ITALY: ARCHBISHOP BREAKS RANKS, CONDEMNS FELLOW PRELATES WHO ADVOCATE BREAKING IMMIGRATION LAWS~AN ABUSE WHICH THE POPE HAS ENTHUSIASTICALLY COMMITTED

 http://isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Luigi-Negri-benedicente.jpg
ITALY: ARCHBISHOP BREAKS RANKS, CONDEMNS FELLOW PRELATES WHO ADVOCATE BREAKING IMMIGRATION LAWS
BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
 

“An archbishop has broken ranks from fellow Italian prelates, saying
that mayors have no right to appeal to conscientious objection to
disobey the nation’s immigration laws.” Luigi Negri didn’t just oppose
fellow Italian prelates with his comments. He also has indirectly
opposed the Pope, who recently hijacked the religious feast day
Epiphany, celebrated by millions of Christians around the world on
January 6. Pope Francis gave a mass to around 60,000 people in St
Peter’s Basilica, but he decided to deliver his shameless sales pitch to
advance open-door immigration before the worshipers.

Negri further stated:

The right to object is to be defended when fundamental
principles are undermined….Those mayors who use conscientious objection
deliberately as a political tool against legitimate actions of superior
or equal authorities, abuse the concept.

An abuse that the Pope has committed in his role repeatedly. Also
important was Negri’s recognition of the importance of Judeo-Christian
culture and the threats posed to its institutions:

The archbishop said moreover that not everyone is in a
position to integrate into Italian society, which is based on a
Judeo-Christian understanding of the person, family, and society


He was clearly referring to Islamic supremacists, who have wreaked havoc throughout Europe and elsewhere.

“Italian Archbishop Says No ‘Conscientious Objection’ on Immigration Law,” by Thomas D. Williams, Breitbart, January 8, 2019:

An archbishop has broken ranks from fellow Italian
prelates, saying that mayors have no right to appeal to conscientious
objection to disobey the nation’s immigration laws — an Italian parallel
to American sanctuary cities.

Luigi Negri, the former archbishop of Ferrara, suggested Sunday that
bishops who have supported or called for recourse to conscientious
objection have overstepped their competence, failing to respect the
legitimate autonomy of the political sphere in questions that require
prudential judgment. Similarly, mayors who appeal to the principle to
disobey immigration laws misuse it.

“The right to object is to be defended when fundamental principles
are undermined,” Negri said. “Those mayors who use conscientious
objection deliberately as a political tool against legitimate actions of
superior or equal authorities, abuse the concept.”

According to Catholic theology, one must refrain from obeying laws
that mandate immoral behavior, such as a law requiring people to
participate in abortions.

The “security decree” of interior minister Matteo Salvini, which
among other things facilitates the deportation of illegal immigrants,
has raised the ire of certain members of the Italian Catholic hierarchy.

On the same day, the archbishop of Chieti, Bruno Forte, protested the
Salvini decree in an interview with the press, claiming that rescuing
migrants is not something optional but a “moral imperative.”

Ethically speaking, Forte said, “if something contrary to my
conscience is imposed on me, such as refusing help to whole families at
the mercy of the sea for days, conscientious objection is justified.”

“Alarmism and talk of an invasion are propagandistic lies that are
harmful to everyone, except to those who use them for electoral
advantages,” the archbishop said in reference to the interior minister’s
allusions to Italy’s migrant crisis.

Archbishop Negri took issue with this line of reasoning, saying that
prelates have no right to meddle in secular affairs where moral
absolutes do not come into play.

“The issue of security is a matter for dialogue among the secular forces participating in social life,” he said.

“In general, those who exploit the gospel are mistaken,” Negri said,
while also defending the Salvini decree, arguing that “a recovery of
cultural, human and religious identity is absolutely positive: the
famous Christian roots of Europe.”

The archbishop said moreover that not everyone is in a position to
integrate into Italian society, which is based on a Judeo-Christian
understanding of the person, family, and society…..

WHAT THEY’RE NOT TELLING YOU ABOUT THE YELLOW VESTS~THE TRUTH ABOUT THE EUROPEAN SPRING

WHAT THEY’RE NOT TELLING YOU ABOUT THE YELLOW VESTS~THE TRUTH ABOUT THE EUROPEAN SPRING
REPORT BY PAUL JOSEPH WATSON OF INFOWARS

 It’s quite simple; the left hates the yellow vests movement because they hate the working class.
Please share this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDAjEaFPnwY

 Italy declares support for Yellow Vests, sparking row between Salvini and Macron

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/01/italy-declares-support-for-yellow-vests-sparking-row-between-salvini-and-macron
EXCERPTS:
 Matteo Salvini has now stoked the Yellow Vest movement in his
declaration: “I support honest citizens who protest against a president
who governs against his own people.” Salvini is describing not just
Macron, but globalist leaders everywhere. The Yellow Vests are a
movement of defense.

Macron’s rebuttal was to reference the “populist movement” as the rise of “leprosy.”

BOMBSHELL: GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL CONFIRMS LINK BETWEEN VACCINES & AUTISM

 https://www.naturalnews.com/gallery/640/Misc/Full-Measure-Sharyl-Attkisson.jpg
BOMBSHELL: GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL CONFIRMS LINK BETWEEN VACCINES & AUTISM 
 Big Pharma working to discredit scientist’s 
vaccine-autism connection
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
 

A medical expert working for the government found a causal
link between vaccines and autism, but federal lawmakers influenced by
the powerful pharmaceutical lobby helped bury that info.
In an episode of award-winning journalist Sharyl Attkisson’s program Full Measure,
she breaks down how a scientist relied on by the government to debunk
vaccine-autism claims was silenced after reporting there was indeed a
link between the neurological disease and vaccines.
Watch the bombshell episode complete with transcript below (emphasis ours):

Today we investigate one of the biggest medical controversies of
our time: vaccines. There’s little dispute about this much– vaccines
save many lives, and rarely, they injure or kill. A special federal
vaccine court has paid out billions for injuries from brain damage to
death. But not for the form of brain injury we call autism. Now—we have
remarkable new information: a respected pro-vaccine medical expert used
by the federal government to debunk the vaccine-autism link, says
vaccines can cause autism after all. He claims he told that to
government officials long ago, but they kept it secret.
Yates
Hazlehurst was born February 11, 2000. Everything was normal, according
to his medical records, until he suffered a severe reaction to
vaccinations. Rolf Hazlehurst is Yates’ dad.

Rolf Hazlehurst: And at first, I didn’t believe
it. I did not think that, I did not believe that vaccines could cause
autism. I didn’t believe it.

But there’s a hard reality for Yates. The trademark brain
disease, pain and inability to communicate that’s common with severe
autism.

In 2007, Yates’ father sued over his son’s injuries in the
little known Federal Vaccine court. It was one of more than 5000 vaccine
autism claims.

Congress created vaccine court in 1988, in consultation with
the pharmaceutical industry. In the special court, vaccine makers don’t
defend their products—the federal government does it for them, using
lawyers from the Justice Department. Money for victims comes from us,
not the pharmaceutical industry, through patient fees added onto every
vaccine given.

Denise Vowell: Our hearings are all closed to the public. And that’s statutory.

In 2007, Yates’ case and nearly all the other vaccine autism
claims lost. The decision was based largely on the expert opinion of
this man, Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a world-renowned pediatric neurologist
shown here at a lecture.

Dr. Zimmerman was the government’s top expert witness and had testified that vaccines didn’t cause autism. The debate was declared over.

But now Dr. Zimmerman has provided remarkable new information.
He claims that during the vaccine hearings all those years ago, he
privately told government lawyers that vaccines can, and did cause
autism in some children. That turnabout from the government’s
own chief medical expert stood to change everything about the
vaccine-autism debate. If the public were to find out.

Hazlehurst: And he has come forward and explained how he told the United States government vaccines can cause autism in a certain subset of children and United States government, the Department of Justice suppressed his true opinions.

Hazlehurst discovered that later when Dr. Zimmerman evaluated
Yates as a teenager. That’s when he partnered with vaccine safety
advocate Robert F. Kennedy, Junior—who has a voice condition.

Kennedy: This was one of the most consequential frauds, arguably in human history.

Kennedy was instrumental in convincing Dr. Zimmerman to
document his remarkable claim of the government covering up his true
expert opinion on vaccines and autism.

Dr. Zimmerman declined our interview request and referred us
to his sworn affidavit. It says: On June 15, 2007, he took aside the
Department of Justice—or DOJ lawyers he worked for defending vaccines in
vaccine court. He told them that he’d discovered “exceptions in
which vaccinations could cause autism.” “I explained that in a subset
of children, vaccine induced fever and immune stimulation did cause
regressive brain disease with features of autism spectrum disorder.”

Kennedy: This panicked the two DOJ attorneys and they immediately fired Zimmerman.
That was on a Friday and over the weekend they called Zimmerman and
said his services would no longer be needed. They wanted to silence him.

Days after the Department of Justice lawyers fired Dr. Zimmerman as their expert witness, he alleges, they went on to misrepresent his opinion
to continue to debunk autism claims. Records show that on June 18,
2007, a DOJ attorney Dr. Zimmerman spoke to told vaccine court, “We know
[Dr. Zimmerman’s] views on the issue…There is no scientific basis for a
connection” between vaccines and autism. Dr. Zimmerman now calls that
“highly misleading.”

The former DOJ lawyer didn’t return our calls and emails.
Kennedy has filed a fraud complaint with the Justice Department
Inspector General, who told us they don’t “comment on investigations or
potential investigations.”

Meantime, CDC—which promotes vaccines and monitors vaccine
safety– never disclosed that the government’s own one-time medical
expert concluded vaccines can cause autism – and to this day public
health officials deny that’s the case.

Dr. Anne Schuchat: “Based on dozens of
studies and everything I know as a physician and a scientist, there’s no
link between autism and vaccines.”

CDC declined our interview request. In addition to filing a
fraud complaint, Kennedy has delivered Dr. Zimmerman’s affidavit to
leaders on Capitol Hill. But there he claims, is another key part of
this story: roadblocks set up by the pharmaceutical industry—or PhRMA.

Kennedy: But everybody takes money from PhRMA so they’ve all been corrupted. And it’s almost impossible to get anything done on Capitol Hill.

Kennedy, a Democrat, isn’t the only one claiming vaccine
industry money rules the day. We spoke to 11 current and former members
of Congress and staff who claim they faced pressure, bullying or threats
when they raised vaccine safety questions. Several of them agreed to
appear on camera.

Burton: There’s no question in my mind
whatsoever that the pharmaceutical industry had a great influence with
people over at the CDC and FDA. There’s no question in my mind.

Republican Dan Burton—former Chairman of the House Oversight Committee—has an autistic grandson.

Burton: I am not against vaccinations.

He pursued vaccine investigations in the early 2000s. Beth Clay was one of his staffers.

Clay: There was a lot of pressure from people on the Hill.

When you say people on the hill were exerting pressure, what kind of people? Colleagues?

Clay: Colleagues, there were pharmaceutical
lobbyists. The pharmaceutical lobbyists had, you know, they are the same
people that have been entrenched. They can walk into any office in
Capitol Hill, and they’ll talk to staff, they’ll talk to members and
they’ll encourage them to discourage, our investigation.

Sharyl: At the risk of stating the obvious why did they have that kind of access to members?

Clay: It’s money. And if you look at the
donations over the last 20 years, the pharmaceutical industry, and
Republican and Democrat, they’re nonpartisan. They put money everywhere.

Former Congressman, Dr. Dave Weldon, a Republican, says he got the message loud and clear.

Sharyl: If you would want to hold a hearing
on an issue like vaccines and autism, your own leadership might fight
you on that because of the financial influence, the pharmaceutical
industry

Dave Weldon: They wouldn’t fight you. They’d
kill it. It’s dead. They don’t even want to discuss it. It’s dead on
arrival. If you, if you as an individual member want to take on the
pharmaceutical industries. It’s forget it.

Sharyl: Can you describe an incident or just how it, how that would go?

Weldon: It would typically be in a hallway or the street and people would come up to you and say, “You know, you really need to, you know, back off on this. It could be, it could be bad for the community or bad for the country or bad for you.”

Weldon says he’s generally pro-vaccine, depending on the
patient and the shot—and gives flu shots to adults. We asked him to
review Dr. Zimmerman’s new affidavit.

Weldon: I found his affidavit and testimony through that affidavit to be consistent with my opinions. That some children can get an autism spectrum disorder from a vaccine.

Republican Bill Posey is a current member of Congress.

Rep. Bill Posey: I don’t have to tell you
that industry is a very, very powerful industry. Matter of fact, I don’t
know of anyone more powerful than that industry.

Posey says his own party leaders twice promised to hold hearings on the topic, only to scuttle them in the end.

Hazlehurst – who happens to be a criminal prosecutor– was
scheduled to be a witness at one such Congressional hearing. Two weeks
before the hearing in 2013, he briefed Congressional staff.

Hazlehurst: I presented at that
Congressional briefing and I explained in that hearing, if I did to a
criminal in a court of law what the United States Department of Justice
did to vaccine injured children, I would be disbarred and I would be
facing criminal charges. I think that scared the hell out of them.

The hearing was abruptly cancelled. Meantime, Dr. Zimmerman – the one-time expert used to debunk vaccine autism claims—now says several of his own patients got autism from vaccines. They include Yates Hazlehurst.

Today, with intensive treatment, Yates is doing better. His
dad hopes the new testimony from a most unlikely source will get new
attention.

Hazlehurst: A child that was unnecessarily sacrificed and hopefully some good, will come from his suffering.

The lobby group representing the pharmaceutical industry
wouldn’t agree to an interview but told us they’re working with Congress
and other stakeholders on the importance and safety of vaccines to
support the health and safety of individuals and communities.

In case YouTube bans this video watch on the Full Measure website below:
http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/the-vaccination-debate
________________________________________________________

 Attkisson Report Reveals Threats Against Congressmen Investigating Autism-Vaccine Link
 Attkisson Report Reveals Threats Against Congressmen Investigating Autism-Vaccine Link
BY BARBARA LOE FISHER 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
 

A Jan. 6, 2018 news report produced
by investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson for Sinclair Broadcast
Group revealed that retired congressmen Dan Burton (R-IN) and Dr. Dave
Weldon (R-FL) and current Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) were pressured by
colleagues or threatened by PhRMA lobbyists to back away from examining
vaccine safety issues, including the reported link between vaccines and
autism.1
 The report also revealed that, in 2007, federal government officials
suppressed and then misrepresented the expert opinion of pediatric
neurologist Dr. Andrew Zimmerman that vaccines can cause autism during
U.S. Federal Court of Claims hearings evaluating vaccine-related autism
claims filed in the federal vaccine injury compensation program (VICP).2

“You really need to… back off on this”

The “Vaccination Debate” report was
featured on “Full Measure,” Sinclair’s investigative news show anchored
by Attkisson, who said, “We spoke to 11 current and former members of
Congress and staff who claim they faced pressure, bullying or threats
when they raised vaccine safety questions.” Physician and former Rep.
Dave Weldon commented, “It would typically be in a hallway or the street
and people would come up to you and say, “You know, you really need to,
you know, back off on this. It could be, it could be bad for the
community or bad for the country or bad for you.”

Attkisson also interviewed Rolf
Hazelhurst, whose now 18-year old son, Yates, suffered severe vaccine
reactions as a child and regressed into chronic poor health that was
eventually diagnosed as autism. Hazelhurst, a criminal prosecuting
attorney, said, “And at first, I didn’t believe it. I did not think
that, I did not believe that vaccines could cause autism. I didn’t
believe it.”

US Government Suppresses Pediatric Neurologist’s Expert Opinion on Autism-Vaccine Link

After Rolf Hazelhurst learned that
Dr. Zimmerman’s expert opinion was discounted and misrepresented by
federal government officials for the purpose of denying federal vaccine
injury compensation to his son3 and thousands of other children with vaccine related autism,4
Hazelhurst told congressional staffers at a 2013 briefing, “If I did to
a criminal in a court of law what the United States Department of
Justice did to vaccine injured children, I would be disbarred and I
would be facing criminal charges.” He and environmental activist
attorney Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. have filed a fraud complaint with the
Justice Department Inspector General about the withholding of
Zimmerman’s expert opinion on vaccine-induced autism in the U.S. Court
of Federal Claims proceedings.

The “Vaccine Court” and the Class Action Omnibus Autism Proceeding

The Secretary of Health and Human
Services is legally represented by Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys
in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (“Vaccine Court”) when federal
health officials contest vaccine injury compensation claims filed under
the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, a law that was passed by
Congress in 1986 and substantively altered by congressional amendments
between 1987 and 2016.5 The
1986 Act gave partial liability protection to vaccine manufacturers but
protected a vaccine injured person’s right to file a vaccine injury
lawsuit in civil court if federal compensation was denied or was
inadequate to provide for lifetime needs or if it could be proven that
the vaccine manufacturer could have made a vaccine safer (design
defect). In a split decision in 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively
barred all vaccine injury lawsuits, including for manufacturer design
defect.6 7

Under the 1986 Act, special masters
are appointed by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to adjudicate federal
vaccine injury compensation claims. The “Vaccine Court” oversaw a
seven-year class action type Omnibus Autism proceeding that concluded in
2009 and threw out more than 5,500 vaccine injury claims for children
with vaccine-related autism.8
The Court rejected the argument made by plaintiff’s lawyers that
vaccine-related autism is caused by mercury preservatives in vaccines
and/or MMR vaccine or a combination of both.9

The gutting of the 1986 Act’s safety
and compensation provisions by congressional amendments, the Department
of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Supreme Court has been
strongly criticized by the National Vaccine Information Center for many
years.10 11 12 The
Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report in 2014
analyzing the VICP’s operation and was critical of how long it took for
compensation claims to be resolved, primarily because most vaccine
injury claims are contested by DHHS.13

Sharyl Attkisson: The Reporter Who Goes Where No One Else Will

A CBS correspondent for more
than 20 years, Sharyl Attkisson is a five-time Emmy Award winner and
recipient of the Edward R. Murrow award for investigative reporting and Pillar Human Rights Journalism Award for “Fearless Reporting in the Face of Government Retaliation.” From 1996-2001, she hosted a half-hour weekly medical news magazine on PBS entitled “Health Week.” She is the best-selling author of the books Stonewalled (2014) and The Smear (2017). After leaving CBS in 2014, Attkisson joined Sinclair to head up the investigative journalism team staffing “Full Measure” to explore government waste, national security and whistleblower reports on government and corporate abuse.14
For more than a decade, Attkisson has authored and produced reports on a number of vaccine safety issues, including these:

She presented a Ted Talk on “Is Fake News Real?” in February 2018.15
Currently, she has a lawsuit pending against the DOJ and FBI based on
First and Fourth Amendment rights alleging improper government
surveillance of a private citizen journalist, including electronic
surveillance of her computer, cyber stalking and cyber attacks.16

View the “Full Measure” report on The Vaccination Debate here

References:
 1 Attkisson S. The Vaccination Debate. “Full Measure” Sinclair Broadcast Group Jan. 6, 2019.
2 Attkisson S. Dr.Andrew Zimmerman’s full Affadavit on alleged link between vaccines and autism that U.S. government covered up. SharylAttkisson.com Jan. 6. 2019.
3 U.S. Court of Claims. Hazelhurst v. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Decision: Feb. 12, 2009.
4 U.S. Court of Claims. Docket of Autism Omnibus Proceeding. Jan. 12, 2011.
5 National Vaccine Information Center. National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
6 Supreme Court of the United States. Bruesewitz v. Wyeth No. 09-152. Justice Sotomayor with whom Justice Ginsberg joins, dissenting Feb. 22, 2011.
7 National Vaccine Information Center. National
Vaccine Information Center Cites “Betrayal” of Consumers by U.S.
Supreme Court Giving Total Liability Shield to Big Pharma. NVIC Press Release Feb. 23, 2011.
8 U.S. Court of Claims. Docket of Autism Omnibus Proceeding. Jan. 12, 2011.
9 Hitt M. Vaccine Court Rejects Autism Claims. WebMD Feb. 12, 2009.
10 Fisher BL. Compensating Vaccine Injuries: Are Reforms Needed? U.S. House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources Sept. 28, 1999.
11 Fisher BL, Williams K, Wrangham TK. Statement for Government Accountability Office (GAO) Inquiry on the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) Operation. National Vaccine Information Center July 11, 2014.
12 Fisher BL. End Pharma Liability Shield Endangering Public Health and Human Rights. National Vaccine Information Center Nov. 8, 2016.
13 Government Accountability Office. Vaccine Injury Compensation: Most Claims Took Multiple Years and Many Were Settled through Negotiation. Nov. 21, 2014.
14 Attkisson S. Bio.
15 Attkisson S. Is Fake News Real? Ted Talk Feb. 13, 2018.
16 Attkisson S. Counting down to oral arguments in government computer intrusions. SharylAttkisson.com Jan. 5, 2019.

