GUN/RIGHT TO LIFE RIGHTS; SECOND AMENDMENT NEWS: JOIN PRO GUN LAWMAKERS SEEKING ANSWERS & ACCOUNTABILITY FROM ANTI-GUN BANKS

Tomi Ledford: 
Everybody Has a Right to Life
I do know what it’s like to be vulnerable. I know what it’s like to feel like you can’t protect your children or yourself. And it’s terrifying when you have a spouse, whether it be husband or wife, that’s serving overseas thousands of miles away, and you’re the only one there to stand up for yourself, to stand up for your home, for your little kid that’s right there next to you.I support the Second Amendment because of that. I support the NRA because they support my right to protect my kids. Everybody has a right to life. And you have the right to protect that. And nobody has a right to take it away from you.
JOIN PRO GUN LAWMAKERS 
SEEKING ANSWERS & ACCOUNTABILITY 
FROM ANTI-GUN BANKS
BY NRAHQ
SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2018/04/join-pro-gun-lawmakers-seeking-answers-and-accountability-from-anti-gun-banks/#axzz5EFfCNxWG; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Fairfax, VA – –(Ammoland.com)- We recently reported on the disturbing trend of large U.S. banks – most notably Bank of America (BofA) and Citigroup – using their enormous market power to discriminate against customers based on lawful firearm-related business activities.
These decisions were unabashedly prompted and lauded by anti-gun activists as political statements and social engineering, not as business decisions based on any alleged financial unsoundness or criminal activity of the affected customers. This feigned high-mindedness is particularly galling to gun-owning Americans whose billions of tax dollars helped bail out these financial behemoths after the banks’ reckless business practices brought their companies and the U.S. economy to the brink of disaster. Now, pro-gun members of Congress are demanding answers and accountability. You can do your part, too, by lodging your own complaints against the banks with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) led the way with a March 29, 2018 letter to Citigroup CEO Michael Corbat. Kennedy expressed “significant concerns” about the bank’s new policies and asked to be provided with “the specific number of entities in Louisiana which stand to lose banking services as a result of [Citigroup’s] increased scrutiny on law-abiding businesses.” He pointedly reminded the bank, “It feels like yesterday when Citi received nearly half a trillion dollars in taxpayer-backed guarantees and cash after putting the entire financial system at risk,” a move Kennedy called, “the largest government bailout in American history.” Kennedy encouraged Citigroup to be a good corporate citizen by refocusing on business decisions, including “addressing apparent shortcomings like overcharging credit card interest rates to account holders and compliance with U.S. anti-money laundering laws.”
Also joining the effort were 16 Congressmen led by Rep. Todd Rokita (R-IN), who on April 11 wrote to Emily W. Murphy, head of the General Services Administration, asking her to reconsider a $700+ billion contract with Citigroup to help implement the federal charge card system, SmartPay 3.  The letter noted that the bank’s new firearm policies “run counter to laws and regulations passed by Congress, and they infringe and discriminate against an individual’s Second Amendment rights.” Such policies, the signatories opined, “should not be endorsed by our federal government,” which instead should “do business with companies that respect all of our constitutional rights, including the Second Amendment.” The letter urged the GSA to “take all necessary steps to review and terminate its contract with Citibank unless they rescind their guidelines … .”
The most recent action came from Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. On April 25, Crapo sent letters to the CEOs of both BofA and Citigroup demanding answers about their recent anti-gun activity. “It is deeply concerning to me,” he wrote, “when large national banks … which receive significant forms of government support and benefits, use their market power to manage social policy by withholding access to credit to customers and companies they disfavor.”
Crapo also raised the issue of the banks’ collection of personally identifiable information (PII) and how it might be used “to monitor and deny financial services to individuals and companies who are engaging in completely legal and, in this case, Constitutionally-protected activity.” He additionally sought further information about the banks’ restrictive firearm policies and any other legal transactions, industries, and businesses they disfavor, prohibit, or boycott. “We should all be concerned if banks … seek to replace legislators and policymakers and attempt to manage social policy by limiting access to credit,” he concluded.
One way banking consumers concerned about BofA’s and Citigroup’s antigun discrimination can make their views known is to submit a complaint directly to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The CFPB is an entity of the U.S. Government charged with “mak[ing] consumer financial markets work for consumers, responsible providers, and the economy as a whole.” Its mandates include “[r]ooting out unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices,” taking “consumer complaints,” and “[m]onitoring financial markets for new risks to consumers.”

Particularly useful would be complaints by any business or individual who was directly affected by the BofA’s or Citigroup’s new policies.

But every American adult likely uses or will need banking services to survive in the modern economy. Law-abiding gun owners have legitimate concerns about possible collusion and collective efforts between banks and/or banks and advocacy groups aimed at denying them services simply for exercising their rights under the U.S. Constitution and laws. These efforts also can create a hostile and chilling climate for the exercise of Second Amendment rights, particularly for those hoping to obtain financing for such things as home and auto purchases or running a small business. Once financial institutions take it upon themselves to set social policy that exceeds the requirements of the law, it’s impossible to know where they will stop or what other indicators of disfavored activity might become relevant to them. No American should be treated as a scapegoat for someone else’s crimes.
Complaints may be submitted directly through the CFPB’s website and will be forwarded to the banks themselves. Information on complaints may also be made publicly available so other consumers can evaluate for themselves whether the banks’ are behaving improperly and possibly share their own relevant experiences.
The NRA thanks Sens. Kennedy and Crapo and Rep. Rokita for their leadership in fighting discrimination against law-abiding gun owners.
About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
________________________________________________________________
NRA Endorses 2nd Amendment Lawsuit Filed by Ammunition Depot and CRPA
BY LAURA BURGESS
SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2018/04/nra-endorses-2nd-amendment-lawsuit-filed-by-ammunition-depot-and-crpa/#axzz5EFPjEWx5; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Ammunition Depot stands up for America’s Second Amendment Rights and access to ammunition.

NRA Endorses 2nd Amendment Lawsuit Filed by Ammunition Depot and CRPANRA Endorses 2nd Amendment Lawsuit Filed by Ammunition Depot and CRPA

Boca Raton, Fla. (Ammoland.com) – Ammunition Depot has joined the California Rifle & Pistol Association with support of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in filing a lawsuit challenging California’s restriction regarding the sale or transfer of ammunition. The lawsuit, titled Rhode et al v. Becerra, challenges California’s new ammunition sales restrictions as a violation of the Second Amendment and Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
The restrictions California is imposing on their residents include not being permitted to order ammunition online and have it delivered to their place of residence or business. Proposition 63 mandates ammunition retailers to check with the Department of Justice to determine if a buyer is authorized to purchase. Individuals and businesses must obtain a 1-year license for the California Department of Justice to sell ammunition. Individuals must have any ammunition purchased online delivered to a firearms retailer in order to take possession of it. If ammunition is shipped from out of state, the California resident may be required to pay a transfer fee and, starting in 2019, will need to submit to a background check. There is a penalty for failure to follow the retailer licensing requirements
“These restrictions on the sale and transfer of ammunition in the state of California are a direct impingement on the rights and liberties of the residents of that state, and we at Ammunition Depot are committed to standing up for our customers and our Second Amendment rights,” Scott Blick, managing partner of Ammunition Depot said. “Shopping online offers our customers convenience, selection, great pricing and our uncompromising service, which we feel is the right of all citizens of the United States, including Californians.”
The Rhode et al v. Becerra suit will be the fourth lawsuit filed by CRPA attorneys with support from the NRA challenging the provisions of Proposition 63 and other “Gunmageddon” bills on the docket.  Duncan v. Becerra has already succeeded in obtaining an injunction against Proposition 63’s ban on the possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. Two other lawsuits, Rupp v. Becerra and Villanueva v. Becerra are challenging California’s “assault weapon” restrictions and registration requirements and are also seeing injunctions.
Ammunition Depot asks customers and anyone concerned about our Second Amendment Rights to stay informed and subscribe to the NRA and CRPA email alerts and visit the NRA-ILA California dedicated webpage at www.StandAndFightCalifornia.com and the CRPA website at www.CRPA.org.
For additional information on the complaint filed, click here.
For more information go to  https://www.crpa.org/programs/volunteers-grassroots/ or send an email to volunteer@crpa.org.
About Ammunition Depot:
Ammunition Depot was founded by freedom-loving Americans committed to American’s right and responsibility to defend themselves, their families and their country. Ammunition Depot’s goal and promise is to provide to the American public high-quality ammunition at the lowest possible price with the best customer service they have ever experienced, period.
As Ammunition Depot has grown over the years, we have been able to create numerous jobs for hard-working Americans in our home state of Florida, as well as help many charities and foundations that support our troops, law enforcement, and the shooting sports.  Our plan is to keep growing, keep creating jobs, keep giving, and keep Ammunition Depot strong so that we can deliver the same great products and same great service for decades to come. www.ammunitiondepot.com
_______________________________________________________________
More in the Firearms Industry Should Follow Hornady’s New York Example
BY DAVID CODREA
SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2018/04/more-in-firearms-industry-should-follow-hornadys-new-york-example/#axzz5EFPJuiCv; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
USA – –(Ammoland.com)- “Today, the State of New York did one of the most despicable acts ever perpetrated by any state by asking New York banks, financial institutions and insurance companies to stop doing business with the gun and ammo industry,” an April 23 press release by Steve Hornady, president of Hornady Manufacturing Company announced.
“While it may not make a difference to New York, Hornady will not knowingly allow our ammunition to be sold to the State of NY or any NY agencies,” Hornady pledged. “Their actions are a blatant and disgusting abuse of office and we won’t be associated with a government that acts like that. They should be ashamed.”
That is exactly the correct way to respond, and gun owners who agree should show it by making Hornady a preferred brand. It’s the best way to demonstrate that such leadership in appreciated form those who show it, and expected from those who do not.
It’s reminiscent of a 2002 letter Ronnie Barrett, President of Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, sent to then-Chief William J. Bratton of the Los Angeles Police Department, about his company’s .50 caliber rifles.
“Your officer, speaking for the LAPD, endorsed the banning of this rifle and its ammunition,” Barret wrote, recounting how LAPD acted as stooges for a Violence Policy Center disinformation and smear campaign for the Los Angeles City Council.
“When I returned to my office from Los Angeles, I found an example of our need for mutual cooperation.” Barrett went on to explain. “Your department had sent one of your 82A1 rifles in to us for service.
“Please excuse my slow response on the repair service of the rifle,” he continued. “I will not sell, nor service, my rifles to those seeking to infringe upon the Constitution and the crystal clear rights it affords individuals to own firearms.”
It was not the only time Barrett has taken such a stance.
“Barrett cannot legally sell any of its products to lawbreakers,” he wrote in 2005. “Therefore, since California’s passing of AB50, the state is not in compliance with the US Constitution’s 2nd and 14th Amendments, and we will not sell nor service any of our products to any government agency of the State of California.”
“If Hawaii or any state bans the sale of the .50-caliber rifle, we will immediately stop the sale and service of all Barrett products to that state’s government agencies,” Barrett wrote to Honolulu Police Department Chief Boisse Correa in 2008. “We will also welcome all small arms manufacturers to take the same action.”
And in 2013, Barrett declared the State of New York as well as individual elected officials supportive of bans ineligible for sales and service.
These are precisely the measures gun owner rights advocates should expect from manufacturers. If a state or city discriminates against the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, those we patronize should not be giving aid and comfort to the enemy – and how else would you characterize an oath-breaking totalitarian wannabe trying to establish and enforce a monopoly of violence?
We see continuous new efforts to squeeze gun companies and gun owners out of the marketplace, with bank discrimination, insurance denials, boycotts and the like. Yet there are millions of gun owners who consider themselves Second Amendment advocates, and it’s past time they put their economic clout to effective use.
This is something national and state gun groups could take the lead on, at least the ones not afraid to rock the boat. And it’s past time gun manufacturers stopped acting like neutral parties, willing to reap the benefits of RKBA activism as long as they don’t have to take a stand.
What are the prominent anti-gun state and municipal agencies? Who supplies them with their firepower? In many cases it’s easy enough to find out.
It’s not inappropriate to publicly ask those companies where they stand, and to favor, publicize and patronize those that stand with American gun owners.
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.
In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

LIBERAL HYPOCRISY IN NEW YORK CITY~WEALTHY UPPER WEST SIDE LIVID LIBERALS: PARENTS LOVE DIVERSITY; BUT NOT IN THEIR KIDS’ SCHOOLS!

BUREAUCRATS/COMMUNIST LIBERALS
SCOLDING WEALTHY WHITE PARENTS, WHILE THEY HIDE THEIR WEALTH
ABOVE: Principal Henry Zymeck, the Computer School
Email: hzymeck@schools.nyc.gov
BELOW: MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO WITH 
SCHOOL CHANCELLOR RICHARD CARRANZA
ANOTHER “CAPITOL OF LIBERAL HYPOCRISY”
Livid Liberals: NYC Parents Love Diversity;
But Not in Their Kids’ Schools!
BY SELWYN DUKE
SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/28935-livid-liberals-nyc-parents-love-diversity-but-not-in-their-kids-schools; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Leftists would call conservatives objecting to forced integration “racists.” So what do you call liberals in a posh New York City neighborhood balking at minorities being moved into their kids’ middle schools?
Well, “angry,” for one thing.
The brouhaha has erupted in the Big Apple’s Upper West Side (shown), a limousine-liberal area that gave Hillary Clinton 89 percent of its votes. (Trump got less than eight percent.) Here’s what’s going on: The rare exceptional schools in NYC are virtually always in affluent neighborhoods — such as the Upper West Side. Entry “into them is based on statewide test scores,” according to American Thinker’s Peter Skurkiss, and these schools are predominantly white.
This doesn’t sit well with NYC racial bean counters, so enter the Distinct 3 desegregation plan. “This is a call to reserve 25% of the seats in the 16 high-performing schools of this Upper West Side district to students with low standardized test scores in math and English,” relates Skurkiss. “It will be blacks slated for those 25% reserved seats. This isn’t going over well with the wine and brie set. But to make matters worse for them, in order to make room for the low performers, about 25% of their kids will have to go to schools of, shall we say, color. That’s a game-changer.”
For sure. As I’ve reported in the past, things often don’t go well for white children when they’re a racial minority in schools. And they’re not going well in NYC, where the desegregation plan has sparked a battle among leftists, as a recent meeting at the Upper West Side’s P.S. 199 evidences (video below).
At the meeting, Henry Zymeck, principal of The Computer School, chastised the complaining parents for essentially saying, as he translates it, “My already advantaged kids needs [sic] more advantage! They need to be kept away from those [minority] kids!” He said this attitude was “tremendously offensive” to him (hey, at least he didn’t roll out the white-privilege tripe).
This is the Offensiveness Ploy, used regularly to stifle dissent. Of course, the person isn’t really offended; he just doesn’t happen to like what you’re saying. But stating as much would make him seem intolerant, so he instead shifts the onus onto the dissenter by claiming the latter is being “offensive,” today’s version of a heresy charge.
Also virtue signaling was school chancellor Richard Carranza, who expressed, “Wealthy white Manhattan parents angrily rant against plan to bring more black kids to their schools” in a tweet that made the New York Post’s cover (below).
new yorkk post ed boss
If Zymeck and Carranza appear more committed to leftist principles than those they condemn, note that they likely don’t have skin in the game. Zymeck is 60 years old and lives in posh Millwood, NY, outside of NYC, where the average annual income is $245,000 and the population is only 2.3 percent black. His income is listed at MyLife.com at $250,000-plus, and there’s no indication that he has spent recent decades anywhere but wealthy Westchester County. So it’s a good bet his kids never attended NYC government schools; they could even have gone to private school.
It’s harder finding information on Carranza. We do know that Bolshevik Bill (a.k.a. Mayor de Blasio) recruited him from the Houston school system, that he has been accused of sexual misconduct, and that he’s paid a whopping $345,000 a year for his Big Apple position. In other words, there’s no ghetto living or schools in his two children’s futures.
But we’ve heard this story before. I reported in 2015 on a similar integration controversy in a neighborhood appropriately named Dumbo, in Brooklyn, which National Review writer Reihan Salam called “the Capital of Liberal Hypocrisy” (though the Upper West Side may now steal that title). And Salam explained the leftists’ opposition to Dumbo diversity thus: “Of course they want integration, they’ll tell you, but only if it entails no sacrifice on their part.” He quoted one Dumbo parent who actually said, “It’s more complicated when it’s about your own children.” But as I wrote:
Really, though, it isn’t.
It just seems so when you stop being feelings-oriented and actually start to think.
It’s easy to operate emotionally and embrace feel-good ideology — which polishes up leftist credentials and guarantees invitations to the right cocktail parties — when someone else’s ox is being gored. It’s easy to be idealistic when you don’t have to live with your ideals. As learned, however, by the lad who’d dreamt of being an astronaut but then balked upon embarking upon the process and coming to understand the difficulty involved, fantasy can be simple. Reality, though, is often complicated. And actually living your policies brings their reality home to you.
And living in a fantasy-world leads to fantastical accusations. As Salam opined remarking on leftist hypocrisy, “It’s easy to imagine how these Dumbo progressives might have reacted had this story unfolded in Atlanta or Birmingham — they’d surely chalk up resistance to the rezoning to racism.”
And what of the virtue-signaling Zymeck, who claimed he was pained that the Upper West Side parents were rejecting the introduction of “tremendously disadvantaged” youth into their schools? Why doesn’t he leave his posh Millwood neighborhood and lilywhite school and work in inner-city schools to improve test scores there, so that more impoverished kids can be accepted at better schools based on merit — which is how it should be?
Ah, yes, that would mean giving people the shirt off your own back — not just off someone else’s.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION PRESIDENT JUNCKER SET TO HONOR KARL MARX~CHINESE DONATE BRONZE SCULPTURE OF MARX TO TOWN OF TRIER~TOURIST OFFICE SELLS COMMEMORATIVE ZERO EURO BANK NOTE PICTURING MARX

