VIDEO: Planned Parenthood + Democrat Party = Planned Deathhood!

/in , , , , , , , /by

This edition of the Tom Trento Show discusses Planned Parenthood and the Democrat platform that believes that babies have no rights, that the fathers of those babies have no rights, that it’s strictly and ONLY the woman’s right to abort the living human being inside her.

ONLY the woman’s right to determine to kill/abort the living human being even after it’s birth! Democrats screech about it being the “right” of the woman to kill that life without any hesitation.

Questions:

  • Why doesn’t the father have a right?
  • Why is Planned Parenthood receiving government funding (your tax dollars)?
  • Why isn’t it murder?

The Democrat platform is death and destruction. Death of the Freedoms and Liberties afforded America by our Founders, death of babies pre-birth to even after being born, death of the elderly (end of life), death of the Judeo-Christian values, death of Free Speech, death of the Right to Bear Arms, and death of America First!

How can anyone vote for any Democrat with these current values?

Tom, along with guests in studio – Willy G and “Billy Bones” describe what an abortion does and why it MUST be considered murder. Discuss what Planned Parenthood is doing, how they are funded, and how they play into the Democrat talking points! #StopAbortions #StopPlannedParenthood Tom & team attended a West Palm Beach Pro-Life protest against a Planned Parenthood Donor event and talked with protesters. #Babies #GiftFromGod No doubts here, no argument could ever convince differently.

Watch: Planned Parenthood + Democrat Party = Planned Deathhood!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Those Sexist Democrats

Is Joe Biden Fit to Be President?

A Confused Joe Biden Says ‘We Can Only Re-Elect Donald Trump’

Grab the Popcorn: Gabbard Urges Her Opponents to Stand Up to the DNC

How to find more about us:

Website: https://www.theunitedwest.org/

Radio: https://fmmoneytalkradio.com/2019/11/…

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/theunitedwest/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheUnitedWest

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/theunite…

BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/http…

Contact: tuw@theunitedwest.org

© All rights reserved.

Pentagon failed to vet Saudi military recruit who murdered three Americans in jihad massacre in Pensacola

/in , , , , , , , , /by

“Despite security screening of these individuals, it became clear in the wake of the attack that the federal government failed to pick up on clear warning signs, such as the attacker’s anti-American social media posts.”

Clearly the screening process is inadequate, in large part because of the Pentagon’s denial and willful ignorance regarding the motivating ideology behind the jihad threat. Pentagon officials know it would be “Islamophobic” to take note of such social media posts. They don’t want to see a big CNN exposé on “Islamophobia in the Pentagon,” featuring Hamas-linked CAIR’s Nihad Awad and Ibrahim Hooper lamenting the persecution of Muslims in the U.S. Armed Forces. And so three people are dead in Pensacola.

“Pentagon Failed to Vet Saudi Military Recruit Who Killed 3 Americans,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, March 4, 2020:

The Pentagon failed to adequately screen a Saudi military recruit who carried out a deadly 2019 attack at a U.S. military installation in Pensacola, Fla., officials testified on Wednesday.

Garry Reid, director for defense intelligence at the Pentagon, said during a public congressional hearing that a failure to properly screen and share critical information about Saudi military recruits led to the attack, which killed three American service members and wounded eight others.

In addition to relying too heavily on State Department vetting procedures, the Pentagon found in its review of the incident that gaps in federal law enabled the Saudi terrorist to legally obtain a firearm in the United States, despite not being a citizen or having an immigrant visa.

The attack at Naval Air Station Pensacola triggered a nationwide crackdown on foreign nationals participating in U.S. military programs. Despite security screening of these individuals, it became clear in the wake of the attack that the federal government failed to pick up on clear warning signs, such as the attacker’s anti-American social media posts….

The government-wide security review also found that “policies for international military student possession of firearms varied at the installation level, and that at the federal level, there are ways to bypass firearms restrictions for non-immigrant visa holders.”

These loopholes should be closed to prevent another attack, officials said.

