campaign will likely require input from global organizations such as the United Nations and the European Union, as well as from individual countries where homosexual activity is not illegal. The focus will remain on decriminalization and not on broader issues such as same-sex marriage and other LGBT issues.
“It is concerning that, in the 21st century, some 70 countries continue to have laws that criminalize LGBTI status or conduct,” said a U.S. official involved in organizing the dinner.
The campaign is largely in response to the recent hanging of a young homosexual male in Iran.
“This is not the first time the Iranian regime has put a gay man to death with the usual outrageous claims of prostitution, kidnapping, or even pedophilia. And it sadly won’t be the last time,” Grenell asserted. “Barbaric public executions are all too common in a country where consensual homosexual relationships are criminalized and punishable by flogging and death.”
He added that “politicians, the U.N., democratic governments, diplomats and good people everywhere should speak up — and loudly.”
Grenell and the Trump administration are hopeful that redirecting Europe’s attention to the human rights outrages in Iran will generate more support from Europe for U.S. opposition to Iran. But NBC observes that the administration may be playing a dangerous game, as focusing on LGBT rights in Iran could also expose other close U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia to criticism and potentially hurt alliances.
And despite Grenell’s efforts to protect homosexuals from abuse in other nations, members of the LGBTQ community seemingly have no interest in approving of anything the Trump administration does and are decrying the campaign as “racist.”
Staff writer Matthew Rodriguez at Out magazine is accusing the Trump administration of using an “old racist tactic.”
“While on its surface, the move looks like an atypically benevolent decision by the Trump administration, the details of the campaign belie a different story,” Rodriguez began.
“Rather than actually being about helping queer people around the world, Trump’s campaign looks more like another instance of the right using queer people as a pawn to amass power and enact its own agenda,” Rodriguez continued.
“The truth is, this is part of an old colonialist handbook. In her essay, ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ postcolonial theorist Gayatri Spivak coined the term ‘White men saving brown women from brown men’ to describe the racist, paternalistic process by which colonizing powers would decry the way men in power treated oppressed groups, like women, to justify attacking them,” wrote Rodriguez. “Spivak was referencing the British colonial agenda in India. But Grennell’s attack might be a case of white men trying to save brown gay men from brown straight men, to the same end.”
Rodriguez ultimately contends that the administration’s campaign is ultimately an anti-Muslim one disguised as pro-LGBTQ:
Grennell’s sudden interest in Iran’s anti-gay laws is strikingly similar to Trump’s rhetoric after the 2016 Pulse massacre in Orlando, Florida. After the deadly shooting, Trump used the 49 deaths as a way to galvanize support for an anti-Muslim agenda rather than find a way to support LGBTQ+ people. In pushing for immigration restrictions and a Muslim ban, Trump argued, he was the true pro-LGBTQ+ candidate. Rather than honor those who died, Trump used the tragedy as a way to stoke fear among the American people, and Grennell is taking similar actions with Iran — trying to reach an economic goal by painting the administration’s opponent as anti-gay.
In other words, no matter where President Trump falls on any of the issues, those on the Left will always perceive his actions as inflammatory and offensive.
As mentioned above, the campaign has the potential to hurt U.S. relations with some of its other Middle Eastern allies and exacerbate already-strained relations with Iran. It also compels critics of the Trump administration to question a foreign policy that seems to have a double standard for different countries, The Daily Beast reports.
“If this commitment is real, we have a lot of questions about their intentions and commitments, and are eager to see what proof and action will follow,” said Human Rights Campaign senior international policy advocate Jeremy Kadden in a statement.
“Donald Trump and Mike Pence have turned a blind eye to a campaign of violence and murder targeting LGBTQ people in Chechnya that has stretched on for two years,” said Kadden. “They have turned away LGBTQ people fleeing violence and persecution and sent them back to countries that criminalize them, and have consistently worked to undermine the fundamental equality of LGBTQ people and our families here at home from day one.”
Perhaps worst of all, it sets a precedent for intervention into the domestic affairs of sovereign countries by other nations.
So is it worth it?
___________________________________________________________

Trump admin announces global push to decriminalize sodomy

SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/trump-admin-announces-global-push-decriminalize-sodomy/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
February 20, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – The Trump administration revealed Tuesday that it will be spearheading a global effort to get countries to end their criminalization of homosexuality, according to a report by NBC News. While the move is likely to distress many of Trump’s Christian-base supporters, it has interestingly been met with a cold shoulder by U.S. pro-LGBT voices.
The effort is being led by U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, a homosexual conservative rumored to be in consideration as President Donald Trump’s next ambassador to the United Nations.
“It is concerning that, in the 21st century, some 70 countries continue to have laws that criminalize LGBTI status or conduct,” a US official told NBC News of the effort, which begins this week with an American-hosted strategy meeting in Berlin of LGBT advocates from across Europe.
The report notes that the effort is “narrowly focused on criminalization” instead of pressuring countries to adopt policies such as same-sex “marriage,” and is motivated in part by Iran hanging a man last month for violating the Islamic nation’s ban on sodomy, a capital offense (the man was also accused of kidnapping two teenagers, though it’s unclear how both offenses factored into his sentence. Grenell believes the kidnapping charges are false).
“This is not the first time the Iranian regime has put a gay man to death with the usual outrageous claims of prostitution, kidnapping, or even pedophilia. And it sadly won’t be the last time,” Grenell said. “Barbaric public executions are all too common in a country where consensual homosexual relationships are criminalized and punishable by flogging and death […] politicians, the U.N., democratic governments, diplomats and good people everywhere should speak up — and loudly.”
NBC notes that the administration may see emphasizing Iran’s treatment of homosexuals as a way to get more European nations to join its efforts to contain Iran, though there’s also concern the push could strain relations with Arab allies Trump also wants united against Iran.
“People can disagree philosophically about homosexuality, but no person should ever be subject to criminal penalties because they are gay,” Grenell has written. The ambassador later told NBC that religious and social conservatives support his efforts, with Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – both of whom liberals have targeted for their Christian beliefs – “absolutely” on board.
Stefano Gennarini, Vice President of the Center of Legal Studies at the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam), lamented the move, saying that the administration “has not shown the slightest interest in spending even a fraction of the financial and political resources required for this LGBT effort on pro-life diplomatic efforts”:

Stefano Gennarini@prolifeadvocate
 · 
Pro-life groups need to raise hell over this. The Trump administration has not shown the slightest interest in spending even a fraction of the financial and political resources required for this LGBT effort on pro-life diplomatic efforts. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-administration-launches-global-effort-end-criminalization-homosexuality-n973081 …

Trump administration launches global effort to end criminalization of homosexuality

The administration is responding in part to a reported hanging of a young gay man in Iran, Trump’s top geopolitical foe.
nbcnews.com

Stefano Gennarini@prolifeadvocate
Pro-life groups must stop accepting GOP platitudes about the Supreme Court and the Mexico City Policy and demand real pro-life international efforts instead.
2:38 PM – Feb 20, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
See Stefano Gennarini’s other Tweets
Despite this dramatic gesture in the name of “gay rights,” pro-LGBT media outlets are doubling down on the narrative that Donald Trump is still a full-spectrum bigot.
The Washington Blade published a report lamenting that the US-based groups OutRight Action International, Human Rights Campaign and Council for Global Equality weren’t invited to the planning meeting, with HRC’s Jeremy Kadden declaring that Trump and Pence “have consistently worked to undermine the fundamental equality of LGBTQ people and our families here at home from day one.”
Them journalist Matt Baume called the push “hypocritical” coming “after two years spent working to oppress LGBTQ+ people in America,” while Out’s Mathew Rodriguez penned a reaction titled, “Trump’s Plan to Decriminalize Homosexuality Is an Old Racist Tactic” rooted in a “colonial sense of paternalism rather than any true altruism.”
“The truth is, this is part of an old colonialist handbook,” Rodriguez writes. “In her essay, ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?” postcolonial theorist Gayatri Spivak coined the term ‘White men saving brown women from brown men’ to describe the racist, paternalistic process by which colonizing powers would decry the way men in power treated oppressed groups, like women, to justify attacking them.”
In this case, he argues, “Grennell’s [sic] attack might be a case of white men trying to save brown gay men from brown straight men, to the same end.” Rodriguez’s piece has beenwidely mocked in conservative media.
While Donald Trump has strongly supported the right to life and religious liberty, and pushed back against the LGBT lobby on issues such as transgender soldiers, a science-based definition of gender, gendered restrooms, and government recognition of “pride month,” some social conservatives have expressed disappointment that his personal approval of homosexuality negatively impacts other policy decisions.
The president has nominated a variety of pro-LGBT officials to government posts and judgeships, continued a number of Obama-era pro-LGBT policies, such as an executive order on “gender identity nondiscrimination,” publicly praised the liberal, pro-LGBT group Log Cabin Republicans, and declared that the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling forcing all fifty states to recognize same-sex “marriage” was “settled law.”

BERNIE SANDERS HIRES CAMPAIGN MANAGER WHO CO-CHAIRED EVENT THAT INCLUDED HAMAS FUNDRAISER

MUSLIM “VICTIMOLOGY” PROPAGANDIZED THROUGH THE SANDERS’ PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
BERNIE SANDERS HIRES CAMPAIGN MANAGER 
WHO CO-CHAIRED EVENT THAT INCLUDED 
HAMAS FUNDRAISER

Bernie Sanders’ campaign manager had written positively of a monster who had called for another Holocaust.