EUROPEAN COMMISSION PRESIDENT JUNCKER SET TO HONOR KARL MARX 
BY STEVE BYAS
SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/28934-eu-commission-president-juncker-set-to-honor-karl-marx; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
“The philosophy of Karl Marx, when applied, has created some of the greatest episodes of human suffering in all of history,” Marion Smith, director of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, said in stunned response to the announcement that European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker will join in a celebration of Marx’s 200th birthday on May 5, in Trier, Germany. Trier was where Marx was born and raised.
Juncker (shown) is slated to give a speech at the unveiling of a statue of Marx in Trier. The statue was a gift from the Communist government of China. Juncker’s participation will give the event a lot of stature, considering that he heads the European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union (EU). And it perhaps will also serve to illustrate the totalitarian mindset at the top of the EU.
“Marxist states like the Soviet Union and Communist China are responsible for more than one hundred million deaths as a result of their insane quest to implement Marx’s utopian ideas in practice,” Smith said.
Marx was hired in the 1840s by a group of socialist revolutionaries known as the League of the Just to write the platform of the Communist Party they were launching. The League was composed of various radical subversives, apparently wishing to build on the ideas of secret societies such as the Jacobins and the Illuminati that brought on the bloody French Revolution. Marx and his friend Friedrich Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto, forever tying his name to the communist movement that would lead to horrific miseries for the human race in the next century.
But apparently, Juncker, the president of the European Commission, thinks Marx is a man who merits honor upon the occasion of his 200th birthday.
Juncker is a politician from Luxembourg, who has long been a strong supporter of a more centralized European Union. He was a key architect of the Maastricht Treaty, and is credited with the clauses on Economic and Monetary Union that created the common currency for Europe — the euro.
Juncker is certainly no anti-socialist. In 1995, his Christian Social People’s Party formed a coalition with the Luxembourg Socialist Workers’ Party, making him prime minister in Luxembourg. In 2005, Juncker rose to become the first permanent president of the Eurozone Finance Ministry. Then, in 2014, he became president of the European Commission, over the no votes of Britain’s David Cameron and Hungary’s Viktor Orban.
While Juncker has protested, “I do not want a United States of Europe,” he has also said that national “borders are the worst invention ever made by politicians.” Not surprisingly, Juncker is a close ally of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, strongly supporting her open-door policy concerning the immigration crisis.
Even the former General Secretary of the old Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, has expressed amazement at the lurch of the EU to the Left. He said, “The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in western Europe.”
Given this apparent desire to implement Marxism in western Europe, Juncker’s decision to celebrate the birthday of the man whose ideology has driven the two bloodiest dictatorships in human history (the Soviet Union and Communist China), is not surprising, but it is still shocking.
Juncker is an honorary citizen of Trier, the birthplace of Marx. The minister-president of Rhineland-Palatinate, Malu Dreyer, invited Juncker, and will join him in honoring the communist icon.
But Paul Nuttall, a member of the European Parliament, offered a harsh rebuke for the decision to honor him. “It is appalling that Jean-Claude Juncker feels it is necessary to commemorate a man whose ideology — Marxism/communism — led to more than 100 million deaths. Both Marx and his warped ideology should not be commemorated; they should be consigned to the dustbin of history.”
The Commission issued a statement defending the decision to commemorate Marx’s 200thbirthday. “Not speaking about him would come close to denying history.”
The statement added, “After decades of experience in politics at a national and European level, President Juncker is very well aware of the historical facts and sensitivities and whatever people’s views on Karl Marx. I think that nobody can deny that Karl Marx is a figure who shaped history in one way or the other.”
Of course, no one is denying Marx’s role in shaping history, but it is unlikely that Juncker will ever travel to Linz, Austria, to honor Adolf Hitler on his birthday, who also “shaped history.” A British Conservative MP, Daniel Kawczynski, was particularly incensed at Juncker’s intention to honor Marx. He escaped to the UK from Communist Poland as a seven-year-old boy. “I think it’s in very poor taste. We have to remember that Marxism was all about ripping power and individual means away from people and giving to the State. Marxism led to the killing of millions around the world as it allowed a small band of fanatics to suppress the people.”
Certainly, we should not forget Marx, just as we should not forget Lenin, Mao, Hitler, and other totalitarian fanatics. We need to learn about them and their monstrous crimes, and avoid anyone like them from ever gaining the reins of power. That doesn’t mean celebrating their birthdays.
______________________________________________________________

Germany: Trier celebrates Karl Marx’s 200th birthday with zero-euro banknote

Karl Marx’s hometown Trier has chosen to honour the founder of communism’s 200th birthday by selling a Karl Marx zero-euro banknote, as a short film made on Friday showed.

In what must surely be a homage to Marx’s sworn enemy capitalism, the town’s tourist office has decided to sell a fake zero-euro banknote of Marx at a price of €3 ($3.63). The special edition note has already attracted interested from Russia, China and even Australia. In total, there will be more than 30 other items of memorabilia on sale.

“Four exhibitions will be held on his life, his influence, his works and the times of Karl Marx at the Rhineland state museum, at the city museum and at the Karl Marx House,” said Norbert Kaethler, Managing Director of Trier Tourism.

Trier will also celebrate the philosopher’s life by accepting a bronze sculpture of Marx donated by the Chinese government and installing traffic lights which depict Marx.

REMINISCENT OF THE 100 MARK EAST GERMAN NOTE FROM 1964

POPE FRANCIS: “DO WE REALLY WANT PEACE? THEN LET’S BAN ALL WEAPONS SO WE DON’T HAVE TO LIVE IN FEAR OF WAR”~ISLAM: THE “RELIGION OF PEACE” IS REALLY THE “RELIGION OF BLOOD”

Pope Calls For World Wide Ban Of “All Weapons”; 
Will The Vatican Police Lay Down Theirs? 
POPE FRANCIS: “DO WE REALLY WANT PEACE? THEN LET’S BAN ALL WEAPONS SO WE DON’T HAVE TO LIVE IN FEAR OF WAR” 
BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/04/pope-francis-do-we-really-want-peace-then-lets-ban-all-weapons-so-we-dont-have-to-live-in-fear-of-war; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Pope Francis

✔@Pontifex

Do we really want peace? Then let’s ban all weapons so we don’t have to live in fear of war.
7:30 AM – Apr 29, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Ban all weapons? Kitchen knives? Rocks? Automobiles? Does the Pope want us to live in the Stone Age? No, stones will be banned. What he is actually advocating is totalitarian government control of a defenseless populace.
If someone hits someone else over the head with a volume of Pope Francis’ statements, will that volume, too, have to be banned?
In this age of advancing jihad and ongoing Muslim persecution of Christians, for Pope John Lennon to be making statements such as this one is the height of irresponsibility, and worse. Pope Francis is working actively to ensure that as many Catholics as possible are ignorant, complacent, and unprepared in the face of the jihad threat. He is betraying his people, and the free people of the world, as well as those who yearn to be free.
“Leave them; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14)
______________________________________________________________

The Religion of Peace is In Fact the Religion of Blood

BY AMIL IMANI
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/04/the-religion-of-peace-is-in-fact-the-religion-of-blood; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
To propose that the solution to Muslim killings of non-combatant civilians rests with Muslim leaders declaring anyone who does such a thing will go to hell is a product of a delusional mind or the fantasy of an ignorant naive dreamer who is unfamiliar with the fundamental bases of Islamic violence. Here are a few fatal flaws in such a pontification.
* Muhammad is long dead. There is no one person, a pope-like figure, in Islam, and has never been one from the minute Muhammad died. Immediately after Muhammad died, Islam became Islams. It kept dissolving into factions and continues to do so to this day. It is not dissimilar to the death of the founder of a violent gang, that spawns a whole bunch of contenders for the position, inevitably leading to infighting among the late gang leader’s top lieutenants.
* Any Islamic leader worth his salt would neither dare nor want to issue such a fatwa. It would be like asking a slaveholder who is leading a charmed life at the expense of slaves to free the slaves and start working the cotton fields to earn his bread.
* Furthermore, even if this leader who has bought into the system and has reaped the immensely-valued benefits of his position were to in fact give it all up and come up with this fatwa, he would be immediately defrocked, if not lynched, by his own followers as a heretic who had betrayed the explicit teachings of the holy Quran, which repeatedly urges the faithful to wage war against all kefir, civilians or not.
* Islam is tantamount to violence. Violence is the lifeblood of Islam, and it has been ever since the time of Muhammad in Medina, as is shown by Muhammad’s own example and conduct.
* Without violence of all types, Islam will undergo a slow death. Violence is in the fabric of this cult. Take away violence and you shut down the blood supply from the body of Islams. Islam is violent not only against non-Muslims; it is violent against its own numerous sects and offshoots. Even within every sect and offshoot violence, violence is practiced in the most savage ways. Public lashing. Cutting of hands for stealing even a morsel of bread. Blinding convicts or hanging them. Stoning so-called adulteresses. Castrating sexual offenders and hanging homosexuals.
The final outcome of a cult born of violence seems to be death by violence — something like what is going on daily in Iraq and Syria, and to some extent in other Muslim lands. Non-Islamic lands will do well to keep this cult of violence out of their countries and let them practice their systemic violence among their contending sects in their own lands.
Muslim leaders advance to their positions of leadership in Islam’s numerous subsidiaries by cleverly and ruthlessly navigating their way through the hierarchical labyrinth of cutthroat competition. Kissing up and demonstrations of unconditional loyalty to the higher-ups, as well as undeviating total devotion to the charter of the corporation as defined and promoted by the particular subsidiary, while vigilantly exploiting any opportunity for climbing up the next rung of the leadership ladder, are prime requirements of staying in the game.
The individuals who attain high leadership position in Islam have invested their all with great acumen and gone through a tortuous ringer for years in order to attain their positions. The profession of clergy attracts a select segment of men: men who have already significantly bought into the Islamic charter and its methods. As these men undergo formal indoctrination, a culling process takes place. Hundreds of thousands of these men, for a variety of reasons, do not advance very far. The great majority languish in lower ranks for the rest of their life. They are the drones, so to speak. They loyally keep working the rank-and-file Muslim believers at villages and towns, making them toe the line and pay their tributes and cash to their parasitic handlers, who continue their highly successful smoke and mirror charade. A significant number may abandon their ordination altogether, for a variety of reasons, and begin earning their living like the rest of the people.
Another not unimportant complicating factor is that the Islamic leaders actually believe the entire Islamic package, as absurd as much of it may seem to non-Muslims. It is in human nature to start believing even the most absurd after having it preached to you by higher authorities — you yourself will begin to parrot it all repeatedly to others. Millions of Shiites, for example, make a pilgrimage to a well near the city of Qum in Iran in order to pay homage and tribute to the Shiites’ 12th imam, who is claimed to have been hiding there for over a thousand years. No one forces these millions to believe this patently absurd contention, which is successfully hammered in their minds by the purveyors of Islamic fraud — the high divines.
It is also wishful thinking and outright naïveté to believe that Islam is reformable. Islam is interested in reform only in reforming the rest of humanity to its charter of primitive savagery. Realism, not pipe dreams, is needed in the Herculean effort to resist the spread of the oppression of Islam to free nations. This expansionist and authoritarian ideology will not stop expanding on its own. It is determined to conquer the entire world and control each and every human being.
No, Islam has never been a religion of peace. What we need to do is demand that politicians, Islamic apologists, and paid-for media do not abuse freedom by lying about Islam. When these people portray Islam as a religion of peace, they are lying through their teeth. Just take a quick look at Islam’s history, as well as what is happening today in the Islamic lands. Islam is not a religion of peace and it has never been. Islam is violent, oppressive, racist, and irrational at its very core. It is treachery for people to present it as otherwise, either out of ignorance or for their own personal reasons.
Yes, “the religion of peace” is in fact the religion of blood.
Amil Imani is an ex-Muslim from Iran.

ABOMINATION: HUNDREDS FLOCK TO APOSTATE CATHEDRAL’S “BEYONCE MASS”, BLENDING SECULAR POP STAR’S MUSIC WITH SCRIPTURE READINGS, COMMUNION

Hundreds Worship Beyonce at 
San Francisco’s Grace Cathedral
HUNDREDS FLOCK TO APOSTATE CATHEDRAL’S “BEYONCE MASS”, BLENDING SECULAR POP STAR’S MUSIC WITH SCRIPTURE READINGS, COMMUNION  
BY HEATHER CLARK
SEE: https://christiannews.net/2018/04/29/hundreds-flock-to-cathedrals-beyonce-mass-blending-secular-pop-stars-music-with-scripture-readings-communion/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — An estimated 750-900 people flocked to a San Francisco cathedral’s “Beyoncé Mass” on Wednesday night, an event that blended renditions of the secular pop star’s music with the reading of Scripture, communion, and the presentation of a related message by a seminary professor. While the event was popular with the locals, others state that the world’s music has no place being performed in what is supposed to be the holy house of God.
“Countless professing Christians seem to have little or no shame about the compromises they will make with God’s word to attract a larger crowd. Substituting godly music, filled with words that glorify the Lord, for Beyoncé’s music, is just more evidence that we are in the apostasy that was prophesied by Jesus and the apostles (2 Tim. 4:2-4),” Joe Schimmel, pastor of Blessed Hope Chapel in Simi Valley, California and host of the documentary “They Sold Their Souls for Rock ‘N’ Roll,” told Christian News Network.
The event, hosted at Grace Cathedral in Nob Hill, was part of the weekly “Vine” offering, first launched in March 2017 for “urbanites and spiritual seekers.”
As the most recent series has been focused on the experiences of those marginalized by society, Wednesday night’s service featured Yolanda Norton, the assistant professor of Old Testament at San Francisco Theological Seminary, who teaches a class at the institution on “Beyoncé and the Hebrew Bible.” The course focuses on themes in the pop singer’s music and the struggles and injustices that black women face.
Norton rebuffed notions that the service was “worship” of Beyoncé.
“We worship God at Grace, and none other. The medium is not the message. The medium is Beyoncé’s powerful songs, which give voice to black female experience, exploring themes of spirituality, sexuality and agency,” Norton told Ebony.
“Your friends may ask you about this [event],” also reads a note posted to the Grace Cathedral website. “You might want to remind them that God is in all the world and that Beyoncé is made in God’s image. The Church has not treated women of color fairly and it is time to face this truth.”
A line was stated to have wrapped around the building Wednesday night as hundreds arrived to partake in the Beyoncé Mass. The evening featured the performance of songs made popular by Beyoncé, both as a solo artist and as a part of the group Destiny’s Child.
“I’m a survivor/I’m not gon’ give up” singers on stage belted out, performing the Destiny Child’s tune about bouncing back from a breakup.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the event also featured readings from the Psalms and Luke, the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer, and the offering of communion. Norton additionally delivered a message about love in the face of hatred.
“I’ve been asked time and time again, ‘Why Beyoncé?’” she explained to those gathered, according to NBC News. “I believe in Beyoncé because she reminds us you have to do things your way.”
However, some state that the often scantily-clad, sexually suggestive singer isn’t exactly the most exemplary role model for African American women today, especially those who seek to follow Christ and lead holy lives.