Following last year’s attack, all Saudi Arabian military students in the United States for training were screened “using new procedures we had recently put in place as part of our personnel vetting transformation initiative,” Reid said. Twenty-one Saudis were also ejected from the country for misconduct as the result of an FBI investigation.

Reid said the new vetting procedures “produced only a small number of returns that required additional analysis within the Department of Defense.” He added that none of the returns “triggered any remedial action or further investigation by federal authorities relative to the current population.”…

Sen. Joni Ernst (R., Iowa), a combat veteran and the subcommittee’s chair, said in the hearing that more must be done to ensure an attack of this nature does not take place again. While the foreign military exchange programs are vital to building closer global alliances, they cannot come at the risk of American service members’ lives, she said.

“The attacker … arrived in the United States in 2017 and harbored anti-U.S. sentiments, which he broadcasted on social media,” Ernst said. “All the while he was able to purchase a firearm, access U.S. military installations, and ultimately carry out a deadly attack against Americans. We must do more to protect our military personnel.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Muslim Migrant Attack in St. Louis You Heard Nothing About

US Supreme Court refuses to review terrorism convictions of Muslim who plotted to behead Pamela Geller

NYC: Muslima scratches Jewish woman’s face while screaming “Allahu akbar,” “Allah will kill you” and “nasty Jews”

India: Muslim rioters murder Hindu factory worker, his wife calls for help, no one comes for fear of the Muslim mob

RELATED VIDEO: How terrorists are treated in Canada.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Why the Left Calls Good People Racist

/in , , , , , /by

A few weeks ago, I devoted my column to an article about me published in Newsweek under the headline “Conservative Radio Host Ridicules Anne Frank.” As the full context of my comments in the video made clear, it was a lie.

To its credit, after its editor was notified of this fact, Newsweek changed the headline and made revisions to the article and issued a correction.

Since then, two more smears have been spread about me, one by an official at Purdue University and the other by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the major source of news in Canada.

The Jan. 21, 2020, issue of The Exponent, the Purdue University student newspaper, published the following in a story about John Gates, Purdue’s newly appointed vice provost for diversity and inclusion:

John Gates has seen quite distinct viewpoints at Purdue, even in his first week at Purdue in early 2019. When he attended a Turning Point event that Dennis Prager spoke at, he noted that he was one of three black people in the room.

‘His central thesis was as follows: Diversity is bad. Every dollar spent on diversity is a dollar wasted,’ Gates said. ‘He said slavery was not bad. In fact, every civilized nation was founded in slavery, and that blacks should just be happy to be in this country. And he got a rousing ovation.’

A vice provost of Purdue University quoted me as saying, “slavery was not bad.”

Needless to say, I never said anything remotely like that.

After mentioning this on my radio show, some of my listeners wrote to Gates, which prompted him to write to me—not with a retraction or an apology but an invitation to have a chat.

I wrote vice provost Gates a letter, which began:

Dr. Gates:

I am attaching eight video files of my speech at Purdue. See if you can find where I said, implied or hinted that slavery is not bad.

Allow me to react to your invitation to chat over the phone. Had I, as a Jew, written in some publication that you said, ‘the Holocaust wasn’t bad,’ and then invited you to have a chat, would you agree to do so? Or would you first demand that I retract such a vile smear of you?

When you unequivocally retract in The Exponent what you said and apologize for saying it, I will be happy to chat with you. In fact, I will even invite you on to my national radio show.

I never received a response from Gates.

Then, about a week ago, on my radio show, I discussed the issue of private speech versus public speech, and the issue of character, using former President Harry Truman as an example of a good man who used foul language privately, specifically using “kike” when writing or talking about Jews, and the N-word when talking about blacks.

A listener called to ask me why I could say “kike” but not the N-word. I told him that the left had rendered the N-word the only word unutterable in the English language, even when merely discussing it, as I was with regard to Truman. And, of course, I added that to ever refer to a black using the N-word is “despicable.”