 

ZUCKERBERG HOSPITAL GOUGES PAYING PATIENTS TO PAY FOR ILLEGALS

 Report: Zuckerberg Hospital Gouges Paying Patients to Pay For Illegals
ZUCKERBERG HOSPITAL GOUGES PAYING PATIENTS TO PAY FOR ILLEGALS
 Bike rider with private insurance charged 
over $20K for broken arm
BY KIT DANIELS
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
 

A San Francisco hospital named after Mark Zuckerberg is
offsetting its public healthcare costs by sending expensive bills to
privately-insured patients, according to a media report.
Zuckerberg
San Francisco General reportedly billed a bike rider over $20,000 for a
broken arm after her private insurance paid nearly $4000 to the
hospital, an amount the insurer thought was reasonable for an arm
splint.

“A
spokesperson for the hospital confirmed that ZSFG does not accept any
private health insurance, describing this as a normal billing practice,”
according to a report
by left-leaning Vox News. “He said the hospital’s focus is on serving
those with public health coverage — even if that means offsetting those
costs with high bills for the privately insured.”
On its web site, ZSFG declares that “everyone is welcome here” regardless of their financial situation or immigration status:

Everyone is welcome here, no matter your ability to pay, lack of
insurance, or immigration status. We’re much more than a medical
facility; we’re a health care community promoting good health for all
San Franciscans.

We’re part of a large group of neighborhood clinics and
healthcare providers, the San Francisco Health Network. In partnership,
we provide primary care for all ages, specialty care, dentistry,
emergency and trauma care, and acute care for the people of San
Francisco.

Because the Zuckerberg hospital doesn’t participate in the
negotiated-cost networks of private health insurers, privately-insured
patients are charged tens of thousands more for services that are
significantly less at other hospitals.

“Our mission is to serve people who are underserved because of
their financial needs,” the spokesperson also stated. “We have to be
attuned to that population.”

Unfortunately for the bike rider, she didn’t have much choice in
what hospital to go to while riding semi-conscious in the back of an
ambulance.

Mark Zuckerberg donated $75 million to the hospital in 2015.

 

FACEBOOK & TWITTER CONSULT WITH HAMAS-LINKED “CAIR” OVER WHO GETS BANNED FROM THEIR PLATFORMS

 ZAHRA BILLOO, SPY & SNITCH 
FOR SOCIAL MEDIA CENSORSHIP,
& “PALESTINIAN” JEW HATER
“Talking at AMP let’s be real and call it apartheid Israel. Right?
Because that is what it is,” Billoo told her AMP audience last month.
“And I am clear about I am not going to legitimize a country that I
don’t believe has a right to exist. 
And that’s where I am.”
 http://www.risingupwithsonali.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/zahra_billoo-copy-800x509.jpg
https://www.investigativeproject.org/pics/large/1024.jpg
 https://www.investigativeproject.org/pics/large/3985.jpg
 https://www.investigativeproject.org/pics/large/3747.jpg
FACEBOOK & TWITTER CONSULT WITH 
HAMAS-LINKED “CAIR” OVER WHO GETS BANNED FROM THEIR PLATFORMS
BY ROBERT SPENCER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
 

This doesn’t come as any surprise given the eagerness of both
Facebook and Twitter to be Sharia-compliant. Facebook’s Vice President
Joel Kaplan traveled to Pakistan in July 2017 to assure the Pakistani government
that it would remove “anti-Islam” material. And Facebook has done so
assiduously, banning numerous foes of jihad terror and twice now
blocking the Jihad Watch Facebook page on spurious technical grounds.
And Twitter has recently been notifying people that they’re in violation of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, which violation carries a death sentence.

But this shows how sick and degenerate the social media giants really are. 
 CAIR has ties to Hamas, and “Billoo has expressed
her support for an Islamic caliphate and Sharia law. She also claims,
in multiple tweets, that ISIS is on the same moral plane as American and
Israeli soldiers, adding
that ‘our troops are engaged in terrorism.’” This pro-Sharia Islamic
supremacist is deciding what is acceptable discourse and what isn’t.
It’s no wonder that the result would be platforms that are increasingly
hostile to foes of jihad terror and Sharia oppression of women and
others.

“Report: Facebook and Twitter consult with terror-tied CAIR over who gets banned from platforms,” by Jordan Schachtel, Conservative Review, January 8, 2019:

The Hamas-tied Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which is best known as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing
case in U.S. history, appears to have access to high-ranking Facebook
and Twitter executives and has communicated with these individuals about
who should be allowed to stay on their platforms, according to a Wall
Street Journal report published Tuesday.

The Wall Street Journal reports that CAIR officials “complained to Twitter” about activist Laura Loomer, citing a tweet in which she called the anti-Semitic Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., an anti-Semite and an apologist for Sharia law. Loomer was later permanently banned from Twitter.

Zahra Billoo, the executive director of CAIR’s San Francisco chapter,
was quoted in the Journal piece as an individual who appears to have
special access to both Twitter and Facebook.

“The council doesn’t often step in to advocate against other users,
says Executive Director Zahra Billoo, but did so in the case of Ms.
Loomer based on her previous comments about Muslims,” the piece
explains.

Yet the Wall Street Journal fails to note that Billoo herself is a
proven radical extremist. In tweets that remain publicly available,
Billoo has expressed
her support for an Islamic caliphate and Sharia law. She also claims,
in multiple tweets, that ISIS is on the same moral plane as American and
Israeli soldiers, adding that “our troops are engaged in terrorism.

Billoo is not an anomaly at CAIR. Her views reflect the mainstream
consensus within the organization, which over the years has attempted to
transform itself from a clandestine Hamas-funding operation to a mainstream Muslim “civil rights organization.” CAIR directors have cheered terrorist attacks, publicly declared support for terrorist groups, and engage in regular bigotry against various religions, ethnicities, women, homosexuals, and others….

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S OVAL OFFICE SPEECH ON IMMIGRATION & BORDER WALL FUNDING~WHILE DEMOCRATS, FORMERLY SUPPORTIVE OF A WALL, CONDEMN SPEECH AS IMMORAL & MANUFACTURED CRISIS

 
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S OVAL OFFICE SPEECH ON IMMIGRATION & BORDER WALL FUNDING~WHILE DEMOCRATS, FORMERLY SUPPORTIVE OF A WALL, CONDEMN SPEECH AS IMMORAL, FULL OF MISINFORMATION & A MANUFACTURED CRISIS
Decry Loss of Pay & Benefits for Federal Workers & Welfare Recipients, etc.
 President Trump addresses the nation. 
January 8, 2019. White House. Oval Office.

My fellow Americans:
Tonight, I am speaking to you because there is a growing humanitarian and security crisis at our southern border.
Every
day, Customs and Border Patrol agents encounter thousands of illegal
immigrants trying to enter our country. We are out of space to hold
them, and we have no way to promptly return them back home to their
country.
America
proudly welcomes millions of lawful immigrants who enrich our society
and contribute to our nation. But all Americans are hurt by
uncontrolled, illegal migration. It strains public resources and drives
down jobs and wages. Among those hardest hit are African Americans and
Hispanic Americans.
Our
southern border is a pipeline for vast quantities of illegal drugs,
including meth, heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl. Every week, 300 of our
citizens are killed by heroin alone, 90 percent of which floods across
from our southern border. More Americans will die from drugs this year
than were killed in the entire Vietnam War.
In
the last two years, ICE officers made 266,000 arrests of aliens with
criminal records, including those charged or convicted of 100,000
assaults, 30,000 sex crimes, and 4,000 violent killings. Over the years,
thousands of Americans have been brutally killed by those who illegally
entered our country, and thousands more lives will be lost if we don’t
act right now.
This is a humanitarian crisis — a crisis of the heart and a crisis of the soul.
Last
month, 20,000 migrant children were illegally brought into the United
States — a dramatic increase. These children are used as human pawns by
vicious coyotes and ruthless gangs. One in three women are sexually
assaulted on the dangerous trek up through Mexico. Women and children
are the biggest victims, by far, of our broken system.
This
is the tragic reality of illegal immigration on our southern border.
This is the cycle of human suffering that I am determined to end.
My
administration has presented Congress with a detailed proposal to
secure the border and stop the criminal gangs, drug smugglers, and human
traffickers. It’s a tremendous problem. Our proposal was developed by
law enforcement professionals and border agents at the Department of
Homeland Security. These are the resources they have requested to
properly perform their mission and keep America safe. In fact, safer
than ever before.
The
proposal from Homeland Security includes cutting-edge technology for
detecting drugs, weapons, illegal contraband, and many other things. We
have requested more agents, immigration judges, and bed space to process
the sharp rise in unlawful migration fueled by our very strong economy.
Our plan also contains an urgent request for humanitarian assistance
and medical support.
Furthermore,
we have asked Congress to close border security loopholes so that
illegal immigrant children can be safely and humanely returned back
home.
Finally,
as part of an overall approach to border security, law enforcement
professionals have requested $5.7 billion for a physical barrier. At the
request of Democrats, it will be a steel barrier rather than a concrete
wall. This barrier is absolutely critical to border security. It’s also
what our professionals at the border want and need. This is just common
sense.
The
border wall would very quickly pay for itself. The cost of illegal
drugs exceeds $500 billion a year — vastly more than the $5.7 billion we
have requested from Congress. The wall will also be paid for,
indirectly, by the great new trade deal we have made with Mexico.
Senator
Chuck Schumer — who you will be hearing from later tonight — has
repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past, along with many
other Democrats. They changed their mind only after I was elected
President.
Democrats
in Congress have refused to acknowledge the crisis. And they have
refused to provide our brave border agents with the tools they
desperately need to protect our families and our nation.
The federal government remains shut down for one reason and one reason only: because Democrats will not fund border security.
My
administration is doing everything in our power to help those impacted
by the situation. But the only solution is for Democrats to pass a
spending bill that defends our borders and re-opens the government.
This
situation could be solved in a 45-minute meeting. I have invited
Congressional leadership to the White House tomorrow to get this done.
Hopefully, we can rise above partisan politics in order to support
national security.
Some
have suggested a barrier is immoral. Then why do wealthy politicians
build walls, fences, and gates around their homes? They don’t build
walls because they hate the people on the outside, but because they love
the people on the inside. The only thing that is immoral is the
politicians to do nothing and continue to allow more innocent people to
be so horribly victimized.
America’s
heart broke the day after Christmas when a young police officer in
California was savagely murdered in cold blood by an illegal alien, who
just came across the border. The life of an American hero was stolen by
someone who had no right to be in our country.
Day
after day, precious lives are cut short by those who have violated our
borders. In California, an Air Force veteran was raped, murdered, and
beaten to death with a hammer by an illegal alien with a long criminal
history. In Georgia, an illegal alien was recently charged with murder
for killing, beheading, and dismembering his neighbor. In Maryland,
MS-13 gang members who arrived in the United States as unaccompanied
minors were arrested and charged last year after viciously stabbing and
beating a 16-year-old girl.
Over
the last several years, I’ve met with dozens of families whose loved
ones were stolen by illegal immigration. I’ve held the hands of the
weeping mothers and embraced the grief-stricken fathers. So sad. So
terrible. I will never forget the pain in their eyes, the tremble in
their voices, and the sadness gripping their souls.
How much more American blood must we shed before Congress does its job?
To
those who refuse to compromise in the name of border security, I would
ask: Imagine if it was your child, your husband, or your wife whose life
was so cruelly shattered and totally broken?
To every member of Congress: Pass a bill that ends this crisis.
To every citizen: Call Congress and tell them to finally, after all of these decades, secure our border.
This
is a choice between right and wrong, justice and injustice. This is
about whether we fulfill our sacred duty to the American citizens we
serve.
When I took the Oath of Office, I swore to protect our country. And that is what I will always do, so help me God.
Thank you and goodnight.
________________________________________________________________

 
DEMOCRATS APOPLECTIC
 Schumer and Pelosi’s full response to 
Trump’s border address
 After President Trump addressed the nation Jan. 8, House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer
delivered a response.
PELOSI TO TRUMP: “STOP HOLDING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HOSTAGE” 
SCHUMER PERSISTS IN ACCUSING TRUMP OF HAVING A “TEMPER TANTRUM”
 Mark Levin blasts Democrat response 
to Trump address
 Mark Levin reacts to Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer’s televised rebuttal of the President’s Oval Office remarks. #Hannity #FoxNews
 Lindsey Graham reacts to Trump’s Oval Office speech
 
 Socialist Bernie Sanders Condemns Loss of Pay for Federal Employees, Loss of Entitlements for Welfare & Food Stamp Recipients
 
Bill O’Reilly Dissects Trump’s Oval Office Address on the Border Wall Funding
  
Sanders reacts to Pelosi, Schumer’s response to Trump’s address
 
Schumer: Trump walked out of meeting

 Flashback: Democrats Criticize Illegal Immigration, Call for Border Wall [Video]

Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama all wanted tough border security – until Trump became president

SEE: https://www.infowars.com/flashback-democrats-criticize-illegal-immigration-call-for-border-wall/

SEE ALSO: https://www.ammoland.com/2019/01/trump-1-winner-pelosi-schumer-0-losers-video/

 
Having trouble seeing this image? Click here!

Having trouble seeing this image? Click here!

 

LARA KOLLAB & THE DISEASE OF JEW HATE

 
LARA KOLLAB & THE DISEASE OF JEW HATE 
 What drove a well-educated young doctor from an affluent family to become a vile anti-Semite? 
BY ARI LIEBERMAN
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
 
In medical terms, Lara Kollab’s career is dead on arrival or
flat-lined. The prestigious Cleveland Clinic, where she was employed as a
supervised resident, rightly fired her after only two months. Ohio’s
Osteopathic Association informed
me via Twitter that her medical training certificate is invalid because
it was contingent upon her working in an accredited program. Because
she was fired from the Cleveland Clinic, she is no longer in an
accredited program. Moreover, because of the way medical residencies are
scheduled, the earliest time that she can re-apply into another
residency program is July 2020. Even then, it is doubtful that any
hospital will accept her, except for perhaps Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza,
which also conveniently serves as a Hamas Headquarters in times of war with Israel.
For those of you who were in hibernation this past week, Kollab, whose parents are Palestinian and Muslim, posted numerous anti-Semitic comments
on her social media platforms. She routinely referred to Jews as
“dogs,” trivialized the murder of six million Jews during the Holocaust,
claimed that “Zionists” controlled the media and “Israel runs America,”
and repeatedly expressed a desire to inflict harm on Jews. But the one
comment that put the nail in the coffin for Kollab was the tweet where
she expressed her desire to provide her Jewish patients with the wrong
medication, effectively poisoning them. Not exactly the sort of
sentiment that’s consistent with the Hippocratic Oath and precisely the
sort of sentiment you’d expect from the likes of Doctor Mengele.
On Friday, Kollab issued an apology
of sorts through her lawyer. This represents the first step in Kollab’s
attempt to salvage what’s left her tattered career and reputation. But
the apology was equivocal and laced with deception and deflection. She
claimed that the offensive, anti-Semitic posts were made years before
she was accepted into medical school. That is false. The vile comments,
which included deep-seated hatred of Israel and support for terrorism
continued up until 2017 and constituted one steady and continuous stream
of anti-Semitic invective. Her views remained constant and unchanged
even after her acceptance to Touro.
One of the mysteries of
the Kollab case is why she would choose Touro of all places. Touro
accepts all students from diverse backgrounds and ethnicities but when
it was established in 1970, its focus was on higher education
for the Jewish community. Over the years, the college became recognized
for its high educational standards and consequently attracted a broader
and more diverse student body.
Nonetheless, the inescapable fact is that Touro College is deeply rooted
in Jewish values and philosophy, and one has to wonder why Kollab,
whose hatred for Jews and Israel is palpable, would choose such an
institution to advance her career. The answer likely lies in expediency.
Touro has a renowned DO program and accepted her application.
Expediency and convenience temporarily triumphed over her hatred for
Jews.
According to public sources, Kollab’s family resides in
an upscale Cleveland suburb. Photos of her parents’ home are readily
available on the internet. They live in an affluent or upper middle
class neighborhood; have a large 3,752sq.ft. house, surrounded by other
large houses with well-manicured lawns and wide streets. Two relatively
new vehicles can be seen parked in front of the family home in a large
semi-circular driveway. The online real estate site Zillow places the
value of the property at $607,000.
Despite her upper
middleclass background and high-level education, Kollab still had time
to immerse herself in Jew-hatred. But Kollab’s anti-Israel views did not
emerge from a vacuum and may have been passed down to her by her
parents, like a bad gene mutation. It’s not a stretch to assume that her
Palestinian relatives share her views but were not stupid enough to
express these rancid opinions on the information superhighway.
Recent polls suggest that anti-Semitic views in the Muslim world are
the norm rather than the exception. A PEW research study confirmed that
there is a near 100 percent
prevalence of anti-Semitic attitudes among Muslim migrants. But Lara
Kollab was born in America and was exposed to American culture from
birth, yet still harbored anti-Semitic views. What explanation can be
offered for her vile Judeophobic attitudes?
For all the advantages provided to her by her parents, a loving
home, a good education, material possessions, Lara Kollab’s parents
disadvantaged their daughter by exposing her to steady diet of
anti-Israel calumnies and propaganda thereby poisoning her mind at an
impressionable age.
I was able to locate a telling 2013 research paper written by Lara Kollab in which she interviews
two people, her father and 17-year-old cousin, in connection with
“Palestine” and the “Occupation.” The defamatory paper can best be
summed up as mendacious to its core and implicitly anti-Semitic. A
step-by-step deconstruction of its calumnies would be lengthy and beyond
the scope of this article but I’ll provide two examples.
Her
father states that in 1971, when he was barely thirteen, he went to
visit his grandparents’ home in Jaffa when to his horror discovered the
premises to be occupied by “European Jewish immigrants.” Which one of
Mr. Kollab’s five senses – touch, taste, sight, smell or sound – was
used to determine that they were “European” or “immigrants?” Perhaps it
was his sixth sense. Moreover, Mr. Kollab’s pejorative invocation of
“European” unmistakably implies that those living in his grandparents’
home are foreign alien implants, a common anti-Semitic trope perpetuated in the Muslim world.
Lara Kollab’s 17-year-old cousin is no better. She absurdly equates
Palestinian suicide bombers – those who deliberately explode themselves
among civilians in restaurants, cafes and buses – to Israel’s legally acceptable
use of White Phosphorous to conceal troop deployments. Israel utilizes
the smoke produced by White Phosphorous as an obscurant to protect its
soldiers who face immoral enemies that have no regard for civilian life –
Arab or Israeli.
Lara Kollab’s indoctrination and exposure to
hate does not mean that her conduct should be excused. She’s an adult
and should be held accountable for her actions. But it does offer a
glimpse of insight into the anti-Semitic mindset, how it’s formed, and
from where it emerges.
Most of the Arab and Muslim world (with some notable exceptions)
is steeped in hatred for Israel and Jews. Jordan, a nation supposedly
at peace with Israel, maintains office buildings where one must step on the Israeli flag
when entering or exiting the lobby, and there are plans in the works to
expand this insidious practice. An eight-year-old Lebanese boy recently
refused
to play a chess match against his Israeli competitors because of his
belief that “Israel is the enemy.” Upon hearing this, his adult TV
interviewers replied “bravo.” Palestinian kids are routinely exposed to
Sesame Street-like children shows, complete with Disney-like characters, where Jews are referred to in the vilest pejorative terms and martyrdom is extolled.
Successive generations of Muslim youth who are being spiritually and
mentally poisoned through political and religious indoctrination and
society at large – irrespective of religion – pays the price. The Lara
Kollab saga represents another unfortunate example of this systemic
problem. She had the potential to be a productive member of society and
threw it all away because the seeds of her irrational hatred were
implanted from birth.
______________________________________________________________
SEE OUR PREVIOUS POSTS ABOUT KOLLAB:
https://ratherexposethem.blogspot.com/search?q=LARA+KOLLAB&max-results=20&by-date=true 
________________________________________________________