BY DANIEL GREENFIELD
SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/272926/bernie-sanders-hires-campaign-manager-who-co-daniel-greenfield; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Bernie Sanders continues to provide shelter and cover for Islamic figures with anti-Semitism issues. Fresh off his backing for Rep. Omar’s anti-Semitism, here he is bringing on board another controversial figure as his campaign manager.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has tapped Faiz Shakir to serve as his campaign manager for his second run at the White House, the Daily Beast has learned.
Shakir joins the Sanders operation from the American Civil Liberties Union where he served as national political director since early 2017. Before joining the ACLU, he was a senior adviser to then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and before that he worked with House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). He first made a name for himself as an editor at the site ThinkProgress, the news arm associated with, though editorially independent of, the powerhouse Democratic think-tank Center for American Progress.
As I previously noted, ThinkProgress had some anti-Semitism issues on Shakir’s watch.
After the use of bigoted language by ThinkProgress contributors turned into a growing scandal, the White House publicly distanced itself from ThinkProgress, an outlet of the Center for American Progress, which Time Magazine called the think tank with the largest influence on the Obama administration. Jarrod Bernstein, the White House’s liaison to the Jewish community, described the events there as troubling and stated that the Center for American Progress’s attitude was not that of the Obama administration.
But, more importantly, there’s the Hamas issue. I broke this story quite a few years ago. And there was no interest in it.
During his time at ThinkProgress, Faiz Shakir had repeatedly attacked the Jewish State, endorsing the Hamas aid flotilla to Gaza and attacking Israel’s attempts to defend itself against terrorists
But Shakir’s sympathy for Islamists and antipathy for the Jewish State are no surprise at all considering his activities during his college days when he was a member of the Harvard Islamic Society.
While the Harvard Islamic Society’s affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood’s MSA is somewhat vague, its Constitution states that its independence does not preclude “affiliation with the Muslim Students Association of the United States and Canada.”
HIS was co-founded by Yusuf Ibish, the father of Hussein Ibish, who is a veteran pro-terrorist and anti-Israel activist, and Syed Hossein Nasr, an Islamic philosopher and opponent of the United States and Israel, who claims to be able to trace his ancestry back to Mohammed. During Faiz Shakir’s time there, HIS was presided over by Zayed Yasin, who became infamous for his “My American Jihad” speech.
In 2000, The Harvard Islamic Society held an Islamic Awareness Week and Faiz Shakir served as the co-chair for the week’s events. One of those events included a fundraiser for the Holy Land Foundation, a group which acted as the fundraising arm for Hamas in the United States. As co-chair of the week’s events, Shakir would have unquestionably been involved in the selection of organizations to donate to. That he chose a fundraising for a Muslim Brotherhood terrorist organization can only be regarded as highly significant.
Though the Holy Land Foundation was only raided in the year after that, it was well known at the time that the group was a front for terrorists, and the Harvard Islamic Society faced complaints and scrutiny for its terrorist fundraising. Zayed Yasin’s defense of the Holy Land Foundation made it quite clear that he was familiar with its true mission.
Ever since I broke the story, Shakir has continued rising through the ranks with little media interest in the revelation.
In 2017, Tablet finally asked Shakir about HIS.
LL: Do you feel the same was true for the controversy caused over the Islamic Awareness Week at Harvard that raised funds for the Holy Land Foundation?
FS: That one was very frustrating to me, Liel, because I don’t really know anything about that. I wasn’t involved—let me be clear on this. The Harvard Islamic Society asked me to be the co-chair of Islam Awareness Week, which entailed me going to events around campus and talking about Muslims and Islam. I remember one event was standing in front of the Widener Library at Harvard doing an “Ask The Muslim” booth. And that’s what I did. Like that was one event. I remember one person—I had to corral someone to do the call, the adhan, before prayer so I asked one of our colleagues to do the adhan in public and that was one of the things I did, too. Those are the things that come to mind of what I did. But apparently what happened at the end of that week is that there was a dinner that was, I believe, a bunch of universities in the area in Boston came together and held a fundraising dinner. I want to be clear, I had no role in the fundraising dinner, nor did I attend the fundraising dinner. And so again it feels to me like guilt by association that’s dogged me because I feel like the headline there was “Faiz Was a Muslim at Harvard—Breaking News.” And I was, but I didn’t partake or do any of those activities, and yet because somebody else did them, it’s like the three degrees of separation and now somehow I’m like equally at fault and sinned for all of those acts of others. So that’s how I honestly feel about that.
Shakir was the co-chair of Islam Awareness Week, yet he claims to have had no idea what was going on at them. This is the Hillary Clinton defense. And it comes down to, “I’m not a terrorist supporter, I’m just completely incompetent. Now watch me run major initiatives.”
Much of Shakir’s ThinkProgress blogging involved touting Sharia’s system of Islamic apartheid and assorted Islamic initiatives.
That held true when writing about the Islamist takeover in Tunisia.
Having been run for decades by French-inspired secularism, Tunisia is expected to usher in a government that embraces a Turkish-inspired Islamic-led democracy. Rached Ghannouchi, the head of the favored Islamic Ennahda party, is pictured below (top left) waving a blue-dyed finger after casting his vote
Shakir’s post was decorated with a grinning photo of the Islamist monster who had called for the mass murder of Jews.
 Sheikh Rashid Ghannouchi, has engaged in blatant anti-Semitism, and has said, “There are no civilians in Israel. The population—males, females and children—are the army reserve soldiers, and thus can be killed.”
Bernie Sanders’ campaign manager had written positively of a monster who had called for another Holocaust.
_______________________________________________________

FILLED WITH LIES AND DECEPTION 
AS MANDATED BY THE QURAN:
SHAKIR NAMES & ATTACKS ALL THOSE BEHIND THE “SPREAD OF ISLAMOPHOBIA” IN AMERICA, CALLING THEM 
AN UN-AMERICAN “NETWORK”
EXCEPT THEY ARE ALL EXPOSING THE TRUTH ABOUT ISLAM, JIHAD, SHARIA & THE VIOLENCE TOWARDS “UNBELIEVERS” MANDATED BY THE QURAN
ACCUSES TRUMP OF WRAPPING HIMSELF 
WITH THE AMERICAN FLAG
THEN HE PROCEEDS TO WRAP HIMSELF IN RETURN
Faiz Shakir, Pradeep Ramamurthy, Rashad Hussain ...

SEE ALSO: 
https://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/242959/a-conversation-with-faiz-shakir-about-anti-semitism-and-bds

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/31518-sanders-running-again-the-old-socialist-is-now-mainstream-among-democrats?vsmaid=3468&vcid=3987


AND:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/02/bernie-sanders-hires-campaign-manager-who-endorsed-hamas-flotilla-co-chaired-event-including-hamas-fundraiser
EXCERPTS:
“During his time at ThinkProgress, Faiz Shakir had repeatedly attacked the Jewish State, endorsing the Hamas aid flotilla to Gaza and attacking Israel’s attempts to defend itself against terrorists”…While the Harvard Islamic Society’s affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood’s MSA is somewhat vague….HIS was co-founded by Yusuf Ibish, the father of Hussein Ibish, who is a veteran pro-terrorist and anti-Israel activist, and Syed Hossein Nasr, an Islamic philosopher and opponent of the United States and Israel, who claims to be able to trace his ancestry back to Mohammed. During Faiz Shakir’s time there, HIS was presided over by Zayed Yasin, who became infamous for his “My American Jihad” speech….In 2000, The Harvard Islamic Society held an Islamic Awareness Week and Faiz Shakir served as the co-chair for the week’s events. One of those events included a fundraiser for the Holy Land Foundation, a group which acted as the fundraising arm for Hamas in the United States…. Zayed Yasin’s defense of the Holy Land Foundation made it quite clear that he was familiar with its true mission.”
“Shakir also co-authored the “Fear Inc.” report, “which implicitly claimed that Islamophobia was the product of a Jewish conspiracy, and wrote positively about the Tunisian Islamist Al-Nahda Party and its genocidal head, Sheikh Rashid Ghannouchi, who has engaged in blatant anti-Semitism, and has said, ‘There are no civilians in Israel. The population—males, females and children—are the army reserve soldiers, and thus can be killed.’”


“An alum of Harvard and Georgetown Law, Shakir started off his political career with a seven-year stint as Vice President of the Center for American Progress, where he made a name for himself as editor-in-chief of ThinkProgress. Shakir saw CAP grow into a central liberal policy institution, and established himself as a top progressive mind at ThinkProgress before moving on to more direct political endeavors.”
“Shakir handled policy and communications work for Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, and served as Senior Adviser and Director of Digital Media for Nancy Pelosi before cementing himself as the National Political Director of the American Civil Liberties Union. Needless to say, his reputation precedes him as a top civil rights advocate and liberal mind in Washington. He’s renowned for his abilities as a grassroots organizer, known as a shrewd political operative who’s memorized the modern political advocacy playbook, and—cherry-on-top—was once called a “fucker” by centrist Clintonite and CAP coworker Neera Tanden.”

ANTI-SEMITIC MUSLIM REP. ILHAN OMAR TO FUNDRAISE FOR HAMAS-LINKED CAIR~CHICAGO CUBS TO WORK WITH CAIR FIGHTING “ISLAMOPHOBIA”

ANTI-SEMITIC MUSLIM REP. ILHAN OMAR 
TO FUNDRAISE FOR HAMAS-LINKED CAIR
BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/02/anti-semitic-muslim-rep-ilhan-omar-to-fundraise-for-hamas-linked-cair;  republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
On the heels of her “apology” for anti-Semitic comments, now “Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar is scheduled to raise money in March with the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations.”
Omar’s anti-Semitic comments just keep coming. Depending on the backlash she receives, she issues a hollow apology and moves on to the next. The problem is that she is being emboldened. The underlying problem is the unreasonable, unreasoned support she is receiving from people such as Bernie Sanders, who said: “We will stand by our Muslim brothers and sisters.” He didn’t add any conditions. Omar has “referred to Israel as the ‘Jewish ISIS,’” but Bernie Sanders will still stand by her because he regards her as his “Muslim sister.” Hollywood stars rallied around her following the remarks she made about the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), to the effect that “Jewish money was behind American elected officials’ support for Israel.”
Leftist leaders have blindly allied themselves with Islamic supremacists, supporters of the jihad that has targeted the state of Israel for obliteration since 1948.
Omar will be the keynote speaker at CAIR’s 4th Annual Valley Banquet on March 23 to discuss advancing justice and empowering Muslims, according to the organization’s invitation. Single tickets start at $55 per person and a table can cost upwards of $500.
CAIR is linked to the jihad terror organization Hamas, which prides itself on murdering Israelis and runs summer camps to teach youngsters to “ignite the spirit of jihad.” Is this what Omar calls “justice and empowering Muslims”? She is anti-semitic and supports organizations linked to jihad terror while ignoring Sharia oppression and the intolerance and murder committed in accord with its teachings.
More on this story. “Ilhan Omar To Fundraise For Hamas-Linked Muslim Organization,” by Molly Prince, Daily Caller, February 17, 2019:
Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar is scheduled to raise money in March with the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) only a week after she used an anti-Semitic trope to claim Israel has paid for GOP support.
Omar will be the keynote speaker at CAIR’s 4th Annual Valley Banquet on March 23 to discuss advancing justice and empowering Muslims, according to the organization’s invitation. Single tickets start at $55 per person and a table can cost upwards of $500.
Hassan Shibly, the chief executive director for CAIR-Florida, will also be speaking at the event. Shibly has emphatically stated that Hezbollah and Hamas are not terrorist organizations, reported Jordan Schachtel at Conservative Review.
Hussam Ayloush, the chief executive director for CAIR-LA, who is hosting the event, compared the state of Israel to the Islamic State during a speech in April. Shibley has repeatedly echoed those sentiments and spread propaganda describing U.S. armed forces as radical terrorists.
CAIR is a notable pro-Palestinian organization with ties to Islamic terror groups. The U.S. Department of Justice listed CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator in funding millions of dollars to the terrorist organization Hamas. Additionally, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) named CAIR a terrorist organization along with al-Qaeda and ISIS in 2014.
Omar faced massive backlash after she stated on Feb. 10 that Republicans’ support for Israel is bought by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The anti-Semitic comments received swift condemnation from congressional members on both sides of the aisle, including the Democratic leadership and the White House.
After receiving widespread criticism, Omar apologized for using anti-Semitic language but maintained her position on “the problematic role of lobbyists in politics, whether it be AIPAC, the [National Rifle Association] or the fossil fuel industry.” (RELATED: Top Democrat Jerry Nadler Slams Ilhan Omar Over Comments About Jews)
Omar’s office did not return The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment and clarification on whether raising money for CAIR exacerbates the “problematic role of lobbyists in politics” and, if not, the difference between fundraising for CAIR and AIPAC.
Omar has been in office less than two months and is surrounded by a number of controversies. The freshman congresswoman defended anti-Israeli statements, such as ones invoking Allah to expose Israel’s “evil doings,” and she has come out in favor of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to punish the nation-state of Israel by economically depriving the country for its alleged mistreatment of Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.
The Minnesota congresswoman is also on record implying Israel is not a democracy and gave an interview to a host that referred to Israel as the “Jewish ISIS.”…..