Schimmel

“Beyoncé is a horrifying role model for those who want to worship the living God, but sadly, she is a great role model for those who would rather worship Beyoncé, themselves, and dark occult powers,” Schimmel told Christian News Network.
He noted an image of the pop singer wearing a large goat head ring, as well a screenshot from one of her music videos in which a woman bears the numbers “666” on her clothing.
“No one can dispute that Beyoncé has repeatedly [utilized] symbols promoting Satanism, like rings bearing the Crowleyan goat headed Baphomet,” Schimmel said. “In the video for her song ‘Superpower,’ Beyoncé struts around with a girl brandishing 666, the number of the Antichrist, on her shirt!”
In a 2016 video produced by Good Fight Ministries, Schimmel noted that Beyoncé made a Mudra hand gesture symbolizing occultic energy in the music video for “Hymn for the Weekend.” The video focused on the Hindu “Festival of Colors,” known as Holi, named after the goddess Holika. The event is celebrated in modern times by Hindus and non-Hindus alike.
“Ah-oh-ah-oh-ah/Got me feeling drunk and high,” Beyoncé sings in the video, her hands covered with intricate henna designs customary to Hindu celebrations.
Schimmel also recalled that in 2013, the singer “posted a risqué picture of herself in front of a depiction of the Last Supper,” in which she blocked Jesus out of the photograph with her body. The image was soon deleted after controversy ensued over the matter.
“[No one] can deny that her husband, Jay-Z, praises Satan in his song ‘Lucifer,’ where he states that Lucifer rebelled against God for a ‘righteous cause,’” Schimmel additionally noted. “It is also undeniable that Jay-Z has worn a hoodie promoting the satanic slogan of Satanist Aleister Crowley, proclaiming the satanic maxim ‘Do What Thou Wilt!’”
ABC News quipped about the Beyoncé Mass on Thursday, recognizing that the pop star’s songs aren’t church material.
“It was only good until they started singing ‘Drunken Love’ and ‘Naughty Girl,’” one reporter jested.
“I’ve been drinking/I get filthy when that liquor get into me/I’ve been thinking/Why can’t I keep my fingers off you, baby?” one of the songs cited states. The tune was most likely not performed at the event.
Leader Jude Harmon told the Huffington Post that he doesn’t see a problem with the Wednesday night offering because “conservative Christians see a high wall separating the Church from the world; progressive Christians do not.” Grace Cathedral identifies as progressive and has a webpage noting that it is “proud of [its] history of LGBT acceptance and advocacy.”
1 John 2:15-17 states, “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof, but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever.”
_________________________________________________________

‘Beyoncé Mass’ Adds to Episcopal Cathedral Excess

BY JEFF WALTON

SEE: http://www.anglican.ink/article/‘beyoncé-mass’-adds-episcopal-cathedral-excess; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
27 Apr 2018

Author: 

Jeff Walton

No, it wasn’t a service intended to facilitate worship of music superstar Beyoncé Knowles-Carter, as one Nigerian publication incorrectly reported, but the recent “Beyoncé mass” at San Francisco’s Grace Episcopal Cathedral was predictably over-the-top.
According to glowing reports from California media, the gathering themed around the song catalogue of the former Destiny’s Child lead singer attracted approximately 900 participants to the April 25 midweek worship service. The crowd size was far in excess of the Episcopal congregation’s average Sunday attendance, which has dropped from 900 to 600 in the past decade.
The Beyoncé mass joins a long list of themed Eucharistic celebrations, among them the U2charist, the Dr. Seuss-themed “Seusscharist”, and the Clown Eucharist. Some feature artists’ popular music interspersed within an otherwise normal prayer book service, while the more outlandish have clergy dressed in costume.
Each share a common attribute: projects of mainline Protestants eager for media exposure and recognition as liturgical innovators.
Knowles-Carter has not publicly identified herself with the Episcopal Church – or the Christian faith in general – nor did she participate in the Grace Cathedral event. The performer’s identity as an African-American woman did shape the liturgy, with participants given a womanist version of the Lord’s Prayer to recite addressed to “Our Mother”. The prayer’s plea to “lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil” was exchanged for “Separate us from the temptation of empire, But deliver us into community.”
Participants also joined in a “calling out” for those in bondage to homophobia, transphobia, and patriarchy, interspersed with a stanza from the song “Freedom”: “Freedom! Freedom! I can’t move Freedom, cut me loose!”
Grace Cathedral is not a newcomer to this field, having hosted a variety of outlandish events going back decades, including a “Rave Mass” in 1994. Episcopal diocesan cathedrals in Washington, D.C. and New York have also hosted oddball celebrations: in 2009 the Washington National Cathedral organized and hosted “Sacred Circles: A Celebration of Women’s Spirituality” featuring pagan idolatry in which gifts were offered up to summon spirits. More recently, the Cathedral offered “sacred breath yoga” complete with “sound bath meditation with crystal bowls”.
Grace cathedral’s most enduring contribution has been the modern Labyrinth movement, in which progressive Episcopal churches offer a vague promise of spiritual awakening found more often in eastern mysticism and untethered from the person of Jesus Christ.
Cathedrals are expensive buildings to operate and maintain, which led the Washington National Cathedral in 2014 to make the space available to rent for corporate events.
In 2007, George Conger of Anglican Ink reported how the Cathedral of St John the Divine in New York leased its premises to the singer Elton John to celebrate his 60th birthday:
John, who months before gave voice to his disdain for Christianity, noting he would “ban religion completely … Organized religion doesn’t seem to work. It turns people into hateful lemmings, and it’s not really compassionate,” turned the Diocese of New York’s cathedral into a ballroom.
The New York Post reported that for John’s party “the altar was set up as a stage for the performers, which included the trendy rock group Scissor Sisters, Sting and Paul McCartney.”
The full text of the womanist Lord’s Prayer recited at Grace Cathedral is below:
“Our Mother,
who is in heaven and within us,
We call upon your names.
Your wisdom come.
Your will be done,
In all the spaces in which You dwell.
Give us each day
Sustenance and perseverance.
Remind us of our limits as
we give grace to the limits of others.
Separate us from the temptation of empire,
But deliver us into community.
For you are the dwelling place within us
the empowerment around us
and the celebration among us
now and for ever.”
Video from the “calling out” segment of the service:




Brandon E. Patterson

 
This rendition of “Freedom” was my favorite part of the service. Freedom from racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, and transphobia.
11:24 PM – Apr 25, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy


 
 
Reprinted with the permission of the author from Juicy Ecumenism

DISNEY SELLING HOMOSEXUAL THEMED “RAINBOW LOVE” MICKEY MOUSE EARS AT THEME PARKS

DIVERSITY & GAY PRIDE “EARS”

DISNEY SELLING HOMOSEXUAL THEMED “RAINBOW LOVE” MICKEY MOUSE EARS 
AT THEME PARKS 
BY HEATHER CLARK
SEE: https://christiannews.net/2018/04/30/disney-selling-homosexual-themed-rainbow-love-mickey-mouse-ears-at-theme-parks/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
ORLANDO, Fla. — Photographs and videos have emerged online of a rainbow Mickey Mouse hat that is being sold at Disney’s theme parks in Florida and California, the latest development in the company’s continued accommodation of the sin of homosexuality.
“Disney World got gay ears and I need to get them just to [vulgarity] off old religious people,” one visitor posted to social media. “Disney now has gay [expletive] ears!” another wrote.
The red hat features rainbow ears and embroidery of two Mickey hands forming a rainbow heart.
The site Hornet reports that the offering is exclusive to Disney World and Disneyland, especially the shops Emporium, Fantasy Faire and The Chapeau Hat Shoppe, and is called “Mickey Mouse Rainbow Love.” It sells for $17.99, and can also feature the wearer’s name in rainbow embroidery at an additional cost.
“We offer a wide range of merchandise items that appeal to guests of diverse backgrounds,” a representative told the Huffington Post.
As previously reported, the company, known for its “Magic Kingdom” and theatrical representations of magical powers and sorcery, has been including homosexuality in its movies and Disney Channel productions in recent years.
In October, the second season premiere of the teen series “Andi Mack” featured a “coming out scene,” as one of the main male characters acknowledged that he is jealous of his female friend’s new relationship as he likes the boy that she is dating.
In August, an episode of the preschooler-geared Disney Junior cartoon “Doc McStuffins” featured an animated depiction of the lesbian mothers of two children.
Disney also aired its first-ever same-sex kissing scene during a broadcast of its cartoon “Star vs. the Forces of Evil.”
Bill Condon, director of Disney’s “Beauty and the Beast” live-action remake, similarly revealed last year that the film would include a subtle “gay moment.”
Condon told the outlet Attitude that homosexuals have had a history with “The Beauty and the Beast” as the man who wrote the lyrics for the animated version of the film, released in 1991, had been fighting AIDS while working on the project. Howard Ashman died before the movie was released in theaters.
“It was his idea not only to make it into a musical, but also to make Beast one of the two central characters,” Condon outlined. “Until then, it had mostly been Belle’s story that they had been telling.”
“Specifically for him, it was a metaphor for AIDS,” he said. “He was cursed, and this curse had brought sorrow on all those people who loved him, and maybe there was a chance for a miracle—and a way for the curse to be lifted. It was a very concrete thing that he was doing.”

Ryle

However, late British preacher J.C. Ryle, who often spoke on the natural depravity of the human heart and the need for rebirth by the Holy Spirit, once said:
“The Christianity which is from the Holy Spirit will always have a very deep view of the sinfulness of sin. It will not merely regard sin as a blemish and misfortune, which makes men and women objects of pity, and compassion. It will see in sin the abominable thing which God hates, the thing which makes people guilty and lost in his Maker’s sight, the thing which deserves God’s wrath and condemnation.”
“It will look on sin as the cause of all sorrow and unhappiness, of strife and wars, of quarrels and contentions, of sickness and death—the curse which cursed God’s beautiful creation, the cursed thing which makes the whole earth groan and struggle in pain. Above all, it will see in sin the thing which will ruin us eternally, unless we can find a ransom—lead us captive, except we can get its chains broken—and destroy our happiness, both here and hereafter, except we fight against it, even unto death.”
_________________________________________________________

POPE FRANCIS PLEASED!: SOUTHERN BAPTIST RUSSELL MOORE JOINS GEORGE SOROS’ MOUTHPIECE TO PROMOTE GLOBALIST IMMIGRATION POLICY

RUSSELL MOORE JOINS GEORGE SOROS’ MOUTHPIECE TO PROMOTE GLOBALIST IMMIGRATION POLICY 
SEE: http://pulpitandpen.org/2018/04/25/russell-moore-joins-george-soros-mouthpiece-promote-globalist-immigration-policy/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Russell Moore and George Soros (Photoshopped, obviously)
Russell Moore recently joined Ali Noorani on his podcast, Only in America, who afterward gave the progressive Southern Baptist leader glowing accolades. Noorani has been called “the mouthpiece” of George Soros, is the national director Soros’ National Immigration Forum, and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. The son of Pakistani immigrants, Noorani was previously an advocate for refugee resettlement in the State of Massachusetts, had led environmentalist organizations, and is a graduate of U.C. Berkeley. Moore, on the other hand, is a former Democratic staffer who is now the director of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.
Noorani introduced Moore as a “truth teller” with three accolades, including (1) he called for the removal of the Confederate flag in Mississippi (2) he has opposed Donald Trump and (3) he recently co-hosted the MLK50 conference. Then, Noorani moved on to laud Moore for his stances on open national borders and ignoring of immigration law.

Ali Nooroni
Noorani and Moore both serve on the Evangelical Immigration Table, which is an organization owned and operated by the National Immigration Forum, one of the many globalist organizations funded by George Soros. Both believe that America should not force immigration law or build a border wall, pushing a globalist agenda and denying national sovereignty. For Moore, if churches aren’t on board, they’re probably isolated and ignorant.
“It seems to me,” Moore said, “that where one is located often has a great deal to do with where one sees the issues being; a lot of this does come down to zip code. When I’m looking at churches with large immigrant communities; the churches that say ‘there are no problems here and we just need to deport everybody’ are churches that are monocultural…”
Moore went on to say that people who believe in deporting illegal immigrants are anti-family.
Noorani and Moore went on to brainstorm how the church could get the wider culture to understand why “human dignity” and “being created in the image of God” would require open borders and amnesty for illegal immigration. This makes total sense, considering that The Blaze reported a large chunk of Noorani’s funding comes from George Soros. This money came from grants through Soros’ Open Societies Foundation, according to Noorani’s acknowledgment.
In fact, Noorani has written blog posts for Soros’ Open Societies Foundations website.
Soros has a long history of funding leftist religious groups, paying them to be vocal on progressive, Marxist or globalist issues, and has been thoroughly documented. From the funding streams written about in the public press, Soros has at least partially funded the very program on which Noorani and Moore were speaking.
The two went on to play a song from Merle Haggard, “Okie from Muskogee,” which Moore claimed was emblematic of the immigration struggle, as “Okies” was a nickname for Oklahoma residents who had traveled to California in search of opportunity in the Great Depression. It seemed lost on the two that there is a difference between legal and illegal immigration and a difference between state and national boundaries.

SOUTHERN BAPTISTS & THEIR (TAINTED) REPORTS ON FREEMASONRY, 1993-2000

SOUTHERN BAPTISTS & THEIR (TAINTED) REPORTS ON FREEMASONRY, 1993-2000 
SEE: http://pulpitandpen.org/2018/04/25/southern-baptists-tainted-reports-freemasonry-1993-2000/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Pulpit & Pen will be writing much on Freemasonry in coming days, weeks and months. If all goes well, we plan on hosting a conference on the topic in the Atlanta area. I’ll let P&P contributor, Seth Dunn, talk more about his church excommunicating him for little more than teaching and warning about Freemasonry. Let it suffice to say for now that I’m well aware of Dunn’s actions, his (successful and honorable) attempt to follow our Lord’s advice in Matthew 18 regarding interchurch conflict and confrontation with sin, and his church’s deplorable actions. I’ll provide a summary below, but more details will come out in coming days.
The summary is basically this; over the course of two years, Dunn has repeatedly followed Biblical protocol in discussing Freemasonry within his church, which is overseen by deacons who have Masonic ties or are Freemasons themselves. Dunn approached these men individually, and also approached the pastor, who told Dunn that if he addressed Freemasonry within the church in his capacity as pastor, he would be fired. Dunn, who is a Certified Public Accountant and seminary graduate, had his Sunday School teaching position removed at the church. He continued to speak out about the religion of Freemasonry and how it conflicts with Christianity, including doing formal lecture by invitation. Dunn’s pastor and deacons then began to quietly and secretly ask for Dunn to leave the church. Dunn refused to leave the church, unless he was publicly removed from membership by a vote of the congregation (which is usually my advice, that the vote might be upon the congregation’s conscience and so that what is done in the dark may come to the light). The Freemasons and deacons continued to intimidate Dunn and make it very clear he was unwelcome. Dunn also exposed a number of high-ranking Masons in churches throughout his county in Georgia. It’s then that outside pressure from other churches, Freemasons, and even the Baptist association began to pressure Dunn’s pastor to remove him from membership in the congregation. When asked his sin, Dunn was not satisfactorily answered. I have heard the audio of the meeting in which Dunn repeatedly asked his sin, in which “zealousness” was mentioned as the only explanation (their Baptist church covenant requires zealousness of its church membership). Dunn mailed a copy of a book about Freemasonry to members of the congregation, which appears to have been the final straw for the Freemason-controlled congregation. Ultimately, some of the deacons “joked” about needing a gun to deal with him, one Masonic church member spit at him, and when the church voted to remove him, it had the Baptist Association attorney present to help with the ordeal.  When Dunn was leaving the church property peaceably after the meeting, they had two police units on standby the escort him off the premises. I have been monitoring the situation for some time, and have watched Dunn serve as an exemplary church member who had done everything Biblically in dealing with the false religion in his church and among the Baptists of Bartow County. And, I’ve seen his treatment by Rowland Springs Baptist Church.
Again, we will be writing/speaking more about this affair. And, if you live in the Atlanta area, you can attend a conference on this topic I will personally be hosting at a public venue (and yes, we will name names of Freemasons in the local area who are serving in their Baptist churches). We are also inviting former Freemasons who left the cult when they became born-again believers. In the meantime, I wanted to give a few historical resources to educate Baptists on the torrid relationship between Freemasons and Southern Baptists, in particular.
In 1993, the Interfaith Witness Department of the Home Mission Board (now North American Mission Board) completed a study into the relationship between Freemasonry and Southern Baptists. The study was submitted and reviewed by the Executive Council of the Home Mission Board, the Board of Director’s Administration Committee, and the Board of Directors for the Home Mission Board. It was then approved by the Board of Directors for the Home Mission Board and distributed by the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. The document itself was an atrocious mess of contradiction.
The document “commends” the Masonic Order (it uses that actual word) for its various practices that are charitable, including Shiner’s Hospitals, drug and alcohol awareness help, and its nursing homes. It also acknowledges that “many fine Southern Baptists” have been Masons, including prominent names like B.H. Carroll and George W. Truett. It then recognizes Masonic practices that are “compatible” with Christianity, including rites that mention “Jehovah,” a reference to Jesus in the Masonic rites of Alabama, or the Lodge cornerstone-laying ceremony that seems to reference a nebulous higher power that some might interpret as the Christian God. However, the report that “many tenets and teachings of Freemasonry are not compatible with Christianity or Southern Baptist doctrine,” and include blasphemous titles for their leaders, sacrilegious titles for God (including calling God “Abaddon,” which is the name of a demon from the book of Revelation), beliefs that are “undeniably pagan” (their words), and sinister oaths.