 
 Lara Kollab, Muslim Doc Discussed Destroying Jewish Immune Systems While Studying Medicine
BY DANIEL GREENFIELD
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
 
After Canary Mission’s original report on Lara Kollab,
the Muslim doctor who talked about giving Jews the wrong medicine, went
viral, she issued the expected apology, claiming that she had been
immature and apologizing for all the pain she had caused.
The
issue isn’t whether she caused people emotional pain, but that someone
trying to be a doctor was discussing poisoning a particular ethnic group
with the wrong medicines.
This is a compelling reason to make
sure that she never has a position where she’s able to work with
anything more advanced than frogs.

And, Canary Mission has also dug up more social media from Kollab.
And while she’s claimed that her hate predated her pursuit of
medicine this murderous thought not only dates back to a medical exam,
but was part of her notes.

On May 4, 2013,
Kollab tweeted: “Studying for my med micro final, came across this.
Clearly, I pay attention in class and write very useful notes.”
The tweet featured a handwritten note that read:

“People who support Israel should have their immune cells killed so
they can see how it feels to not be able to defend yourself from foreign
invaders.”

Someone who openly fantasizes about
using their profession to inflict harm on a population should never be
allowed to practice medicine. 

 

DAVID’S BRIDAL “REWRITING THE RULES” AD FEATURES UNWED COUPLE WITH BABY, LESBIAN BRIDES

DAVID’S BRIDAL “REWRITING THE RULES” AD FEATURES UNWED COUPLE WITH BABY, 
LESBIAN BRIDES
BY HEATHER CLARK
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
 CONSHOHOCKEN, Pa. — A new ad released by the wedding
 gown giant David’s Bridal centers on what the company sees as being 
representative of “brides today,” from a man and woman—and their 
baby—standing at the altar, to two lesbians dancing together at their 
wedding reception.

“Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue—and
we empower you to #RewriteTheRules and make your day something you,”
the company wrote in sharing its new advertisement on social media on
Friday.

According to reports, David’s Bridal, which filed for bankruptcy in
November but plans to keep its stores open, wanted to represent
“non-traditional” brides with its new spot, from women who already had
children prior to marriage, to same-sex “weddings.” The 15 and 30-second
versions will air both on television and social media.

View the advertisement as posted here.

“We wanted to make sure this spot represented what we see from brides today,” Chief Marketing Officer Liz Crystal told AdAge. “We value every type of bride.”

The outlet also notes that other companies, such as Zales, Kohl’s and
Tiffany & Co., have likewise decided to include homosexuals in
their advertising.

The move from David’s Bridal has generated mixed reaction.

“If you’re in business to sell wedding gowns, then of course you want
lesbian customers, because they’re going to buy twice as many,” one
commenter wrote.

“Families where the parents are unmarried may be a large market, but
the parents have no incentive to get married. Lesbians are a small
market and many of them don’t like being effeminate,” another remarked.
“Marketing to non-traditional families risks losing business from
supporters of traditional families, which could be a bigger market than
the groups who were targeted in David’s Bridal’s advertising campaigns.
Either way, based on current wedding trends, they made a bad business
decision …”

“This is like finding a small hole in the bottom of your boat and drilling a bigger hole to drain the water,” a third opined.

David’s Bridal has its corporate headquarters in Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania and has over 300 stores across the United States, Canada,
the United Kingdom and Puerto Rico.

The late preacher and author A.W. Tozer once exhorted, “There is no
Christian victory or blessing if we refuse to turn away from the things
that God hates. … Even if it is accepted in the whole social class of
which you are a part, turn away from it. Even if there is something that
has come to be accepted by our generation, turn away from it if it is
wrong and an offense to our holy and righteous Savior.”

Renowned minister Charles Spurgeon also declared, “The Lord’s ways
are ways of pleasantness, and all His paths are peace. There is a safe
and sweet pleasantness in holy living, and the pleasantness lies very
much in the fact that an abounding peace springs from it. God grant us
grace to keep in these peaceful paths, even though others should call us
Puritans and ridicule our holy fear of sin.”

WOMEN’S BAPTIST COLLEGE ENROLLS CROSS-DRESSERS, PLACES STUDENTS IN HARMS WAY

 “Transgender students who wish to enroll at Stephens will be required to
prove that they identify and live as female through legal documentation.
The college will also admit students who were assigned female at birth
but identify as nonbinary.”
 
 DIANNE LYNCH, PRESIDENT
 http://columbiabusinesstimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/EditorsLetter-BrennaMcDermott-August2016-DianneLynch.jpg
WOMEN’S BAPTIST COLLEGE ENROLLS CROSS-DRESSERS, PLACES STUDENTS IN HARMS WAY 
BY RICHARD HAAS
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
 

Recently it has been decided that Stephens College (aka The Columbia Baptist Female Academy in Columbia),
Missouri—the second-oldest women-only college in the country—will begin
accepting admissions applications from crossdressers, that is, men who
dress like women and try to force others to refer to them as “ma’am.”
This will ultimately place the female students in harm’s way of
misguided sexual deviants beginning in 2019.

The Columbia Female Academy was established on August 24, 1833. In
1856, David H. Hickman helped secure the college’s charter under the
name The Columbia Female Baptist Academy. In the late 19th century, it was renamed Stephens Female College
after James L. Stephens endowed the college with $20,000. Until
recently, Stephens College held to strong Baptist traditions and
teachings, however, it seems that with this latest turn of events that
they have strayed from that orthodoxy.

It looks as though Stephens college also has little regard for the
safety of their female students by allowing these mentally ill sexual
misfits to be integrated into the college. The simple, hard truth of the
matter is that “transgenderism” is a mental illness rooted in the
sinful desires of a rebellious heart. There is no such thing as
“transgender,” you are born either male or female, it’s God’s decision,
and you have no say in the matter. One cannot “trans” back and forth
between genders because they have emotional or mental inadequacies.

Until recently, those who have suffered from these “trans” issues
have rightly so been deemed as mentally and spiritually ill. However, in
today’s “PC can’t offend the snowflakes’ world,” people of average
mental capacity are forced to affirm these suffering, sin-sickened
individuals, as “normal,” when in reality they are not. Whether it is
public, the workplace, news outlets, and now in private colleges people
of right-mindedness are being forced to have to accept the mentally ill
as normal. If one does not accept this premise, then you are the one
that is looked upon as being “not right.” It is important to remember
that wrong is wrong even if the whole world is doing it and right is
right even if no one is doing it.

Stephen’s College has seemed to jump onto the leftist bandwagon of
all “trans” are good “trans.” This college, in their attempt to be
all-inclusive, has in actuality brought reproach upon themselves and the
church and has invited the wrath of God to their doorstep. What
Stephen’s College has failed to realize by allowing crossdressers into
their midst is that men will exploit their sexual deviancy not only for
the purpose of fulfilling homosexual desires but also for their own self
fulfilling heterosexual desires.

Stephen’s College should abandon the idea of allowing unrepentant
sexual perverts into their school and protect the female students that
are attending this college. Sadly, I don’t believe this will be righted
until it is too late and someone becomes a victim of a transgender
deviate act. 
_______________________________________________________

SEE STEPHENS COLLEGE 34 PAGE 
“SEX & GENDER-BASED DISCRIMINATION & HARASSMENT POLICY”
ADMISSIONS & ENROLLMENT POLICY UPDATED:
_______________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:

SELL OUT!: NAE & CCCU WITH SOUTHERN BAPTIST RUSSELL MOORE’S “ERLC” SUPPORT EXPANSION OF GAY RIGHTS UNDER FEDERAL LAW AS A COMPROMISE WITH SODOMITES

  JUDAS PRIESTS SELL OUT OUR CONSTITUTION, THE BILL OF RIGHTS & RELIGIOUS FREEDOM FOR EXPEDIENCY, IN FAVOR OF SODOMITE MINORITY
 Handout photos
 ABOVE: “FAIRNESS FOR ALL” PROPONENTS LEITH ANDERSON OF THE “NAE” & SHIRLEY HOOGSTRA OF THE “CCCU”
This past week, the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) and the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE),
two of the nation’s foremost evangelical organizations, publicly
announced they now support adding “sexual orientation” and “gender
identity” as officially protected minority classifications to the ranks
of federal nondiscrimination law.
“ERLC”-BACKED EVANGELICAL GROUP SECRETLY SUPPORTS EXPANSION OF GAY RIGHTS
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
 
 Russell Moore with the National Association of Evangelicals, an organization that just 
supported an expansion of LGBTQ “rights” in the name of religious liberty.

In the name of preserving their “religious freedom,” two prominent
evangelical groups have adopted rules capitulating on the issue of
sodomy in order to not face possible negative consequences in the
future. Agreeing not to act on their convictions toward the LGBTQ, the organizations hope to be allowed to still have their convictions quietly.

One wonders what the point of religious freedom is when you surrender your liberty of conscience at the first sign of hardship.

Acting quietly, the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities
(CCCU) and the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) have formally
endorsed principles that would add sexual orientation and gender
identity (SOGI) to federal nondiscrimination law. One of these groups,
the NAE, is heavily endorsed by Russell Moore and partners with the
Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC). of the Southern Baptist
Convention.

Shirley Mullen, the president of Houghton College and a board member
of both the CCCU and NAE, said, “As Christian higher educators, we are
increasingly persuaded that the most viable political strategy
is for comprehensive religious freedom protections to be combined with
explicit support for basic human rights for members of the LGBT
community.”

Political strategy.

And all of God’s people said…barf.

Of course, neither the CCCU nor the NAE have
in any way denied “basic human rights for members of the LGBT
community.” No homosexual has been denied human rights by these
organizations.  
Mullen and others representing the two boards are trying
to make it seem that they’re just affirming broad human rights, but in fact
they are capitulating on the sinfulness of sodomy. This is, in part,
responsible for both groups keeping their decision to make
LGBT-affirming statements quiet.

World Mag obtained the document agreed upon by the two organizations entitled, Fairness for All Motion. The document repudiates “unjust discrimination” towards those practicing sexual deviancy.

What is “unjust discrimination,” you might ask? Surely, that’s a
loaded term, especially in a document designed to be waved like a white
flag of surrender. The document goes on to explain, “These rights include basic legal and human rights related to housing, credit, jury duty and employment…”

This means that Christian homeowners would have to rent homes to
Sodomites and Christian-owned businesses could not decline to hire a
sodomite or crossdressser on the grounds that they’re sinful or gross.
So in the name of “religious liberty,” the CCCU and NAE are surrendering
their religious liberty to discriminate (yes, discriminating for
religious reasons is a First Amendment right) wholesale.

With liberty like that, who needs slavery?

The document is candid about its purpose. It’s trading LGBT inclusion
for religious liberty like 30 pieces of silver. The document says:

This proposed legislation seeks to
secure basic human rights for the LGBT community at the national level
in exchange for strong and perpetual protections for religious freedom.

Judas Priests, they are.

The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) is highly endorsed by
Russell Moore and partners with the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty
Commission.

You can see Russell Moore’s endorsement of NAE here and view it below.

Moore writes, “When the NAE speaks, it is with careful theological
reflection and with a tone that never compromises the gospel of Christ
or the mission of the church. As the Body of Christ engages often
complex questions facing civil society, it is a blessing to have a
strong, unifying, biblically-anchored ally in the National Association
of Evangelicals.”

The Fairness for All Motion is the epitome of everything wrong with
today’s spineless, feckless, traitorous evangelicals. Born without
courage and void of intestinal fortitude, these evanjellyfish have just
offered to surrender our conscience for the right to have one.

They have surrendered their right to act upon their conviction for the right to simply state their conviction. Ultimately, that’s really no religious freedom at all.

For why we should never surrender our convictions in the name of
“religious liberty,” listen to JD Hall’s sermon at the 2015 Reformation
Montana Conference below. In the sermon, he spoke of Russell Moore and
the ERLC’s allies who would ultimately give up their convictions in the
name of liberty.

Listen here.
_____________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
 “FAIRNESS FOR ALL” DOCUMENT:
https://world.wng.org/sites/default/files/assets/NAEBoardResolution_0.pdf 
AND:
 https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/16/how-evangelical-capitulation-equals-the-loss-of-re/
https://thekcompany.co/news-release/the-christian-post-nae-and-cccu-boards-back-lgbt-compromise-for-religious-freedom-exemptions/ 
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/religious-liberty-fairness-for-all-sellout-politics-lgbt-gay-rights/ 
https://world.wng.org/2016/11/fairness_for_all_or_a_few 
 https://www.frc.org/updatearticle/20181214/fair-mess
_______________________________________________________

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

December 14, 2018

Compromise isn’t always a bad idea. (Ask any married couple!) But
when it comes to the black and white of Scripture, nothing is more
dangerous than a group of Christians willing to negotiate on truth.
Their motivations may not be bad — but the consequences almost always
are.

In a culture like ours, where a single cake could ruin your business,
no one can blame Christians for being worried. With every headline, the
war over religious liberty is hitting closer and closer to home. It’s
landed on the doorsteps of florist shops, adoption agencies, French
classes, pro sports — even pizza joints. And the threat is always the
same: affirm or be punished. While so many Christians stand their
ground, others are willing to do anything to spare themselves the fight
— even if it means surrendering their core convictions to do it.

Earlier this week, World magazine broke the story
that two organizations — the Council for Christian Colleges and
Universities (CCCU) and the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE)
— have decided that the only way to stop LGBT activists is to submit to
them. In a quiet motion this fall,
their boards reportedly voted to subjugate biblical teachings on gender
and sexuality in exchange for a flimsy fence of protection around their
organizations. They believe — quite naively — that if they give in to
the Left’s demands, it will leave them alone. But the stories from the last decade paint a much different story.

On the far-Left, there’s no such thing as live and let live. Liberals
may want tolerance, but that doesn’t mean they’ll give it. If the cases
against florists, bakers, and other wedding vendors make anything
clear, it’s that the LGBT agenda isn’t about meeting people halfway. So
while “Fairness for All” is a noble pursuit, it can’t be achieved when
special rights or extra-fairness are extended to some based on
subjective, self-defined characteristics. That’s special fairness for
some, and the persecution of the many.

“They’re trying to find a way to encourage the federal government to
adopt sexual orientation and gender identity protections that would not
come at the violation of religious liberty,” Al Mohler writes
in a lengthy response everyone should read. “Now that sounds like the
perfect deal politically, if it were possible… [But] it is not
possible. You can state, as many will, that it is well intended. But a
well-intended mistake is still a mistake. A well-intended wound to
religious liberty is still a wound. And that’s what we’re looking at
here.”

Unfortunately, what we’re also looking at is the complete abandonment
of the Christian commission. In this day and age, everyone struggles to
convey an exclusive gospel in an inclusive world. But the solution
isn’t abandoning or changing the message — it’s conforming to it. If
these organizations give up their core beliefs, what’s the point of
carving out religious liberty protections? They won’t stand for anything
worth protecting! “For what partnership have righteousness and
lawlessness,” 2 Corinthians 6 asks, “or what fellowship has light with
darkness?”

It’s human nature to avoid discomfort, but capitulations like this cause deeper pain later on. Look at the Boy Scouts.
Five years after they expanded their ranks for inclusion’s sake,
they’re packing up their tents and going home. Teetering on bankruptcy,
unfocused, and unpopular, they’re miles away from the organization that
used to be one of America’s proudest.

Even so, some Christians are willing to take the same path — all to
save a tiny patch of ground that won’t mean anything when they’re done.
“It’s a way of religious leaders saying we’re going to protect our
churches, our denominations, and [our] most closely-held ministries…
but…” 
Mohler warns, “[w]hen it comes to Christians in the marketplace,
Christians in the workplace… and all the rest, we’re going to say
you’ll simply have to defend yourself in court. We’ll hope for the
best.” These groups would sell their identity for crumbs — and offer up
men and women who are willing to stand on truth
as a sacrifice in the process. 
 Circling the wagons around religious
institutions implies that we have an anemic First Amendment that falls
short of guarantying that religious freedom to each and every American.
Surely, we did not come this far in the defense of religious liberty to
leave bakers, photographers, and thousands of other Christians twisting
in the wind.