On Sunday, the CBC published an article headlined “It’s ‘idiotic you can’t say the N-word,’ says radio host Dennis Prager, soon to speak at Calgary conference.”

The headline was an echo of the Newsweek headline, using an entirely out-of-context quote to make it sound as if I want to use the N-word in referring to blacks.

Now, why would the CBC bother writing about an American talk-show host, and how did it come up with this smear?

The answer to the first question is that the CBC, described to me by former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper at a PragerU event as “to the left of MSNBC,” wants to charge Canadian conservative organization The Manning Centre with inviting racist speakers. (I will be speaking in Ottawa at the center’s annual conference next month.)

And how did the CBC come up with the phony headline and story? The author himself wrote how in his piece: from Media Matters for America, a left-wing site that each day distorts or lies about what conservatives say. The author never bothered to listen to my broadcast. He took what Media Matters wrote and recycled it.

So, then, why do left-wing media do this?

There are two major reasons.

First, truth is not a left-wing value. As I have said and written ever since studying communism and the left in graduate school at the Columbia University Russian Institute, truth is a liberal value and a conservative value, but it is not a left-wing value.

However, destroying opponents by destroying their reputations is a left-wing value—whether it’s charging Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh with multiple rapes, preoccupying the country with the fake charge that Donald Trump’s presidential campaign colluded with Russia to manipulate the 2016 election, or the charges such as those made against me.

Second, smearing opponents is not only a left-wing value; it is the left’s modus operandi. And the reason for that is: The left does not win through argument. It wins through smear.

If you differ with the left, you are, by definition, sexist, racist, bigoted, intolerant, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, fascist, and/or a hater. The proof? You cannot name a single opponent of the left who has not been so labeled.

Readers can fight back by contacting the president of Purdue, Mitch Daniels, at president@purdue.edu. Contacts from Purdue alumni would be particularly helpful. And readers can contact the CBC through Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or an email to its ombudsman:

Facebook.com/cbccalgary

Twitter.com/cbccalgary

Instagram.com/cbccalgary

ombud@cbc.ca

If good liberals and conservatives don’t fight the left, truth loses. If truth loses, all is lost.

The CBC needs to change its headline and issue a correction, as Newsweek did. My email to the author of the article, in which I asked for these changes and explained the entire context, did not receive a reply. You can read the letter on my website and send it or link it to the CBC.

It’s that simple.

COMMENTARY BY

Dennis Prager

Dennis Prager is a columnist for The Daily Signal, nationally syndicated radio host, and creator of PragerU. Twitter: .

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The New York Times’ 1619 Project’s Outrageous, Lying Slander of Abe Lincoln

/in , , , , , /by

The New York Times’ 1619 Project has aimed at nothing less than a revolutionary reinterpretation of the entirety of U.S. history, “re-centering” African Americans as the sole banner-carriers of America’s principles, even as they have been ruthlessly smashed down, enslaved, and obliterated from memory by more numerous and more powerful whites.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison come in for bashing. So does Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln? Jefferson and Madison, we know, were slave owners. But Lincoln? The author of the Emancipation Proclamation?

In project leader Nikole Hannah-Jones’ verdict, Lincoln, too, is guilty, largely because of one incident. In August 1862, Lincoln invited a committee of black men to the White House. He read to them a prepared statement, urging them to recruit volunteers for colonization outside the United States.

Colonization meant that once freed, former slaves would have to relocate, preferably for a reservation Congress would purchase in Central America.

On those terms, Lincoln appeared to be asking the once-oppressed to volunteer to remove themselves from the place where they had been oppressed, so their oppressors could breathe more freely. “He believed,” adds Hannah-Jones, “that free black people were a ‘troublesome presence’ incompatible with a democracy intended only for white people.”

Some emancipation, right?

But emancipation is exactly what was hiding behind Lincoln’s colonization statement, although the subtlety of that moment, in the complex political currents of the Civil War, seems to have eluded the 1619 Project.

No president before Lincoln ever dared hint at putting an end to American slavery. Lincoln, however, had never made any secret of his anti-slavery convictions. “I am naturally anti-slavery,” he said. “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I cannot remember when I did not so think, and feel.”