Read that really carefully and tell us if that makes ANY SENSE.
Amazingly – in every sense of the word amazing – and in spite of the report’s findings, it says that membership in Freemasonry is “a matter of Christian conscience.” Occultic or pagan worship, obviously, is not a matter of Christian conscience. This document, unfortunately, laid the groundwork for widespread indifference on the subject of Freemasonry for Southern Baptists. You can find the document uploaded to our servers here.
Now, if it seems strange to you that the report would – on one hand – acknowledge the heresies of Freemasonry and – on the other hand – say being a member in the Lodge was a matter of personal conscience, it is. In fact, there’s a whole side of this story you probably don’t know.
The individual heading up the report and study for the Home Mission Board was Dr. Gary Leazer, who was supposed to create an unbiased review. In reality, Leazer was a clandestine Freemason, or at least working clandestinely with Freemasons in order to generate a report that would affirm Freemasons as Baptists. A letter was leaked to the Home Mission Board from Leazer to his Lodge friends, in which he made disparaging remarks about people trying to find out the truth about Masonry (including the Home Mission Board) and game-planning how to create the most Freemason-friendly report possible. In fact, Leazer had given speeches at Freemason events, demonstrating that he himself was a Freemason (source link).
As reported by David Anderson in the Columbus Dispatch on November 6, 1993, Home Mission Board president, Larry Lewis, then asked for Leazer’s resignation in late October of 1993 for “gross insubordination” after reading a particularly damning Freemason speech transcript from Lezer in August 8 of that year. However, the work from Leazer was already done and accepted by the Home Mission Board and the report allowed to stand in its entirety, in spite of it coming from a Freemason himself! The Freemason Scottish Rite Journal published a comment, “this [vote was the] significant turning point for modern Freemasonry.”” (August 1993, pages 3-6).
There was outrage throughout the Southern Baptist Convention toward the report, considering that it generally acknowledged that Freemasonry teaches “Universalism” (the belief everyone goes to Heaven, with or without Jesus). It was generally not well reported at the time that the report had been compromised by a clandestine Freemason heading it up.
In damage control, the Home Mission Board posted the following in the Baptist Press.
HMB directors clarify statement on Freemasonry
ATLANTA (BP) – Home Mission Board directors adopted a statement to clarify their stand on universalism. The original statement came from the administrative committee and was adopted by the full board. The text of the motion follows:
“In light of all questions that have arisen and confusion concerning Freemasonry, and the recommendation that was made to the Southern Baptist convention by the Home Mission Board and in order that there be no misinterpretation, the Board of Directors wish to reiterate the longstanding position of the HMB on the subject of universalism: Whether it be the teaching of a religious body, a fraternal order, or an individual, the universalist plan for human redemption is unbiblical and heretical, and we oppose the embrace or perpetuation of any such teaching.
“It has never been the intention of the HMB to suggest that individual Southern Baptists may feel justified in affiliating with such teaching on the basis of personal conscience. Rather, we would call upon fellow Southern Baptists to never embrace or perpetuate such heresy.
“In the spirit of the above, and in light of the leadership of the Holy Spirit, the Lordship of Christ, the teachings of Scripture, and the findings of the report, then personal conscience may be used.”
However, in the year 2000, another report was commissioned. Ironically, it was commissioned to the same agency, the Home Mission Board, which had taken on the name North American American Mission Board (NAMB). A motion by Russ Kaemmerling of DeSoto, Texas, at the Southern Baptist Convention’s annual meeting in 1999 led to NAMB issuing a new report on Freemasonry. It was entitled, A Closer Look at Freemasonry, and was again put out by the Interfaith Evangelism Team of NAMB. One wonders why just 6 years after the original report was given, the same organization would find a new report necessary.
You can see that “clarifying statement” here.
While acknowledging the “many charitable endeavors” of Freemasonry, the pamphlet also expands on eight “tenets and teachings” of Freemasonry that were found to be “incompatible with Christianity” in a controversial report on Freemasonry approved by the Southern Baptist Convention in 1993.
William Gordon spoke to the Baptist Press on behalf of the committee, saying, “We decided to write this piece that would expand a little further on some of the things that were stated in the report on Freemasonry. Rudy Gonzalez, the director of the interfaith evangelism team, added, “The document is not condemning in any way, but simply seeks to put information out so that individuals can arrive at informed conclusions about what they ultimately believe about these organizations.”
According to this report, Freemasonry is incompatible with Christianity in that it:
1) “Freemasonry uses offensive, non-biblical, and blasphemous terms relating to God.”
2) “Freemasonry insists on the use of ‘bloody oaths’ or obligation, which are strictly forbidden by the Bible.
3) “Freemasonry urges that occultic and/or pagan readings be used, and that their teachings be appropriated in interpreting such concepts as the Trinity.”
4) “Freemasonry includes the Bible as part of the ‘furniture of the lodge,’ but only as an equal with non-Christian symbols and writings.”
5) “Freemasonry misuses the term ‘light’ to refer to moral “reformation” as a means to salvation.”
6) “Freemasonry teaches that salvation may be attained by ‘good works’ and not through faith in Christ alone.”
7) “Freemasonry advocates in many of its writings the non-biblical teachings of universalism.”
8) “In some of its lodges, Freemasonry discriminates against non-whites.”
The report suggested, “Taking the above into consideration, and being consistent with our denomination’s historic deep convictions regarding both the priesthood of the believer and the autonomy of the local church, we recommend that each individual Baptist, as well as each congregation, carefully review the issues of the teachings and practices of Freemasonry. Since, in the final analysis, the Bible alone is the only guide for faith and practice, issues related to Freemasonry and any other fraternal organizations, especially secret societies, must be evaluated only in light of the plumb line of Scripture.”
You can find the report uploaded to our servers here.
[Editor’s Note: This is one in a series of posts on the topic. Up next, we’ll look at how other denominations have dealt with Freemasonry; Audio from Dunn’s meeting with the Deacons of Rowland Springs Baptist Church is below; contributed by JD Hall]

STATEMENTS BY SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO & PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL BENJAMIN NETANYAHU~IRANIAN NUCLEAR PLANNING DOCUMENTS OBTAINED, EXPOSED WILL MEAN END OF NUCLEAR DEAL

STATEMENTS BY SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO & PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL BENJAMIN NETANYAHU
 Netanyahu Exposes Ton of Evidence Showing Iran’s Violations of Obama’s “Nuclear Deal”

Netanyahu offers proof that the Iran nuclear deal is based on lies

BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/04/netanyahu-offers-proof-that-the-iran-nuclear-deal-is-based-on-lies; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
I told you two years ago in The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran. Now the world at large is discovering the truth.
It should be remembered in this connection that the concept of taqiyya as such is specifically Shi’ite, developed during the time of the sixth Imam, Jafar al-Sadiq, in middle of the eighth century, when the Shi’ites were being persecuted by the Sunni caliph al-Mansur. Taqiyya allowed Shi’ites to pretend to be Sunnis in order to protect themselves from Sunnis who were killing Shi’ites. Until the conversion of Persia to Shi’ism, taqiyya was an important element of Shi’ite survival, for Sunnis, in the majority almost everywhere, would not infrequently take it upon themselves to cleanse the land of those whom they referred to as Rafidites, that is, rejecters — those who rejected the caliphates of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman.
Some Shi’ite thinkers turned the secrecy that had become a necessity into a virtue. The medieval Shi’ite scholar Ali ibn Musa ibn Tawus, who died in 1266, taught that Allah had revealed Shi’ism secretly, and it was incumbent upon the believers to practice it in secret. At the end of days, Allah will admit them secretly into Paradise. Some secrets were never to be revealed under any circumstances. The fifth imam, Muhammad al-Baqir, who died in 732, once gave a book to one of his disciples, telling him, “If you ever transmit any of it, my curse and the curse of my forefathers will fall upon you.”
The sixth Imam, Jafar Al-Sadiq, who died in 765, had a servant who was suspected of having revealed some of the secrets of the faith. The Imam lectured, “Whoever propagates our tradition is like someone who denies it.…Conceal our doctrine and do not divulge it. God elevates in this world one who conceals our doctrine and does not divulge it and he turns it in the next world into a light between his eyes which will lead him to Paradise. God abases in this world one who divulges our tradition and our doctrine and does not conceal it, and in the next world he removes the light from between his eyes and turns it into darkness which will lead him to hell. Taqiyya is our religion and the religion of our fathers; he who has no taqiyya has no religion.”
Other Imams also emphasized the cardinal importance of taqiyya, apparently not only because Shi’ites were under constant threat from Sunnis, but because Shi’ite Islam contained doctrines that must stay hidden from outsiders. Some sayings of the Imams include, “He who has no taqiyya has no faith”; “he who forsakes taqiyya is like him who forsakes prayer”; “he who does not adhere to taqiyya and does not protect us from the ignoble common people is not part of us”; “nine tenths of faith falls within taqiyya”; “taqiyya is the believer’s shield (junna), but for taqiyya, God would not have been worshipped.”
“Netanyahu: Iran Nuclear Deal Is Based on Lies – Here’s the Proof,” by Noa Landau, Haaretz, April 30, 2018:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu revealed a cache of documents he says proves Iran lied to the world about its nuclear program for years, even after the 2015 nuclear deal with the world. “Iran did not come clean about its nuclear program,” Netanyahu said in a prime time address in English. Iran, for its part, blased the speech as “propaganda.”
Presenting 55,000 pages of documents and 183 CDs, Netanyahu said Iran hid an “atomic archive” of documents on its nuclear program.
“This is an original Iranian presentation from these files,” Netanyahu said, stressing that “the mission statement is to design, produce and test five warheads with 10 kiloton of TNT yield for integration on missiles.”
Intelligence experts and diplomats said he did not seem to have presented a “smoking gun” showing that Iran had violated the terms of the agreement, although he may have helped make a case on behalf of skeptics in the U.S. who want to scrap it.
Iran is “blatantly lying” when it says it doesn’t have a nuclear program, Netanyahu claimed, laying out what he claimed was proof Iran had developed and continued to develop its nuclear program.
At the press conference, Netanyahu exposed a secret Iranian nuclear project, codenamed “Amad,” which he said had been shelved in 2003, though he said work in the field had continued.
“After signing the nuclear deal in 2015, Iran intensified its efforts to hide its secret files,” Netanyahu said. “In 2017 Iran moved its nuclear weapons files to a highly secret location in Tehran.”
The documents show that Iran’s Fordow nuclear plant was “designed from the get go for nuclear weapons for project Amad,” claimed Netanyahu.
“We can now prove that project Amad was a comprehensive program to design, build and test nuclear weapons,” he said. “We can also prove that Iran is secretly storing project Amad material to use at a time of its choice to develop nuclear weapons.” Dr. Mohsen Fakhrizdeh is the head of project Amad.
Netanyahu concluded by saying “Iran lied about never having a secret nuclear program. Secondly, even after the deal, it continued to expand its nuclear program for future use. Thirdly, Iran lied by not coming clean to the IAEA,” he said, adding that, “the nuclear deal is based on lies based on Iranian deception.”
U.S. President Donald Trump, who spoke publicly 30 minutes after Netanyahu’s speech, said that Netanyahu’s speech “showed that I was 100% right” in criticizing the nuclear deal….

______________________________________________________

U.S. confirms authenticity of Iran nuclear docs;

officials see game over for deal

BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/04/u-s-confirms-authenticity-of-iran-nuclear-docs-officials-see-game-over-for-deal; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
“If there was ever any doubt, every struggling Iranian citizen must now realize that Iran has lost countless dollars from nuclear sanctions for one reason, and one reason alone: the Iranian regime’s reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons, weapons that Supreme Leader Khamenei personally insists are un-Islamic.”
He never actually insisted any such thing, as I show conclusively in my book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran.
“U.S. Confirms Authenticity of Secret Iran Nuclear Docs, Officials See Game Over for Deal,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, April 30, 2018:
U.S. officials and congressional insiders view the disclosure Monday by Israel of Iran’s ongoing efforts to develop a nuclear weapon as game over for the landmark nuclear deal, telling the Washington Free Beacon that new evidence of Iran’s top secret nuclear workings makes it virtually impossible for President Donald Trump to remain in the agreement.
Senior Trump administration officials confirmed the findings as authentic and praised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s for disclosing thousands of secret documents proving Iran lied about its past work on a nuclear warhead, telling the Free Beacon the revelation was a “powerful presentation” by Israel outlining why the Iran deal must be fixed or killed.
U.S. officials who reviewed the secret documents confirmed their authenticity and said that Israel has shared the information fully with the United States, most likely to help build the case for Trump to abandon the nuclear deal, rather than try to fix what the White House views as a series of insurmountable flaws.
A State Department official confirmed to the Free Beacon Monday evening that it is “aware of the information just released” by Israel and is “examining it carefully.”
“The United States has reviewed many of the documents Israel has obtained relating to Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” an official confirmed to the Free Beacon. “We assess that the documents that we have reviewed are authentic.”
The State Department further confirmed that “new details in this information are consistent with a large body of evidence and intelligence the U.S. government has amassed over many years on Iran’s past clandestine nuclear weapons program,” according to the official.
While the administration’s analysis of the document cache is “ongoing,” officials said they “agree with the Israelis that…. this information provides new and compelling details about Iran’s past efforts to develop nuclear weapons deliverable by a Shahab-3 ballistic missile.”
In addition, the new “information indicates plans for Iran’s nuclear weapons program included building five nuclear weapons,” the official said. “It demonstrates once again that Iranian leaders have for years lied to the world and their own citizens when they claim Iran has never pursued nuclear weapons.”
The documents confirm a longstanding U.S. suspicion that “Iran has systematically hid evidence of clandestine weapons work from international inspectors,” according to the State Department official.
“If there was ever any doubt, every struggling Iranian citizen must now realize that Iran has lost countless dollars from nuclear sanctions for one reason, and one reason alone: the Iranian regime’s reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons, weapons that Supreme Leader Khamenei personally insists are un-Islamic,” the official said. “It is long past time for Iran to come clean and cooperate with international inspections into its past weapons work in order to convince the world it is serious about never again pursuing nuclear weapons.”…

COMMON BONDS BETWEEN ISLAM & CATHOLICISM

Common Bonds Between Islam and Catholicism
BY MIKE GENDRON
SEE: www.proclaimingthegospel.org; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:


Will the world’s two largest religions converge and be the catalyst for the prophesied one-world religion?  At first glance, the two faiths appear to be vastly different but under close inspection, they have more common bonds than differences. In 1994 the Vatican issued a publication entitled: “Spiritual Bonds Which Unite Us: 16 Years of Christian-Muslim Dialogue.” After extensive study and research, I put forth 10 common bonds that will help unite these two religions.

1. Both Esteem and Honor Mary – Muslims and Catholics both call her, “Our Lady.” and venerate her as a pure and holy saint. Mary is mentioned more in the Qu’ran than the Bible.
2. Both Seek Messages from Apparitions of Mary – Many of the messages make it clear she is coming for all her children including Muslims, Catholics and Protestants and that people of all religions can be saved apart from Jesus Christ as long as they are good.  

3. Both Are Anti-Semitic –  The Vatican has issued over 100 anti-semitic documents and taught the Jews should be cursed because they killed Christ. Mohammed words recorded in a hadith say, “The last day will not come until the Muslims destroy the Jews.”  

4. Both Embrace Another Jesus – Catholicism has a counterfeit Jesus whose death on the cross was not sufficient to save them.
Islam also has a counterfeit Jesus (Isa) who did not die on a cross and is not God, only a prophet. 

5. Both Seek World Dominion – Both religions rule with an autocratic government and have a history of forced conversions, and killing those who oppose them. Could these religions which control people with indoctrination, intimidation, and fear be a precursor to the rule of Anti-christ?

6. Both Deny the Authority of Scripture – The pagan beliefs of both religions stand opposed to the Bible. Muslims reject the Bible as the final revelation from God declaring that God has revealed a final testament: the Qu’ran which is their supreme authority.

7. Both Use Prayer Beads to Avoid Punishment – Catholics pray the rosary to remit punishment for sin. Muslins use 99 beads that correspond to the names of God. Praying to Allah five times a day is an act of obedience to escape the punishment imposed on those who do not pray.

8. Both Take Pilgrimages to Obtain Favor from God – Catholics take pilgrimages for religious purification and the promise of indulgences. Muslims take pilgrimages to Mecca, a mandatory religious duty that must be carried out at least once in their lifetime.

9. Both Have Human Mediators – Catholics rely on the priesthood to dispense salvation through sacraments and seek Mary to intercede with God on their behalf. Muslims rely on the intercession of Muhammad on judgment day. He will prostrate himself before Allah who will say, “O Muhammad! speak, it will be heard; and be given; intercede, and it will be approved.”

10. Both Have a Works-Righteousness Salvation – Allah will place one’s good and evil works on the divine scale: “Those whose scales are light are those who lose their souls in hell” (Sura 23:102,103). In Catholicism, sacraments, good works and obeying the law are necessary for salvation.

These two religions represent a huge mission field with nearly 3 billion precious souls. They need to know the true Jesus and submit to His Word as their supreme authority. Only then will they repent of their works-righteousness salvation and believe the glorious Gospel of grace. As ambassadors for Christ let us sow the seed of His Word.

THE MOST HISTORIC MOMENTS FROM THE KIM-MOON SUMMIT~”COMPLETE DE-NUCLEARIZATION” & “ONE AGAIN” POSSIBLE BY MERGING COMMUNISM WITH DEMOCRACY?~OR JUST EMPTY RHETORIC & WISHFUL SYMBOLISM?