A partial gospel is no gospel at all. “How long will you go limping
between two different opinions?” I Kings 18:21 says. “If the Lord is
God, follow him.” There will be a lot of pressure, in the coming days,
to wheel and deal on truth. But whoever gives up truth for the sake of
peace will almost certainly lose both.

Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.














 



			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
WHITE HOUSE COORDINATING WITH ARMY TO BEGIN WORK ON BORDER WALL
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						



 White House Coordinating With Army To Begin Work on Border Wall



WHITE HOUSE COORDINATING WITH ARMY 



TO BEGIN WORK ON BORDER WALL 



 Army Corps of Engineers will construct wall should President Trump declare a National Emergency



BY JAMIE WHITE



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


 


The U.S. Army will be the primary contractor building the southern border wall, the White House announced on Monday.

“If the president declares a national emergency, the Army Corps of Engineers will kick into high gear,” said a White House official. “They’re already handing out contracts, and that would speed up a lot.”

The

 White House Office of Management and Budget sent a letter to Democratic

 House committee chairs on Sunday, informing them that the Customs and

Border Protection agency is coordinating with the army to fulfill

President Trump’s goal of securing the border with a steel wall.


“In concert with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CBP has increased its capacity to execute these funds,” said a letter from the White House budget office to Democratic House committee chairs.



“The Administration’s full request would fund construction of

 a total of approximately 234 miles of new physical barrier and fully

fund the top 10 priorities in CBP’s Border Security Improvement Plan.” 



The letter goes on to request funds for several other areas

pertaining to border security, including more border patrol personnel,

humanitarian supplies, and technology resources.



“These upfront investments in physical barriers and

technology, as well as legislation to close loopholes in our immigration

 system, will reduce illegal immigration, the flow of illicit drugs

entering our country and reduce the long term costs for border and

immigration enforcement

activities,” the letter concluded.



Trump indicated Sunday that he may declare a National Emergency

to begin work on the wall if the Democrats continue to ignore the

country’s border crisis. 







      



  



      

        The Hill

        

✔

      

      @thehill
    







          
        







President Trump: “I may declare a national emergency dependent on what’s going to happen over next few days.” http://hill.cm/I2ZPC5c 












386









2:33 AM – Jan 7, 2019









Read the letter in full below: 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Final-Shelby-1-6-19.pdf 








 



 



			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
TRUMP SPATS WITH POPE OVER IMMIGRATION & UTTERLY SMACKS HIM DOWN
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						



 http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/128000/Pope-Francis-Banishes-Donald-Trump--128164.jpg



TRUMP SPATS WITH POPE OVER IMMIGRATION & UTTERLY SMACKS HIM DOWN



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


 


The President of the United States is feuding with the Bishop of

Rome, and Trump just had a ‘drop the mic’ moment with the pontiff. 




On one side of this dispute is Donald J. Trump, who took an oath to

preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of

America. On the other side is Pope Francis, a Argentinian Jesuit who was

 thoroughly indoctrinated by South American liberation theologians.

Trump wants to protect America, and the Pope wants to unite the world

globally under the banner of Rome.


The men with two different missions locked horns yesterday as Trump

gave a scathing rebuke of Pope Francis’ constant chastisement of United

States immigration policy, which is among the most charitable in the

world. The U.S. takes in more than 1.2 million immigrants a year, which

is among the highest in the world. Nearly 13.5 percent of those inside America’s borders were born outside America, a demographic and statistical limit to be able to maintain American cultural unity. 


In spite of American generosity, Pope Francis has been constantly

dinging Trump in speeches across the world, primarily centered on

Trump’s insistence to do his job by enforcing already-existent

immigration law and building a border wall that was already approved by

Congress. 


On Thursday, Donald Trump had enough of the Pope’s undermining of American sovereignty.

 At a cabinet meeting, Trump told the media that the Vatican and the

Pope himself proves that American immigration policy – and the border

wall – are moral. 



When they say the wall’s immoral, well then you got to do something about the Vatican, because the Vatican has the biggest wall of them all.


Trump continued, “Look at all of the countries that have walls, and

they work 100 percent. It’s never going to change. A wall is a wall. 


This isn’t the first time the two figures have tangled over the issue

 of American sovereignty versus globalism. In 2016, Pope Francis said

that building “walls rather than bridges” wasn’t Christian. Trump

responded by saying that if the Vatican walls were scaled by ISIS the

Pope would be thankful he were president. 


President Trump is factually correct. The Vatican has one of the most impressive border walls in the world. 


The

 impressive border wall at the Vatican may be the tallest border wall in

 the world, much larger than the Great Wall of China. 


The walls were built in the 9th century, commissioned by Pope Leo IV,

 ostensibly to protect the Vatican from people intent on plundering the

city. Other Popes increased the height of the walls in the 14th and 15th

 century and mutltiple times throughout its history the Vatican has also

 closed the gates. In other words, the Vatican not only protected its

borders from unlawful entry, it has closed the ports of lawful entry –

something not even proposed by President Trump.


The Pope has thus far ignored Trump’s recent comments. He is in the Vatican, behind its walls, currently dealing with the massive Roman Catholic sex abuse scandals throughout the world. 


In the meantime, President Trump should point out that the Pope isn’t

 the only religious leader with a border wall. Christ Jesus also has one

 in Heaven.



[The Holy City] had a great, high wall, with twelve gates…Revelation 21:10


______________________________________________________________



 



 Pope uses Epiphany to push globalism 



and open-door immigration in EU



BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS



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


 


“Epiphany is the religious feast day celebrated by millions of

Christians around the world on January 6. As is usual on the holy day,

Pope Francis gave a mass to 60,000 people in St Peter’s Basilica, Rome.”



Unfortunately, Pope Francis decided that he would use his powerful

role once again to force the political agenda of globalism and wide-open

 borders upon the flock. He delivered a brazen appeal:



“I make a heartfelt appeal to European leaders to show concrete solidarity for these people.”


He claimed that migrants were only “seeking a safe port where they can disembark.” This simply isn’t true.  

The UK’s Home Secretary Sajid Javid,

 for example, “is set to tighten rules on migrants who continue to

‘asylum shop’ and exploit Britain’s generous immigration system by

travelling through other safe countries in Europe to the UK.”


The Pope remains safely “walled up” at the Vatican surrounded by

guards while he appeals to Europe to fling open their doors to illegal

migrants.


The Pope has abandoned his responsibility to guide the Catholic

Church and has made himself into a puppet for the globalist cause. His

statements are increasingly bizarre. He has called gossipers “terrorists,” but but not Islamic jihadis. He has also compared illegal migrants to Jesus,

 while a Vatican official said that the hunted Christian Asia Bibi was

an “internal matter” of Pakistan. Pope Francis even called Christians

who were murdered by Muslims in Algeria a “testament to God’s plan for a peaceful coexistence of Christians and Muslims.”


“Epiphany 2019 pope appeal: ‘Show concrete SOLIDARITY’ – Pope Francis migrant plea to EU,” by Kat Hopps, Express, January 6, 2019:



POPE Francis has used Epiphany 2019 to launch a

“heartfelt appeal” to European leaders following an escalating migrant

dispute – here is what you need to know.


Epiphany is the religious feast day celebrated by millions of

Christians around the world on January 6. As is usual on the holy day,

Pope Francis gave a mass to 60,000 people in St Peter’s Basilica, Rome.

But the Catholic leader also used his platform to wade into an

international diplomatic row about migrants trying to enter European

waters. The dispute between Catholic nations Italy and Malta centres

around 49 migrants rescued by German humanitarian group Sea-Watch 3.


The passengers were plucked from two unsafe vessels travelling out of Libya on December 22 and December 29.


Both Italy and Malta have refused entry to both groups, one of which includes three small children and four children.


Now, Pope Francis has intervened, making his views heard on one of the biggest religious festivals of the year.


Addressing his comments to St Peter’s Square on Sunday, Pope Francis

said: “I make a heartfelt appeal to European leaders to show concrete

solidarity for these people.”


The Pope added the migrants concerned were only “seeking a safe port where they can disembark”…..





 



 



			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
BETH MOORE DECLARES FAITH DOESN’T COME BY HEARING THE WORDS OF GOD~DISPUTES GOD’S WORD
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						



 MORE SOUTHERN BAPTIST APOSTASY



 https://faithit-eszuskq0bptlfh8awbb.stackpathdns.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/BMooreFB.jpg



BETH MOORE DECLARES FAITH DOESN’T COME BY HEARING THE WORDS OF GOD



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


 


[Reformation Charlotte] The well-known lady preacher and popular

bible-study author, Beth Moore, makes an astonishing declaration–that

spending time in God’s Word is not the same thing as spending time with

God.




I say “astonishing” acerbically, chiefly because Beth Moore, who

spends most of her free time admonishing innocent men to get on their

knees to apologize on behalf of other men for mistreating women while

holding hands with Marxists, is actually quite known for bellowing out

ludicrous assertions about the Scriptures and her (lack of) knowledge

about them.




Most recently, she declares in a tweet:




Well, in her world, spending time with God consists of fanciful dreams of being lifted up in the air while being told by God that He’s going to unite all sectors of Christendom, or strange moments of meeting a woman at a random bus stop just to give her a handful of cash because, you know, God told her to go there and stuff.


Of course spending time in Scripture is the same thing as spending

time with God. You cannot know God any other way. It’s how he speaks to

us (Hebrews 1:1).

 Yes, you can spend time with Him in prayer as well, and you can spend

time with Him in worship. But what she’s saying is essentially the same

thing as saying that listening to your parents speak to you is not the

same thing as spending time with them. The Scriptures are God’s full and

 complete revelation to us. It informs all matters of our faith in Him,

including our prayer and worship.


This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall

meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according

 to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way

prosperous, and then you will have good success. Have I not commanded

you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be

dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.”Joshua 1:8-9


To continue reading, click here. 


[Editors’ Note: I might also add – in regards to

“spending time in the Bible doesn’t mean growing in faith” – the words

Paul to the Romans in the tenth chapter of his epistle, “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”]


 



 



			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
TURNING POINT FOR SOUTHERN BAPTISTS? DENOMINATION PRESIDENT OPEN TO EXTRA-BIBLICAL PROPHECIES~SLOWLY BECOMING CHARISMATIC?
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						



TURNING POINT FOR SOUTHERN BAPTISTS? DENOMINATION PRESIDENT OPEN TO 



EXTRA-BIBLICAL PROPHECIES 



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




  Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the 


prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son…Hebrews 1:1-2




No one can deny that the Southern Baptist Convention is drifting.

Once opposed to claims of prophecy outside the Bible – commonly claimed

by cults like Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventism and

Montanism – some have suggested that SBC stands for slowly becoming charismatic. Southern Baptist president, JD Greear, recently did a video for The Social Gospel Coalition in which he stated an open-but-cautious view to prophecies outside the Bible. 

Baptists, at one time, were known as People of the Book and

defended the Sufficiency of Scripture. The Sufficiency of Scripture is

undergirded by Cessationism, the orthodox and Biblical position that the

 Apostolic Sign Gifts – like the gift of miracles or prophecy – have

ceased with the Apostles. This belief is taken from 2 Corinthians 12:12,

 which states that these types of First Century phenomenon were meant to

 designate Apostleship. Without Apostles, the Christian Church has

uniformly held to a belief in Cessationism since the second century. 

The Montanists

 were a group of heretics who were denounced by the early church for

claiming that God continues to speak outside of Scripture. The belief of

 God speaking directly to people (as opposed to the Spirit leading us through Scripture) was altogether absent from church history between the time of the excommunication of the Montanists and the revival of Montanism in 1906 at Azusa Street.

 During the 20th Century, Baptists were at the forefront of opposing the

 notion of extra-Biblical prophecy. As the Southern Baptist publishing

house, Lifeway Christian Resources,

 began to promote the work of charismatics and profit handily from their

 false teachings, Southern Baptists have largely embraced the false

claims of extra-Biblical revelation. 

JD Greear speaks about his open-but-cautious view below.



























    





        The Gospel Coalition

        

✔

      

      @TGC

    










        







New video: @JDGreear, president of the Southern Baptist Convention and pastor of @SummitRDU, weighs in on whether God still speaks audibly.







  








38









6:30 PM – Jan 2, 2019









Greear claims in the video that God can speak in an audible voice

should he want to. While it may seem wise to “not put God in a box” (by

the way, the Ark of the Covenant demonstrates that God doesn’t mind

putting himself in a box) or to claim that an omnipotent God can’t do something, God can’t do that which is against his own Word or something contrary to his own nature (see Titus 1:2 as an example). And, God has been very clear (see Hebrews 1:1-2 above) that how he now speaks to us has been relegated to prophecy inside the Bible. Essentially, Greear is open-but-cautious to the Scripture not being sufficient. 

The danger of the open-but-cautious approach is that it leaves open the Charismatic Window. This is the means by which most false teachings today enter the church. 


If you want to know how dangerous Greear’s view is on this issue, consider the lauding it received by Charisma News.

 This publication promotes material from the New Apostolic Reformation,

Bethel Church and Bill Johnson, Benny Hinn, and televangelist convicted

felon, doomsday prophet and accused rapist, Jim Bakker. It is the worst

of the worst promoter of the worst of the worst charismatic false

prophets. And it loved JD Greear’s video. 

In the article from Charisma News, it ask’s whether this is “a turning point for the Southern Baptist Convention.”


And the answer is no. The turning point is when Lifeway

indiscriminately began to pump the SBC with charismatic resources more

than a decade ago. It is just now bearing fruit.

________________________________________________________________



 SOUTHERN BAPTIST PRESIDENT SAYS 



WE CAN’T “PUT GOD IN A BOX”  



(Friday Church News Notes, January 11, 2019, www.wayoflife.org, fbns@wayoflife.org,

 866-295-4143) – In a video interview with The Gospel Coalition, J.D.

Greear, President of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), said that

God can still speak audibly to believers today and is not limited to

speaking through Scripture (“Southern Baptist President,”

BreakingChristianNews.com, Jan. 4, 2019). Greear said “he would never

place God in a box about what He could do today.” This has been the

Pentecostal position from its inception. “Don’t put God in a box” has

always meant that God can do all sorts of things that we don’t see in

Scripture, such as knock people down, glue them to the floor, cause them

 to speak gibberish, laugh hysterically, shake, jerk, roar like lions,

bray like donkeys, and stagger like drunks. “Don’t put God in a box” has

 always been the theme song of those who refuse to be bound by

Scripture. Former Pentecostal Hughie Seaborn comments as follows: “The

SBC will be thoroughly Pentecostal before too long. God can do whatever

He pleases, but He won’t contradict His Word, and His Word tells us in

Hebrews 1:1-2 that, ‘God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets [who received dreams, visions and audible voices], Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son [through

 that which is perfect, the written Word of God].’ Dreams, visions and

audible voices are subjective and fraught with dangerous deception. How

can we know for sure who is speaking to us, even if what is received

agrees with the Bible? The devil speaks a lot of truth, but it always

has an agenda. The written Word of God is the only safety we have in

these perilous last days. J.D. Greear is a dangerous man. When they say

they ‘would never place God in a box about what He could do today,’

 they are actually saying that they don’t want God to ‘put them in a

box.’ That’s the real issue that I’ve found with them. It’s not, ‘Don’t

tell me what God can and can’t do,’ but rather, ‘Don’t tell me what I

can and can’t do.’ They don’t like the restrictions that Scripture

places on them.”



_______________________________________________________________



 
SOUTHERN BAPTISTS AND CHARISMATICISM 



(Friday Church News Notes, January 11, 2019, www.wayoflife.org, fbns@wayoflife.org,

 866-295-4143) – The charismatic movement has been spreading through the

 Southern Baptist Convention since the late 1980s and the pace is

increasing with each decade. In April 1995, Charisma

 magazine reported that two professors at Southern Baptist Theological

Seminary (William Hendricks and Tim Webber) urged churches not to fear

the charismatic movement. Hendricks, director of Southern’s doctoral

studies, said, “We shouldn’t feel defensive or threatened by an

alternative experience, perspective or insights about the Holy Spirit,”

and warned that in fighting the charismatic movement “you could be

fighting what is a legitimate experience of the Spirit.” In March 1999, a

 Charisma

 magazine report entitled “Shaking Southern Baptist Tradition” gave many

 examples of charismatic Southern Baptist congregations. At that time,

Southern Baptist pastors Jack Taylor, Ron Phillips, and Gary Folds,

embraced the unscriptural nonsense that occurred at the Toronto Airport

Church in Ontario and Brownsville Assembly of God in Pensacola, Florida.

 This “revival” took the form of gibberish speakings, uncontrollable

laughter, falling on the floor, rolling on the floor, barking like a

dog, roaring like a lion, braying like a donkey, electric shocks,

shakings, jerkings, and other bizarre experiences with no biblical

support. Since then, Ron Phillips’ Fresh Oil & Wine Conferences at

Central Baptist Church of Hixon, Tennessee, have promoted charismatic

heresies. One of the speakers was Rodney Howard-Browne, the so-called

“Holy Ghost Bartender.” Southern Baptist Pastor Dwain Miller of Second

Baptist Church in El Dorado, Arkansas, prophesied that God would use

Phillips “to bring renewal to the SBC’s 41,000 churches.” Phillips told

the Tennessean

 newspaper that he first experienced speaking in tongues when he was

sleeping! In 2008, Phillips counted 500 churches in his charismatic

network (“Charismatic Southern Baptist Churches,” Baptist Standard,

 Oct. 30, 2008). James Robison, once a fiery Southern Baptist evangelist

 who preached against the theological liberalism of its schools and the

worldliness of its churches, had a charismatic experience in 1979 and

became a charismatic ecumenist who joins hands in fellowship and

ministry with “Spirit baptized” Roman Catholics and praises Pope John

Paul II as “one of the finest representatives of morality in this

earth.” Bill Sharples resigned a Southern Baptist pastorate after

accepting the tongues-speaking movement, but 25% of his meetings are in

SBC churches and he claims that 15 to 20 percent of Southern Baptists

that he meets are open to the charismatic movement. In November 2005,

the Southern Baptist Foreign Mission Board voted to forbid missionaries

to speak in tongues, but Jerry Rankin, the head of the board, said that

he had spoken in a “private prayer language” for 30 years. What

confusion! Speaking at a chapel service at Southwestern Baptist

Theological Seminary in  2006, Pastor Dwight McKissic, a trustee, told

the students that he speaks in tongues in his “private prayer life” and

has done so since 1981, when he was a seminary student (“Southwestern

Trustee’s Sermon on Tongues Prompts Response,” Baptist Press, Aug. 30,

2006). In May 2015, the Southern Baptist International Mission Board

reversed its former policy, now accepting missionaries who speak in

“tongues” so long as they don’t become “disruptive” (“FAQs on Missionary

 Appointment Qualifications,” IMB Policy 200-1, IMB.org). One of the

major bridges from the charismatic movement into Southern Baptist

churches and homes is contemporary worship music. The 2008 Southern

Baptist Hymnal contains a great many songs written by charismatics.