______________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/02/chicago-cubs-to-work-with-hamas-linked-cair-against-islamophobia 
AND:

Dems FREAKING OUT after Ilhan Omar Gets 

The Endorsement From Farrakhan 

that Will EXPOSE Them ALL



SWEDISH SWIMMING FEDERATION CHAIR RESIGNS AFTER BACKLASH TO HER STATEMENT THAT VEIL (HIJAB) IS “SYMBOL OF REPRESSION”

SWEDISH SWIMMING FEDERATION CHAIR RESIGNS AFTER BACKLASH TO HER STATEMENT THAT 
VEIL (HIJAB) IS “SYMBOL OF REPRESSION” 
BY ROBERT SPENCER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
As I’ve pointed out ad infinitum, any opposition to jihad mass murder and/or Sharia oppression of women is now immediately branded as “hate,” “bigotry,” and “Islamophobia,” and leads to public disgrace and career ruin. People who think I’m exaggerating, and that this treatment is only meted out to genuine bigots, should ponder this story very carefully.
For the question must be asked, although no one in the establishment media in Sweden or anywhere else will ask it: is the veil a symbol of repression, or isn’t it? Do the people who forced Ulla Gustavsson to resign care about Aqsa Parvez, whose Muslim father choked her to death with her hijab after she refused to wear it. Or Amina Muse Ali, a Christian woman in Somalia whom Muslims murdered because she wasn’t wearing a hijab? Have they shown any concern for the 40 women who were murdered in Iraq in 2007 for not wearing the hijab; or for Alya Al-Safar, whose Muslim cousin threatened to kill her and harm her family because she stopped wearing the hijab in Britain; or for Amira Osman Hamid, who faced whipping in Sudan for refusing to wear the hijab; or for the Egyptian girl, also named Amira, who committed suicide after being brutalized by her family for refusing to wear the hijab; or for the Muslim and non-Muslim teachers at the Islamic College of South Australia who were told they had to wear the hijab or be fired; or for the women in Chechnya whom police shot with paintballs because they weren’t wearing hijab; or for the women in Chechnya who were threatened by men with automatic rifles for not wearing hijab; or for the elementary school teachers in Tunisia who were threatened with death for not wearing hijab; or for the Syrian schoolgirls who were forbidden to go to school unless they wore hijab; or for the women in Gaza whom Hamas has forced to wear hijab; or for the women in Iran who protested against the regime, even before the recent uprising, by daring to take off their hijabs; or for the women in London whom Muslim thugs threatened to murder if they didn’t wear hijab; or for the anonymous young Muslim woman who doffed her hijab outside her home and started living a double life in fear of her parents; or for the fifteen girls in Saudi Arabia who were killed when the religious police wouldn’t let them leave their burning school building because they had taken off their hijabs in their all-female environment; or for the girl in Italy whose mother shaved her head for not wearing hijab; or for all the other women and girls who have been killed or threatened, or who live in fear for daring not to wear the hijab?
Courageous women in the Islamic Republic of Iran are taking off their hijabs as a sign of resistance to the oppressive Sharia regime under which they live, and at least 29 women have been arrested for doing so. Who is standing in solidarity with them? Not the people who made sure Ulla Gustavsson was punished for speaking out about this repression.
“Swedish Swimming Federation chair resigns after backlash to claiming veil is ‘symbol of repression,’” by Michael Pavitt, Inside the Games, February 18, 2019 (thanks to Bob):
Swedish Swimming Federation (SSF) chair Ulla Gustavsson has resigned following a backlash to her comments that a veil was a “symbol of repression”.
Gustavsson’s made the comment in an interview, where she criticised an advert that showed a boy and a Muslim girl participating in shooting competitions, with the latter wearing a veil.
“Everything should not be shown,” Gustavsson said, according to Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet.
“If they want to show girls with an immigrant background, it can be done without them having a veil.
“Now, [it] shows that they like and encourage honour repression: genital mutilation, child marriage, honour violence.
“That upset me.
“The veil is a religious, political and sexist garment.
“In the Swedish National Sports Association’s values, gender equality is important and the veil stands for something else.
“When such images are displayed, they normalise repression.”
The Swedish Swimming Federation have distance themselves from Gustavsson’s comments, with reports in the country that the official had been dismissed from her position.
The Federation later claimed that Gustavsson had chosen to resign following the controversy.
“Ulla Gustavsson has a big heart for Swedish swimming, and we are grateful for the work she has put into the movement, both nationally and internationally,” Stefan Persson, the Federation’s vice-chair, said.
“But the Swedish Swimming Federation board takes the recent debate very seriously, and has come to the conclusion that there are no longer conditions for Ulla Gustavsson to successfully lead the Swedish Swim Association.
“Ulla Gustavsson has, therefore, chosen to resign as chairman of the Board.
“Her personal perceptions and statements contrast with the Swedish Swim Federation’s strategy and basic view that all children should fit in our activities on equal terms.”…

SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN CALLS FOR COUP AGAINST PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN CALLS FOR COUP AGAINST PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
BY DANIEL GREENFIELD
SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/272909/senator-elizabeth-warren-calls-coup-against-daniel-greenfield; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
It’s 2019 and we need some sort of law against public officials plotting coups. 
After revelations that the FBI’s McCabe, a Clinton loyalist, and other DOJ officials had plotted a coup against the White House, Senator Elizabeth Warren endorsed a coup.
“My point here is that if they believe that Donald Trump cannot fulfill the obligations of his office, then they have a constitutional responsibility to invoke the 25th amendment,” Warren, a Democratic presidential candidate, said after a rally in Las Vegas. “Their loyalty under law is not to him personally. It is to the Constitution of the United States and to the people of United States.”
The law is very clear.
The 25th Amendment is not a means for officials, elected or unelected, to remove the President of the United States from office because you don’t like his policies.
That’s what impeachment is for.
Only Congress is meant to have that power. 
The 25th amendment is meant for presidential incapacity. Such as an assassination or any trauma that leaves a president incapacitated. 
Talk of a 25th amendment coup is illegal and unconstitutional. It is simply a coup.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez might say something like this because she’s ignorant. Senator Warren was a top lawyer and a law professor in the Ivy League. She knows very well that what she’s calling for is illegal. And a fig leaf for a coup. And she’s either pandering to a Dem base that wants a coup. Or she genuinely wants one herself.
Either one is unacceptable.
Senator Warren is now on record as supporting a coup. That should follow her around the same way that her lies about being an American Indian are.

SOROS GROUPS FILE LAWSUITS ATTACKING TRUMP’S BORDER WALL

SOROS GROUPS FILE LAWSUITS ATTACKING 
TRUMP’S BORDER WALL

Sixteen states sue to keep the nation’s southern border wide open for illegal aliens and terrorists

BY MATTHEW VADUM
SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272915/soros-groups-file-lawsuits-attacking-trumps-border-matthew-vadum; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Sixteen states and at least six activist groups have filed or are preparing lawsuits taking aim at President Trump’s Feb. 15 emergency declaration that seeks to divert already appropriated government funds to build a wall on the nation’s porous border with Mexico.
This was to be expected. When the Left loses elections, it turns to unelected federal judges to carry out its will.
There is also an effort afoot in Congress to overturn the declaration. If both chambers pass a resolution of disapproval, White House senior adviser Stephen Miller seemed to indicate Sunday that the president would veto it. Trump is “going to protect his national emergency declaration, guaranteed,” Miller said on Fox News Channel.