THE MOST HISTORIC MOMENTS 
FROM THE KIM-MOON SUMMIT

Kim Jong Un becomes first North Korean leader to set foot in South Korea

BY MIKAEL THALEN
SEE: https://www.infowars.com/the-most-historic-moments-from-the-kim-moon-summit/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The Most Historic Moments from the Kim-Moon Summit
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in met at the Military Demarcation Line Friday for the two countries first summit in more than 10 years.
Kim, the first North Korean leader to enter South Korea since the 1950-53 Korean War, approached Moon with all smiles before the two shook hands on their respective sides.
“I was excited to meet at this historic place and it is really moving that you came all the way to the demarcation line to greet me in person,” Kim told Moon.
After stepping over to the South, Kim went off script and brought Moon back to the North, clutching the hand of his quasi-counterpart.
Twitter video is loading
The pair posed for photos as dozens of journalists looked on, frantically capturing the historic moment as it unfolded at Panmunjom.
Credit: Korea Summit Press Pool/Getty Images
The two leaders were then accompanied by a traditionally-dressed honor guard as they began towards the event’s opening ceremony.

Credit: Inter-Korean Summit Press Corps/Pool via Bloomberg
Kim was introduced to numerous members of Moon’s delegation before Moon was introduced to Kim’s.
Moon was saluted by North Korea’s top military men, clad in Soviet-era regalia.

Credit: Korea Summit Press Pool/Getty Images
Making their way to the newly-renovated Peace House, Kim entered and signed the guest book, a gesture reserved for all high-level visitors.
A photo of Kim’s message reads: “A new history begins now – at the starting point of history and the era of peace.”
View image on Twitter

View image on Twitter

Hawon Jung@allyjung

Here’s a message Kim Jong Un wrote on the guestbook at the Peace House summit venue, which reads “A new history begins now – at the starting point of history and the era of peace.”
9:05 PM – Apr 26, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Upon finally reaching the negotiating table, Kim and Moon exchanged their opening remarks, both advocating for a long-sought peace in the divided region.

Anna Fifield

✔@annafifield

Amazing: live feed of Kim Jong Un making opening remarks at the start of inter-Korean talks, even making jokes about how far the cold noodles have had to come today
9:24 PM – Apr 26, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Halfway through the summit, the two took a break to plant a tree commemorating the unprecedented occasion.
After hours of deliberation and talks, the two leaders released a joint declaration. Among other things, the two countries promised to increase diplomatic relations and work towards the “denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”
“The two leaders solemnly declared before the 80 million Korean people and the whole world that there will be no more war on the Korean Peninsula and thus a new era of peace has begun,” the declaration triumphantly announced.
To celebrate the accomplishment, the leaders of the DPRK and ROK sat down for a banquet, complete with traditional Korean music, celebratory toasts and small talk.
As darkness eventually fell on the Korean Peninsula, Kim stepped inside a limousine surrounded by security personnel and slipped back into the Hermit Kingdom.
Kim is now set to meet with U.S. President Donald Trump in late May or early June.
While analysts are skeptical North Korea will give up its nuclear weapons, the summit could fulfill some short term goals, including an official end to the Korean war and the release of U.S. hostages, as Trump and Kim lay out plans for the future.
In a series of tweets Friday, Trump congratulated the two Korean leaders on their landmark proceeding.
“After a furious year of missile launches and Nuclear testing, a historic meeting between North and South Korea is now taking place,” Trump said. “Good things are happening, but only time will tell!”
View some of the Kim-Moon Summit’s historic photos below:

Credit: Korea Summit Press Pool/Getty Images

Credit: Korea Summit Press Pool/Getty Images

Credit: Korea Summit Press Pool/Getty Images

Credit: Korea Summit Press Pool/Getty Images

Credit: Inter-Korean Summit / POOL/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images
Got a tip? Contact Mikael securely: keybase.io/mikaelthalen
_______________________________________________

KIM JONG UN WALKS INTO SOUTH KOREA AND AGREES TO ‘COMPLETE DENUCLEARISATION’

‘We are going to be one again’

BY DAILY MAIL
SEE: https://www.infowars.com/kim-jong-un-walks-into-south-korea-and-agrees-to-complete-denuclearisation/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Kim Jong Un Walks Into South Korea And Agrees To 'Complete Denuclearisation'
North and South Korea will seek a ‘peace regime’ to end the Korean War after 68 years as Kim Jong-un agreed to ‘complete denuclearisation’ during historic talks today.
Kim Jong-un became the first North Korean leader to step into the South for 65 years as he met with President Moon Jae-in for a peace summit today.
The two sworn enemies exchanged a warm greeting at the 38th parallel in the truce village of Panmunjom before Moon led Kim by the hand to cross into the South for the first time ever.
_______________________________________________
Peace Breaking Out With New Sheriff In Town:
DONALD TRUMP
North and South Korean Leaders Hold Historic Summit
Kim Jong-un crosses DMZ, welcomed by South Korea
In a historic meeting, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un crossed the demilitarized zone and was welcomed by South Korea President Moon Jae-in. It’s been over 10 years since the two countries’ leaders last met, and Kim’s eagerness to negotiate is sparking some optimism of a united Korea.

North
A p
VieTwitter Ads info and

LETTER TO SUPREME COURT: GLOBALIST U.S. CATHOLIC BISHOPS CALL TRUMP’S TRAVEL BAN “BLATANT RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION”~JUST ANOTHER ATTEMPT AT DEFEATING THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION & THE CONSTITUTION

LETTER TO SUPREME COURT: GLOBALIST U.S. CATHOLIC BISHOPS CALL TRUMP’S TRAVEL BAN “BLATANT RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION”~
JUST ANOTHER ATTEMPT AT DEFEATING 
THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION & 
THE CONSTITUTION
BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/04/us-catholic-bishops-call-trumps-travel-ban-blatant-religious-discrimination; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The U.S. Catholic bishops submitted a brief to the Supreme Court declaring that President Donald Trump’s ban on migration from five Muslim countries was “blatant religious discrimination.”
One learns from childhood to discriminate between what is harmful and what is benign. Trump’s ban was from “countries of concern” that were chosen by the Obama administration due to the security threats emanating from them, not because of anti-Muslim bigotry.
There is no discrimination against Muslims in America, based solely on faith. Muslims are free to practice their faith in peace, despite the fact that many Islamic preachers are spewing hatred against Christians, Jews and Zionism.
Attorney Neal Katyal referred to the bishops’ strongly worded friend-of-the-court brief as Justice Samuel Alito pressed him for evidence that a “reasonable person” would view Trump’s proclamation as discriminating against Muslims.
Any reasonable person should ask the question of why there is concern about Islam and none about Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. No reasonable person has anything against a Muslim’s private faith if it is benign, but any reasonable person has concerns about jihad and the global Islamic war that has been declared against infidels.
The next question that comes to mind is this: what possible motive could the bishops have?
In the Fiscal Year 2016, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) received more than $91 million in government funding for refugee resettlement. Over the past nine years, the USCCB has received a total of $534,788,660 in taxpayer dollars for refugee resettlement programs
These bishops have abandoned persecuted Christians and abdicated their role as Christian leaders. They are unfit for their ecclesiastical duties.
“The Bishops’ Brief Against the Ban,” by Paul Moses, Commonweal, April 26, 2018:
The U.S. Catholic bishops submitted a brief to the Supreme Court declaring that President Donald Trump’s ban on migration from five Muslim countries was “blatant religious discrimination”—and the lawyer representing opponents of the measure reminded the justices of that line in oral arguments held Wednesday.
Attorney Neal Katyal referred to the bishops’ strongly worded friend-of-the-court brief as Justice Samuel Alito pressed him for evidence that a “reasonable person” would view Trump’s proclamation as discriminating against Muslims.
“This is a ban that really does fall almost exclusively on Muslims,” Katyal said. “…Look at the wide variety of amicus briefs filed in this case from every corner of society, representing millions and millions of people, from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which calls it, quote, ‘blatant religious discrimination’”—
He was cut off, but the point was made before a court with five Catholic justices and one Episcopalian who was raised Catholic, Neil Gorsuch. The bishops’ brief cited Trump’s anti-Muslim tweets as evidence that the president’s order “arises out of express hostility to Islam,” and violates the First Amendment’s free exercise clause.
“Such blatant religious discrimination is repugnant to the Catholic faith, core American values, and the United States Constitution. It poses a substantial threat to religious liberty that this Court has never tolerated before and should not tolerate now,” the brief says. “Having once borne the brunt of severe discriminatory treatment, particularly in the immigration context, the Catholic Church will not sit silent while others suffer on account of their religion.”
Much of the news coverage of the hearing took the justices’ questioning as evidence that the court’s five-member conservative majority would rule in Trump’s favor. On the face of it, the justices need to decide if the core element of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965—abolishing discriminatory national-origin quotas passed in the 1920s—is trumped by a paragraph in the same law that, if the Trump administration is right, gives the president unlimited power over who can enter the country.
Whether the religious discrimination argument will move the justices in this case remains to be seen—and it’s best not to speculate on a justice’s thinking based on his or her questions.
But however the court rules, the USCCB’s brief is important in staking out an authentic Catholic position on Islam and immigration at a time when many anti-Islam voices are able to find a platform in Catholic media and institutions. And it counters the bishops’ past failures to include discrimination against Muslims as a cause for their campaign for religious liberty, as seen in the statement “Our First, Most Cherished Liberty,” which was issued before the 2012 presidential election. With a few exceptions, Catholic institutions were slow to respond to the nativist strain in Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, and the first nativist president was elected with a majority of the white Catholic vote. More recently, the USCCB released a statement in February 2017 urging Trump to fulfill his promise to protect religious liberty—but without mentioning his plans for immigration or his anti-Muslim comments……

_______________________________________________________
SEE ALSO: 

U.S. Catholic bishops to Americans: Drop dead

BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/04/u-s-catholic-bishops-to-americans-drop-dead; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
As Jihad Watch reported Saturday, “The U.S. Catholic bishops submitted a brief to the Supreme Court declaring that President Donald Trump’s ban on migration from five Muslim countries was ‘blatant religious discrimination.’” Is it really?
And do the U.S. Catholic bishops feel any obligation to support measures that would protect Americans from jihad attacks? Apparently not. The message that the bishops are sending to Americans is simple: drop dead. The U.S. Catholic bishops appear to be absolutely unconcerned about the following facts: 
Somali Muslim migrant Mohammad Barry in February 2016 stabbed multiple patrons at a restaurant owned by an Israeli Arab Christian; Ahmad Khan Rahami, an Afghan Muslim migrant, in September 2016 set off bombs in New York City and New Jersey; Arcan Cetin, a Turkish Muslim migrant, in September 2016 murdered five people in a mall in Burlington, Washington; Dahir Adan, another Somali Muslim migrant, in October 2016 stabbed mall shoppersin St. Cloud while screaming “Allahu akbar”; and Abdul Razak Artan, yet another Somali Muslim migrant, in November 2016 injured nine people with car and knife attacks at Ohio State University. 72 jihad terrorists have come to the U.S. from the countries listed in Trump’s initial immigration ban.
What’s more, all of the jihadis who murdered 130 people in Paris in November 2015 had just entered Europe as refugees. In February 2015, the Islamic State boasted it would soon flood Europe with as many as 500,000 refugees. The Lebanese Education Minister said in September 2015 that there were 20,000 jihadis among the refugees in camps in his country. On May 10, 2016, Patrick Calvar, the head of France’s DGSI internal intelligence agency, said that the Islamic State was using migrant routes through the Balkans to get jihadis into Europe.
The bishops have never expressed any concern about any of this. They are completely in line with Pope Francis, who has claimed risibly that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.” This has become a super-dogma in the Catholic Church: if you don’t believe that Islam is a Religion of Peace, you will be ruthlessly harassed and silenced by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and the hierarchy elsewhere as well. The bishops of the Catholic Church are much more concerned that you believe that Islam is a religion of peace than that you believe in, say, the Nicene Creed. And so what possible reason could there be to be concerned about these “refugees”? It’s a religion of peace!
The bishops, of course, have 91 million reasons — indeed, 534 billion reasons — to turn against the truth and disregard the safety and security of the American people: “In the Fiscal Year 2016, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) received more than $91 million in government funding for refugee resettlement. Over the past nine years, the USCCB has received a total of $534,788,660 in taxpayer dollars for refugee resettlement programs.”
“Leave them; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14)
It was not always thus. For centuries, in fact, as I detail in my forthcoming book The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS, the Catholic Church was at the forefront of efforts to resist jihad aggression in Europe. In it, you’ll discover:
  • The Pope who was a true precursor of Pope Francis: he was harshly criticized by the Romans for failing to keep them safe from jihad attacks;
  • The Pope who answered a Byzantine Emperor’s call for help against the jihadis not by scolding him about how Islam was peaceful, but by calling on the rulers of Europe to send troops;
  • The Medieval Pope who called Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, a “son of perdition,” and called for Christians to unite against the advancing jihad;
  • What happened when a Mongol ruler sent an emissary across Central Asia and into Europe to meet the Pope and seek an alliance with the Christians against the forces of jihad;
  • The Pope who haughtily refused to come to the aid of the Christian Byzantine Empire when it was mortally threatened by jihadis, because of doctrinal differences;
  • The Pope who took a solemn oath at his consecration to “extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet”;
  • The Pope who touched off worldwide Muslim riots by noting that “God is not pleased by blood”;
  • Much more.
Click here to preorder The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS.

APOLOGIZING/GROVELLING IN FRONT OF MUSLIMS: TRUMP’S U.N. MIGRATION AGENCY PICK ASKS FORGIVENESS FOR COMMENTS DEEMED “OFFENSIVE” TO MUSLIMS

JELLYFISH SPINELESS COPYCAT OF OBAMA’S APOLOGIES TO MUSLIMS IS TRUMP’S PICK?
WHY?
APOLOGIZING/GROVELLING IN FRONT OF MUSLIMS: TRUMP’S U.N. MIGRATION AGENCY PICK ASKS FORGIVENESS FOR COMMENTS DEEMED “OFFENSIVE” TO MUSLIMS 
BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/04/trumps-un-migration-agency-pick-asks-forgiveness-for-comments-deemed-offensive-to-muslims; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Ken Isaacs once proposed building a wall in the Alps to keep out migrants. Trump wants him to lead the world’s principal migration agency.
Some things should go without saying. One of them is that no one would ever leave their front, back, and side doors, and their windows, open to anyone who wishes to enter their homes.
Every productive, law-abiding immigrant who has been through the necessary process of vetting understands the reasoning behind the two-way street principle of immigration.
In the case of those claiming to be refugees, if they’re genuine refugees the emergency creates a different situation, but it is still basic prudence to consider the well-being of the citizens of the nation to which the refugees are arriving, and not just that of the refugees alone.
Groups such as the Islamic State and al Qaeda have already infiltrated the refugee stream. It is the the duty of authorities to protect their citizens against these “refugees.”
For the past few weeks, Isaacs has been traveling to foreign capitals in Europe and Africa in the company of White House and State Department escorts, seeking forgiveness.
Isaacs should not be apologizing for his prior concerns about public safety, given the flood of Muslim migrants into Europe and the subsequent well-documented ills that followed. Isaacs is unwittingly sending a message that leaders who care about their populations, and who have opted to try to curb or block the streams of unvetted refugees, are wrong or offensive for doing so — including President Trump, who has caused “offence” over his temporary Muslim ban from countries of concern for jihad activity.
Muslims are not being targeted worldwide, except by fellow Muslims. Over 11 million Muslims have been murdered since 1948 by their coreligionists. It is infidels and apostates who are being victimized by Muslims, not the other way around.
Responsible immigration policy is essential, and Isaacs should be advocating for it. Concern for the victims of Islamic supremacism and jihad is valid, no matter how loudly the media claims that such concern renders one evil. There is a systematic war being waged against free societies. The first step in effectively fighting it is to stand firm on Judeo-Christian values and genuine human rights for all people, including, of course, genuinely peaceful Muslims. No apologies are needed for protecting human rights and the free societies that protect those rights.
“A Trump U.N. Pick Tries to Make Up for Anti-Muslim Tweets,” by Colum Lynch, Foreign Policy, April 26, 2018:
If there were ever a candidate for Twitter purgatory, it would have to be Ken Isaacs, who upended his White House-backed campaign to lead the U.N. migration agency with a series of tweets denigrating Islam.
For the past few weeks, Isaacs has been traveling to foreign capitals in Europe and Africa in the company of White House and State Department escorts, seeking forgiveness as he tries to rescue his bid by persuading foreign dignitaries, including Pope Francis, that he is not the sum of his tweets and that he can be trusted to lead the International Organization for Migration (IOM) without religious bias. In a sign of the importance of his candidacy, Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, will host a reception on May 3 to introduce U.N. ambassadors to Isaacs in New York.
The State Department declined to make Isaacs available for an interview. But Isaacs agreed to respond to written questions.
“I have apologized publicly for social media comments that have caused hurt,” he writes. “I ask people to judge me on my professional record and the decades of work I have done to help people in need around the world.”
Despite persistent misgivings about the U.S. candidate’s temperament, Isaacs maintains the edge as the front-runner because key powers, particularly in Europe, are unwilling to challenge the Americans’ traditional hold on the job out of concern that it might provoke the United States to pull IOM funding or cost them Washington’s support for other national priorities, several diplomatic sources say.
The United States is the single largest donor to IOM, contributing more than 30 percent of the some $1 billion the organization receives in voluntary donations each year.
“We are not going to take the fight [to the United States] out of fear of pushing the U.S. away and [damaging] our bilateral relations,” one senior European diplomat says. That view, the diplomat says, is “fairly widely held” among European governments.
The nomination of such a controversial candidate will serve as a test of the United States’ ability to maintain its leadership position on the multilateral stage at a time when the White House has expressed disdain for international institutions from the International Criminal Court to the World Trade Organization. It will also determine whether the United States will be forced to pay a diplomatic cost for imposing sharp budget cuts on key agencies, including the U.N. Population Fund and the U.N. Relief and Works Agency…..