About 75 of the top 100 contemporary worship songs are included. These

songs are direct bridges to the one-world “church.” I don’t know of one

prominent contemporary worship artist who is opposed in any practical

sense to the charismatic movement and ecumenism, and that includes the

Gettys. Because the SBC refuses to deal with this error consistently,

the leaven will continue to spread. The Bible warns that “a little

leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” This is true for sin (1 Cor. 5:6) as

well as for false doctrine (Gal. 5:9). And in a few years, someone will

be writing about “tongues speaking” and other charismatic phenomena

among Independent Baptists.





 



			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
SBC’s RUSSELL MOORE SIGNS STATEMENT WITH MUSLIM LEADERS, CLAIMING “COMMON GROUND”
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						



 NO LIBERTY, ETHICS OR MORALS!



JUST GROSS APOSTASY, DISTORTION OF AMERICAN & CHRISTIAN VALUES FOR ECUMENICAL UNITY




SELLS OUT CHRISTIANITY TO PAGAN RELIGIONS  



 



 Russell Moore, of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission



SBC’s RUSSELL MOORE SIGNS STATEMENT WITH MUSLIM LEADERS, CLAIMING “COMMON GROUND”



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


 


If you don’t think the American Evangelical Intelligentsia would

 sell their birthright for a bit of peace and prosperity, you don’t know

 them. They are sniveling, weak, effeminate men without spinal columns,

courage, or guts. They are shells of humanity, with the good stuff taken

 out and replaced with cream puffery. 

When Pulpit & Pen discovered that the National Association of Evangelicals had secretly embraced an expansion of gay rights

 in exchange for promises of religious liberty, I thought I couldn’t see

 much worse. And then I saw the information I’m about to give to you and

 I saw that, as always, it could get much, much worse. 




Let me give you a disclaimer. Of all my years following Russell

Moore, the ERLC, and the progressive-liberal intellectuals who are

subversively driving evangelicalism to the hard-left, this might be the worst thing I have seen to date. And given my knowledge of the ERLC and their chicanery, that’s saying something. 

Coming across my Google alerts, I saw an article by Richard Ostling

which highlighted what I feel to be the most over-looked news story of

2018. On November 29, a group of evangelicals led by the SBC’s Russell

Moore and the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) president,

Leith Anderson, joined with a group of non-Christians and cultists in

the name of religious

 liberty. These include Seventh Day Adventists, Marc Stern of the

American Jewish Committee, various Roman Catholics, Buddhists, Sikhs,

and Hindus. Also partnering with Russell Moore and the NAE are

President Sayyid Syeed of the Islamic Society of North America and

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, co-founder of Zaytuna College, Islam’s first accredited liberal arts college in America. 

As Ostling points out in his article,

 the typical mainstream denomination leftists you would expect to lead

the way in such ecumenical enterprises haven’t even signed onto the

document yet. But Russell Moore and the NAE are leading the way. 

Ostling points out that the document takes no stance on important ethical issues:



The charter has won a notably

varied list of initial endorsers because it purposely avoids taking

stands on the “sometimes bitter debates” over how to apply these

principles, in particular clashes between religious traditionalists and

the LGBTQ community. Think Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado. Says the

charter, “although it is not always possible to uphold both

non-discrimination and religious liberty claims in particular cases,

both claims should be taken seriously, and both sides should seek common

 ground.” 


What the “American Charter on Freedom of Religion and Conscience” 

does is – like the NAE document reported on earlier today – surrender

our rights to act according to our religion for the concession to merely ideologically hold to our religion. It’s nothing short of treasonous. 

The document basically says, “Make us do anything you want, as long as you let us believe what we want.” 

The five-thousand-word document is available via pdf here. 

The goal of the document, according to its introduction, is

everything you would expect a feckless, cowering, ecumenical claptrap

would be:



Their aim is to restore civility

to public discourse on religion and freedom of religion and conscience

in America; explore the meaning and value of freedom of religion and

conscience as a foundation of American democracy and national and global

 prosperity; and build a multi-faith, non-partisan coalition working to

affirm freedom of religion and conscience as a vital safeguard for

people of all faiths and none.


The document’s goal is to promote a form of globalism by gutting

America of its theological underpinnings, minimizing its Christian

heritage and over-emphasizing its committment to pluralism. The document

 reads:







In a world of strong and

undeniable diversity, all imposed absolutisms, coercive universalisms,

and movements of religious and secular ideological cleansing are the

open enemies of freedom, equality, and justice for all. 


The document seems to emphasize secularism, and goes well beyond supporting a separation of church and state. 

I’ve read this document thoroughly, and let me tell you, there is a

100% reason to assume that the signers of this statement – from

everything written therein – would support both gay marriage and

abortion in the name of “religious freedom.” Zero doubt…none. 

No doubt the Islamists eagerly signed onto the documents because of statements like this one:







We are opposed, therefore, to any governmental

 policy that would discriminate against individuals or groups based on

their religion. Likewise, we reject rhetoric and actions by governmental

 leaders and others that demonize individuals or faith communities based

 on their religion or that hold entire faith groups collectively

responsible for the evil deeds of a few. 


What’s in view, probably, would be policies

 like that threatened by President Trump, which would place a temporary

moratorium on immigrants from primarily Islamic nations who want to

destroy the United States. We know what side Russell Moore and the

Soros-funded Evangelical Immigration Table were on in that debate, and

they’re the same ones signing this document.




The document places oppressive religions like Islam in the same

category as Christianity and credits them all with equal contributions

to the American way of life:



In America, religion helped to

spur the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, and the Civil Rights

Movement. We also acknowledge, however, that some have at times used

religious claims in support of prejudice, oppression, or violence. But

the majority of individuals and communities motivated by faith have

provided an overall thrust in America toward grassroots civic renewal

and progress. Throughout our history, people of faith have empowered

robust charitable giving and caring, essential educational institutions

and initiatives, and vigorous political criticism and reform. These acts

 of kindness, charity, and service have unleashed the power of social

innovation and entrepreneurship and have enriched our civic life

immeasurably.


The document is clearly the most ecumenical document I’ve ever read,

and perhaps has ever been attempted in the history of man. It reads:



It does not attempt to ground

unity and civility in enforced conformity concerning the substance of

particular religious or secular doctrines. Rather, this covenant secures

 unity and civility on the basis of voluntary agreement on foundational

moral and political principles—principles of human dignity and human

rights. 


Let me ask you, Christian reader, from where comes our belief in

human rights? Is it not in the Imago Dei? Is that not a uniquely

Christian doctrine altogether unshared by Buddhists or Sikhs? From where

 comes the concept of morality? Can you acquire morality without theism?

 Is there a “secular” foundation of ethics? If there was a coherent

foundation of secular ethics, could Christians ever agree as to what was

 in substance ethical? 




Refuse. Utter refuse. 

The document has the gall to quote Jefferson, Madison, the Federalist

 Papers, and Alexis De Tocqueville. Ostensibly, this is to send the

message to the undiscerning reader that their statement is just a

continuance of some grand American tradition. It is not. This document is a great betrayal of the grand American tradition. 

According to Tocqueville, America’s committment to Christianity is responsible for its national exceptionalism, saying, “There

 is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a

greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can

be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature

 than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened

and free nation of the earth.”

He continued:



The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom.

The

 Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so

intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive

the one without the other.

Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts-the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims.

Alexis De Tocqueville


This, of course, is precisely the opposite sentiment of this horrible ecumenical document. 

What the American Charter document demonstrates is that for Russell

Moore and the Evangelical Intelligentsia, there are no limits on

ecumenism. They will hold hands with anyone and everyone in the name of

living a little bit longer under an oppressive globalist regime they’re

personally helping to empower. 

[Editor’s Note: Contributed by JD Hall]


 ____________________________________________________________




SEE OUR PREVIOUS POST:


 JOHNNIE MOORE, SOUTHERN BAPTIST MEETS 


MIDDLE EAST RULERS-"WE WANT WHAT IT WAS LIKE 


WHEN MUHAMMAD WAS ALIVE, A PLURALIST REGION"


~A TWISTED VIEW OF ISLAM AS WELL
 AS CHRISTIANITY 





 


 



 



			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
UNBORN BABY MURDER CELEBRATED: PLANNED PARENTHOOD BILLBOARDS IN IOWA-“I AM NOT ASHAMED”, “I AM NOT APOLOGIZING” FOR ABORTION
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						



 http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/12/Abortion-Protester-Saul-LoebAFPGetty-Images-640x480.jpg



 THE PROPAGANDA PUSH



 Planned Parenthood billboard Iowa



 planned parenthood iowa billboard



UNBORN BABY MURDER CELEBRATED: 



PLANNED PARENTHOOD BILLBOARDS IN IOWA-



“I AM NOT ASHAMED”, “I AM NOT APOLOGIZING” 



FOR ABORTION 



BY HEATHER CLARK



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


 


DES MOINES, Iowa — Planned Parenthood of the

Heartland has announced that it has launched a billboard campaign in an

effort to put faces to women who have had an abortion and aren’t sorry

for it.



“I had an abortion, and I am not ashamed,” “I had an abortion, and I

am not apologizing for it” and “I had an abortion, and it was just

health care” the billboards read, and feature the faces of three women

who ended the life of their unborn child.

The campaign is called #SayAbortion, and is meant to counter a bill

that was passed last year that would ban abortion whenever a heartbeat

is detected. The legislation has yet to be enacted as it is under

injunction due to a lawsuit from Planned Parenthood.



“Planned Parenthood envisions a culture where abortion access is

understood as a basic human right, an essential part of healthcare and a

 normal part of life,” Jill Meadows, the medical director for Planned

Parenthood of the Heartland, said in a statement.






“Abortion is incredibly common, yet too often people who have

abortions are made to feel like they can’t talk about it, or when they

do speak up their stories and voices drowned out by the politics,” she

remarked. “With the #SayAbortion campaign, we are putting a stop to the

extreme anti-choice interest groups speaking over our patients.”

Planned Parenthood additionally outlines in its press release that

“#SayAbortion is rooted in the fundamental facts that access to safe,

legal abortion care is central to reproductive health, and that bodily

autonomy is critical to achieving full equality.”

Billboards have currently been purchased in Des Moines, with

advertisements also set to be displayed in Ames, Cedar Falls, Cedar

Rapids, Council Bluffs and Iowa City.

Planned Parenthood has also set up a website for its #SayAbortion

campaign, which includes videos of the women talking about their views

on abortion and sharing their stories as to why they chose to abort.

“I want people to be able to talk about their abortions like they

talk about their colonoscopies,” said campaign participant Rachel Goss.

“[It’s] not something everybody wants to do, but sometimes we have to

make decisions for our bodies or our health—mental health or physical

health, whatever it is—to make us full, whole human beings.”

She stated that she personally obtained an abortion because she was

single, in school and making minimum wage, and that it “was just not

realistic” to be a mother at the time.

“If I would have been forced to raise a baby, I know for sure I

wouldn’t be a nurse,” also said interviewee Amanda Hammon. “I wouldn’t

have probably any of the kids that I have now. I probably wouldn’t have

experienced the real joys of motherhood that are there. I probably would

 have been overwhelmed [and] stressed. … I look at my children now, and

think I wouldn’t have any of them had I made a different decision.”

As previously reported,

 in the 1992 ruling of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Supreme Court

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a Reagan appointee, opined in support of

the availability of abortion, “The ability of women to participate

equally in the economic and social life of the nation has been

facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.”

However, others note that a woman’s choice is made when she willingly

 chooses to engage in reproductive activity, and after a life is created

 from that decision, it is too late to undo the choice.

“[D]on’t forget that in 99% of all abortions, the woman having the

abortion chose to have sexual intercourse. Therefore, it could just as

easily be argued that these women already made their choice when they

chose to engage in behavior that often leads to pregnancy,” writes the

site AbortionFacts.com.

“Men and women are free to choose to abstain from sex or to use birth

 control or to do neither. But when a woman is pregnant, the choice she

has made has produced a new human being. As one woman has pointed out:

‘After a woman is pregnant, she cannot choose whether or not she wishes

to become a mother. She already is, and since the child is already

present in her womb, all that is left to her to decide is whether she

will deliver her baby dead or alive.’”

“Once the baby is born, the woman is again free to choose: She can

keep the child or give him up for adoption. The choice pro-lifers oppose

 is the choice that takes an innocent life.”

1 Thessalonians 4: 3-8 reads, “For this is the will of God, even your

 sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication, that every one

 of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and

honor, not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know

 not God. … For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto

holiness. He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who

hath also given unto us His Holy Spirit.”

Jeremiah 8:12 laments, “Were they ashamed when they had committed

abomination? Nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they

blush.”







____________________________________________________________



IDAHO: 





 Non-Doctors Should be Allowed to Murder the Unborn, Say’s Planned Parenthood




SEE: https://pulpitandpen.org/2019/01/02/non-doctors-should-be-allowed-to-murder-the-unborn-says-planned-parenthood/;  republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:







[Life News] Planned Parenthood is suing to force Idaho to allow nurses and midwives to abort unborn babies.







The abortion giant and Legal Voice filed the lawsuit Dec. 14,

challenging a state law that requires that abortions be performed by

doctors, the Post Falls Press reports.







Idaho is not unusual. Currently, 42 states require that a licensed physician perform abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Abortion activists even acknowledged that these laws were passed to protect women’s health.



However, they now claim that the Idaho law is unconstitutional

because it unnecessarily restricts women’s access to abortion. Citing

research by pro-abortion activists, their lawsuit argues that nurse

practitioners, nurse midwives and physician assistants can “safely and

effectively” perform abortions, according to the report.



The lawsuit is a new strategy of the abortion industry, which is

hurting for doctors willing to abort unborn babies. There are similar

lawsuits challenging laws in Maine and Montana.



Here’s more from the report:





Under the current law, women often

 have to travel long distances within a narrow window of time in order

to receive an abortion, [Kim Clark, a senior attorney with Legal Voice]

and others behind the lawsuit say.

There are five

abortion-providing facilities in Idaho, including three Planned

Parenthood clinics in Twin Falls, Boise and Meridian. A shortage of

physicians in Idaho, particularly in rural areas, exacerbates

accessibility-related challenges, the lawsuit’s plaintiffs say.

If

 the statute were changed to let advanced practice clinicians perform

abortions, the lawsuit’s plaintiffs say, existing clinics could offer

abortion services more days a week, with the potential for additional

new clinics to open. Ninety-five percent of Idaho counties do not have a

 clinic that provides abortions, with 68 percent of Idaho women living

in those counties, according to data from 2014.





In 2015, California passed a law allowing

 non-doctors to abort unborn babies. The new law has put countless women

 and their unborn babies in jeopardy. One study found that abortions done by non-physicians were twice as likely to have complications as those done by licensed physicians.



This new matter is a way the abortion industry hopes to prop up its

life-destroying business. Abortion rates are dropping and abortion

clinics have been closing partly because fewer doctors are willing to

abort unborn babies.



To continue reading click here



[Editor’s Note: This article was written by Micaiah Bilger and originally published at Life News]



______________________________________________________



SEE ALSO:



 Planned Parenthood Launches 



#SayAbortion Campaign in Iowa 




EXCERPTS:







Dr. Jill Meadows, medical director for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said in a statement:








Planned Parenthood envisions a culture

where abortion access is understood as a basic human right, an essential

 part of health care and a normal part of life. We are amplifying the

voices of real people who have had abortions, we are talking about

abortion care out loud, and we are shifting the narrative so all people

can talk openly about abortion with sensitivity to the complexity of

real-life individual experiences.







Maggie DeWitte, executive director of Iowans for Life and a founding

member of a coalition of anti-abortion groups, said of Planned

Parenthood and the billboards: “They are trying to bolster a larger

movement in Iowa that they simply don’t have.”









She added, “Iowans care about families. They care about women, and they don’t want to see abortion in our state.”









According to LiveAction.org, abortion rates in Iowa have “tumbled

more than 51 percent” in the past decade and 21 Planned Parenthood

centers have closed between 2010 and 2017, leaving just eight remaining

in the entire state. 





However, a Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll last fall showed

that 54 percent of Iowans believe abortion should be legal in most or

all cases. 



_______________________________________________________



SOUTHERN BAPTIST FOSTERING ABORTION OVERSEAS WITH AMERICAN TAXPAYER MONIES 



 Russell Moore Takes Pelosi’s Side, Urges Trump 



to Give Away Your Taxes to Foreign Countries 



Amidst Shutdown




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



 President Donald J. Trump is resisting pressure to sign a

Democrat-led House bill that would end the government shut-down but

wouldn’t fund the border wall and would instead use tax dollars to fund abortions overseas. Russell Moore has recently joined with 24 other “faith leaders” to urge the president to not cut foreign welfare no matter what. 




Moore, who also recently signed a statement in partnership with Muslims, Jews, Catholics, and Cultists claiming the apparent equality of all religions, signed this letter sent to the POTUS, begging him to continue funding “foreign assistance programs.” 


Keep in mind that the current government shutdown has had a

horrendous affect upon American farmers who rely upon the funding and

expected payments by the USDA in exchange for their labor. Keep in mind

the current government shutdown has adverse consequences on Americans in

 many different walks of life, and not just federal employees on

holiday. While many feel the shutdown is necessary in order to

strengthen our national sovereign borders, the delay of government

funding still hurts. 


Russell Moore and his associates in the liberal branch of

evangelicalism have not gone to bat for you hurting Americans, urging

Democrats in the House of Representatives to fund the border wall that

was already approved by a lawful act of Congress. No, Moore and his

associates have sent an aggressive letter to Donald Trump

 urging him to not help Americans, but remember to fund the same types

of foreign aid that – in the past – have paid for abortions overseas. 


According to CBN news, the letter was sent from Russell Moore, Leith

Anderson (the president of the National Association of Evangelicals,

which just officially agreed to an expansion of LGBTQ “rights”), NAR

Apostle Sammy Rodriguez, former SBC President Ronnie Floyd, and others. 


Most of the other signers are of the same Soros-funded and

Soros-created group, Evangelical Immigration Table, of which Moore,

Anderson, and Rodriguez are all members. And now, they’re pressuring the

 President to end the shutdown, even if it means funding the abortion provision bill by House Democrats.


Addressed to Trump, Pence, and National Security Advisor, John

Bolton, the letter cited Jesus’ words from Luke in which Jesus said,

“from everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded.” 


The letter continued:



Our nation has been richly

blessed, and we have the privilege and obligation to share some of those

 blessings with those in need around the world. We do this through our

private missionary, development, and humanitarian programs. But our

government also has an indispensable role to play in diplomacy and in

poverty-focused assistance programs.


Of course, Moore, Rodriguez, and Anderson all represent powerful,

influential, and wealthy evangelical groups that could spend millions of

 dollars on overseas poverty relief, should they be so inclined. The

budget for the ERLC is 4 million dollars from the Cooperative Program of

 the SBC alone, not to mention the money passed under the table by

leftist billionaires, James Riady and George Soros. Asking the

government to fund foreign welfare but not asking them to secure our borders demonstrates the Beltway world these men live in. 