Of the six activist organizations, four –Public Citizen, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Defenders of Wildlife— have been funded by radical leftist financier George Soros through his philanthropies.
The 16 states seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent Trump from moving forward with wall construction while the case is pending in the courts are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Virginia, according to the Washington Post.
In what is clearly an example of judge-shopping, the states filed at U.S. District Court in Northern California, which is part of the territory covered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit where various judges have issued sweeping injunctions against Trump administration policies.
The legal action accuses Trump of “an unconstitutional and unlawful scheme.” The states say they are attempting “to protect their residents, natural resources, and economic interests from President Donald J. Trump’s flagrant disregard of fundamental separation of powers principles ingrained in the United States Constitution.”
The activists have initiated three lawsuits at U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., aimed at frustrating President Trump’s efforts to secure the border and halt the long-running invasion of the nation by illegal aliens.
Founded by former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader, Public Citizen initiated a lawsuit Friday to strike down the president’s proclamation under the National Emergencies Act, on behalf of the Frontera Audubon Society of Weslaco, Texas, and a group of Texas landowners. The lawsuit claims that endangered species will be harmed if the wall if built.
In its suit CREW is trying to force the Justice Department to hand over internally produced legal opinions “that discuss the power of the president to invoke emergency powers to build a wall or other type of barrier along the U.S. border with Mexico[.]”
Defenders of Wildlife launched a legal action Saturday to freeze the emergency declaration. The Center for Biological Diversity and Animal Legal Defense Fund are also listed in the papers as plaintiffs. Like the suit filed by Public Citizen, this suit alleges endangered species will be adversely affected if the wall goes up.
At time of writing, the national ACLU did not appear to have filed a lawsuit seeking to stay Trump’s emergency declaration, but on Friday the group’s affiliate in Massachusetts filed “a lawsuit demanding information about a contract for a section of the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border that President Donald Trump said his administration awarded,” the Boston Herald reports. Trump tweeted in December that he “just gave out a 115 mile long contract for another large section of the Wall in Texas.”
On Friday, California’s new leftist governor, sanctuary city fanatic Gavin Newsom (D), said his state would soon hop on the anti-declaration bandwagon.
Soros personally gave money to Newsom’s 2018 gubernatorial campaign and to his campaign for his previous post, lieutenant governor of California, in 2014, according to the California secretary of state’s online campaign finance database.
Many other litigious left-wingers vow to sue to stop the wall. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and other Democrat lawmakers may also sue.
Officials in El Paso County, Texas, say they will litigate. Ditto for the fake libertarians at the Niskanen Center, and the leftists at the Soros-funded Border Network for Human Rights.
The Left and NeverTrumpers in the GOP have suffered a collective nervous breakdown since the declaration was unveiled.
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), who has called for the in-your-face harassment of Trump administration employees, told MSNBC Friday that there should be nationwide protests over what she called the “fake” emergency declaration.
“And so it’s time for everybody to stand up. All hands on deck to refuse this president these fake emergency powers that he would like the have. And so I’m urging everybody get together —rally in every community across this country all this weekend, send a message to Washington, D.C., ‘No, Mr. President, we’re not going allow you to do this.”
Soros-funded MoveOn.org called for national protests.
“Donald Trump has declared a #FakeNationalEmergency—an illegal power grab from an unhinged man to push his racist, dangerous policies.”
“We’re mobilizing rapid-response events on Presidents Day—Monday, 2/18—against Trump’s fake crisis and racist deportation force and to stand with immigrant, Muslim, and Black and brown communities to stop Trump’s dangerous and illegal power grab.”
Answering the leftist call for anarchy, on Saturday around 50 protesters, some of whom wore masks, occupied and vandalized the National Border Patrol Museum not far from the border in El Paso, Texas. The demonstrators reportedly hoisted banners reading “No Deportations on Stolen Ground” and shouted “Say it loud, say it clear, Border Patrol kills!”
Twitter is filled with often-strident denunciations of the emergency declaration by GOP pundits inside the Washington Beltway.
NeverTrumper David French of National Review penned an over-the-top column titled “Trump’s Emergency Declaration Is Contemptuous of the Rule of Law,” in which he calls the declaration “a contemptuous document,” and “the proclamation of a monarch, not an argument by a president.”
President Trump invoked the National Emergencies Act Friday as Congress finalized the 1,169-page, $333 billion omnibus spending bill that keeps the government operating until Sept. 30.
The bill, now law, contains $1.375 billion for 55 miles of border barriers in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas. The emergency declaration would take $6.7 billion in previously allocated funds to build the wall. Included in the already appropriated funds are $600 million from the Department of the Treasury Department, $2.5 billion from the Department of Defense’s anti-drug program, and $3.6 billion from the Pentagon’s military construction budget.
Law professors Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, a left-winger, and John Yoo of UC Berkeley, a conservative, say the president can call upon the statute, which President Gerald Ford signed into law in 1976, to get construction of the wall underway.
President Trump has already invoked the National Emergencies Act three times in his tenure. President Barack Obama invoked the statute no fewer than 10 times. Thirty-one previously-declared presidential emergencies reportedly remain in effect.
“Congress expressly gave presidents the authority to declare such emergencies and act unilaterally,” Turley wrote in a recent column.
The National Emergencies Act gives presidents sweeping authority as well as allowance in federal regulations to declare an “immigration emergency” to deal with an “influx of aliens which either is of such magnitude or exhibits such other characteristics that effective administration of the immigration laws of the United States is beyond the existing capabilities” of immigration authorities “in the affected area or areas,” he wrote. The basis for such an invocation generally includes the “likelihood of continued growth in the magnitude of the influx,” rising criminal activity, as well as high “demands on law enforcement agencies” and “other circumstances.”
Yoo wrote earlier this month that Trump is on especially strong ground because Democrats and Republicans passed a law in 2006 authorizing the building of a border wall.
In Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981), the Supreme Court held “that when Congress broadly delegates a general power to the executive branch in the area of foreign affairs, such as the power to impose economic sanctions, it would not read Congress’s neglect to grant a more specific, related authority as foreclosing the president from exercising that authority. Instead, it would treat Congress’s silence as acquiescence to presidential initiative, especially in times of emergency,” Yoo wrote.
“That is exactly the case here: Congress has authorized a wall and other security measures at the border, it has not passed any law forbidding such a wall, and the president has invoked delegated powers to continue the wall’s construction.”
More lawsuits are coming. Count on it.
And George Soros, the preeminent funder of the Left, will be there writing the checks.

THE WAR AGAINST PARENTAL VACCINE INFORMED CONSENT RIGHTS~HPV9 (GARDASIL) TO BE FORCED ON YOUTH~56 FT BY 29 FT “NO FORCED VACCINATION” ELECTRONIC SIGN IN TIMES SQUARE

US Government Will Focus on 
Marketing HPV Vaccine in 2019  
by Theresa Wrangham
After the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approved Merck’s HPV-9 Gardasil vaccine for use in adults age 27 to 45 in 2018, the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is evaluating whether to expand their current HPV vaccine recommendation to include this new age group. 



ACIP’s current recommendation is that boys and girls ages nine through 15 should get two-doses of HPV-9. The “catch-up” vaccine schedule is a three- dose series for females above age 15 through age 27 and males above 15 years of age to 21 years of age, if not previously vaccinated with HPV vaccine.



CDC to Step Up HPV Vaccine Marketing Strategies.



Should ACIP expand their recommendations for use of HPV-9 vaccine in the newly approved age group, the CDC won’t be alone in the push to increase the use of the HPV vaccine by children and adults in the U.S. The federal government’s focus on increasing the use recommendations for the HPV vaccine may result in a renewed effort by state legislators to introduce legislation in many states to mandate HPV vaccine for school entry.”


Read this referenced commentary and make a comment here.
Bills in 30 States To Expand, Restrict or 
Eliminate Vaccine Informed Consent Rights
Parents and their children line up at a Feb. 8, 2019 legislative hearing in Washington state to oppose a vaccine bill eliminating personal belief exemption

  

As of Feb. 18, 2019, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is monitoring more than 100 bills filed in 30 states proposing to expand, restrict or eliminate vaccine informed consent rights. In the last 48 hours, the NVIC Advocacy Portal team issued Action Alerts for vaccine bills introduced in the states of Connecticut, Nevada and Florida that threaten voluntary vaccine decision making, and also issued Action Alerts for the states of Oregon and Arizona that expand the ability to make informed voluntary decisions about vaccination. Additional bills may be filed during the next few weeks and more Action Alerts will be sent to registered users of the Portal.

Watch parents testify at the 2 p.m. hearing in Arizona today, Feb. 19, on a bill to add religious exemption to vaccination for school children. 
NVIC Supports 50 Good Bills
Washington, Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, Oregon and Colorado are among the states that have either introduced bills to restrict or eliminate vaccine exemptions or there have been confirmed reports that similar legislation is under consideration. However, there are also a number of bills proposing to expand vaccine informed consent rights, including in Hawaii, Iowa, Idaho, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia. As of Feb. 18, NVIC has indicated support for 50 of the more than 100 vaccine-related bills introduced so far this legislative session.
The NVIC Advocacy Portal was launched in 2010 to inform the public about proposed vaccine-related bills and to email Action Alerts to registered Portal users and put them in direct electronic contact with their own legislators. Sign up to be a registered user of the  NVIC Advocacy Portal today.
   Read this article and make a comment here.
NVIC Responds to Attack on Vaccine Exemptions with “No Forced Vaccination”  
Message In NYC Times Square 

by Barbara Loe Fisher

In what appears to be another well-orchestrated campaign to pressure state legislators to remove all personal belief vaccine exemptions in the U.S. and further restrict already narrow medical exemptions to vaccination, forced vaccination proponents are whipping up irrational fear to justify attacking human rights, including freedom of thought, speech, religious belief and conscience.
During this time of discrimination and oppression, NVIC is back up
in Times Square with NVIC’s “Vaccinations: Know the Risks and Failures” and “No Forced Vaccination” animated digital message. Displayed on a giant 56 foot by 29 foot electronic screen in the heart of New York City’s Times Square Plaza at 1500 Broadway (where the ball drops on New Year’s Eve), NVIC’s 10-second spot celebrating the human right to freedom of thought and conscience will be up through April 2019. 
Read this referenced commentary and make a comment here. 
NVIC In The News
Northwest Measles Outbreak Revives Debate Over Vaccine Laws.  “The National Vaccine Information Center, which opposes mandatory vaccination laws, said it opposed that bill and the current one. Another anti-vaccination group, Informed Choice Washington, had its members at the statehouse on Thursday trying to dissuade lawmakers. “People are feeling extremely oppressed and feeling like they can’t make an educated decision,” said Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the group (sic) [NVIC]. She said the legislation would “bring a hammer down and threaten people instead of allowing them to make informed decisions.” Associated Press/Seattle Times Feb. 1, 2019. 

Oregon lawmaker wants to end non-medical exemptions to school vaccine requirement. Theresa Wrangham, executive director of the National Vaccine Information Center, opposes Greenlick’s proposal. “You’re talking about a minority of parents who exercise their human rights to make medical risk-taking decisions voluntarily. Vaccination is a risk-taking decision,” Wrangham told a KATU reporter. “It’s my contention that this is a human right because it carries a risk of injury or death. You have to allow people to make that choice.”  KATU2 Feb. 11, 2019.


A state-by-state guide to vaccine exemptions in the U.S. According to the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), Washington is one of 17 states that allow for philosophical exemption from vaccines, which are granted to individuals who hold conscientious objections to one or more shots… the following map breaks down vaccine exemption rules across the U.S., using data from NVIC.” Insider Feb. 12, 2019. 



Outbreak Is Bringing Vaccine Exemptions Into Spotlight. The other side: Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the nonprofit National Vaccine Information Center often labeled as anti-vaccination, tells Axios that 100 cases of measles in a population of 320 million “is not a public health emergency.” “It should not be used to justify eliminating the legal right to exercise informed consent to vaccination, which is protected by the inclusion of flexible medical, religious and conscientious belief vaccine exemptions in public health laws,” she says. Axios Feb. 14, 2019.

Anti-vaxxers: admitting that vaccinology is an imperfect science may be a better way to defeat skeptics. “Other groups, like the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), declare that its mission is to promote informed consent. The NVIC says it offers neutral, evidence-based information about vaccines, but its website has many stories about vaccine-damaged children and the “harassment” of parents for making “informed vaccine choices.” The Conversation Feb. 15, 2019.
Report and Share Your Vaccine Experiences
NVIC’s website provides visitors with many ways to access, report and share information about vaccination, including information about personal experiences with vaccine risks and failures. On NVIC.org, you can:

  •   File a vaccine reaction report describing a vaccine reaction, injury or death with NVIC’s 36-year old  Vaccine Reaction Registry.
  •   Post a vaccine reaction report describing a vaccine reaction, injury or death and include a photo or video on the online Memorial for Vaccine Victims.
  •    Post a vaccine failure report if a vaccine failed to protect you or your child from disease on the Vaccine Failure Wall.