______________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:

Trump pick under fire from “CNN’s resident smear merchant” Andrew Kaczynski for retweeting Jihad Watch

EXCERPTS:
“The Trump administration’s pick to head the United Nations organization that coordinates assistance to migrants worldwide regularly pushed anti-Muslim sentiment, including claims that Muslims were trying to impose Sharia law in the US.”
“A CNN KFile review has turned up previously unreported tweets that reveal Ken Isaacs has an extensive history of sharing anti-Muslim sentiment. Isaacs pushed a conspiratorial view of Islam and promoted the fringe views from prominent anti-Muslim activists, the review shows….”
“Asked about the tweets in this story, the State Department sent CNN’s KFile a statement that spokeswoman Heather Nauert gave to the Post in February.”
““Mr. Isaacs has apologized for the comments he posted on his private social media account. We believe that was proper for him to do so,” Nauert said last month. “Mr. Isaacs is committed to helping refugees and has a long history of assisting those who are suffering. We believe that if chosen to lead IOM, he would treat people fairly and with the dignity and respect they deserve. I would refer you to Mr. Isaacs for any information on his statements.””

TEXAS: MUSLIM MIGRANT COUPLE KEPT WOMAN AS A SLAVE FOR 16 YEARS, STARTING WHEN SHE WAS FIVE YEARS OLD

“Mohamed is a supporter of Marxist Hugo Chavez
and his Socialist revolution.”

TEXAS: MUSLIM MIGRANT COUPLE KEPT WOMAN AS A SLAVE FOR 16 YEARS, STARTING WHEN SHE WAS FIVE YEARS OLD 
BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/04/texas-muslim-migrant-couple-kept-woman-as-a-slave-for-16-years-starting-when-she-was-five-years-old; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Why not? Slavery is acceptable in Islam.
The Qur’an has Allah telling Muhammad that he has given him girls as sex slaves: “Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty.” (Qur’an 33:50)
Muhammad bought slaves: “Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported: There came a slave and pledged allegiance to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man).” (Muslim 3901)
Muhammad took female Infidel captives as slaves: “Narrated Anas: The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, ‘Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.’ Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives. She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet. The Prophet made her manumission as her ‘Mahr.’” (Bukhari 5.59.512) Mahr is bride price: Muhammad freed her and married her. But he didn’t do this to all his slaves:
Muhammad owned slaves: “Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah’s Apostle was on a journey and he had a black slave called Anjasha, and he was driving the camels (very fast, and there were women riding on those camels). Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Waihaka (May Allah be merciful to you), O Anjasha! Drive slowly (the camels) with the glass vessels (women)!’” (Bukhari 8.73.182) There is no mention of Muhammad’s freeing Anjasha.
“Son of Guinea’s first president charged with forced labor in Texas,” by Laura Koran and Laura Jarrett, CNN, April 26, 2018 (thanks to Robert):
Washington (CNN)A Texas couple with deep political connections in the West African country of Guinea was charged Thursday with forced labor after a young woman they allegedly enslaved for more than 16 years managed to escape their home in Southlake with help from neighbors.
Mohamed Toure and Denise Cros-Toure, both 57, allegedly brought the victim from Guinea to Texas in 2000, when she was just 5 years old. She has not been named.
They allegedly then forced the girl to do housework and care for their children, subjecting her to emotional and physical abuse, the Department of Justice said in a press release.
“Although the victim was close in age to the children, the defendants denied her access to schooling and the other opportunities afforded to their children,” the department alleges.
The couple originally hail from Guinea, where Mohamed Toure is an influential figure and son of Guinea’s first President, Ahmed Sekou Toure.
The younger Toure was also a leader of the political opposition party in Guinea, although he has no diplomatic immunity or status, according to a source familiar with the matter.
Following his father’s death in 1984, Mohamed Toure was imprisoned along with other members of his family, according to the authors of Historical Dictionary of Guinea. He was later exiled to Morocco and Ivory Coast before settling in Texas with his wife and children.
He later returned to Guinea, where he was named secretary general of his father’s old political party.
Now, Toure and his wife face up to 20 years in prison on the forced labor charge.
“As part of their coercive scheme to compel the victim’s labor, the defendants took her documents and caused her to remain unlawfully in the United States after her visa expired,” the Justice Department alleges in its press release. “They further isolated her from her family and others and emotionally and physically abused her.”
In the criminal complaint against the Toure, the lead investigator alleges that the victim — referred to only as Female Victim 1 or FV-1 — was forced to sleep on the floor for years, and was only taken to see a medical professional once.
The complaint also alleges disturbing incidents of physical abuse by Cros-Toure, who allegedly beat the victim, sometimes with a belt or electrical cord. In one incident, the victim alleged an earring was pulled out of her ear by Cros-Toure with such force that it tore her earlobe, leaving a visible scar….

UK LEFTIST SOCIALIST GLOBALIST ATTACK: MAYOR FORCED TO RESIGN FOR FOLLOWING GEERT WILDERS, MARK STEYN & RAHEEM KASSAM ON SOCIAL MEDIA

UK GLOBALIST ATTACK: MAYOR FORCED TO RESIGN FOR FOLLOWING GEERT WILDERS, MARK STEYN & RAHEEM KASSAM ON SOCIAL MEDIA
BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/04/uk-mayor-forced-to-resign-for-following-geert-wilders-mark-steyn-and-raheem-kassam-on-social-media; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
In the UK as in the US, only one political opinion is acceptable to the political and media elites. They blather on and on about “diversity,” but that just means they want people of many races, ethnicities and religions all saying the same thing.
“Small Town Mayor Forced to Quit for Following Kassam, Steyn, Wilders on Social Media,” by Oliver JJ Lane, Breitbart, April 26, 2018 (thanks to Inexion):
The mayor of a small British town quit his post for “personal reasons”, reportedly after a single complaint was made about his social media activity, including expressing concern about mass migration, and being subscribed to right-wing personalities on Facebook.
Councillor Peter Lucey stood down from his post as Mayor of Wokingham and resigned from the Conservative Party Wednesday after a fellow Councillor from the left-wing Labour Party wrote a letter of complaint about the Mayor’s online activity, reports the Wokingham Paper.
According to the report, the Mayor had expressed concern about mass migration and subscribed to right-wing personalities on Facebook, including Breitbart London Editor in Chief Raheem Kassam, Dutch populist Geert Wilders, and New York Times-bestselling Canadian author Mark Steyn, which the Wokingham Paper described as being “controversial” and holding “anti-Islamic views”.
The report also made specific mention of Kassam’s newly released book on mid-20th century conservative political giant Enoch Powell, Enoch Was Right: ‘Rivers of Blood’ 50 Years On in the context of Lucey’s resignation.
It is claimed in addition to the personalities followed by Lucey, he also followed the now largely dormant street-marching group the English Defence League, and think-tank the Gatestone Institute.
Speaking to local newspaper the Bracknell News, Labour councillor Andy Croy claimed the Mayor had made Islamophobic communications online, although the only message quoted by papers surrounding the now-deleted accounts specifically referenced immigration, not Islam. The politician said: “I saw the messages and wrote to The Wokingham Conservatives, pointing out that I thought it was islamophobic [sic] and that they needed to deal with it.
“I demanded his resignation. He posted something along the lines of ‘mass immigration has destroyed your future’.”…

________________________________________________________

View image on Twitter

View image on Twitter

The Wokingham Paper@WokyPaper

mayor quits over far right probe …
5:20 PM – Apr 25, 2018

ZUCKERBERG’S CENSORSHIP CONTINUES: FACEBOOK BLOCKS PAMELA GELLER (AGAIN) FOR REPORTING ACCURATELY ON ISLAMIC ANTI-SEMITISM IN GERMANY


FACEBOOK BLOCKS PAMELA GELLER (AGAIN) FOR REPORTING ACCURATELY ON ISLAMIC ANTI-SEMITISM IN GERMANY 
BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/04/facebook-blocks-pamela-geller-again-for-reporting-accurately-on-islamic-anti-semitism-in-germany; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Pamela Geller posted an accurate news story, accompanied by a genuine photo of two niqab-wearing Muslimas carrying a sign saying “God Bless Hitler” — a vivid, and sickening, illustration of Islamic antisemitism. For doing this, she has been blocked from posting at Facebook yet again, in what is just the latest indication of the social media giant’s determination to silence all voices that dissent from its hard-Left agenda.
Mark Zuckerberg recently claimed, risibly, that Facebook’s censors had no political bias. He actually had the audacity to say this in a Congressional hearing. No one asked him why Facebook’s Vice President Joel Kaplan traveled to Pakistan in July 2017 to assure the Pakistani government that it would remove “anti-Islam” material. That endeavor had already started before Kaplan’s trip. In mid-February 2017, traffic to Jihad Watch from Facebook dropped suddenly by 90% and has never recovered. And there are so many other sites that have experienced a similar dropoff.
This was no accident. It has happened to counter-jihad sites and others that oppose the hard-Left agenda across the board. Either Zuckerberg perjured himself, or has no control over his company.
If Facebook is not broken up by anti-trust initiatives or stopped in some other way, the First Amendment freedom of speech will soon be a completely dead letter.

“Facebook Blocks Pamela Geller (Again!) for Reporting on Muslim Anti-Semitism in Germany,” by Allum Bokhari, Breitbart, April 27, 2018:
Days after Facebook, along with Google and Twitter, refused to attend a congressional hearing on social media censorship, the social network banned the account of author and free speech activist Pamela Geller for 30 days after she posted an article about Muslim anti-Semitism in Germany.
Geller’s article said that “thanks to the hijrah” [Jihad by immigration] “Islamic antisemitism will drive the Jews out of Europe, succeeding in achieving Hitler’s dream — a judenrein Europe.”
The rest of the post featured an Associated Press article about a German Jewish leader advising Jews in the country to avoid wearing skullcaps in cities due to anti-Semitic attacks in the country.
At the congressional hearing on social media censorship this week, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee accused conservatives of believing a “conspiracy theory” about social media censorship. They claimed there is no pattern of bias against conservatives on major tech platforms.
And yet, the targeting of major figures on the right continues. This is not the first time Geller has been banned by Facebook for political posts. After the Islamic terrorist attack in Orlando, Florida in 2016, the social network banned both her personal account and one of her organizations, Stop Islamization of America.
Freedom Defence Initiative, another conservative organization run by Geller, was also banned by PayPal, along with Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch, a site monitoring Islamic extremism. PayPal reversed their decision following a public backlash.
Finally, Twitter refused to enforce its content rules when Geller’s daughters were the targets of a vicious harassment campaign on the app. Many of the abusive tweets remain on their platform, their authors unpunished….

_______________________________________________________

Conservative Free Speech Suppressed On Social Media

Diamond and Silk went before congress to address conservative censorship on Facebook, a seemingly growing issue for conservatives on social media.

OBAMA’S ISLAMIC DECEIT & LIES: “ISLAM HAS A PROUD TRADITION OF TOLERANCE”~LET’S TEST HIS THEORY

OBAMA’S ISLAMIC DECEIT & LIES: 
“ISLAM HAS A PROUD TRADITION OF TOLERANCE”~LET’S TEST HIS THEORY 
BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/04/islam-has-a-proud-tradition-of-tolerance-said-barack-obama-lets-test-his-theory; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
In his famous outreach speech to the Islamic world from Cairo on June 4, 2009, Barack Obama said: “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country.”
Let’s test his theory. Here are a few notable facts you will discover in my forthcoming book, The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS:
  • The Christian Patriarch who lamented that the Arab conquest of Jerusalem was characterized by “so much destruction and plunder” and “incessant outpourings of human blood”;
  • The Muslim leader who had the Colossus of Rhodes sold off as scrap metal because for him, it wasn’t a “wonder of the world,” it was just an artifact of jahiliyya, pre-Islamic ignorance;
  • The Muslim leader who wrote to the Byzantine Emperor, a Christian, demanding that he “renounce this Jesus and convert to the great God whom I serve. If not, how will this Jesus be able to save you from my hands?”;
  • The caliph who exhorted his governors not to lenient on the non-Muslims, saying: “The non-Muslims are nothing but dirt. Allah has created them to be partisans of Satan”;
  • The Muslim leader who gave ruthless orders to the Muslim invaders of India: “Kill anyone belonging to the combatants; arrest their sons and daughters for hostages and imprison them”;
  • How the Muslim Spain that Obama praised became a center of the Islamic slave trade, where Muslim buyers could purchase non-Muslim sex-slave girls as young as eleven years old, as well as slave boys for sex as well, or slave boys raised to become slave soldiers;
  • The Islamic warrior who fought without mercy against the Hindus in India: “the blood of the infidels flowed so copiously that the stream was discolored”;
  • The Islamic caliphate that made it a regular practice to seize the children of Christian families, convert them to Islam, and train them as slave soldiers;
  • The Muslim reformer who gained a large following among Muslims by personally stoning an accused adulteress to death;
  • The real story of how the Sphinx lost its nose (no, Napoleon’s troops did not shoot it off during target practice);
  • Much, much more.
“Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance” — Barack Obama is gone from the White House, but many people believe that to this day, and such assumptions influence public policy. Discover what really happened and get the whole truth in The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS. Click here to preorder now.

ALFIE EVANS, HOSPITALIZED TODDLER AT CENTER OF UK COURT BATTLE, DIES

Nigel Farage talks Alfie Evans and Britain’s medical system

ALFIE EVANS, HOSPITALIZED TODDLER AT CENTER OF UK COURT BATTLE, DIES 

BY HEATHER CLARK
SEE: https://christiannews.net/2018/04/28/alfie-evans-hospitalized-toddler-at-center-of-uk-court-battle-dies/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
LIVERPOOL — Alfie Evans, the 23-month-old boy whose parents fought in court to transfer him to another hospital for experimental treatment, has died.
“Our baby boy grew his wings tonight at 2:30 a.m. We are heartbroken. Thank you everyone for all your support,” wrote mother Kate James on Saturday.
“My gladiator lay down his shield and gained his wings at 02:30. Absolutely heartbroken. I LOVE YOU MY GUY,” also lamented father Thomas Evans.
As previously reported, Alfie was removed from life support on Monday evening, but had been breathing on his own for several days. Artificial ventilation was discontinued as all efforts in the courts to save his life were unsuccessful.
Justice Anthony Hayden ruled in February that while Alfie’s plight was “profoundly unfair,” he agreed with Alder Hey Children’s Hospital that treatment measures would be futile, and that the nearly two-year-old boy rather needs “good quality palliative care.” A court of appeals upheld the ruling last month.
Earlier this month, Hayden ordered the end-of-life plan to proceed, stating that while he understands the frustration of Alfie’s parents, he sees no chance of recovery and believes that Evans is hoping for an “entirely unrealistic solution.”
“On February 20, I gave a conclusion after six days of evidence after which Mr. Evans cross examined doctors with conspicuous skill and manifest sincerity,” he said. “But I came to the conclusion at the end of that hearing that Alfie’s brain had been so corrupted by mitochondrial disease that his life was futile.”
“By the time I came to conclude the case the terrible reality is that almost the entirety of Alfie’s brain had been eroded, leaving only water and spinal fluid,” Hayden stated. “Even at the end of February, the connective pathways within the brain had been obliterated. They were no longer even identifiable.”
As previously reported, Alfie, who was six months old at the time, was admitted to Alder Hey in December 2016 due to a chest infection. The child was born healthy by all indications, but began exhibiting unusual jerking movements months later.
While hospitalized, Alfie struggled to breathe due to a myoclonic jerking spasm, and was placed on life support. In January 2016, it was thought that Alfie would not make it, but he overcame the infection for a time and began to improve. However, the infant had to be intubated again after contracting another infection, and was stated to be in a semi-vegetative state.
In court proceedings, Alder Hey officials testified that they believed that Alfie’s brain was “entirely beyond recovery” and 70 percent damaged. They argued that it was in the child’s “best interests” to be withdrawn from life support.
However, Alfie’s parents wanted the boy to be transferred to another hospital to obtain experimental treatment—giving their son one more chance. They stated that they did not know specifically what was wrong with Alfie other than that he had a degenerative neurological condition.
Evans and James had also recorded their son opening his eyes, yawning and stretching, and believed it was evidence that they shouldn’t give up just yet.
The matter gained global attention, and a number of political leaders and other notable voices worldwide soon publicly backed the parents. Passionate supporters also gathered outside of Alder Hey Children’s Hospital to demand that the parents’ rights to their child’s treatment be respected. A helicopter was stated to be on standby to transport the boy to Italy.
On Thursday, after appeal efforts were again unsuccessful, Evans and James released a statement asking supporters to “return to their everyday lives” as they sought to “build a bridge” with the hospital. They had hoped that if matters settled down, they might be able to take their son home to obtain medical care there.
“In Alfie’s interests, we will work with his treating team on a plan that provides our boy with the dignity and comfort he needs,” the statement said.
The child died less than two days later.