The letter ended by expressing, “These programs help make the United

States a great nation, and they also contribute to our security and

continued prosperity.” 


Of course, none of the aforementioned men are on record asking for a

border wall to help our nation’s security and continued prosperity. 


These evangelicals, led by Russell Moore, are tools of the Democratic

 left. Instead of lobbying Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to urge them

to end the government shutdown by funding previous congressional

commitments – the border wall – they are insisting that Donald Trump end

 the shut down so he can continue using American tax dollars to

strengthen every nation but America. 


You can read the letter here.

________________________________________________________________

SEE:  

http://dl2.cbn.com/news/Letter_to_the_Administration_on_Foreign_Assistance_Review_FINAL.pdf 



 



 






 





 



			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
RINO MARCO RUBIO’S NATIONAL RED FLAG LAW TRASHES SECOND AMENDMENT; BETRAYS GUN OWNERS~BRIBING THE STATES WITH FEDERAL GRANTS
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						





 BRIBING THE STATES WITH 

FEDERAL GRANTS

 https://www.tacticalshit.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/rbonra-e1546648627384.png



RINO RUBIO’S NATIONAL RED FLAG LAW TRASHES SECOND AMENDMENT



 The National Red Flag Bill By Marco Rubio


The Bill, S7, will be here:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-c… 




Red Flag Bill from LAST session of Congress: 








Gun Gripes #176: National Red Flag Laws

 





Iraqveteran8888



Published on Jan 14, 2019










“Bipartisan Background Checks Act 





of 2019″



 



 Rep. MikeThompson gets the ball rolling on imposing California-style

citizen disarmament on the rest of the Republic as Gabby Giffords,

Shannon Watts and Nancy Pelosi look on approvingly. (Congressman Mike Thompson/Facebook photo)



 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., center, speaks accompanied by gun violence victim former Rep. Gabby Giffords, left, Rep. Lucy McBath, D-Ga., and Shannon Watts, who founded Moms Demand Action, second from right, to announce the introduction of bipartisan legislation to expand background checks for sales and transfers of firearms, …



New ‘Bipartisan’ Gun Grab Built on Lies



BY DAVID CODREA 



SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2019/01/new-bipartisan-gun-grab-built-on-lies/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:



 U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “The

 introduction of the bipartisan background checks bill in the House

today marks a critical first step toward strengthening America’s gun

laws and making our country a better place to live, work, study, worship

 and play,” Gabby Giffords claimed in a Tuesday press release. That brief statement holds two lies and a true threat that exposes another lie.


The first lie is that this latest assault on “shall not be infringed”

 is any kind of “first step.” NFA ’34, GCA ’68, FOPA ’86. The Brady Act,

 the Clinton gun ban, the Bush import ban, and thousands of state and

municipal diktats later, and the gun-grabbers are still parroting old

talking points like this one from 45 years ago:



“We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the

first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be

very modest. . . . [W]e’ll have to start working again to strengthen

that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and

 again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but

with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the

United States — is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to

slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this

country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final

problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun

ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards,

licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.”


Gabby’s second lie is that such checks will somehow make things

“better.” No less an authority than the National Institute of Justice

admitted in its “Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies”:



Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration…


And that effectiveness would only apply to the “law-abiding,” of course.

Gabby then makes a true threat that exposes another lie: Yes, the

gun-grabbers will never be satisfied until they control all guns,

something Nancy Pelosi admitted when she inadvertently contradicted

another old lie by advocating for a “slippery slope.” That’s something the antis had previously ridiculed as “gun lobby” paranoia.

So it’s hardly a surprise that the bill itself, starting with its purpose, is a lie:



The purpose of this Act is to utilize the current

background checks process in the United States to ensure individuals

prohibited from gun possession are not able to obtain firearms.


That’s an impossibility and they know it, as evidenced by Baltimore,

Chicago, etc.  The very people causing most of the problems won’t be

affected. How can a party running interference to allow (ensure)

millions of illegal aliens to disperse throughout the country even

pretend to be able to shut down a black market that will only grow more

lethal under “progressive” rule?

Besides which, many of the acts of violence the “commonsense gun

safety advocates” (another lie) exploit happened in spite of “background

 checks,” sometimes because signals had been ignored and others because

information already obtained was withheld, first from the National

Instant Criminal Background Check System, and then from a Freedom of

information Act request that required a lawsuit to obtain compliance.

Then there’s the title of the bill, another lie, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, When used in this sense, “bipartisan” means:



specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties


A handful of rogue political opportunists does not a party make. In this case, Republicans who betrayed their oaths of office,

 Peter King, Brian K. Fitzpatrick, Brian J. Mast, Fred Upton and

Christopher H. Smith, need to not only be known, but retired. The GOP

needs to understand that it will need to provide better choices to gun

owners if it expects to win a district. It won’t take too many losses

for them to get the message and by not turning out the turncoats, there

is no incentive to change. Doing otherwise is what has led us to this

mess.

For now, the bill has been referred to the House Committee on the

Judiciary. Expect to see great media fanfare as it advances through the

stages to a floor vote, and then hold the Republican-controlled Senate’s

 feet to the fire.



And in the meantime, consider the greatest lie of all—that this is about “background checks.”


It’s not. It’s about ending private sales so government can identify

gun owners and what they have.  

It’s about setting the stage to take

advantage of new edicts, like that idiot Marco Rubio’s proposed “red flag” bill,

 to enable and abet future confiscations. 

Ditto for if they ever get

that other “first step” passed, another “assault weapon” ban, they won’t

 need to guess who’s not complying, like they’ll currently have to with “bump stocks.”

Here’s how you can prove that’s the goal for yourself—if all Pelosi

& Co. wanted was to make sure transfers were cleared and “prohibited

 persons” weren’t getting guns (through the system), they’d be proposing

 a system like BIDS, the Blind Identification Database System,

 which would green light a “good” transfer but then leave no record of

who bought what. That proposal has been around for years, but the rice

bowl gun groups appear to be vested in the status quo.

True, BIDS would still be a form of prior restraint “gun control,” so

 I would still oppose it. But inarguably, it would serve the same

purpose as “universal” NICS without the danger of creating records that

could later be compiled into a registration tool (and you know the

Democrats will be going after that prohibition in the next round of

budget negotiations).

As with all such schemes, the criminals and the terrorists won’t be

slowed down one bit. And since we’re talking about chronic and habitual

liars, I find a memorable scene from the classic Witness for the Prosecution strangely appropriate.


About David Codrea:David Codrea

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for

investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights

advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regular featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

_____________________________________________________________



 Thompson Introduces Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019







 ______________________________________________________________



 FPC Firmly Opposed to Federal Gun Control, 



Including Red Flag Laws



BY DUNCAN JOHNSON



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


 


WASHINGTON, D.C. –-(Ammoland.com)-

 Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) responded to announcements of

several pieces of federal gun control legislation that would further

infringe on the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms and

other constitutional rights:

FPC has always opposed so-called “red flag” laws, sometimes

characterized as “Extreme Risk Protection Order” or “Gun Violence

Restraining Order” laws, on practical, policy, and constitutional

grounds. These “red flag” laws stand for the proposition that people are

 guilty, and can be disarmed, unless they can prove their way out of an

accusation. In fact, in some jurisdictions, a court may consider

evidence of recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition, or weapons as

evidence to support the issuance of a “red flag” disarmament order. In

other words, if someone recently exercised their Second Amendment

rights, that constitutionally-protected conduct could be used to support

 their being prohibited from possessing firearms, and even lead to a

warrant for the seizure of their property. As we know all too well, the

only real recourse in these cases is for the accused to hire an

attorney, at the cost of thousands of dollars, and hope that the court

gives them a fair hearing. Worse, in an ex parte situation, the subject

of a “red flag” order might not even know about the hearing or the order

 until armed law enforcement officers show up at their home to seize

property, or them. “Red flag” laws are unconstitutional and dangerous,

as FPC’s own research and countless reports have shown. If the

government does not have enough evidence to investigate or charge a

person with a crime, or even to hold them for a mental health

evaluation, then the government has not met its burden for taking

someone’s rights and property by force and violence.

FPC also strongly opposes so-called “universal background checks,”

one of three core elements of the modern gun control agenda. Put simply,

 politicians and billionaire-backed special interests wish to

constructively repeal the Second Amendment through transactional

records, algorithms, and ever-expanding laws banning people and

property. They refuse to acknowledge the true agenda of their “universal

 background check” legislation, which is to create a statutory framework

 from which they can bootstrap the other elements of their disarmament

aims, including Minority Report-style “pre-crime” laws,

government-sanctioned confiscation, and incremental, attrition-based

bans on weapons, parts, ammunition, and more. As we know from our direct

 experience in hostile, anti-rights states like California, the modern

gun control schema relies on background check-based transactional data

as a framework to bootstrap the forced registration of people and

property, later expanding or creating new categories of prohibited

persons and items—including through “predictive model” gun control

statutes, like “red flag” laws, that rely on speculation rather than

real due process and proper adjudication of crimes or mental health

conditions—overreaching law enforcement programs, like California’s

“Armed and Prohibited Person System” and others like it, where the

government sends armed police officers to seize persons and property

that were forced into government databases.

FPC is also strongly opposed to using taxpayer dollars for

unrestricted advocacy of gun control, whether through the Center for

Disease Control, or elsewhere. No American taxpayer should be funding

policy advocacy cloaked in the guise of “research”.

As we have said before, history shows that gun control is a one-way

ratchet, with so-called “compromises” resulting only in more laws that

affect law-abiding people and fewer ways to exercise Second Amendment

rights. And there is no textual, circumstantial, or emotional exception

to the Constitution’s guarantee that “the right of the people to keep

and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Those who seek to implement more

 and stronger restrictions on Second Amendment freedoms have offered gun

 owners nothing in return for these false and malicious “compromises.”

It should be no surprise, then, that gun owners have been and remain

unwilling to participate in a “compromise” that isn’t. Indeed, there

cannot be any compromise on our Constitution and the rights it protects.

Even if others’ lack of principles or conflicting political

priorities may have allowed, or even encouraged, such legislative

atrocities to be enacted as the National Firearms Act, the Federal

Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act, the Undetectable Firearms Act, the

Hughes Amendment, and many other gun control statutes, FPC stands firm

in its commitment to the Constitution, the People, and individual

liberty.

FPC calls on every member of Congress to not only oppose and vote

against these and other gun control bills, but to immediately introduce

and pass important legislation to protect and advance the Second

Amendment rights without further delay. FPC also encourages President

Trump to demand pro-Second Amendment legislation with the same fervor

that he does other, far less important issues. That is the job they were

 elected to do, and that is the basis upon which we and American voters

will measure them.

Individuals who wish to combat federal gun control can tell the House

 and Senate leadership, as well as their representatives, to oppose

these gun control bills using FPC’s grassroots Action Tools at

www.firearmspolicy.org/act and www.FightRedFlagLaws.com.


About the Firearms Policy CoalitionFirearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4

grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and

defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the

fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

FPC advocates on a wide variety of important constitutional, legal,

policy, and social issues, including free speech, due process,

separation of powers, limitations on government action, and others. FPC

works to advance individual liberty through programs including strategic

 litigation, legal action, direct and grassroots advocacy, research,

education, and outreach.

______________________________________________________________



 Dianne Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban of 2019



 





Published on Jan 10, 2019



 Here we go again, the left and their continued attack on law-abiding

citizens ownership of typical firearms in this country. This is a

never-ending battle we must be strong. We must stick together.









 Senate Democrats Unveil the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019

Senate Democrats Introduce

 Assault Weapons Ban of 2019



BY JOHN CRUMP



SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2019/01/senate-democrats-introduce-assault-weapons-ban-of-2019/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:







Washington D.C. –-(Ammoland.com)- Senators

 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Richard

Blumenthal (D-Conn.) have introduced the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2019.”





“Last year we saw tens of thousands of students

nationwide take to the streets to demand action to stop mass shootings

and stem the epidemic of gun violence that plagues our communities. Our

youngest generation has grown up with active-shooter drills, hiding

under their desks—and now they’re saying enough is enough,” said Senator

 Dianne Feinstein. “Americans across the nation are asking Congress to

reinstate the federal ban on military-style assault weapons and

high-capacity magazines. If we’re going to put a stop to mass shootings

and protect our children, we need to get these weapons of war off our

streets.”





The ban would prohibit the sale, manufacture, transfer or importation

 of 205 rifle models by name. The Senators refer to these firearms as

“military-style assault weapons.” The bill does have a grandfather

clause. Current owners of these guns would be able to keep them.



According to Senator Feinstein’s twitter, this legislation considers

any rifle that uses a detachable magazine and has a pistol grip, a

forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding or

telescoping stock as an “assault weapon.”


Feinstein's clarifies her Assault Weapons BanFeinstein clarifies her Assault Weapons Ban





The bill would also ban any magazine that is capable of holding more

than ten rounds. The law states that the magazine ban is due to the

given ability to increase the rate at which a person can continue to

fire their rifle/pistol. Like the now would-be banned firearms, owners

would be able to keep the magazines that they currently own.





“Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are deadly

and dangerous weapons of war that belong on battlefields—not our

streets. They have no purpose for self-defense or hunting, and no

business being in our schools, churches and malls,” said Senator Richard

 Blumenthal. “By passing this legislation, Congress can honor the memory

 of the beautiful lives cut short by military-style assault weapons in

Newtown, Parkland, Las Vegas, San Bernardino and far too many other

American cities. This is the year for my colleagues to turn our rhetoric

 into reality and finally end America’s gun violence epidemic.”





Part of the bill would be universal background checks on all

transfers of grandfathered guns. The requirement would also apply to

firearms that are gifted to family members. It would be a felony to

transfer a gun without a background check, even if it is to an immediate

 family member.



However, magazines that hold more than ten rounds would not be

transferable after the law would go into effect. This prohibition on the

 transferring of the magazines would even include giving the magazines

to immediate family members. Only the current owner of the magazines at

the time that the ban goes into effect would be able to own them.



Owners of these guns would have to keep the now-banned firearms in a

secure storage container or install a trigger lock. This requirement

would apply to everyone, even those who live alone and have no reason to

 lock their firearms.



The Senators also want to ban foldable and telescoping stocks. They

believe that an adjustable stock’s purpose is to make it easier to

conceal the firearm. This point is incorrect. Shooters use adjustable

stocks to find the most comfortable position to fire their guns.



Pistols are not immune from this bill. It would ban any pistol that

weighs over 50 ounces unloaded. This measurement is a little over 3

pounds and would ban almost all pistol ARs and AKs. Other guns like the

CZ Scorpion would also be prohibited.



The legislation would also ban stabilizing braces such as the ones

sold be SB Tactical. The Senators think that by adding a brace to a

pistol it turns the pistol into an “assault rifle.”





“She needs to appeal to her base, but the reality of it

is that she doesn’t even know what a stabilizing brace is,” Alex Bosco,

The CEO of SB Tactical, told AmmoLand. “I would be interested to

understand why prohibiting a product that allows individuals who are

disabled and have limited mobility to fire a weapon more accurately

should be outlawed.”





Thordsen’s featureless stocks are also not immune from this bill. Gun

 owners have used these stocks to be in compliance with state laws that

currently ban pistol grips on rifles such as California, New York, and

Maryland.



Gun rights advocates point out that the “assault weapons” ban of 1994

 that was in effect until 2004 was infective at stopping gun violence.

The Clinton era Justice Department found that the ban had little to no

impact on crime or gun deaths. Other studies have found similar results

since the law expired.



In a statement released by Michael Hammond, legal counsel for Gun Owners of America reads:





“Dianne Feinstein’s new unconstitutional gun ban

follows in the “Feinstein tradition” of blindly attacking guns for no

particular rational purpose.

The 1994-2004 less-repressive predecessor to the Feinstein bill

was found by the Department of Justice to have been totally ineffectual.

 As a result, in 2013, only 39 other senators voted to support her

semi-automatic ban — in a Senate controlled by Democrats. And, finally,

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just declared, as

unconstitutional, California’s magazine ban, which is similar to the one

 contained in Feinstein’s bill.

So Feinstein’s insistence of “doubling down on failure” may make

her — and the loony Left — feel good. But no sane legislature is

actually going to vote for her bill.”





Hammond points out that the magazine ban in the bill almost mirrors

the prohibition that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared

unconstitutional. The court case was from Feinstein’s home state of

California.



The odds that the bill will make it to the floor of the Senate are

long. Republicans control the Senate, and just like Feinstein’s previous

 bills, The Senate leadership will probably table the bill and not let

it come to the floor for debate.



Even if this bill makes it to the floor for a vote, it would need 60

votes to prevent a filibuster. That would mean that 13 Republican would

have to cross party lines which seems unlikely.



About John CrumpJohn Crump



John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. He is the

former CEO of Veritas Firearms, LLC and is the co-host of The Patriot

News Podcast which can be found at www.blogtalkradio.com/patriotnews.

 John has written extensively on the patriot movement including 3%’ers,

Oath Keepers, and Militias. In addition to the Patriot movement, John

has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and

 on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and

sons and is currently working on a book on leftist deplatforming methods and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, on Facebook at realjohncrump, or at www.crumpy.com.

______________________________________________________________

SEE ALSO:



 Feinstein Ban on Semiautos Deliberately Undermines ‘Security of a Free State’






EXCERPT:

“Feinstein and her co-conspirators know this, of course, and they know

that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure “the security of a

 free State.” They also know that stands in the way of their goal of

attaining unchallengeable power, what German political economist Max

Weber endorsed as a “monopoly of violence.””



 





 





 



 



			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
TRUMP: STEEL BORDER WALL & NATIONAL EMERGENCY COMING
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						



TRUMP: STEEL BORDER WALL & 



NATIONAL EMERGENCY COMING

 “Trump Shut-Down” May Last YEARS, 

President Confirms











  





 



 Will Trump Declare A National Emergency 



To Build The Wall?



 Infowars reporters Millie Weaver and Kaitlin Bennett discuss the

likelihood President Trump declares a state of emergency in order to

build the controversial wall along the southern border.


Alex Jones breaks it all down here (video link): https://www.infowars.com/watch/?video…











			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
A CHRISTIAN PRESPECTIVE: ALEX NEWMAN IN POLAND GIVES A SHORT OVERVIEW OF THE DEEP STATE & GLOBALIST AGENDA
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						



 EPHESIANS 6:12-“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” 



 PSALM 2:1-5-“Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?  The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.”





A CHRISTIAN PRESPECTIVE: ALEX NEWMAN IN POLAND GIVES A SHORT OVERVIEW OF THE 



DEEP STATE & GLOBALIST AGENDA



 





Premiered Dec 25, 2018



 Alex Newman of JBS New American gives a short overview of the Deepstate

and Globalist agenda, during one of our Christian gatherings in Lublin,

Poland.