Post a report if you were bullied, threatened or punished by a doctor, government official or employer for making a vaccine choice on the Cry for Vaccine Freedom Wall.
Listen to NVIC Podcasts on
Vaccine Science, Policy & Law

You can take NVIC’s information with you and listen to commentaries on vaccine science, policy, law and informed consent at home, when exercising, commuting in your car or anywhere you have a cell phone or other electronic device that plays podcasts. The length of podcasts range from a few minutes to 75 minutes and the text of podcasts with references can be read on NVIC.org. Download NVIC commentaries on podcast here. 
_______________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
https://www.infowars.com/plague-inc-video-game-to-cast-anti-vaxxers-as-disease-spreaders/

SECOND AMENDMENT: TURNING A RIGHT INTO A PRIVILEGE~HR1112 GIVES FEDS POWER TO BLOCK GUN SALES

Right Delayed Rights Denied
SECOND AMENDMENT: TURNING A RIGHT INTO A PRIVILEGE~HR1112 GIVES FEDS POWER 
TO BLOCK GUN SALES
BY NRAHQ
SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2019/02/turning-a-right-into-a-privilege-hr-1112-gives-feds-power-to-block-gun-sales/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes: 
Fairfax, VA – -(Ammoland.com)- H.R. 8, which would criminalize the private transfer of firearms, has received significant attention from the gun rights community. However, H.R. 1112, which purportedly targets the inappropriately-named “Charleston loophole,” is just as insidious an attack on gun owners. Both bills were passed out of the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.
H.R. 1112 would eliminate the 3-day safety-valve provision under the federal firearms background check system that prevents the government from enacting an indefinite delay of firearm purchases for law-abiding Americans.  All Federal Firearms Licensees (gun dealers) are required to conduct a background check on prospective purchasers to determine if transferring the firearm would violate state or federal law. Under current law, if an FFL initiates a background check, but does not receive a determination from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System within three business days, the FFL may proceed with the firearms transfer. After the three-day window, FBI continues to research the matter that gave rise to an individual’s delay for 90 days after the check was initiated. If it is later determined that the person is prohibited from possessing firearms, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is notified and tasked with retrieving the firearm.
Under the proposed legislation, the 3-day safety valve would be eliminated and replaced with a procedure that provides gun buyers with no protection. If an FFL initiates a check and does not receive a response from NICS after 10 business days, the prospective purchaser may petition the FBI to permit the transfer to proceed. The FFL may not proceed with the transaction until an additional 10 business days have elapsed from the date of the petition.
Existing federal law limits the validity of a NICS background check to 30 calendar days from the date it is initiated. Because H.R. 1112 uses business days and the NICS validity provision is in calendar days, in practice, H.R. 1112 would have no default proceed available.
For example, if H.R. 1112 were to become law, gun buyers who are delayed on the busiest gun buying day of the year, Black Friday, would not be able to clear their delay under H.R. 1112’s provisions before their NICS check expired. Black Friday 2019 falls on November 29th, so the first day that the prospective purchaser could file a petition would be December 14th.
The additional 10-business day wait after the petition would make December 31st the first day that the FFL could transfer the firearm, but that would be prohibited because the NICS check expired on December 29th. The purchaser would have to begin the process again with another NICS check, with the likely result being another delay and the process beginning all over again.
The current three-day safety-valve provision is vital and protects gun owners in numerous ways. The safety-valve provision ensures that if there is a disruption to the NICS system or an overwhelming volume of background checks, lawful firearms transfer from dealers can still take place. Most importantly, the safety-valve provision ensures that the FBI carries out its background check duties in an expedient and responsible manner that recognizes the right to keep and bear arms as a constitutionally-protected individual right.

Secret Government ListProviding FBI with this sort of discretion poses a danger to Second Amendment rights. This is clear, because the FBI already attempts to use assumed discretion to encumber certain lawful gun sales.

Absent this provision, the FBI would have less incentive to conduct NICS checks in a timely manner. Moreover, the agency would have free reign to indefinitely delay any transfers they deem undesirable, for whatever political or purported public policy purpose they could concoct. This would turn all firearms sales from dealers into something akin to may-issue licensing. Prospective gun buyers who are not prohibited from owning firearms by law could be denied by bureaucratic dictate through the form of an indefinite delay.

Providing FBI with this sort of discretion poses a danger to Second Amendment rights. This is clear, because the FBI already attempts to use assumed discretion to encumber certain lawful gun sales.

According to the Congressional Research Service it is standard FBI practice to delay firearms transactions to those on the government’s secret watchlists. A person’s placement on a secret government watchlist with secret and nebulous criteria is not sufficient to encumber their constitutional rights, therefore they are not prohibited from possessing firearms by virtue of their watchlist status. Aside from the constitutional matter, those on the secret federal watchlists are not statutorily prohibited from possessing firearms. However, the FBI has taken upon itself to delay all background checks for those suspected of being on its secret watchlist.
As the CRS report explained,
In the case of a possible watchlist match, NICS sends a delayed transfer (for up to three business days) response to the querying federally licensed gun dealer or state POC. During a delay, NICS staff contacts immediately the FBI Headquarters’ Counterterrorism Division and FBI Special Agents in the field, and a coordinated effort is made to research possibly unknown prohibiting factors. If no prohibiting factors are uncovered within this three-day period, firearms dealers may proceed with the transaction at their discretion. However, FBI counterterrorism officials continue to work the case for up to 90 days in case disposition information is returned that permits a final determination.
Even those who have little sympathy for those who currently find themselves on secret government watchlists should understand that FBI’s dubious and assumed discretionary authority in this instance is a grave threat to liberty and that this threat would be severely exacerbated without the safety-valve provision. What group might an emboldened federal government find deplorable enough to target next?
Legislation to remove the three-day safety valve provision has been marketed as an effort to close the so-called “Charleston loophole.” The term stems from the hate-fueled 2015 shooting of several parishioners at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C. Proponents of the legislation claim that perpetrator of the attack could have been stopped but for the three-day safety-valve provision. This is false.
On April 11, 2015, the perpetrator of the Charleston attack attempted to buy the firearm he used in the shooting from an FFL and was delayed due to an arrest for drug possession. The firearm was transferred to him five days later, absent a direct proceed order from NICS. The attack did not occur until June 17. In the intervening time, the FBI had the opportunity to continue to investigate whether the perpetrator was prohibited from possessing firearms and could have referred the case to ATF for a firearm retrieval had they determined he was indeed prohibited.
Contrary to inaccurate statements made by the FBI, the perpetrator was not prohibited from possessing firearms. Under federal law, a person is prohibited from possessing firearms if they are an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” The FBI has contended that the perpetrator’s arrest would have prohibited him from possessing a firearm. In turn, this has prompted gun control supporters to claim that this instance proves the FBI should be given further time to conduct NICS checks, even though the FBI had more than two months to investigate the validity of the transfer in the case. To sustain a conviction for firearm possession by an “unlawful user” federal courts require the drug use to be “sufficiently consistent, prolonged, and close in time to [the] gun possession . . . .”1 A simple drug arrest does not meet this standard.

Therefore, for multiple reasons, the ploy by this bill’s proponents of connecting the three-day safety-valve provision to the Charleston attack is simply fraudulent.

Gun rights supporters have spent the last 30 years successfully working to remove may-issue licensing schemes that empower those in government to indulge their political biases and general prejudices to control the exercise of a constitutional right. Gun owners and civil liberties supporters across the political spectrum must recognize H.R. 1112 for what it is, a measure that would subject the exercise of a constitutional right to the unfettered discretion of federal bureaucrats.
National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)
About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

NEW MEXICO GOVERNOR FACES PUBLIC IMPEACHMENT CALLS AFTER PULLING TROOPS FROM U.S. BORDER

NEW MEXICO GOVERNOR FACES PUBLIC IMPEACHMENT CALLS AFTER PULLING TROOPS FROM U.S. BORDER 
New Mexico’s newly sworn-in governor stirs controversy after pulling the state’s National Guard from the southern border. One America’s Meghann Dyke takes a look at the reactions to her decision across the state.
Michelle Lujan Grisham, Governor defies 
Trump’s “fear mongering” 
“We will not ‘militarize’ the border”


SAM ALLBERRY, GAY ANGLICAN PRIEST AT RAVI ZACHARIAS EVENT: JESUS HAD DYSPHORIA, BODY ISSUES~SOUTHERN BAPTIST APOSTATES SEEK INSIGHTS INTO THE GAY LIFESTYLE

RAVI ZACHARIAS, THE FACILITATOR & ENABLER OF APOSTASY

Sam Allberry is a global speaker and apologist for RZIM based at the Zacharias Trust in Oxford. Sam is also an editor for The Gospel Coalition, a Guest Lecturer at the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics and a founding editor of LivingOut.org.

RZIM Zacharias Trust, 76 Banbury Road, Oxford, OX2 6JT, United Kingdom | Tel. +44 (0)1865 302900


READ SAM’S ARTICLES:

WHO IS ALLBERRY IN HIS OWN WORDS:

David & Jesus had body issues (dysphoria) 

Says Sam Allberry at Ravi Zacharias Event

Did Ravi Zacharias really host an event where a gay Anglican priest implied that Jesus suffered from body dysphoria and that King David may have been a primitive example of a trans-gendered person?
VIDEO: Is it possible to be a gay Christian?
GAY ANGLICAN PRIEST AT RAVI ZACHARIAS EVENT: JESUS HAD DYSPHORIA, BODY ISSUES 
SEE: https://pulpitandpen.org/2019/02/16/gay-priest-at-ravi-zacharias-event-jesus-had-dysphoria-body-issues/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Ravi Zacharias hosted Sam Alberry yesterday, who spoke at the event to explain “How To Know Your Gender.” The answer was not as simple as, “Do a DNA test.” Alberry, the gay Anglican priest, is an editor and writer for The Gospel Coalition, an organization run by Mark Dever, Albert Mohler, Ligon Duncan, HB Charles – all speakers at John MacArthur’s upcoming Shepherd’s Conference. In the talk, Allberry claimed that Jesus suffered from dysphoria and used Isaiah 53 to claim that – like transgender people – Jesus had “body issues.”
Allberry, who identifies as a gay Christian on some occasions and on other occasions does not (it seems to depend on his audience), is a favorite expert on Church-Sodomite relations and is promoted not only by The Gospel Coalition but also by the ERLC and other leftist-progressive groups. Allberry spoke at the ERLC encouraging Southern Baptists to redefine the nuclear family to include “non-traditional families,” and he has also used his platform at TGC to promote single homosexuals adopting children so they won’t be lonely.
The celibate gay priest has also created an “audit” for churches to determine how warm and welcoming they are to transgender people and homosexuals, which has been advocated by Tim Keller and others.
At the 1.12.00 mark, Allberry encourages Christians to discount “traditional gender stereotypes.” The priest claims it’s unhealthy for men to be associated with masculinity and women to be associated with femininity. These “traditional” stereotypes make transgender people feel out of place, and the church should not try to reinforce traditional manliness or lady-likeness.
At the 1.15.00 mark, Allberry claims that men and women are not as different as many would assert and that many such distinctions are “arbitrary.” If we would just be biblical Alberry argues, we would see less difference between the genders.
At the 1.18.00 mark, Allberry makes the case that the warrior, King David, was effeminate. He claims that the Bible says David was beautiful in a feminine way, and because he wrote poetry, David likely had some gender identity issues.
At the 1.23.00 mark, Allberry claimed that Jesus had “body issues” because Isaiah 53 says that people “turned their face from him,” meaning that he was ugly.
At the 1.23.56 mark, he claimed that “there is no greater dysphoria” than what Jesus felt like on the Cross, being imputed with sin at the atonement and that he was in the wrong body.
That’s how Allberry ended his presentation.
Watch video below:
_____________________________________________________________________

Do the ShepCon Speakers Stand By Their Gay Priest?