The Culture of Death & Growing Totalitarianism

BY NEWT GINGRICH
SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2018/04/the-culture-of-death-growing-totalitarianism/#axzz5EFebsAc1; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

USA – –(Ammoland.com)- The British government’s decisions to allow two critically ill babies to die in two years is a natural reflection of the culture of death and the steady increase in totalitarian tendencies among Western governments.
Last year, the British government ordered life support removed from Charlie Gard, ending his life when he was just 11 months old. Now, Alfie Evans – just 23 months old – has received what amounts to the same death sentence. On Monday, he was removed from life support by court order – against the wishes of his parents.

Then, something remarkable happened. The child confounded his doctors and refused to die.

As of the time I am writing this, Alfie Evans is still alive and is breathing unaided. This is despite the claim made by a medical professional during a court hearing that Alfie would die quickly – possibly in “minutes” – if taken off life support.
But even this display of the power of the human spirit to defy the expectations of the supposedly rational and objective state did nothing to sway the minds of the British courts and state-run medical apparatus.
On Wednesday, another legal appeal by the parents to be allowed to try and save their son’s life was denied.
The secular system has asserted its right to define what lives are worth living and is determined to prevent its authority from being questioned. Alfie Evans’ life – like Charlie Gard’s before him – has been determined to be limited by the standards of the secular state – and therefore without value.
These tragic government-imposed death sentences for innocent infants should frighten all of us about increasing secularism in society and the steady shift towards a totalitarian willingness to control our lives – down to and including ending them – on the government’s terms.
This is a direct assault on the core premise of the Declaration of Independence. We Americans asserted that we “are endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” In the American Revolution, in our fight against the British crown, we asserted that rights come from God not from government.
However, our secular, liberal culture increasingly dismisses the concept of God and asserts that our rights come from a rational contract enforced by government. In the original American model, we asserted our God-given rights against the power of a potentially tyrannical government. In the emerging left-wing secular order, since there is no God, our rights depend on a secular state controlling itself.

Britain is giving us a vivid, tragic sense of how dangerous and heartless government tyranny can be once God is rejected and there is nothing between us and the government.

Ironically, this latest decision was made the same year Stephen Hawking died 55 years after he was diagnosed with ALS (commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s disease) and told he had only two years to live. Apparently, the British government learned no lessons from Hawking’s remarkable lifetime of work and achievement, which he pursued despite having to battle an extraordinarily challenging illness. In fact, in 1985, Hawking contracted pneumonia while he was writing A Brief History of Time, and his wife was asked if his life should be terminated. She refused, and Hawking went on to live another 33 years and publish one of the most acclaimed books of the 20th century, which has since sold more than 10 million copies worldwide – all after it had been suggested he be taken off life support.
Hawking should be a permanent reminder that the human spirit is more important than the human body and that the will to live and achieve should not be destroyed by the state.
Yet, in the very country which produced and nurtured Hawking, the government still ordered the removal of life support from two babies. In both cases there has been an organized alternative to government-imposed death.
Charlie Gard’s condition was potentially treatable by an experimental process in the United States. An American hospital and other organizations were willing to treat him. Supporters gave more than 1.3 million pounds (about $1.8 million) to pay for the travel and treatment. His parents wanted him to have the chance to live. However, the British bureaucracy took time to consider if he could go. During that bureaucratic process, his condition worsened. Then, having allowed his condition to worsen by refusing to say yes, it was too late. During the bureaucratic deliberation, Charlie’s parents and those who wanted to try to save him were told they had no right to help their own child. The child belonged to the government, and the government would decide whether he had the right to live.
This year, Alfie Evans had international support for an opportunity to live. The “Pope’s hospital”, Bambino Gesù Pediatric Hospital, has offered to treat Alfie (as it did with Charlie), and Pope Francis has publicly appealed to the British government to allow the young child to be taken to Rome. An air ambulance was sent to Alfie’s hospital earlier this week to bring him to the doctors who wanted to try for a miraculous cure.

In a real sense: What better place is there to hope for a miracle than in the Pope’s pediatric hospital, which has helped many children with rare diseases?

This appeal for hope fell on the deaf ears of the state, which refused to allow Alfie’s parents to transfer their child to Rome. In fact, The Telegraph reported that despite a judge ruling that Alfie’s parents could “explore” taking the child home, doctors treating the child have been against this because they fear that “in the ‘worst case’ they would try to take the boy abroad.”
In other words, the “worst case” scenario would be for Alfie’s parents to seek medical help to save their child.
This is monstrous. It is difficult to understand the arrogance and coldness of British judges who prefer to order death rather than allow parents to fight for the lives of their children. Yet at least twice in two years we have seen a supposedly free country’s court system impose death on its most innocent citizens.
Some of this cruelty and inhumanity is a function of the growing culture of death and the expanding sense that secular values must drive religious values out of public life.
Some of it comes from a National Health Service which must bureaucratically define what is worth investing in and what is not. In a world of limited medical resources, little babies with rare conditions become expendable “for the greater good.” The fact that we are all diminished makes no difference to the atheist bureaucratic left.
Those who say they favor socialism must be made to confront this inhumanity, which is an integral part of socialist implementation. When the government controls everything, the government defines everything, and humanity is crushed beneath petty rules and petty rulers.
In America, we are watching the steady growth of intolerance and the totalitarian impulse. Look at the campuses which now seek to control speech. Look at the polls which show young people are being educated into support for censorship. Look at the California legislature which is considering legislation that, taken to its logical conclusion, will outlaw the sale and distribution of the Bible and the Koran (the secular society sees both as intolerant, dangerous documents).
When you read about these two babies being denied life support by a supposedly free government, remember what John Donne warned when he wrote “any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”
In these two years, we have seen two babies effectively sentenced to death by a government we would once have considered humane. What will the next horror be?
Your Friend,
Newt

Newt GingrichNewt Gingrich

P.S. Copies of Callista’s new children’s book, Hail to the Chief, and my new book Understanding Trump are now available
About Newt Gingrich
Newt Gingrich is well-known as the architect of the “Contract with America” that led the Republican Party to victory in 1994 by capturing the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time in forty years. After he was elected Speaker, he disrupted the status quo by moving power out of Washington and back to the American people.
Gingrich Productions is a performance and production company featuring the work of Newt Gingrich and Callista Gingrich. Visit : www.gingrichproductions.com

DELAWARE TYRANNY: PROPOSED LAW WILL INSERT GOVERNMENT BETWEEN PARENTS & THEIR CHILDREN…AGAIN!

DELAWARE TYRANNY: PROPOSED LAW WILL INSERT GOVERNMENT BETWEEN PARENTS & THEIR CHILDREN…AGAIN! 
BY NICOLE THEIS
SEE: https://www.delawarefamilies.org/learn-sb65; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Senate Bill 65 (SB 65) is a proposed law in Delaware that says if your child develops confusion about his/her identity, the only licensed professional counseling your child may receive is that which promotes a homosexual or transgender identity. 
Once again, just like with Regulation 225, the state is stepping in between parents, their child, and qualified licensed therapists to say “WE KNOW BEST.”  

If SB 65 passed in Delaware, any discussion (even a conversation) between a licensed professional and a child that affirms his biological reality and helps him align with his faith and moral beliefs WILL BE BANNED (line 114).

Any licensed professional who helps a minor child in this way or refers a family for help outside of the state would have their professional license revoked (line 139). 

As many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.  

Instead of supporting a child’s biological sex through natural puberty, the only help the State of Delaware will allow through SB 65 is sending a gender-confused child down the path of chemical castration with puberty blockers followed by adding cross-sex hormones, which permanently sterilizes them and puts them at risk for heart disease, strokes, diabetes, and cancers and leads to minors making the decision to amputate healthy body parts (lines 83-93, 117-119).

This is ABUSE, not support!

The Delaware House is expected to vote on SB 65 at any time. If it passes the House, it will become law. Take 2 minutes right now to send your Representative an email opposing SB 65.
Additional concerns with SB 65:
  • SB65 not only interferes with a parent’s right to direct the upbringing of his/her child, it interferes with free speech and prevents clients from seeking their own self-determined goals. The bill demands therapists provide counseling according to the will of the government – or they may lose their professional license. Instead, we should advocate for a discussion that promotes therapy guided by a client’s self-determined goals NOT the will of the government!
  •  Many studies have shown a positive association between childhood sexual abuse and sexual confusion. Shouldn’t minors be given the opportunity to explore the idea that their sexuality/attractions may have been forced upon them by their abusers? The answer is “NO” if SB 65 passes.  
  •  Included in SB65 is language that prevents a teen who is experiencing sexual feelings toward a pre-pubescent child of the same sex (pedopheliac feelings), to receive therapy that would reduce or eliminate those feelings (line 116).
  •  SB 65, lines 83-93, says that gender confusion is not to be treated, even though there is ZERO scientific evidence connecting talk therapy to any kind of tangible harm. The American Psychological Association has concluded, “[t]here are no scientifically rigorous studies of recent that would enable us to make a definitive statement about whether recent sexual orientation change efforts is safe or harmful and for whom.”
  •  Therapy bans put patient confidentiality at risk. Who would review patient records and determine that a therapist has or has not complied with laws like the therapy bans being considered in Delaware?
  •   SB65 forbids even talk therapy, a discussion, that would affirm a child’s biological reality. SB65 positions parents and licensed professionals as abusers. This is how the premise of the bill language was expressed in Committee hearings by the bill sponsors. So-called conversion therapy does not exist in Delaware. 
More Resources:

About Author: Nicole Theis

Nicole Theis is a native of Delaware, and Founder and President of Delaware Family Policy Council established in 2008. Nicole, with her team, leads the Faith, Family, and Freedom effort in Delaware and works daily to equip and embolden Christ followers to courageously engage the culture. 

PATRIOTS & TRUMP SUPPORTERS DIAMOND & SILK OPENING STATEMENT & QUESTIONING AT HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING~DENY MAKING A “TON OF MONEY” WITH TRUMP’S BACKING


PATRIOTS & TRUMP SUPPORTERS DIAMOND & SILK OPENING STATEMENT & QUESTIONING AT HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING 
Diamond and Silk Go Off On Rep Sheila Jackson Lee: Don’t Try To Mix My Words 4/26/18
It seems pro-Trump bloggers Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson (AKA Diamond & Silk) might’ve comat least once, possibly twice during their testimony before the House Judiciary Committee today. The dynamic duo are on Capitol Hill for a hearing on their claims that Facebook is censoring their content because of their conservative beliefs. Despite all the questions surrounding the vloggers’ as the proceeding got underway.
Hardaway (Diamond) says “We’ve never been paid by the Trump campaign” in response to Sheila Jackson Lee
Diamond & Silk blast Democratic tool Rep.Hank Johnson
“Let me tell you something: Facebook censored us for six months,” fired-back Diamond, whose real name is Lynette Hardaway. “You know what? We didn’t bash Facebook. We brought to the light how Facebook has been censoring conservative voices like ourselves.”
JOHNSON: “YOU’VE MADE A TON OF MONEY”
(WITH TRUMP’S BACKING)

Ex Secret Service Agent Dan Bongino: Attacks on Diamond and Silk Result of Left’s Identity Politics

“The attacks on black conservatives are an outgrowth of the left’s fascination with identity politics … if the color of your skin happens to be darker than mine and you happen to espouse a conservative thought or support this President, you’re to be crushed at every opportunity.” —Dan Bongino

Rep. Hank Johnson Gets Owned by Diamond and Silk

“Hank Johnson’s entire livelihood is lying to people up on Capitol Hill and manipulating them, making them believe liberal ideas are actually A-Okay. He gets paid what, a $175,000 dollars a year of your money and he’s knocking Diamond and Silk because people voluntarily pay to see some of their stuff on Facebook.” —
Dan Bongino

Diamond And Silk Are Fighting For You!

Unlike Lord Zuckerberg …Conservative video bloggers Diamond and Silk were under oath. But that didn’t stop some on the Committee Hearing on Filtering Practices of Social Media from twisting the facts to paint Diamond and Silk as liars.


CALIFORNIA LAWMAKERS PUSH BILLS TO CONTROL HOMESCHOOLERS~LESBIAN INTRODUCES BILL~ALEX NEWMAN & DR. DUKE PESTA DISCUSS

CALIFORNIA LAWMAKERS PUSH BILLS 
TO CONTROL HOMESCHOOLERS~
ALEX NEWMAN & DR. DUKE PESTA DISCUSS 
Lawmakers in California are considering two bills that would trample homeschool freedom in an unprecedented way, threatening parental rights and educational liberty across the state and beyond. Even private schools would not be safe under the proposed schemes.

There are two pieces of legislation in particular that critics are working to expose and defeat. A rally in defense of educational freedom is set to take place in Sacramento on April 25, the day hearings in the Assembly Education Committee are scheduled for the bills. |

BILL INTRODUCED BY AN OPEN LESBIAN

Assemblymember Eggman: 

Marriage Equality Returned to California

(Sacramento) — Assemblymember Susan Talamantes-Eggman spoke at a State Capitol news conference with Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez and others following the announcement from the Supreme Court of its decision to overturn California’s Proposition 8. Assemblymember Eggman said it has been a long struggle for marriage equality, “All of the work that we’ve done is really coming together to change how we all look at each other and treat each other and our relationships with each other as good and loving Americans.” Here’s more from Assemblymember Eggman in this Assembly Access video. http://www.asmdc.org/eggman
“31 YEARS” IN A LESBIAN RELATIONSHIP WITH HER “FEMALE” PARTNER:
“FIRST ‘OUT’ PERSON TO BE ELECTED IN THE VALLEY”
California Lawmakers Say Homeschool is Child Abuse Dr. Duke Pesta
Dr. Duke Pesta examines a pending California law that would treat homeschool parents as child abusers.

NEVADA SCHOOL BANS STUDENT’S PRO GUN RIGHTS TEE SHIRT & FREE SPEECH

NEVADA SCHOOL BANS STUDENT’S PRO GUN RIGHTS TEE SHIRT & FREE SPEECH
BY DUNCAN JOHNSON
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:



Two civil rights groups back new First Amendment lawsuit challenging Washoe County School District’s ‘no weapons’ dress code as unconstitutional and overbroad, claims 8th-grade student was discriminated against based on his pro-Second Amendment viewpoint and tee-shirt.

Guardanapo v. Washoe County School District - Federal First Amendment civil rights challenge to the District's "no weapons" dress code and discrimination against pro-gun rights 8th grade studentGuardanapo v. Washoe County School District – Federal First Amendment civil rights challenge to the District's “no weapons” dress code and discrimination against pro-gun rights 8th grade student

RENO, NV –-(Ammoland.com)- Less than one week after constitutional rights advocacy organizations Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) and Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) published a new guide to help protect pro-gun rights students and their First Amendment free speech rights, the groups today announced a new federal civil rights lawsuit against a Reno, Nevada public school district and principal over what they believe are serious violations of an 8th grade student’s First Amendment right to peacefully and non-disruptively wear pro-Second Amendment political messages at his middle school. The complaint, which includes an image of the banned tee shirt, can be downloaded.



The lawsuit, filed this morning in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada in Reno, claims that boy was disciplined for engaging “in a respectful, silent, and peaceful expression of his political views” by wearing a Firearms Policy Coalition t-shirt to school. The shirt invokes the constitution and themes dating back to the American Revolution, with the words “Don’t Tread On Me” and a coiled rattlesnake (familiar elements of the Gadsden flag) flanked by references to the United States of America (“USA”) and the Second Amendment (“2A”). While it also includes the words “Firearms Policy Coalition,” there are no depictions of firearms or weapons of any kind on the shirt.



According to the plaintiffs, the student’s teacher, Brooke May, last month directed him to remove the FPC shirt, claiming that it violated the school’s dress code. She also said that he would be subject to further discipline, including a trip to the principal’s office, if he wore it again. In response, the 8th grader at Kendyl Depoali Middle School told her that it was his “right to express [himself] through how [he] dressed,” to which the teacher responded that he could have his “Second Amendment rights when he turns eighteen”—ignoring, and violating, his First Amendment rights in the process.