 AMERICA UNDER SIEGE: THE DEEP STATE









			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS MOVING TO SHUT FOES OF JIHAD TERROR OUT OF THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM ALTOGETHER
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						



FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS MOVING TO SHUT FOES 



OF JIHAD TERROR OUT OF THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM ALTOGETHER



BY ROBERT SPENCER



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


 


Oppose jihad? Then starve.



This is not hysterical. It’s coming. In some ways, it is already

here. It has started with me, but it won’t end with me. Read on. And

donate to Jihad Watch, a 501c3 organization, here, and get the book The History of Jihad here,

 while you still can. It is not at all outside the realm of possibility

that you may not be able to do either in the very near future.




“Bokhari: The Terrifying Rise of Financial Blacklisting,” by Allum Bokhari, Breitbart, January 2, 2019:


It is the most totalitarian form of blacklisting: not

just to be prevented from speaking on a university campus, or to be

kicked off social media, but to be shut out of the entire financial

system. That is the terrifying new threat to freedom that western

societies must now contend with.



Financial blacklisting doesn’t just rob you of a chance to spread

your message: it robs you of your ability to do business, your

livelihood, your very means of functioning in a capitalist society.

Thanks to the encroachment of progressive ideology into the financial

industry — including major credit card companies like Visa, Discover,

and Mastercard — it has now become a reality.


I first wrote about the rise of financial blacklisting in July,

 in a column for Breitbart News in which I highlighted the growing

tendency of online financial platforms — as well as Visa and MasterCard —

 to deny service to customers for political reasons. I was surprised to

receive a strongly worded comment from the liberal Electronic Frontier

Foundation (EFF), who bluntly warned that banks and credit card companies had become “de facto internet censors.” That even liberal groups had raised the alarm signaled the seriousness of the problem.


Since then, financial blacklisting has only gotten worse. In August, Mastercard and Discover deplatformed conservative and Islam critic Robert Spencer. In the same month, Visa and Mastercard

 ceased service to David Horowitz. While credit card processing service

to Horowitz was eventually restored, Spencer remains financially

blacklisted.


Crowdfunding platforms like Patreon, which allow online content

creators to collect donations from their supporters, are frequently cast

 as the primary villains in financial blacklisting. Patreon’s recent ban

 of YouTuber Carl Benjamin, better known by his moniker Sargon of Akkad,

 triggered a crisis for the platform.

 Both donors and creators — including prominent atheist Sam Harris —

quit the platform in protest, while Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin

pledged to create an alternative platform that is pro-free speech.


But Patreon and other crowdfunding platforms are not the real

villains. They are dependent on the whims of the credit card companies,

something that was already apparent in August when Mastercard forced

them to withdraw service from Robert Spencer. We now know that the

credit card companies were also a factor in Patreon’s decision to boot

Benjamin.


YouTuber and Patreon creator Matt Christiansen recently released a transcript

 of his conversation with Jacqueline Hart of Patreon about Benjamin’s

ban. Hart frankly admits that the sensibilities of credit card companies

 play a key role in Patreon’s decisions.


Here’s an excerpt of that transcript (emphasis ours):



JACQUELINE: The problem is is Patreon takes

payments.  And while we are obviously supportive of the first amendment,

 there are other things that we have to consider. Our mission is to fund

 the creative class. In order to accomplish that mission we have to

build a community of creators that are comfortable sharing a platform,

and if we allow certain types of speech that some people would call free

 speech, then only creators that use Patreon that don’t mind their

branding associated with that kind of speech would be those who use

Patreon and we fail at our mission.  But secondly as a membership

platform, payment processing is one of the core value propositions that

we have. Payment processing depends on our ability to use the global payment network, and they have rules for what they will process.


MATT:  Are you telling me that this was Patreon’s decision then, or someone pressured you into this?


JACQUELINE:  No – this was entirely Patreon’s decision.


MATT:  Well then I don’t understand passing the buck off to somebody else.


JACQUELINE:  No, I’m not passing the buck off.  The thing is

we have guidelines, but I’m trying to explain, #1 it is our mission to

fund the creative class and obviously some people may not want to be associated.  


MATT:  Well if it’s your mission, then payment processors are irrelevant.  It’s your mission. That’s what you’re pursuing.


JACQUELINE:  We’re not visa and mastercard ourselves – we can’t just make the rules.  That’s what I’m saying – there is an extra layer there.


This “extra layer” places platforms like Patreon in an impossible

position: abandon free speech or lose your ability to process payments.

That’s also why so many free-speech alternatives to Patreon have failed:

 FreeStartr, Hatreon, MakerSupport, and SubscribeStar all tried to offer

 a more open platform, and were promptly dumped by the credit card

companies. All are unable to do business.


This exposes the emptiness of establishment conservative arguments

about the free market. Those who oppose Silicon Valley censorship aren’t

 allowed to just build their own alternative platforms. They must build

their own global payment processing infrastructure to have any hope of

restoring free speech online.


That, or they must find a way to stop Visa, Mastercard and Discover

from taking advice from the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

and Color of Change. The former was allegedly responsible for the

blacklisting of Robert Spencer, while the latter claims to have removed 158 funding sources

 from “white supremacist sites” — although as the group won’t list what

those sites are, we don’t know if they really are “white supremacist.”

The far left typically includes regular Trump supporters under the

label…



 



			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
PRESIDENT TRUMP & THE NEW WORLD DISORDER-SPEECH BY ALEX NEWMAN OF THE NEW AMERICAN
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						



PRESIDENT TRUMP & THE NEW WORLD DISORDER-SPEECH BY ALEX NEWMAN OF THE NEW AMERICAN 



BY THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY 



 Alex Newman is an international journalist, educator, and author,

currently serving as foreign correspondent for The New American. He

holds a B.S. degree in journalism with an emphasis on economics and

international relations, as well as an A.A. degree in foreign languages.

 His work has been cited by major media outlets around the world. He is a

 frequent guest on radio shows, TV programs, and at conferences. His

family currently splits their time between Europe and the U.S.



For more information on JBS visit: 




For more information on The New American, visit:

https://www.thenewamerican.com/











Alex Newman of JBS New American gives a short overview of the Deepstate and Globalist agenda



  





Premiered Dec 25, 2018



Alex Newman of JBS New American gives a short overview of the Deepstate

and Globalist agenda, during one of our Christian gatherings in Lublin,

Poland.









			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
DEMOCRATS COMPARE TRUMP TO HITLER; VOW TO “IMPEACH THE MOTHER****ER”
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						





DEMOCRATS COMPARE TRUMP TO HITLER; 



VOW TO “IMPEACH THE MOTHER****ER” 



 “We’re not going to shirk our responsibility.”



BY STEVE WATSON



republished below in full unedited, LESS OFFENSIVE TWEETS, for informational, 


educational and research purposes


 


Democrats have wasted little time in moving to impeach the President after taking office in the new year, with one new Congresswoman even declaring her desire to “go in and impeach the motherfucker.”

Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Muslim Congresswoman from Michigan, was sworn in on Thursday, controversially taking her oath of office using a Quran.

According to reports, Tlaib quoted her son telling her, “Look mama you won. Bullies don’t win.”

Tlaib was said to reply in front of a MoveOn funded crowd “You’re right, they don’t. And we’re gonna go in and impeach the mother****er.”


Tlaib isn’t the only Democrat calling for Trump’s head. In addition to Tlaib’s comments, coming after Democrats officially took over the House, Democratic California Rep. Brad Sherman reintroduced articles of impeachment against Trump.


The resolution accuses the President of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” and claims that Trump “sought to use his authority to hinder and cause the termination of” investigations related to alleged Russian “collusion” during the 2016 campaign.

In addition, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) told Lawrence O’Donnell that “Donald Trump is either going to be impeached by the Congress, or impeached at the ballot box.”

“It’s really a race as to which one will happen first. I think for the sake of democracy, just as Speaker Pelosi said, I’d rather see it done at the ballot box, but we’re not going to shirk our responsibility.” Swalwell added.

Earlier Thursday, in an interview with NBC, new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to rule out the possibility of impeachment.

“Well we have to wait and see what happens with the Mueller report. We shouldn’t be impeaching for a political reason, and we shouldn’t avoid impeachment for a political reason. We just have to see how it comes,” Pelosi said.

In addition, Georgia Rep Hank Johnson, a Congressman voted most clueless by congressional staffers, delivered a speech comparing Trump to Hitler, and yesterday doubled down on the comments.

The Witch Hunt continues.

_______________________________________________________________

 SEE ALSO: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/01/democrat-rep-hank-johnson-resorts-to-tactics-employed-against-foes-of-jihad-terror-compares-trump-to-hitler

EXCERPTS:

 “At Friendship Baptist Church in Atlanta, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) repeatedly compared President Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler” and referenced him as “racist strongman.”

This is the kind of propaganda that routinely used against the counter-jihad movement: branding those who oppose jihad terror as “racist” is as ridiculous as comparing Trump to Hitler. Hitler allied with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and murdered Jews during the Holocaust. Hank Johnson’s bizarre comparison is abhorrent. Trump has been a staunch ally and defender of Israel, the number-one target of jihadists. Trump moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and defunded  the UNRWA (United Nations Relief Works Agency). The UNRWA  is “an active part of perpetuating the conflict. UNRWA schools have become a hotbed of incitement against Israel, Jews and the West. UNRWA personnel have been caught time and again working hand in hand with Hamas, enabling terror tunnels to run under its institutions.”







































 





 ______________________________________________________________



 New Muslim Rep. Rashida Tlaib sworn in on Quran, says of Trump: 



“We’re going to impeach the motherf***er”



BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS




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






Merely “hours after being sworn in as the first-ever Palestinian-American to serve in Congress, Michigan Democrat Rashida Tlaib used an expletive to describe US President Donald Trump and vowed to push for his impeachment.”

Tlaib brings into Congress a heavy-handed agenda that she has made no secret of, one that is vociferously anti-Trump and anti-Israel. Tlaib has also stated that she would “absolutely” vote against military aid to the Jewish state, which she knows full well is a jihadi target for obliteration. In fact, she seeks a one-state solution, which would destroy Israel as a homeland for Jews.

This new “Palestinian source of pride” was sworn in on the Quran, and then graciously stated of America’s Commander in Chief: “We’re gonna impeach the motherf****r.” Classy.



“Rashida Tlaib on Trump: We’re going to impeach that mother****er,” Times of Israel, January 4, 2019:



Hours after being sworn in as the first-ever

Palestinian-American to serve in Congress, Michigan Democrat Rashida

Tlaib used an expletive to describe US President Donald Trump and vowed

to push for his impeachment.

Speaking at an event organized by progressive group MoveOn, Tlaib recounted a conversation she had with her son.

“‘Momma look you won. Bullies don’t win,’” she said he told her.

“And I said, ‘Baby they don’t, because we’re going to go in there and impeach the mother****er,” Tlaib continued to applause.

There was no immediate response from Trump, who is known for taking to Twitter to hit out at critics.

Placing her hand on a Quran that once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, Tlaib was sworn in earlier Thursday.

Together with Minnesota’s Ilhan Omar, Tlaib, an outspoken

activist-cum-politician from Michigan, was one of the two first Muslim

women to enter Congress Thursday, among dozens of freshman lawmakers who

 are helping make the 116th Congress the most diverse one in the

nation’s history…..


______________________________________________________________



 Rashida Tlaib (in red thobe and glasses), accompanied by her family, being sworn in with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (in pink dress), at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, January 3, 2019. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images/AFP)



 Rashida Tlaib (in red thobe and glasses), accompanied by her family, being sworn in with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (in pink dress), at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, January 3, 2019. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images/AFP)



 Hugh Fitzgerald: Rashida Tlaib and Jefferson’s Qur’an



BY HUGH FITZGERALD



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


 


Rashida Tlaib, the newly-elected Democratic congresswoman from Michigan, was sworn in yesterday on the Qur’an once owned by Thomas Jefferson. She claims this Qur’an shows that “Muslims were there at the beginning.” The only thing that Jefferson’s Qur’an shows is that he was curious about all sorts of things, and that, among those things, was Islam. He apparently bought the Qur’an, in the 1734 translation by George Sale, when he was a young man studying law. We do not know when, or even if, he read the book. Rashida Tlaib may think Jefferson’s owning of the Qur’an was a sign of his respect for the faith. The facts suggest otherwise.

We do know that in March 1786, Jefferson and John Adams met in London with the ambassador from Tripoli, Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, to discuss Triopolitanian attacks on American shipping. When they inquired “concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury,” the ambassador replied:

“It was written in their Koran, (that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.”

Jefferson came away from that encounter convinced that the only language these Muslims understood was force, and that any payment to Tripoli, as Abdrarahman had demanded, in order to stop attacks on American shipping, would not work. Jefferson argued that paying tribute would only encourage more attacks. However, even those who agreed with Jefferson thought the American navy was ill-prepared to engage the ships of the Bashaw of Tripoli, and it was not until 1801, when Jefferson had become President, and turned down a demand from the Bashaw for tribute in order to exempt American shipping from Tripolitanian attacks, that the first Barbary War began.

Ever since his encounter in London with Abdrarahman in 1786, Jefferson had taken a dim, and realistic view, of Muslims. He understood that they attacked Christian shipping because they were convinced that they had both a right and a duty to do so. Possibly Rashida Tlaib does not know about his encounter with the envoy from Tripoli. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if among the reporters covering her swearing-in — and with many no doubt gushing over this “first Palestinian-American” member of Congress — there will be at least one intrepid reporter who will remind readers that the Qur’an Jefferson owned was one of 6,487 books his library ultimately included, that he had bought it as a young law student, and that there is no indication that he ever read it, much less ever mentioned it respectfully. Further, Jefferson’s own pugnacity toward the Muslim rulers of North Africa, and his refusal to countenance the payment of tribute to the Bashaw of Tripoli, which led to the First Barbary War, have their roots in his first encounter with a Muslim, the Tripolitanian envoy in London, Sidi Hajj Abdrarahman, who, when Jefferson asked him the reason why Tripoli’s sailors attacked Americans who had done nothing to them, coolly explained that: “It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.” 

Let’s hope that that important part of Jefferson’s own education in Islam is faithfully reported, especially because of the tendentious political use to which his Qur’an is being put, and not for the first time — Keith Ellison also made a big deal about being sworn in on “Jefferson’s Qur’an.” Americans deserve to know what Jefferson thought both of Islam as a creed, and of Muslims as self-declared enemies (“it was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners…”) of the young Republic. Even Rashida Tlaib could benefit from such a history lesson. It might just dampen her enthusiasm for Jefferson, as she finds out more about our third President.

Finally, it is pleasant to think that among Congressional islamocritics, there might be one who will be bold enough to ask to be sworn in on the Bible that once belonged to John Quincy Adams, in order, that islamocritic could explain, “to pay tribute to the acuity of our most learned President, John Quincy Adams, the defender of the Amistad slaves, and a formidable student of Islam whose views on the faith deserve to be better known among Americans today.”

_________________________________________________________



 CONGRESSWOMAN SWORN IN ON THOMAS JEFFERSON’S QURAN IS DEEPLY CONFUSED ABOUT AMERICAN HISTORY 



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


(Friday Church News Notes, January 11, 2019, www.wayoflife.org, fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) – Rashiba Tlaib, newly elected Democratic congresswoman from Michigan, was sworn into Congress last week on a Quran owned by Thomas Jefferson. She said, “It’s important to me because a lot of Americans have this kind of feeling that Islam is somehow foreign to American history. Muslims were there at the beginning. … Some of our founding fathers knew more about Islam than some members of Congress now … My faith has centered me. The prophet Mohammed was always talking about freedom and justice” (“Detroit congresswoman to use Jefferson’s Koran,” Detroit Free Press, Dec. 19, 2019). Tlaib is right that some of the founding fathers knew more about Islam than some members of Congress today, but not in the way that she assumes. As soon as America gained independence from Britain, Muslim pirates had begun seizing American merchant ships and enslaving the crews for ransom. In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were sent to London to negotiate with Tripoli’s ambassador, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja. When asked why the Muslims attacked nations that “had done them no injury,” Adja replied, “It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once” (Thomas Jefferson Papers, Series 1 1651-1827, Library of Congress). The Barbary pirates cited the Koran as their authority for attacking, brutalizing, and enslaving anyone who is not submitted to Allah. In 1795, America paid $1 million for the release of 115 sailors, an amount that was one-sixth of the U.S. budget. The pirates demanded an annual payment of the same amount. When Jefferson was elected America’s second president in 1801, he and his fellow citizens were of no mind to accept bullying and blackmail. The U.S. Navy was built to protect America against Muslim pirates. One of the most memorable acts of the Barbary War was in 1805 when a force of eight U.S. Marines and 400 Greek and Arab mercenaries, led by U.S. Navy Lieutenant William Eaton, force-marched across 600 miles of desert from Alexandria, Egypt, to capture the city of Derne (or Derna) on the shores of Tripoli. This is memorialized in the U.S. Marine Hymn. By 1816, the Barbary states were forced to cease attacking American and British ships, and this was accomplished by force of arms.



 https://www.israellycool.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/sarsour-palestine.png



 New Muslim Rep. Rashida Tlaib celebrates 



with Linda Sarsour, puts “Palestine” on office map



BY ROBERT SPENCER



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


 Apparently “Palestine” is somewhere north of Cairo, but precision wasn’t
 what whoever did this was after. These two photos are a solid 
indication of what kind of Representative Rashida Tlaib is going to be: 
one who represents far-Left interests of stoking racial hatred, 
demanding entitlements, and vilifying U.S. ally Israel. Of course, no 
one has ever had any reason to suspect that she was going to do anything
 else.


 















    





        Hannah Allam

        

✔

      

      @HannahAllam

    










        







Someone has already made a slight alteration to the map that hangs in Rashida Tlaib’s new congressional office.







  








2,466









3:00 PM – Jan 3, 2019























    





        Palestine in the UK


      

      @PalMissionUK

    










        







US Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib shines in a traditional Palestinian dress (Thobe) as she prepares to be sworn in today as the first congresswoman of a Palestinian origin.  (pic via @HannahAllam)







  








19









6:13 PM – Jan 3, 2019








______________________________________________________________



 Antisemitic tweet from Muslim Rep. Rashida Tlaib: Accuses pro-Israel Americans of 



“dual loyalty” over BDS




______________________________________  



 http://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/msnbc/components/video/201612/2016-12-09t02-54-00-933z--1280x720.nbcnews-ux-1080-600.jpg



 Alhamdulillah: For Ilhan Omar, All Praise Be To Allah For Her Victory (Part One)



BY HUGH FITZGERALD



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


 


A tweet from Ilhan Omar to her “sister” Rashida Tlaib right after the elections:









 



 Ilhan Omar  ✔  @IlhanMN 


 





        





Congratulations to my sister @RashidaTlaib on your victory!


I cannot wait to serve with you, inshallah. 🙏🏾



 






 17K 




 1:47 AM – Nov 7, 2018


Why is Rashida Ilhan’s “sister”? And why was it that Ilhan Omar “cannot wait” to serve with her? Because they are both Muslims. That’s enough to make them “sisters.” That’s more than enough.