SEE: https://pulpitandpen.org/2019/02/16/do-the-shepcon-speakers-stand-by-their-gay-priest/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The 2019 Shepherd’s Conference speakers, all invited by John MacArthur amidst much controversy and protest, are personally responsible for the promotion and propagation of a gay priest who just taught against traditional gender roles and likened the atonement to gender dysphoria, claiming that Jesus had “body issues.”
Sam Allberry is an editor and writer at The Gospel Coalition, which has a Council that includes Albert Mohler, Mark Dever, H.B. Charles, and Ligon Duncan.
All of these men have oversight of TGC and its authors, platforms, and publications. All of these men have helped to promote the gay Anglican priest and propel him to platforms like Ravi Zacharias Ministries, where last night he urged the church to loosen gender roles and made the disparaging remarks about King David and King Jesus.
Asking the question if they affirm the gay priest isn’t a matter of guilt by association, because they are literally promoting him through TGC (neither is asking the question wholly necessary because they clearly affirm him through their organization).
Perhaps a better question is if Dr. MacArthur stands by this gay priest and his attacks on traditional gender roles and his blasphemy regarding the atonement of Christ. And if not, why would MacArthur partner with those who aid and abet the gay lobby, especially among such a resounding protest by ShepCon and Grace to You supporters?
_________________________________________________________________
Homosexuality: Our Third Rail? 
THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST APOSTATES, MOHLER, MOORE  DISCUSS THE GAY LIFESTYLE ACCOMMODATIONS WITH ALBERRY, THE “WISE ONE”: 
INTERVIEW WITH ALLBERRY, NOVEMBER 19, 2018:
Jesus Never Mentioned Homosexuality
(EXCEPT HE SAID MARRIAGE WAS BETWEEN A MAN AND WOMAN EXCLUSIVELY)
SEE ALSO:
Complementarians Issue New Manifesto on Gender Identity
ABOVE: Image: ERLC
Russell Moore, Sam Allberry, Rosaria Butterfield, and Christopher Yuan have endorsed the Nashville Statement.
________________________________________________________

What Christians Just Don’t Get About LGBT Folks

Rosaria Butterfield​ on what Christians just don’t seem to get about LGBT folks:
Advice from a Bleeding Heart Liberal, infecting the body of Christ
with her propaganda:

IOWA HOUSE BILL REQUIRES “HEALTH & WELLNESS” CHECKS OF HOMESCHOOLERS QUARTERLY

IOWA HOUSE BILL REQUIRES “HEALTH & WELLNESS” CHECKS OF HOMESCHOOLERS 
HF 272 sponsored by State Representative Mary Mascher (D-Iowa City) requires school districts to perform quarterly home visits of their homeschooling families.
BY SHANE VANDER HART
SEE:https://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2019/02/iowa-house-bill-requires-health-and-wellness-checks-of-homeschoolers/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Iowa House Democrats’ assault on homeschooling families in 2019 continues in the form of yet another bill. HF 272, sponsored by State Representative Mary Mascher (D-Iowa).
Unlike HF 182, another bill Mascher filed this session related to homeschooling, that eliminates independent private instruction HF 272 keeps the phrase “independent private instruction” in the Iowa Code, but requires families selecting that option to submit the same form that was required under competent private instruction.
Families who are providing independent private instruction for the first time would also be required to submit proof of their child’s required immunizations.
That is not the most egregious aspect of the bill. Similar to a bill suggested earlier this year by State Representative Art Staed (D-Cedar Rapids), HF 272 requires health and wellness checks of families who engage in independent private instruction or private instruction.
The bill reads, “The board of directors of a school district shall conduct quarterly home visits to check on the health and safety of children located within the district who are receiving independent private instruction or private instruction.”
The bill also states that these home visits “shall take place in the child’s residence with the consent of the parent, guardian, or legal custodian and an interview or observation of the child may be conducted.”
If parents do not provide consent then the school district “the juvenile court or district court upon a showing of probable cause may authorize the person making the home visit to enter the home and interview or observe the child.”
Exactly what would that probable cause look like? The bill does not say. It does state the person conducting the visit for the school district shall be considered a mandatory reporter. Also, the school district can collaborate with the Iowa Department of Human Services in performing the required home visits.
This bill essentially puts homeschooling families on the level of parents who have been accused or have had a finding of child abuse or neglect.
The bill drew sharp criticism from the Home School Legal Defense Association.
“Rep. Mascher’s HF 272, in addition to resurrecting long-dead paperwork requirements for homeschool families, treats them all like criminals. Without explaining who is going to pay for it—with school and child protective personnel already stretched beyond the breaking point—she wants to command that state agents come into the homes of every single homeschool family in the state four times a year.  In what world do we waste money poking into the homes of thousands of people when there is not the slightest reason to believe an individual has done anything wrong?  When people who believe that the government can, and should, solve all problems, this is the kind of utopian dream they dream.  Dreams like that only get us closer to an Orwellian world,” Scott Woodruff, senior counsel for HSLDA, told Caffeinated Thoughts.
The subcommittee assigned to HF 272 consists of State Representatives Mary Ann Hanusa (R-Council Bluffs), Sandy Salmon (R-Janesville), and Rastafari Smith (D-Waterloo).
Currently, Homeschool Iowa (Network of Iowa Christian Home Educators) has registered opposition to the bill. The Iowa State Education Association has registered support.
Update: There is an identical bill, HF 100, by State Representative Bruce Hunter (D-Des Moines) that was introduced late January. This bill was co-sponsored by State Representatives Mascher, Jeff Kurtz (D-Ft. Madison), and Vicki Lensing (D-Iowa City).
____________________________________________________________

Mary Mascher’s Attempt to Eliminate Private Schools and Homeschooling in Iowa

On Monday, March 19, 2018, State Representative Mary Mascher (D-Iowa City) tried to offer an amendent to HJR 2009, a proposed Constitutional Amendment to protect Iowans’ right to keep and bear arms, that would substitute the bill’s language for a “right to an education” that stated the state “shall provide all youths with a public education.” State Representative Matt Windschitl (R-Missouri Valley) pointed out the amendment would effectively ban private schools and homeschooling. He also questioned whether it was germane. The Speaker of the House determined that the bill was not germane. A motion to suspend the rules to allow the amendment failed on a 40 to 56 vote.



VIDEO: JAMIE GLAZOV PRAISES ANNI CYRUS

VIDEO: JAMIE GLAZOV PRAISES ANNI CYRUS 
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/02/video-jamie-glazov-praises-anni-cyrus; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
In this new episode of The Glazov Gang, I Praise Anni Cyrus, honoring the producer of this show – a former child bride who is valiantly fighting for the victims of Sharia and Jihad.
Don’t miss it!
Subscribe to the Glazov Gang‘s YouTube Channel and follow us on Twitter: @JamieGlazov.
Please donate through our Pay Pal account.

IN MUSLIM REP. ILHAN OMAR’S DISTRICT, “TALIBAN” & OTHER GANGS RUN WILD, SOMALI MUSLIMS DON’T TALK TO POLICE

IN MUSLIM REP. ILHAN OMAR’S DISTRICT, “TALIBAN” & OTHER GANGS RUN WILD, SOMALI MUSLIMS 
DON’T TALK TO POLICE 
BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/02/in-muslim-rep-ilhan-omars-district-taliban-and-other-gangs-run-wild-somali-muslims-dont-talk-to-police; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
They don’t talk to the police because they don’t trust them, because the police are not Muslims. The Qur’an teaches that Muslims are “the best of people” (3:110) and non-Muslims are “the most vile of created beings” (98:6). But no one will admit that is the cause, and so the police keep trying “outreach” programs to win them over. The result? Disasters such as the police career of Mohamed Noor.
“Back in Omar’s district, police deal with gangs, relations with tight-lipped Somali community,” by Hollie McKay, Fox News, February 14, 2019 (thanks to Mark):
MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. – In the dead of the cold, late night on Tuesday, a young Somali man was shot in the hip. Someone took him to the local trauma center, left him there, and drove off.
The man told police at his bedside that he didn’t know who shot him, who took him to the hospital, or why he was targeted. “I’m intoxicated,” he told cops, while doctors tended his wound, before insisting he didn’t know anything else about what happened.
For the attending police officers, it was a frustrating, albeit familiar, response from a member of the Somali community, whose support in November sent one of their own, Rep. Ilhan Omar, to Congress. While Omar has spoken out frequently and forcefully on a range of issues – some that seem little connected to her district – most members of the Somali community she represents remain far more insular.
The national epidemic of shootings involving young African-American men in America’s cities certainly isn’t unique to Minneapolis. But some officers here believe issues of cultural assimilation involving the Somali immigrant community, and a struggle on both sides to better communicate law enforcement’s mandate to protect and serve, makes it a particularly imposing challenge. One that politicians like Omar, they say, could do much more to effectively address.
“When they come here, they come with their own experiences of not trusting the police, and from a place where the police are known to be corrupt. And the challenge for us lies in trying to get them to cooperate,” said one law enforcement officer. “They’ll often call 911 when they need help. But when we come, they often won’t then tell us who is causing the problem so we can take action or stop the crime from happening again.”
“Our goal is to have a good relationship with the community, we try to engage but it’s proving to be a tough egg to crack,” another officer underscored.
According to data compiled last year by the Washington Post, more than half of all homicides statewide in Minnesota go unsolved. And that’s in part because Somali-Americans in Minneapolis aren’t talking enough to police, according to officers.
The Somali community grew here rapidly here during the 1990s, when large numbers of Somalis fled a devastating civil war. The community has since grown with the addition of U.S.-born children of those refugees – as has the debate over the Somalis’ desire and ability to culturally assimilate.
Minnesota is now home to one the largest Somali communities in the global diaspora, with an estimated 100,000 living in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. The Cedar-Riverside neighborhood is the center of the Somali community – and is fondly nicknamed “Little Mogadishu” – for its array of Somali-centered organizations, businesses, and mosques.
Last year, it was announced that massive security upgrades totaling some $825,000 were coming to the major government-funded apartment complex in Cedar-Riverside, to “address resident safety concerns.” Part of the plan was to place a six-foot perimeter fence at the Cedar High Apartments, a complex owned and managed by Minneapolis Public Housing Authority, and for many, the central meeting point for the community.
While supported by some, others expressed their concerns the fence would only further isolate the Somali population, and hinder their ability to work with them and make the area safer.
Some investigators lament the difficulties in rooting out gang violence that remains a problem in not just the Somali community, but neighboring areas. The proper dismantling of the gangs, police stress, is a two-way street. Gang activity now is no longer centered on larger outfits like MS-13, or the Crips. Much more common here are smaller gangs with names like “Somali Mafia,” “Somali Outlaws,” “Young n’ Thuggin (YNT)” and even the “Taliban.”
“It’s hard for any community to assimilate and to immediately transform from the life they knew. But the distrust is only getting worse,” said an area law enforcement official. “The gang violence is only getting worse. Not only do crimes go unsolved, but many don’t get reported at all.”
But Jeanine Brudenell, the former Minneapolis Police Department’s Somali liaison officer, who retired in 2017, believes gang violence has waned somewhat. She acknowledged that while the “huge fear of police and government” has made efforts to protect the community, the right steps are being put in place in terms of community relations.
In recent years, the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) has sought to do more community outreach, and bring into the fold more Somali officers. The department currently has eight ethnic Somalis serving as officers.
“The City of Minneapolis has the largest Somali population, per capita, in the United States. The Minneapolis Police Department strongly believes that a police department that reflects the community it serves is an important first step in building trust,” John Elder, Minneapolis Police Department Public Information Officer told Fox News. “When Somali residents see officers that look like them, on patrol and detectives in investigation units, they are more likely have the confidence the MPD will understand their culture and background.”…