Mere days after the plaintiff was disciplined for wearing FPC’s pro-gun rights shirt, students at the school participated in the National School Walkout, a formal, organized protest calling for expansive new gun control measures.





“Public schools may not violate the civil rights of pro-gun rights students because they don’t like the Second Amendment or people who support the fundamental, individual human right to armed self-defense,” said FPF Chairman and FPC President Brandon Combs. “It is beyond outrageous that a friendly, peaceful young man was targeted and punished by the same school district that days later went out of its way to support gun control. This case will put the Washoe County School District and public schools across the country on notice that students’ peaceful, pro-Second Amendment speech is protected by the same constitution that protects their right to keep and bear arms.”



“The Supreme Court has affirmed since the era of Vietnam War protests that public school students have the right to express themselves so long as they don’t disrupt the educational process,” explained Bradley Benbrook, counsel for the plaintiff. “And the First Amendment violation is all the more apparent where, as alleged here, school administrators suppress unpopular speech while allowing more politically-correct speech.”





The student is represented through his parents Audrey Guardanapo, a local police dispatcher, and Shaun Guardanapo, veteran of the United States Marine Corps and former law enforcement officer, by Reno litigation attorney David O’Mara of the O’Mara Law Firm, Bradley Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay of Sacramento-based Benbrook Law Group, PC, and Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who has written and taught extensively about the First and Second Amendments. Before joining the UCLA faculty 20 years ago, Volokh clerked for Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor of the U.S. Supreme Court. He also operates the popular legal blog “The Volokh Conspiracy,” now hosted at Reason.



If a student or parent believes they were discriminated against, threatened or disciplined for peacefully expressing their views, punished for refusing to participate in a gun control walkout or demonstration, or threatened with law enforcement action for their pro-gun speech, they can submit a report to the FPF/FPC Legal Action Hotline at www.firearmpolicy.org/hotline or by calling (855) 252-4510.



The FPF and FPC guide to pro-gun student speech, “K-12 Schools, Free Speech, and the Fundamental, Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms: A Guide to How Students Can Use Their First Amendment Rights to Defend and Promote Second Amendment Rights,” is available for free at www.k12speech.com. In addition to providing information and tools that parents and students can use to make sure they are not forced into participating in speech or demonstrations they disagree with, the guide contains materials that may help them plan counter-speech to gun control advocacy events or organize pro-gun rights demonstrations or expressive conduct. It also includes sample letters that parents could edit and use to notify schools of a student’s disagreement with a gun control event’s viewpoint, request information and policies, and help ensure that school officials respect the rights of all students.




About Firearms Policy Foundation



Firearms Policy Foundation (www.firearmsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 grassroots, non-profit public policy organization. FPF’s mission is to defend the Constitution of the United States and the People’s rights, privileges and immunities deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, especially the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms. FPF conducts charitable programs including research, education, and legal action to protect and advance individual liberty.



About Firearms Policy CoalitionFirearms Policy Coalition





Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots, non-profit public policy 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 protects and promotes individual liberty through programs including legal action, direct and grassroots advocacy, legislation, government oversight, research, education, and outreach.



_______________________________________________________________



VIDEO: 

















			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
IMPERIAL JUDICIARY: ACTING UNCONSTITUTIONALLY, JUDGE ORDERS RESTART OF “DACA” TO LET ILLEGAL MIGRANT CHILDREN ENTER U.S.
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						






IMPERIAL JUDICIARY: ACTING UNCONSTITUTIONALLY, JUDGE ORDERS RESTART OF “DACA” 



BY SELWYN DUKE



SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/28844-imperial-judiciary-acting-unconstitutionally-judge-orders-restart-of-daca; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:



Another judge has signaled that he doesn’t like the law — so he’s just going to ignore it. On Tuesday, Judge John D. Bates of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia “ruled” that last year’s revocation of the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was illegal and that the whole program must be restarted. It was the most radical decision yet among a series of judicial opinions that, ignoring constitutionally granted executive power, seek to hobble immigration enforcement.



The Washington Times reports on the story, writing that the usurpative opinion “goes beyond other judges, who had also ruled the phaseout illegal but had only ordered Homeland Security to accept renewal applications from people who’d already been awarded DACA before. Judge John D. Bates’s ruling would require a full restart, meaning even illegal immigrant ‘Dreamers’ who’d never been approved before would now be able to apply for DACA.”



“The judge imposed a 90-day delay on his own ruling to give the government a chance to reargue its case, but for now the ruling stands as the most severe blow yet to Mr. Trump’s phaseout,” the paper continued.



Outrageously, Judge Bates sang a republic-rending tune we’ve heard before, claiming that “the government never gave an adequate justification for revoking DACA, so its decision seemed ‘arbitrary and capricious,’” the Times further informs. This echoes the opinion earlier this year by Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, who wrote that if President Trump wanted to end the program, he must provide what the court considers “adequate reasons for doing so.”



While the president has no obligation to provide justification for enforcing the law, the justification is plain: DACA illegals are just that — illegal. Yet it’s clear why this eluded Judge Bates. Telegraphing his biases, he wrote that he would use illegal-migrant activists’ politically correct term for illegals: “undocumented.” Of course, calling an illegal migrant an undocumented worker is like calling a rapist an undocumented husband.



Yet a justification for ending the program was also provided by what Judge Bates may consider an unimpeachable source. As The Heritage Foundation wrote last year in “DACA Is Unconstitutional, as Obama Admitted”:



Responding in October 2010 to demands that he implement immigration reforms unilaterally, Obama declared, “I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself.” In March 2011, he said that with “respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case.” In May 2011, he acknowledged that he couldn’t “just bypass Congress and change the (immigration) law myself…. That’s not how a democracy works.”



Yet in 2012, he did it anyway. He put DACA in place to provide pseudo-legal status to illegal aliens brought to the U.S. as minors, including as teenagers. He promised them that they wouldn’t be deported and provided them with work authorizations and access to Social Security and other government benefits.



So the judges’ positions are staggering: What one president, Obama, instituted unconstitutionally (DACA) via executive order, his successor cannot undo via executive order. Note that Congress would never pass a DACA amnesty, despite Obama’s prodding of them to do so for years — it was never “law.”



It is the judges’ decisions that are “arbitrary and capricious,” “lacking even a thin veneer of law,” to quote late Justice Antonin Scalia. The notion that chief executives have to provide judges with “good reasons” to enforce the law is to trade the rule of law for the rule of lawyers. In fact, judges have even struck down presidential applications of law — Trump’s travel bans — under the pretext that the motives behind it were impure (alleged anti-Muslim sentiment expressed on the campaign trail).



Yet if this approach is valid, let’s apply it to other actions. Can Trump be prevented from placing tariffs on Chinese goods because he engaged in anti-China rhetoric on the campaign trail? Or, before prosecuting a bank robber, perhaps a district attorney should have to explain his reasoning. Can he show that the thief really didn’t need the money or didn’t have an upbringing that “destined him for a life of crime”?



Allowing judges to impose their own beliefs on the country through their rulings is not only subverting the rule of law but is also rendering elections meaningless. After all, what is the point of electing political candidates who promise to implement the conservative agenda, when activist judges can declare their agenda unconstitutional when they succeed?



But it is the activist judges who are behaving unconstitutionally, their claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Note that judicial supremacy — the idea that courts have the power to determine what law means and thus constrain not only their own branch, but the other two as well — is not in the Constitution. Rather, the power was unilaterally declared by the courts themselves, most notably in the Marbury v. Madison decision (1803).



And tolerating this extra-constitutional judicial supremacy has made the courts supremely dangerous. As I wrote last year:



Consider: As Dr. Alan Keyes explained in 2005, they have their judicial power. Yet if they can strike down laws, contrary to the legislature’s will, they’ve also arrogated to themselves the legislative power. And if they can tell the chief executive that an action must or mustn’t be executed, then they’ve arrogated to themselves the executive power as well. Now note what James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” said about having the executive, legislative, and judicial powers all in one entity’s hands: It is the very definition of tyranny.



This is why Founding Father Thomas Jefferson said that if the theory of judicial supremacy is valid, then indeed is our Constitution a felo de se — an act of suicide.



The shame of this, and Congress’ shame, is that its legislators could tame the courts but refuse to do so. As I also pointed out last year:



Under the Constitution’s Article III, Congress can eliminate any and every federal court, except for the Supreme Court; and can limit the appellate jurisdiction of the SCOTUS, meaning, SCOTUS’ ability to hear cases brought up through lower courts. It thus could mostly eliminate judicial review.



Why doesn’t Congress do this? Because it means taking a stand on contentious issues and possibly suffering electoral consequences. It’s far easier for legislators to just posture, puff up their chests, and then throw up their hands saying, “Hey, we tried. But the courts have ruled!” This brings no electoral consequences because most Americans don’t know civics and are never aware that Congress is shirking its power-balancing duty.



Of course, since judicial supremacy is extra-constitutional and enjoyed only at the pleasure of the other two branches, Trump could simply and lawfully ignore rogue court rulings. Sadly, though, today’s climate ensures that such a move would be used as a pretext for impeaching him.



Yet without pushback, judicial tyranny will be our lot. American Thinker’s Rick Moran, lamenting Judge Bates’ opinion, wrote, “I guess the federal courts don’t believe that the chief executive is in charge of the Executive Branch.” But their beliefs are irrelevant. They’re imposing their will for the oldest possible reason: because they can.



Expecting the courts to willingly stop stealing the people’s government is like expecting thieves to willingly stop stealing. The way it is, has been, and always will be is that only power negates power.

_______________________________________________________________















			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
CFR’S GLOBALIST MAGAZINE “FOREIGN AFFAIRS” CALLS TRUMP RACIST, SEXIST & AUTHORITARIAN
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						

SOME CONGRESS PERSONS ARE MEMBERS 



OF THE GLOBALIST CFR



GLOBALIST MAGAZINE “FOREIGN AFFAIRS” CALLS TRUMP RACIST, SEXIST & AUTHORITARIAN 



BY STEVE BYAS



SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/28923-globalist-magazine-foreign-affairs-calls-trump-racist-sexist-and-authoritarian; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:



The May/June 2018 edition of Foreign Affairs, the official publication of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), issued a series of articles themed “Is Democracy Dying?” While the authors of the articles do not reach any conclusion to their question, they do make it quite clear that they view President Donald Trump as an impediment to the type of society they want for our world.



The articles appear to contradict the mission statement found near the beginning of each magazine, in which the writers pledge to “tolerate wide differences of opinion,” and state that its articles “will not represent any consensus of belief.”



On the contrary, one can read Foreign Affairs on a regular basis and never see any articles expressing concern about the negative effects of open borders and multilateral trade agreements upon national sovereignty. In fact, what one gets from the magazine is a steady diet of globalism.



In the May/June 2018 issue of Foreign Affairs, two articles tackle the question, “Is Democracy Dying?” Of course, this presupposes that the form of government created by the U.S. Constitution is a “democracy,” and that “democracy” is a good thing. Actually, the constitutional framers crafted a federal republic, a system of limited government, with religious liberty and private property among those liberties placed beyond the reach of majorities. In other words, liberty trumps democracy. The purpose of government is to protect life, liberty, and property, not ensure that a majority can vote to strip the wealthier minority of their wealth, or to impose a particular religion, for example.



What is noteworthy about the tone of these articles is that the writers appear to think “democracy,” or government by the people, to be a good thing, just as long as the people favor the policies of the global elites. In fact, the overarching theme of the articles is that “the people” are not compliant enough in favoring those policies so dear to the global elites, such as open borders.



Perhaps no phrase is more despised by those who head the CFR and its publication than “America First.” The fact that Trump used that very phrase over and over during his campaign and since that time explains their animosity toward him. In a May/June 2018 article by Walter Russell Mead (the Global View columnist at the Wall Street Journal), he laments that there were no memorable diplomatic accomplishments “between the purchase of Alaska and the construction of the Panama Canal.”



Actually, during those years America was at peace, and it was growing to become the world’s largest economy. Our governmental leaders were conducting the foreign policy of Washington and Jefferson: no entanglement in the affairs of other countries. Only to globalists can such a period be described as a time of no accomplishment in diplomacy.



But in the early 20th century, beginning with the “Progressive Era,” Mead noted that the country began to have “successes.” Mead’s “successes” involved mostly the growth of government — the creation of the Federal Reserve System, the introduction of the income tax, and the rise of federal regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration.



Despite these supposed successes favored by the elites (it should be noted that to collectivists, “democracy” does not mean so much government by the people as government for the people, or what the elites believe is good for the people), Mead regrets the recent election returns in the United Kingdom (Brexit), Hungary, Poland, and Italy (with rising opposition to uncontrolled immigration and the consolidation of Europe) and the Trump administration, which seeks “to take U.S. policy in new directions.”



Ronald Inglehurt’s article in the April 16, 2018 issue of Foreign Affairs, “The Age of Insecurity,” is even more blunt: “Over the past decade, many marginally democratic countries have become increasingly authoritarian. And authoritarian, xenophobic populist movements have grown strong enough to threaten democracy’s long-term health in several rich, established democracies, including France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States.”



Inglehurt continued, “The world is experiencing the most severe democratic setback since the rise of fascism in the 1930s. The immediate cause of rising support for authoritarian, xenophobic populist movements is a reaction to immigration.” It would seem that Inglehurt is comparing the election of Donald Trump and other political leaders in Hungary and Poland to Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini! But neither Hitler nor Mussolini had much to say about immigration or multilateral trade agreements.



While Inglehurt insinuates that anti-immigration politicians in places such as Hungary, France, Italy, and Poland are only a step or two removed from Adolf Hitler, he reserves most of his salvos for Trump, declaring, “In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the Republican candidate Donald Trump campaigned on a platform of xenophobia and sympathy toward authoritarianism.”



Inglehurt argues that Trump campaigned as “an openly racist, sexist, authoritarian, and xenophobic candidate,” who “ran against Hillary Clinton, a liberal.” One might recall that Hillary had a word for Trump’s supporters: “deplorables.”



Inglehurt places part of the blame for the rise of so-called authoritarian parties over the last few decades on a “rise in inequality” during that time period. And who was to blame for that? Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, Inglehurt claims, because they “weakened labor unions and sharply cut back state regulation.” Inglehurt did not add, though he could have, that Thatcher’s opposition to the creation of the European Union got her bounced from her position as prime minister, despite leading her Conservative Party to three consecutive national election victories. The global elites were not going to tolerate any impediment to their goal of one government for all of Europe — even from the Iron Lady.



What can be done about all this? Inglehurt’s solution is more government. “Whether this latest democratic setback proves permanent will depend on whether societies address these problems, which will require government intervention,” he asserted.



Unfortunately, in Inglehurt’s view, “powerful conservative interests are moving the United States in the opposite direction, sharply reducing taxes on the rich and cutting government spending.” One can only hope.



In short, Foreign Affairs, and its parent organization, the Council on Foreign Relations, is not only globalist, its articles promote Big Government here at home. Perhaps in the next issue, it will publish an article warning its readers of the dangers of Big Government, globalism, and unchecked immigration. But we sincerely doubt it.

			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	

		
	

		
		
DEMOCRATS & SOROS REORGANIZE IMMIGRANT INVASION OF U.S. SOUTHERN BORDER
		
		
 

	
		
		
					

			
		

						





DEMOCRATS & SOROS REORGANIZE IMMIGRANT INVASION 



OF U.S. SOUTHERN BORDER



The migrant caravan is back!



BY MILLIE WEAVER



SEE: https://www.infowars.com/dems-reorganize-immigrant-invasion-of-us-southern-boarder/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:





Infowars reporter Millie Weaver covers breaking news that the large group of Honduran immigrants, which were disbanded after Trump ordered the National Guard to help protect the border, have returned.



This group of immigrants, claiming to be seeking asylum and organized by the group ‘People Without Borders,’ have been reorganized by Democrat operatives and George Soros-funded NGOs.















HOMELAND CHIEF WARNS IMMIGRANT CARAVAN: ‘WE WILL ENFORCE THE IMMIGRATION LAWS’





‘If you enter our country illegally, you have broken the law and will be referred for prosecution’



BY MAX GREENWOOD



SEE: https://www.infowars.com/homeland-chief-warns-immigrant-caravan-we-will-enforce-the-immigration-laws/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:





Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen on Wednesday warned that the federal government is prepared to prosecute Central American migrants from a caravan planning to cross the U.S. border this weekend.



Nielsen said in a statement that the Homeland Security Department is monitoring the caravan’s movements, and “is doing everything within our authorities to secure our borders and enforce the law.”



“Let me be clear: We will enforce the immigration laws as set forth by Congress,” she said.



“If you enter our country illegally, you have broken the law and will be referred for prosecution. If you make a false immigration claim, you have broken the law and will be referred for prosecution. If you assist or coach an individual in making a false immigration claim, you have broken the law and will be referred for prosecution.”






______________________________________________



DHS secretary sends warning to illegal immigrant ‘caravan’



Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen renews threat to prosecute ‘caravan’ of border-crossers; former ICE agent David Ward reacts on ‘Your World.’




















			

		

		
		

			
							

		


	


			  

					
1
…
552
553
554
555
556
…
794