But he also knew that, as president, he had no power to act unilaterally—until the slaveholding states gave it to him by triggering a civil war. Even then, Northerners like Robert Bennett Forbes, who detested slavery, were also terrified that freed slaves would demand “all the privileges of citizenship” and “tax the working community by lowering wages” among whites.

Colonization served as the great tranquilizer of white anxiety. ­Beginning in 1816, with the founding of the American Colonization Society, opponents of slavery sugarcoated the idea of emancipation for suspicious whites by promising that freed slaves would be no threat, because they would be gone.

This attracted fierce ­denunciations from free blacks and white abolitionists. But it also drew fury from Southern slaveholders, who saw colonization as a ploy to mobilize Northern opinion against slavery. Colonization, raved the pro-slavery advocate Edmund Ruffin, will only serve “to promote new emancipations.”

Lincoln’s colonization project was, as the English observer Frederick Milnes Edge wrote in 1863, “adopted to silence the weak-nerved, whose name is ­legion.”

This is why Lincoln not only invited the African American “committee” to hear his statement, but also the Washington press corps—so that his ­solicitation for colonization volunteers could be read in the newspapers. Meanwhile, he would have the Emancipation Proclamation in his desk, ready for release, little more than a month later.

In the end, Lincoln only sanctioned one small-scale colonization project, to the Haitian island of Île-à-Vache, and then canceled it after eight months of dreary failure. After that, according to Lincoln’s secretary, John Hay, the president “sloughed off that idea” once and for all as a “hideous & barbarous humbug.”

By then, the Emancipation Proclamation was in full operation, and Lincoln had authorized the arming of black soldiers—and without any mention of colonization. A year and a half later, he was calling for black voting rights, and Frederick Douglass would hail him as “emphatically the colored man’s president.”

Not a single reference to this fierce environment appears in the 1619 Project, which would be akin to explaining the New Deal without a word about the Great Depression.

History—and journalism—are supposed to ask as many questions as the subject demands. But questions are ­exactly what the 1619 Project fails to ask about Abraham Lincoln—and about our history.

Originally published by the New York Post

COMMENTARY BY

Allen C. Guelzo

Allen C. Guelzo, a historian, is senior research scholar in the Council of the Humanities and director of the Initiative on Politics and Statesmanship in the James Madison Program at Princeton University.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Her Husband Was Murdered in a Gun-Free Zone. Now Nikki Goeser Is Fighting Back.

/in , , , , , , /by

Nikki Goeser watched the man who had stalked her murder her husband in a gun-free zone. Because she was a law-abiding concealed carry permit holder, Goeser’s firearm was safely locked away in her vehicle, leaving her defenseless.

Now a gun rights activist, Goeser is working hard to ensure every American has the means to protect themselves and their loved ones. Goeser, author of “Stalked And Defenseless: How Gun Control Helped My Stalker Murder My Husband in Front of Me,” joins the “Problematic Women” podcast to share her story. Listen to the podcast below or read the lightly edited transcript.

Virginia Allen: Nikki, thank you so much for being here today and for being willing to share your story with us.

Nikki Goeser: Thank you for having me. I really appreciate it.

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>

Allen: Your book “Stalked And Defenseless: How Gun Control Helped My Stalker Murder My Husband in Front of Me” is about your husband Ben, really. And so we wanted to start and talk about him. What was Ben like and how did you meet him?

Goeser: Ben was a sweetheart. He was just a happy-go-lucky, fun-loving, lighthearted person. He was always smiling. He was the type of person that if a stranger came into the karaoke venue where I worked at, he would introduce the person around the room to all of the regulars to try and make them feel welcome.

Ben was also a big brother for the Big Brothers Big Sisters organization. He was a big brother to a child by the name of Trent. And Trent’s father was in prison and his mother really wanted Trent to have a positive male role model in his life. Someone that could spend time with him. And so Ben would take him go kart riding and to the bowling alley, movies. Trent would come over and ride the four wheeler at our house, or I’d cook dinner for him. And Ben was just a remarkable person. He was a really sweet person.