STOP LAUGHING: YES, THE GREEN NEW DEAL IS STUPID & EVIL, BUT IT’S COMING

A “RAW” DEAL FOR AMERICA
STOP LAUGHING: YES, THE GREEN NEW DEAL 
IS STUPID & EVIL, BUT IT’S COMING 
BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: https://pjmedia.com/trending/stop-laughing-yes-the-green-new-deal-is-stupid-and-evil-but-its-coming/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Democratic socialist wunderkind Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has been receiving torrents of ridicule for the “Green New Deal” program she unveiled with great fanfare and media adulation on Thursday, and it’s well deserved. But conservatives may come to find that laughter catching in their throats: as stupid as it is, and as disastrous as it would obviously be if it were implemented, many powerful figures on the Left aren’t laughing. And it’s not in the least impossible that they’ll bring that disaster upon the nation by trying to implement it.
The popularity of Ocasio-Cortez herself is a case in point. She is attractive, passionate, and untroubled by the miseries of possessing an intellect. She was already famous before the Green New Deal rollout for demonstrating a sub-middle school understanding of the branches (which she calls “chambers”) of government, exhorting Democrats to work hard to “take back all three chambers of Congress, uh, rather, all three chambers of government, the presidency, the Senate, and the House in 2020.” She spoke before taking office about being “inaugurated” and, as a member of the House of Representatives, signing legislation. She is a vociferous foe of Israel and denounces the “occupation of Palestine,” but can’t explain why.
And on and on: every news cycle brings more evidence of how truly free Ocasio-Cortez really is of any significant civic, historical, or economic knowledge. But none of it matters. She is a darling of the Leftist media and a rising star in the Democrat Party. Netflix paid ten million dollars for a documentary about her. Al Jazeera has already anointed her the next president of the United States.
Is she better equipped to be a bartender (which she was not long ago) than a member of the House of Representatives? Of course. But that won’t stop her rise. The Left ridiculed Donald Trump and called him stupid all through 2016, and he was elected president. What Ocasio-Cortez has on her side is the fact that powerful people on the Left take her seriously.
For all its talk (in the FAQs provided by Ocasio-Cortez’s office) of becoming able within the next few years “to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes” and providing “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to
work,” the most arresting passage in the entire Green New Deal plan is this: Nearly every major Democratic presidential contender says they back the Green New Deal including: Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Jeff Merkley, Julian Castro, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and Jay Inslee.
Those Democrat leaders aren’t laughing Ocasio-Cortez out of the room for announcing a plan that includes the intention to “upgrade or replace every building in US for state-of-the-art energy efficiency.” They’re nodding their heads and signing on. They don’t think it will make them look just as dimwitted as Ocasio-Cortez to endorse a plan that calls for constructing “high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.” Those railway bridges connecting California with Hawaii, Australia, and Japan are going to be, like, awesome.
They’re happy to lend their names to a plan that calls for “a full transition off fossil fuels and zero greenhouse gases,” in other words, destruction of the existing automobile industry, as well as the aeronautics industry. And the prospect of a massive carnage of “farting cows” doesn’t seem to trouble them.
The Green New Deal as Ocasio-Cortez has presented it will never be implemented in full, because the United States would go bankrupt and a new civil war would break out before all of its recommendations could be put into place. But that won’t stop Democrats from moving in the direction of a unitary socialist state in which all means of production are in the hands of the government – for the good of the climate and the people, of course.
If establishment media reporters ever decided to challenge these leading Democrats on their support for this absurd plan, which is almost certain never to happen, they would likely follow the lead of Ocasio-Cortez adviser Robert Hockett, who appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show Friday and claimed that the FAQs containing all these nonsensical plans was a fabrication by “conservative media”; Ocasio-Cortez even retweeted this forgery claim. However, the document has been definitively proven to have originated from her office, and bears the name of her chief of staff as its author; also, the resolution Ocasio-Cortez has introduced in Congress contains the provisions for eliminating all use of fossil fuels, “upgrading all existing buildings in the United States,” and more. Nor did any of the Democrat leaders who endorsed the plan withdraw their support when its absurdity became apparent.
Only Nancy Pelosi, of all people, has been dismissive, saying, “The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?” But the withered dowager empress underestimates the young upstart at her own risk. History is full of examples of how swiftly the mighty can fall; before she knows it, Pelosi could find herself being led to the scaffold in a squalid oxcart, while the woke, green populace celebrates the fall of the tyrant and the dawning of a new age of justice and climate awareness.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her fanatical, totalitarian vision are likely to afflict the United States and threaten our freedom for the foreseeable future. Yes, the Green New Deal deserves ridicule, but those who are laughing should also pause to recognize what is coming.
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His new book is The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.
_______________________________________________________

Ocasio-Cortez policy drives a stake through the growing US economy: Sen. Barrasso

Wyoming Senator John Barrasso (R) explains why he calls New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal a socialist manifesto.

AUSTRIA: NON-MUSLIM GIRLS FORCED TO WEAR HIJABS TO AVOID HARASSMENT FROM MUSLIM MIGRANTS

AUSTRIA: NON-MUSLIM GIRLS FORCED TO WEAR HIJABS TO AVOID HARASSMENT FROM MUSLIM MIGRANTS
BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/02/austria-non-muslim-girls-forced-to-wear-hijabs-to-avoid-harassment-from-muslim-migrants; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
A glimpse into the future of the whole of Europe. When I spoke in Germany in 2010, a teenage girl told me that she was harassed every day on her way to school by Muslim migrants, because she was not, in their view, properly covered.
“Austrian Girls Forced to Wear Hijabs to Avoid Harassment, Ex-MP Claims,” Sputnik News, February 15, 2019:
According to Doctor Marcus Franz, who used to serve as a lawmaker in the National Council, there are “problem zones” in the country’s capital where local girls are being forced to hide that they are Austrian.
Former member of the Austrian National Council, Doctor Marcus Franz, stated in an interview to broadcaster oe24.TV that he knew fathers in Vienna’s “problem areas” who give their daughters hijabs in order not to let them be recognised as Austrians and protect them from harassment. He cited witnesses from his personal acquaintances in the 15th district of the Austrian capital.
The man pointed to “permanent micro-aggression”. He said girls are dressing differently than people in Austria are used to because of an “unhealthy aggressive attitude”.
“Girls, young women as well as older women are simply afraid. You can observe this among people, you can see it plain and simple when you work in a social profession — as I do. And one should make a clear distinction between those who are new and those who have already been with us for a long time”, he stated….

_____________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
https://www.infowars.com/austria-feminist-politician-says-muslim-migrants-lack-of-respect-for-womens-rights-a-price-worth-paying-for-diversity/
_____________________________________________________________

Iranian Refugee, Aynaz Anni Cyrus Video: 

Why Are Muslims Raping Non-Muslim Women in Europe?

BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/02/aynaz-anni-cyrus-video-why-are-muslims-raping-non-muslim-women-in-europe; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Ex-Muslim Aynaz Anni Cyrus explains a phenomenon that the political and media elites prefer to obfuscate and ignore.