 Ilhan Omar, one of the first two Muslim women elected to the U.S. Congress, began after her election by treating her audience at her victory speech to a dance performance by fellow Somali-Americans, before giving the universal Islamic greeting with which her victory speech began.



“As-salaam aleikum,” the Democrat said to a crowded room

of supporters during her victory party in Minneapolis, using an Islamic

phrase that means “Peace be upon you.”

“Wa aleikum salaam,” the crowd immediately replied, which means “and upon you be peace.”

After the exchange, which echoes the way millions of American Muslims

 greet each other every day, Omar offered her gratitude to God.

“Alhamdulillah,” Omar said three times, a phrase that translates to “all praise to God.”

Hearing that, her supporters erupted in cheers.

Omar’s win in Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District means Congress

will soon have its first hijab-wearing member, its first refugee and its

 first Somali-American.

The common Islamic phrases in Omar’s speech were a poignant moment

for many American Muslims ― especially after an election cycle filled

with Islamophobic attacks against Muslim candidates running for

election.

Hearing Omar use the Islamic phrases in the acceptance speech felt

affirming, authentic and relatable, Margaret Hill, managing director of

the Muslim Anti-Racism Collaborative, told HuffPost.

“For any Muslim who draws on their faith for strength, these are

natural phrases,” Hill said. “They are everyday phrases. I see a Muslim,

 I give them that greeting. I often say it when I address a crowd.”

Muslims’ practice of exchanging blessings upon meeting is rooted in Islamic scriptures.

It’s also not at all uncommon for Christian politicians to use

religious language to give thanks, with phrases like, “praise God,” and

“to God be the glory.”

Hill said that saying “Alhamdulillah” is an act of humility for Muslims.

“We don’t bat an [eye] when Christians reference their faith in

victory speeches, in moments of silence, or opening prayers,” Hill said.

 “If we as Muslims are questioned for using phrases which are part of

our daily life, then that speaks a lot to the climate of anti-Muslim

bigotry.”


But these phrases deserve to be questioned. “As salaam aleikum” is a phrase uttered by Muslims to other Muslims; it is not ordinarily meant to be addressed to non-Muslims. And the phrase “alhamdulillah,” which means “praise be to Allah,” is an example of Islam’s inshallah-fatalism: praising Allah for whatever Allah wills, for Allah Knows Best.



Hearing Omar open her acceptance speech by wishing

blessings to her supporters and thanking God is “no different than

hearing other members of Congress or public figures thank God for their

successes,” Hoda Hawa, director of policy and advocacy at the Muslim

Public Affairs Council, told HuffPost.


It’s very different. Does Hoda Hawa know many Christian “members of Congress” who send greetings, but only to their fellow Christians, as Ilhan Omar was doing when she greeted only fellow Muslims with her “as-salaam aleikum”? And how many “Christian politicians” nowadays thank not their families, supporters, party, but God (“praise be to God”) for their electoral successes?



Hawa said Omar’s election ensures that diverse American communities are represented in Congress.


There have already been two Muslim members of Congress; now there are three: Andre Carson, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar, who ran for the seat being vacated by the first Muslim member of the House, Keith Ellison. But there is one “American community” that is “not represented in Congress” today at all — the Christian refugees from Muslim lands. These refugees, mainly from Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Pakistan, have been on the receiving end of Islamic intolerance. Their experience of Islam, and understanding of the Jihad, need to be heard in Congress. Perhaps in 2020 there will be such a candidate.



“Her presence is an inspiration for young American

Muslims who seek to become more politically engaged,” [Hoda Hawa] told

HuffPost.

Slate reporter Aymann Ismail wrote in a post that he felt “transported” after hearing Omar use the Islamic phrases.

“As the child of Muslim immigrants myself, for years, every vote I

cast for a national candidate felt mostly like a vote against whoever I

thought was more likely to stoke hatred against Americans like me,”

Ismail wrote.


This self-pitying victimization — this claim of anxiety about which candidate was more likely “to stoke hatred against Americans like me” — infuriates, especially because there has been almost no such “stoking of hatred against Americans” like Aymann Ismail, that is, Muslims. The mainstream media largely support Islam and Muslims, labeling sober islamocritics as islamophobes, and helping to keep the contents of the Qur’an and Hadith more or less under wraps, lest knowledge of their contents lead to a widespread revulsion with Islam. That media has gone into overdrive in its celebrating the victories of the “first two Muslim women to have been elected to Congress.”



“In Omar, I see a congresswoman who not only sees the

world the way I do, but whose presence alone will remind Congress that I

 too am American, and so are all American Muslims.”


How does Aymann Ismail know that  Ilhan Omar “sees the world the way” he does? Because they are both Muslims, and for him that shared identity effaces all other differences. And notice his allusion to the (non-existent) mistreatment of Muslims who, he claims, have hitherto not been recognized as real Americans, but who now, thanks to Omar’s victory, everyone in Congress will be reminded that we Muslims are Americans, too. But why does Aymann Ismail think anyone in Congress needs to be reminded that Muslims are “American citizens too”? They already have had  Keith Ellison and Andre Carson as fellow members of the House, the former having served for more than ten years. Surely that’s enough of a reminder that Muslims “are American citizens too.”

______________________________________________________________

SEE ALSO: 

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/01/150000-sign-petition-to-impeach-muslim-rep-rashida-tlaib-who-called-trump-motherfer 



 


https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/01/muslim-rep-rashida-tlaib-hosts-palestinian-supporter-of-jihad-terror-group-hizballah-at-private-dinner

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/272568/rep-tlaib-guest-praised-murderer-jewish-4-year-old-daniel-greenfield 

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272485/rashida-tlaibs-progressive-window-dressing-pedro-gonzalez 

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/01/glazov-moment-tlaibs-guest-praised-murderer-of-4-year-old-jewish-girl

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/02/muslim-rep-rashida-tlaib-registered-to-vote-from-false-address-represented-state-house-district-she-didnt-live-in





 





 



 



			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
TENNESSEE DEMOCRAT PROPOSES DANGEROUS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						



 http://s9953.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/steve-cohen.png



TENNESSEE DEMOCRAT PROPOSES DANGEROUS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS 



BY STEVE BYAS



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


 


It is as predictable as the sun rising in the East every morning — a

Democrat member of Congress from Tennessee, Steve Cohen, has introduced a

 constitutional amendment to eliminate the Electoral College on the

first day of the new Congress. Cohen’s amendment would provide for the

direct election of both the president and the vice president of the

United States by a national, rather than a state-by-state, popular vote.


Cohen, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, issued a statement

explaining why he wishes to change the method of presidential election

crafted by the framers of the Constitution: “In two presidential

elections since 2000, including the most recent one in which Hillary

Clinton won 2.8 million more votes than her opponent, the winner of the

popular vote did not win the election because of the distorting effect

of the outdated Electoral College. Americans expect and deserve the

winner of the popular vote to win office. More than a century ago, we

amended our Constitution to provide for the direct election of U.S.

Senators. It is past time to directly elect our President and Vice

President.”


Cohen’s proposal to ditch the system of presidential election found

in the Constitution is a symptom of the desire of many on the Left to

change our system of government from a federal republic into a unitary

democracy. The framers of the Constitution were not looking to create a

government to insure that the will of the majority prevailed in all

matters, but rather were desirous of providing the “blessings of

liberty” to themselves and to those Americans would come after them. If

making sure the will of the majority prevailed was the goal, then the

Bill of Rights, and indeed, the Constitution itself would be

superfluous.


The United States was a creation of the 13 states that had entered

into a military alliance to successfully secede from the British Empire.

 They did not liked being ruled by a far-off distant government

regarding what they considered local matters, and they had no desire to

put in place another such national government in America. Instead, they

created a federal system of government, with most governmental powers

reserved to the states.






As was the case with Congress, in which one house (the House of

Representatives) would represent the people directly, giving some states

 more representation because of their larger population, and another

house (the Senate) which would represent each state equally, the mode of

 presidential election was a compromise. Each state legislature would

develop its own method of choosing electors (the number of which would

be determined by each state’s total congressional representation, House

and Senate), who would in turn elect the president.


Alexander Hamilton said the way the president was to be elected under the Constitution was certainly not perfect, but it was “excellent.” Writing in The Federalist,

 No. 83, Hamilton said, “The mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate

 of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any

consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has

received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents.”


Can one imagine a presidential election conducted by a national

popular vote, instead of the present system, using the Electoral

College? As we saw in Florida in the last mid-term election, and in

2000, with the presidential election, much opportunity for mischief in

ballot counting exists. With the Electoral College, this mischief is at

least limited to one state. Were the United States to have a national

election in which one candidate won by only a few thousand votes, it is

doubtful that a recount would even be possible. Naturally, an election

by direct popular vote would require the creation of an election process

 controlled by the federal government, not by the states.


Cohen’s proposal illustrates that there is a significant number of

people who simply do not like the work of the Founding Fathers, which

should cause those who are conservative and are advocating for an

Article V Constitutional Convention to change course. The same

electorate that just turned control of the House of Representatives to

Steve Cohen and Nancy Pelosi is the same electorate that would elect

delegates to any convention considering amendments to the Constitution.


There is no question that the Electoral College would be in the

crosshairs at any such constitutional convention. So would the Second

Amendment. For that matter, given the opportunity, many would like to

undo the Constitution itself, and replace it with something less

restrictive of their ability to expand the power, size, and scope of the

 government in D.C.


Not content with the prospect of scrapping the Electoral College,

Representative Cohen wants to restrict the pardoning powers of the

president, as well: He introduced a second proposed amendment to limit

the pardoning powers of the president. These pardoning powers were given

 to the president as a check on the judicial branch — part of the system

 of checks and balances the Founders created when they adopted the

Constitution.


“Presidents should not pardon themselves, their families, their

administration or campaign staff. This constitutional amendment would

expressly prohibit this and any future president, from abusing the

pardon power,” Cohen said in his statement.


The fact is, those people are likely partisan targets of judicial

misconduct, yet Cohen wants to give the courts unlimited powers,

unchecked by the power of a presidential pardon, in this area. It is

obvious that Cohen wants to target President Trump.


Fortunately, the Founders wisely made it difficult to make such

fundamental changes to the basic law of the country, requiring a

consensus that such a change should be made. All 27 amendments to the

Constitution have come after a two-thirds vote of each house of

Congress, followed by ratification from three-fourths of the states.

This makes such partisan efforts as Cohen’s highly unlikely.


But a national convention, called to consider amendments to the

Constitution, would be under no such two-thirds restriction. A simple

majority of the delegates (chosen by the same electorate that has given

us our present Congress) could propose any amendment they wish —

including the abolition of the Electoral College, the Second Amendment,

or indeed, the Constitution itself.



 



			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
TRUMP FORGETS HIS PLEDGE TO SUPPORT SECOND AMENDMENT; CAPITULATING TO ANTI-GUN CROWD
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						



TRUMP FORGETS HIS PLEDGE TO SUPPORT SECOND AMENDMENT; CAPITULATING TO ANTI-GUN CROWD



BY ROGER KATZ



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




 Donald Trump At National Rifle Association (NRA) Conference (5/20/2016)






 Donald Trump At National Rifle Association (NRA) Conference (5/20/2016)




New York – -(AmmoLand.com)-

 When Trump called for a ban on “Bump Stocks,” he ignored his pledge to

support the Second Amendment; capitulating completely to the antigun

crowd.

As if the Republican controlled Senate’s failure to enact national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation

 and President Trump’s failure to push forward a pro-Second Amendment

agenda during his first two years in Office weren’t bad enough—a serious

 failure of omission on the part of both the U.S. Senate and the President—Trump’s ban on“bump stocks”—an act of commission—is even worse. By foolishly, impetuously, acting to ban “bump stocks,” the President demonstrates a dangerous naivety and

 ineptitude, along with a disturbingly blithe lack of concern for the

well-being of the fundamental, immutable, unalienable, inviolate right of the American  people to keep and bear arms. Trump is obviously oblivious to the deleterious impact his unilateral action shall have—not simply may have—on the Second Amendment itself.

President Trump’s failure to cajole Congress to action, to strengthen

 our most cherished and important right, is unacceptable. That failure

deserves our condemnation. But undermining our most cherished right is

alarming and unforgivable. That deserves our lasting contempt. With the radical Left urging

 Democratic Party House members to impeach Trump, upon issuance of the

Special Counsel’s, Robert Mueller’s, report that is due out at any time

now, the President can ill afford to antagonize his own base; but Trump

has done just that with his flagrant attack on the Second Amendment.

Trump should have left the matter of bump stocks to Congress. Congress, acting through its Article 1 legislative power, can, conceivably, lawfully, take such action to ban them, if it sought to do so, assuming—a big “if”—that the law, depending on the matter of its statutory construction, does not run afoul of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But it is not for the President to take that action upon himself under any set of circumstances. We have a system of checks and balances in our Country, and for good reason.

Congress makes the law. That power is within the province of Congress, not the President. The President’s duty is to faithfully execute the laws Congress enacts. Under our Constitution, the

 President has no authority to make binding law, in lieu of Congress.

Unlike Great Britain and Australia, the Chief Executive has no authority

 to self-execute laws. The President does not serve as both Chief Executive and “Legislator in Chief.”

We have seen how Obama had shown a marked, carefree proclivity to ignore the federal Government’s system of “checks and balances” that the founders of our Republic wisely conceived of and assiduously placed into our Constitution. As Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, makes crystal clear, it is the province of Congress to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Obama,

 as President, and, no less a lawyer and academician, knew this. Yet,

that did not prevent him from unlawfully promulgating and implementing

his infamous, illegal “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA), policy, along with the concomitant mess it left for his successor, President Trump.

What was Obama’s motive for DACA? As he said, as reported to the Leftist media echo chamber, CNN:  “…

 for years while I was President, I asked Congress to send me such a

bill. That bill never came. “Let’s be clear: the action taken today

isn’t required legally. It’s a political decision, and a moral

question.” Obama proselytized to Americans, talking down to us as if we were children, suggesting that it is he, Obama, “the Great Father,” who

 shall teach us all what we ostensibly need to know about law, politics,

 and morality too, audaciously exclaiming that, as Congress didn’t give

Obama what he wants—he—Barack Obama, will make law himself!

Obama’s remarks are a textbook example of propaganda, disseminated to the public by an insincere Press. It is bombastic, simplistic, perfunctory rhetoric; absolute drivel. Obama certainly knew it; and so should Press. This smug, duplicitous attitude on the part of both Obama and the Press serves to make Obama’s remarks and the mainstream media’s reporting of them all the more diabolical and reprehensible.

One salient, critical duty of the Chief Executive of the Nation, set down in Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” The

 laws the President is duty-bound to faithfully execute the laws

Congress enacts. The President has no power to issue personal edicts,

suggesting they have the force of Congressional law, when in fact they

don’t, and cannot ever have. As Article 1, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution makes abundantly and absolutely clear: “All

 legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the

United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of

Representatives.” There is nothing in Article 1 or in any other Article of the U.S. Constitution reciting that legislative powers, of some sort or another, also vest in the President. Such powers do not invest in the President; only in Congress.

The U.S. Constitution Consists of Fundamental Precepts; Not Simple Platitudes.

Trump, as with Obama before him, has begun to demonstrate a disturbing propensity to ignore precepts of the U.S. Constitution, when he wishes to do so, unmoved by the dictates of either the Constitution or his conscience. His unilateral action banning bump stocks was

 a calculated move. It is obvious why he took this action. He evidently

felt the general public supported it—more of those in favor of it than

not. He caved to public pressure to deliver something to the public,

because of the worst mass shooting ever to occur in our Nation and an

unthinkable tragedy that happened to occur on his watch. That may appear

 as reason enough to act by some, but Trump should not have fallen prey

to the frenzy of the moment, and with such apparent alacrity, abandon,

and smug self-assurance.

The continued existence of the natural, fundamental rights set forth in the Bill of Rights are

 not properly to be left to public whim, and never have been. Public

opinion is easily manipulated and ever changeable. The founders of our

Republic didn’t intend for the fundamental rights and liberties of the

American people to be weakened by mere heat and rancor of a given moment

 in time. That ought to be clear enough to most Americans if they

stop to consider this. It should be clear enough to Congress. And it

should be clear enough to the President, too; but apparently it wasn’t.

Having taken the action to ban bump stock devices, President Trump did nothing to make this Nation safer. Having bowed to political pressure–something he is, often and admirably enough, not ordinarily inclined to do, but did so in this instance–he

 reneged on a salient campaign promise he made to millions of Americans,

 namely that he, like they, fervently and reverently hold the Nation’s Second Amendment in the highest regard, and that he will do his best to preserve and strengthen it. Yet, a ban on bump stock devices does

 no such thing. Rather, it makes a mockery of Trump’s promise to the

American people. Worse, taking the action he did to usurp Congressional

authority and prerogative to make law, Trump did much more than simply

undermine a campaign pledge; he undermined the very Constitution he swore an oath to preserve and to protect. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution makes plain that,

“Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take

the following oath or affirmation:—‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that

 I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States,

 and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the

Constitution of the United States.’”

Trump did not faithfully execute the office of President of the United States by making up his own law. He doesn’t preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States when he takes upon himself–as did his predecessor Barack Obama–the role the framers of the Constitution reserved alone to Congress, namely the authority to make law. And, Trump certainly doesn’t preserve,

 protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, when he

undermines the fundamental, immutable, unalienable rights and liberties

of the American people as codified in the Bill of Rights of the United

States Constitution. 

Whether operating through grandiose self-delusion or blatant deceit, a

 Chief Executive, who fails to adhere to the limitations on his

authority, as our Constitution dictates and mandates, significantly threatens the continued well-being of a free Republic. Under no set of circumstances can suspension or abrogation of our Constitution ever be justified.

__________________________________________________

*We urge all Americans, who support the Second Amendment, to sign the Petition, to overturn the ATF Rule that bans “bump stocks.”


Arbalest Quarrel

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special

purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent

Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our

 knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis.

Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

______________________________________________________________



 Trump’s School Safety Commission Begs States 



for Red Flag Laws








 





 



			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
BRANNON HOWSE: MARXIST REVOLUTION IN THE USA
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						



BRANNON HOWSE: MARXIST REVOLUTION IN THE USA



BY JAMIE GLAZOV



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










 


This new Glazov Gang edition features the Brannon Howse Moment with Brannon Howse, the producer of the movie, “Sabotage.” [Visit SabotagetheMovie.com.]



Brannon unveils The Marxist Revolution in the USA, taking us Inside the Left’s Vicious War on America.



Don’t miss it!



[Jamie Glazov will be speaking at Beverly Hills Hotel on Feb. 6 about his new book: Jihadist Psychopath: How He Is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us. Register HERE. Order the book HERE.]



Subscribe to the Glazov Gang‘s YouTube Channel and follow us on Twitter: @JamieGlazov.



Please donate through our Pay Pal account.





 



			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	


			  

					
1
…
497
498
499
500
501
…
795