Allen: And when did you all get married?

Goeser: We actually got married on New Year’s Eve.

Allen: That’s so romantic. What year was that?

Goeser: It was 2007.

Allen: 2007, wow. Why New Year’s Eve?

Goeser: You know, I like New Year’s Eve, and he liked New Year’s Eve. It’s a date you never forget.

Allen: I love that.

Lauren Evans: And it was not long after you were married that you had the worst day of your life. Can you walk us through what happened that night at the restaurant?

Goeser: Yes. I need to kind of, I guess, give you a backstory a little bit.

Evans: OK.

Goeser: So my husband Ben and I [had] a mobile karaoke business in the evenings. Now we both had regular corporate jobs during the day. So we did this just as a side job for a little extra gas and grocery money. And it was fun. We both enjoyed it.

I would run karaoke shows in downtown Nashville, Tennessee, for various karaoke jockeys, ladies that were calling in sick or they just didn’t feel like working or any number of reasons. And those venues downtown, they owned their own equipment. So I would just show up and run a karaoke show using their equipment.

And I did this quite often and there was a man that came in to the karaoke venue and Ben and I—Ben was always with me by the way, when I would run these shows, because all of our friends were there, the regulars were there and Ben would just enjoy the evening with them and sing and have fun and then we would drive home together after my shift.

A man showed up and we’d never seen him there. And at first we thought he was just a tourist because, you know, there’s tons of tourists that come through in Nashville. But then he started coming in more often and we figured, well, he must live here. And Ben introduced him around the venue to all of the regulars to try and make him feel welcome.

And this man, I remember there was one night where he gave me $100 tip. Now keep in mind, when you run karaoke shows, the way you make the majority of your money is through tips. So we take around a tip jar at various points throughout the night or you have one up there by the karaoke equipment.

And people will tip you—now, usually people give you a $5 bill. Maybe they’ll give you a $20 if they want to sing next and they want their name moved up the song list because they’re extremely impatient, and they’ve had a little, maybe too much to drink and are not thinking. Sometimes I would think, “Buddy, you need to save that $20 for a ride home.”

But this man gave me a $100 bill and I thought he had made a mistake. I thought he thought he pulled a $10 and he accidentally pulled a $100 so I took it back over to him and I was like, “Are you sure?” And he just gave me this look of accomplishment like he was sure. So I knew it wasn’t a mistake. I’m showing it to him.

And so I said, “Well, thank you.” And I just, it may sound silly now, but at the time I was thinking, “Obviously, he wants to sing a lot tonight.” And … I put him up to sing a lot throughout the evening.

I remember then he sent me a request on social media. At the time it was MySpace back in those days and I added him to my social media account just like I did the rest of my customers. It was a way for me to retain my customer base and let people know where I would be running shows …

He started sending me messages, the kind of private message section, that were normal. I mean, just customer interaction, “Great show. Really enjoyed it. Can’t wait to come to the next one,” or whatever. Normal conversation.

Well, then he started saying things, it started to progress in a different light. He would say things like I was attractive. And now keep in mind, when you work in a venue like that, men tell you that you are attractive and you say thank you and you go about your business. You hear it all the time, no biggie.

Then his messages started to progress even more and he started saying things like, maybe, “Ben is too old for you. It’s OK to admit that you may have made a mistake. Don’t you want to have children?” Just inappropriate. So I showed the messages to Ben and Ben’s like, “Obviously, this guy’s got a crush on you,” and he just kind of, he didn’t think that much of it.

And I was like, “Well, I’m going to have to set this guy straight because that’s not appropriate at all.” So I did. I just said, “Look, you’re fishing in the wrong lake. I’m happily married. What you’re saying is not appropriate.” … I didn’t delete him right away. I thought I’d give him the benefit of the doubt. I’ve had to tell men before no, and they just move on. There’s other fish in the sea.