TRUMP MOCKS “HIGH SCHOOL” LEVEL OCASIO-CORTEZ; SHE ACCUSES HIM OF ILLITERACY

TRUMP MOCKS “HIGH SCHOOL” LEVEL OCASIO-CORTEZ; SHE ACCUSES HIM OF ILLITERACY
BY SELWYN DUKE
In what may be a bit like a dwarf claiming an NBA player lacks stature, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) accused President Trump of being semi-illiterate after he likened her Green New Deal (GND) proposal to a poorly conceived and written high-school paper. This comes on the heels of her retraction of the GND FAQ, which was posted on her website — and spoke of eliminating flatulating cows and air travel — but which her chief of staff now dismisses as being in the nature of “typos.”
As the Daily Mail characterizes it:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blasted Donald Trump as a semi-illiterate fool on Monday, minutes after the president slammed her ‘Green New Deal’ proposal as juvenile and poorly conceived.
‘It sounds like a high school term paper that got a low mark,’ Trump said of the sweeping outline that the New York Democrat unveiled last week.
The president was speaking at a raucous rally in El Paso, Texas.
‘Ah yes,’ Ocasio-Cortez sliced in a tweet, ‘a man who can’t even read briefings written in full sentences is providing literary criticism of a House Resolution.’
…She added a line that she attributed [sic] to The Washington Post: ‘Reading the intelligence book is not Trump’s preferred “style of learning,” according to a person with knowledge of the situation.’
Ocasio-Cortez’ tit-for-tat wasn’t exactly equivalent, however. It is said that Trump prefers oral to written presentations; this could reflect a defect, but, then again, personal learning style is a real phenomenon. (In fact, it might help the freshman representative’s cause if the president were illiterate, as her plan would appeal most to those who couldn’t actually read it.) Yet that Ocasio-Cortez’ GND FAQ had a valley-girl high-school quality is beyond dispute.
For starters, and to frame it in language the congresswoman obviously prefers, the proposals in the FAQ are wack. They included phasing out fossil fuels over a decade and nuclear power over a somewhat longer period; providing “economic security” for all who are “unwilling to work”; retrofitting every building in the country; and, again, eliminating air travel.
This not only would involve spending countless trillions on a problem that doesn’t exist, but if instituted globally could “result in the death of nearly all humans on Earth,” as Greenpeace co-Founder Patrick Moore put it. Note, too, that before they died their miserable deaths, they’d cut down every tree for fuel and kill every animal for food. Below is a video of President Trump discussing the scheme at his Monday rally.
Yet the FAQ’s juvenile style is also striking. It states at one point, “We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.”
Perhaps they’ll teach the bovines better manners, or maybe the solution will be vegan senator Cory Booker’s recently referenced desire to make every day meatless Monday. But “farting” cows, really? This is like writing “pooping,” which, mind you, has become lamentably common in journalism (pro tip: “Poop” is a baby word).
It’s easy making fun of Ocasio-Cortez (too easy), but what’s sad is that such intellectually wanting people now rise to power. Sadder still is that this reflects a decaying culture descending into Idiocracy, which is the title of a 2006 comedy portraying an outrageously intellectually degraded, dystopian United States that we today increasingly resemble (cursing politicians and all).
Speaking of stupidity, this is precisely what’s required to believe the spin on the FAQ, whose dissemination the Ocasio-Cortez crew now writes off as a meaningless mistake. This explanation (excuse?) is echoed by complicit media such as the Washington Post, which stated that the document is merely “erroneous.”
Now, the paper’s masthead-borne motto is, ironically, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” But not only did it uncritically accept the above claim, it also closed the above-linked piece with the assertion, by Ocasio-Cortez’ chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti, that people are trying to distract you from the holy climate crusade by focusing on the FAQ’s “little typos.”
Know here that an article’s closing line is often the one expressing a belief reporters want you to embrace. Making it a partisan quotation is a way of craftily injecting commentary into “straight news.” But let’s review the facts on the FAQ.
The document was posted on Ocasio-Cortez’ website early last Thursday morning, but was scrubbed mere hours later after bringing mockery. The next day, Friday evening, one of the congresswoman’s advisors claimed the document was the nefarious work of Republicans. Ocasio-Cortez then tacitly endorsed this notion in a tweet before her staff later admitted that, yes, it was theirs — but had been put on their website mistakenly.
Even this, though, is a far cry from a “typo,” which is something that, for instance, might occur upon typing out Saikat Chakrabarti’s name (I copy and paste it myself). No, in the document aren’t typos but a set of beliefs — someone’s beliefs. The document did not spontaneously generate. The letters did not magically assemble themselves in a politically troubling way on the sheet, like ocean waves quite accidentally washing rocks up on a beach to form an S.O.S.
Whose beliefs were they? The writing — e.g., “This is our moonshot” — sounds to me very much like the language Ocasio-Cortez uses when speaking. Of course, others could be feeding her ideas, but it would be interesting to see what a forensic writing-style analysis would conclude about authorship.
I suggested Monday that the FAQ’s release was likely no accident, that Ocasio-Cortez got so used to her radicalism getting a friendly reception that she just finally “went a Bolshevik bridge too far.” But let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that its release was accidental. Does this make the document less significant?
Question: What do you consider more likely the truth, what a person smoothly says to your face or what he utters behind your back? An accidentally released “planning document” is akin to being caught on a “hot mic” — you know, such as when Barack Obama was heard in 2012 telling then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that he’d have “more flexibility” on missile defense after the election.
This is so obvious that wasting words on it is a shame. If something not meant for public consumption is irrelevant, why was any mind paid to Dwayne “Dog the Bounty Hunter” Chapman’s released racial-epithet-laden private phone call, Mel Gibson’s private-phone-call rant against an ex-girlfriend, or the Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape?
So we’re told the FAQ is immaterial; nothing to see here, moving along. But what we’re supposed to believe is preposterous: What a politician says or writes behind closed doors, when the cameras and mics are off and honesty costs nothing, is inconsequential.
But what the politician — a member of a breed notorious for lying to the public — says to the public while marketing policy, well, that we should believe.
As the common jokes about Ocasio-Cortez’ intellectual vacuity attest, many people think she’s stupid. Now we know the feeling is mutual.

TRUMP DECLARES NATIONAL EMERGENCY~PELOSI CALLS BORDER CRISIS AN “ILLUSION” OF TRUMP; THREATENS TOTAL GUN CONTROL WITH NEXT PRESIDENT UNDER AN EMERGENCY DECLARATION

TRUMP DECLARES NATIONAL EMERGENCY
LONGER VIDEO:

Hamas-linked CAIR outraged at Trump’s border wall emergency declaration

BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/02/hamas-linked-cair-outraged-at-trumps-planned-border-wall-emergency-declaration; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Odd thing: Hamas-linked CAIR never had any problem with Obama’s thirteen emergency declarations. 
Note how they try to smear Trump as racist, saying the border wall is an attempt to “make America white again,” as if trying to stop illegal immigration, and the crime and drug trafficking that come with it, were “racist.” One might almost get the idea that Hamas-linked CAIR was working at “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within, and sabotaging its miserable house.”
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 co-founder 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. Ayloush himself in 2017 called for the overthrow of the U.S. government.
So this denunciation is the best ad yet for the border wall.
“CAIR Condemns Trump’s Planned Border Wall Emergency Declaration as ‘Abuse of Executive Authority,’” Common Dreams, February 14, 2019:
WASHINGTON – The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, tonight condemned President Trump’s planned emergency declaration to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border as an “abuse of executive authority.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said today that Trump will sign legislation to prevent a government shutdown while at the same time declaring a national emergency to try to build the border wall.
In response to the planned emergency declaration, CAIR said:
“CAIR condemns President Trump’s planned declaration of emergency powers to construct a border wall that is primarily motivated by an anti-immigrant ideology designed to ‘make America white again.’ Such a declaration would be an abuse of executive authority and would immediately invite legitimate constitutional and congressional challenges.
“Refugee asylum seekers, unaccompanied children or undocumented immigrants seeking work or to reunite with their families do not constitute a ‘national emergency.’”…

_______________________________________________________________ 

Nancy Pelosi responds to Trump’s plan to declare 

national emergency

PELOSI SAYS NEXT DEM PREZ COULD TARGET SECOND AMENDMENT WITH NATIONAL EMERGENCY

Claims border crisis an illusion

SEE: https://www.infowars.com/pelosi-says-next-dem-prez-could-target-2a-with-national-emergency/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warned that the next Democrat president could use an emergency declaration to target guns in America.
Pelosi delivered her statement moments after the White House said President Trump would declare a national emergency to secure the border.
“..If the president can declare an emergency on something that he has created as an emergency, an illusion that he wants to convey, just think of what a president with different values can present to the American people,” she said. “You want to talk about a national emergency? Let’s talk about today, the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America.”
“That’s a national emergency. Why don’t you declare that emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would. But a Democratic president can do that. [A] Democratic president can declare emergencies as well.”
Additionally, Pelosi warned Trump’s actions were establishing a precedent that current Republicans should worry about.
“The precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans,” she said.
____________________________________________________________

Next Democrat President to Declare Gun-Emergency, 

How Close Are We to Confiscation

BY MARK WALTERS
SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2019/02/next-democrat-president-declare-gun-emergency-how-close-confiscation/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Yesterday, President Donald Trump made clear he will sign the latest budget measure funding the government thereby averting another shutdown. The bipartisan bill did not include consideration for a wall to stop the illegal flow of criminal aliens and smuggling that plague our southern border. As expected, The White House announced that the president would sign the bill but declare the border a national emergency using executive order and appropriate the necessary border wall funding from other government agencies.
Many of us love the idea. It’s a slap in the face to the nasty Socialists (masquerading, at least for now, as Democrats) who have stonewalled and obstructed President Trump from day one.
On the other hand, as I discussed on Armed American Radio a couple of weeks back, such an executive order may also set a dangerous precedent. It’s the old, “Be careful what you wish for; you may just get it” saying. Nancy Pelosi wasted no time. Within minutes of that announcement from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., she said this:
‘I know the Republicans have some unease about it, no matter what they say. Because if the president can declare an emergency on something that he has created as an emergency, an illusion that he wants to convey, just think of what a president with different values can present to the American people,’ she said. ‘You want to talk about a national emergency? Let’s talk about today, the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America,’ Pelosi said, referencing the one-year anniversary of the Parkland, Florida school shooting. ‘That’s a national emergency. Why don’t you declare that emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would. But a Democratic president can do that. [A] Democratic president can declare emergencies as well,’ she threatened.

So there you have it mass gun confiscation from the mouth of Democrats.

In one bold, profound statement, Current speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, second in line to the White House after the vice-president in order of succession, finally said what we all know she and the rest of the Democrats have in store for us when (inevitably) another Democrat is elected President. In case you still have trouble understanding, let me make it clear for you. Nancy Pelosi has just made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that her party is willing to abolish the Second Amendment with the stroke of a pen via executive fiat and when the next Democrat is (inevitably) elected, they intend to do so.
From this point forward you know that the next elected Democrat to occupy the White House will declare “gun violence” a national emergency. 
How might such an executive order play out? What happens in the minutes, hours, days, weeks, and months after such a declaration? No one truly knows as its never before happened but being told now that it’s on the table for our future we might want to start considering such a scenario.
First, I imagine such an order would be signed within minutes of the first (again, inevitable) mass shooting that occurs on the new Democrat President’s watch. Based on Pelosi’s comments, we can rest assured that such an order will already be written and eagerly awaiting a mass murder for immediate signature. Now what? More likely than not, the first order of business will be an immediate cessation of all retail gun sales. Think about the economic consequences of that alone. Businesses and livelihoods crushed overnight. The Democrats won’t care. They’ll be cheering the destruction of this segment of our economy just as newly elected Socialist dimwit Cortez cheered the loss of billions of dollars of tax revenue and 25,000 jobs paying $150,000.00 each in her district when Amazon pulled out due to her hostile statements. (You can’t make this stuff up)
Second, I would imagine a registration scheme to follow suit. Once all retail gun sales have been stopped, all gun owners will be required to submit their firearms collections in detail including serial numbers along with the physical location of each gun. Being there are more retail gun shops in communities than there are ATF offices, it might not be a stretch to see those shops used by government agents for the sole purpose of collecting those gun registration/location forms.
Third, confiscation. Upon the issuance of such an order and the completion of a registration scheme, (if the Democrat president and his party associates in the House and Senate genuinely believe there is a national emergency) they will have no choice but to take from us what they deem to be the problem. Leaving civilians armed will not alleviate the perceived problem. Confiscation must occur.
They will likely tell us that they don’t want to destroy our rights and this drastic measure is temporary. We will get our guns back as soon as the Democrats in power deem there to be no more threat. They respect the Second Amendment, but this is for our own good and the safety of the children. They will shame us and remind us that as Americans, it is time to act to end “gun violence.” See how simple it is to disarm us? An executive order, signed by a well-meaning Democrat president and an orderly march of law-abiding citizens complying quietly for the good of the children while Nancy Pelosi sits atop her throne clapping at us for doing the right thing at the right time, for our nation.
Right….
It may be possible that psychologically someone who threatens executive action to declare “gun violence” a national emergency as a way to end-run the rights of over 100 million Americans may believe all of us will quietly line-up at registration booths and turn in our guns. It may also be possible that the same person may not believe that millions of decent, hard-working American’s will resist. Millions.
Ms. Pelosi just told you everything you need to know about her party’s plans. What you do with that knowledge is up to you.
~ Mark Walters
About Mark WaltersMark Walters
Mark Walters is the host of two nationally syndicated radio broadcasts, Armed American Radio and Armed American Radio’s Daily Defense with Mark Walters. He is the Second Amendment Foundations 2015 Gun Rights Defender of the Year award recipient and co-author of two books, Lessons from Armed America with Kathy Jackson (Whitefeather Press) and Lessons from UnArmed America with Rob Pincus (Whitefeather Press)


1 … 486 487 488 489 490 … 793