But he sent a message back that was the exact opposite of what he had been saying. He was trying to break me down by my physical appearance. He was really just being mean and obnoxious. And so I showed that message to Ben and we both agreed he needed to be deleted and blocked. And so that’s what I did.

I remember he came back into one of the karaoke venues and now he’s not singing, he’s stopped singing, he’s just standing in the middle of the crowd. Everyone’s having fun around him and he’s just standing there staring at me the whole time while I’m on the stage trying to run the show. And seems like he had come in again and again just staring at me.

And Ben at one point, Ben had told me on our way home, he said, “You know that guy … ” I don’t ever say his name because I don’t want to give him notoriety. My stalker, I guess, walked up to Ben and said, “Hey, Ben, how’s it going?” Like nothing had ever happened. He hadn’t sent me these strange, inappropriate messages.

And Ben just said, “Look, I read the messages that you sent my wife and I read what you had to say about me and you’re scaring her. Please leave my wife alone.”

And he said, “What? Is she mad at me? I swear it wasn’t me. I’ve got a crazy ex-girlfriend who knows how to hack into my account. It was her. It wasn’t me.” And of course Ben did not believe this phony explanation. Ben’s just like, “OK dude, whatever. Just leave her alone.”

And Ben turned around and joined the rest of our friends and this man left. We didn’t see him again for at least a solid month and I’m thinking it’s taken care of and he shows up to this restaurant where Ben and I ran our own mobile karaoke using our equipment. This restaurant was a good 30-, 35-minute drive away from downtown Nashville where this man normally went for karaoke.

Ben’s already asked him to leave me alone. I’ve deleted him, I’ve blocked him. It’s pretty clear we want nothing to do with him. And now he’s here. What’s he doing here?

I see him and I’m like, “Oh my God, this man is stalking me.” At that point I realized this is stalking. He’s not just a dedicated karaoke customer. He doesn’t have just a simple crush on me. This guy is stalking me.

So I turned to Ben and I said, “Honey, that man is here. The one that sent me the strange messages.” And he said, “Yeah.” He looked up and saw him and I said, “I don’t feel comfortable at all. I’m going to ask management to remove him.” And Ben said, “OK babe, do whatever you need to do.”

So I went to get management and … He had walked around behind Ben at the point that they confronted him and he had gone to the restroom before and he came back out and he’s standing behind Ben. Ben’s now at the karaoke equipment because I’m not there anymore to run the show, so Ben’s running it. Ben’s busy on the computer typing in songs and this man is just loitering behind him. He’s acting anxious, he’s looking all around the restaurant. I assume he’s looking for me.

I had walked the manager through the back kitchen up against a side brick wall where I could see out into the dining room, but he wouldn’t be able to see me and something just told me, “Don’t get involved. You’ve got no way to protect yourself. You don’t know what he’s capable of.”

Obviously, I’m concerned. I tell the manager, “Please get him out of here. He’s stalking me. Here’s what he has on.” And when they went to confront him.

I later learned during the trial that the manager said, “We need to ask you to leave.” And he said, “Why?” And she said, “Because you’re making someone here feel uncomfortable.” And he said, “Who?” And she said, “I think you know who.” And he said, “Well, I have to go to the restroom.” She said, “No, you’ve already been to the restroom. I think you need to leave now.”

And that’s when he pulled a .45 caliber handgun out from under his jacket. He had it in a shoulder holster. And at this moment he’s pulling the gun and I’m thinking, “Oh my God, I don’t have my gun.” And I can see the lights reflecting off of the metal slide.

He lowers the gun to Ben’s head and he fires one round and shoots Ben in the head and Ben falls to the ground and he stands over Ben and continues to fire six more rounds into him in front of myself and everyone in the middle of a busy restaurant. There was probably 50 people in there at the time.

And of course you can imagine the restaurant is complete pandemonium. People are running and screaming and trying to get out. And he had very calmly put the gun back inside of his jacket and started to walk around the corner into the pool table room to leave.

Allen: Oh my goodness.

Goeser: Like nobody would know he was the shooter. And I’m running as hard as I can to get to Ben when he turns around that corner and there’s a barrier between us. I later learned that there was a United States Marine who was in the crowd that tackled that man and a handful of other men jumped on top of him as well. They disarmed him and held him until the police came.

But I will probably wonder for the rest of my life if I could have prevented that. Of course, I’ll never know because I was denied a chance. I was stalked and defenseless.

So I’ve taken all of this grief and trauma and loss and I’ve tried to put all of this into a book to describe to people how gu- free zones are extremely dangerous. They make good, law-abiding people helpless. They do nothing other than encourage criminals to attack because, let’s face it, they know everybody in that place is helpless. So I’ve just done what I can to try and educate people and help them understand.

Allen: Nikki, thank you so much for sharing that. So incredibly just tragic what has happened.

During that time when your stalker entered the restaurant and you said you had that moment where you saw the gun come out and you thought, “I don’t have my gun,” you were a concealed carry [permit holder]. You had your permit, you still have it. Where was your gun at that point and why couldn’t you have it in the restaurant?

Goeser: My legal permitted gun that I normally carried for self-defense was locked in my vehicle in the parking lot there because the restaurant we were in, not only did they serve full meals, but they also served alcohol. And in the state of Tennessee at that time, you could not bring a gun, a legal handgun. You’ve got your hand gun carry permit. You could not bring it into those establishments. So I followed the law and left my gun locked in my vehicle.

Of course, my stalker did not have a handgun carry permit. He carried a gun illegally into a gun-free zone.

Evans: Had you been drinking that night? Is there any reason why besides just this law that you shouldn’t be?

Goeser: I was working and in the state of Tennessee, you cannot carry a gun anywhere … It was already the law. You cannot carry a gun anywhere and have alcohol in your system, so.

Evans: So the only reason why you didn’t have your gun on you was because of this law?

Goeser: The law.

Evans: Wow. One thing in your book that really touched me is how God’s fingerprints were on that day. That you never called out sick. You never called out of work sick ever. But that day you just felt like you wanted to spend the day with your husband and you had a conversation with him that most people don’t have on a normal day. Can you elaborate on that a little bit?

Goeser: Sure. I had never fibbed to a bar to spend time with my husband. I felt really awkward about that. But you know, I woke up that morning and I just could not shake this feeling. I was just like, “I really don’t want to go to work today. I just want to be with Ben.” And I don’t know how to explain it really.

But I took the day off and Ben had been laid off from his job and he was doing various home improvement, fix-up projects for friends to try and make a little extra money. So I just went with Ben that day and worked on the house that he was working on, ripping up old flooring and he was installing a fan that day and several other things.

But I am so glad I fibbed that day and took the day off as a sick day because I got to spend those precious moments with my husband.

Evans: So this happened over 10 years ago. Why choose now to write this book?

Goeser: It started out as a diary and it was a process. … It took three years to go to trial despite the overwhelming evidence and the entire crime was filmed on security cameras there at the restaurant. I mean, there was no question that he did it, who the murderer was. So it was very frustrating waiting that long.

So I would write my feelings just to deal with the grief and the trauma and the loss. And plus, I wanted to be able to remember things. I was concerned that because it was taking so long to go to trial, I knew that I would most likely be a witness in the trial and I wanted to be able to remember key details. And when time passes, sometimes your memory fades.

Then an acquaintance of mine, a friend said, “You should really consider turning this into a book. I think that a lot of people could learn from this.” So that’s what I did.

Allen: How have you been able to find some healing from your husband’s death? I mean, was writing the book an act that helped you to find that healing and in some ways recover?

Goeser: Yes, it was definitely healing. It was tough and it was healing, if that makes any sense. I don’t really know how to explain that, but it’s tough reliving those things. But if I feel like it can benefit others and make them think about their own safety, then I think it’s worth it. But yeah, it was healing.

Evans: You haven’t just written this book. You’ve become a gun rights advocate, doing speeches, working on legislation. What have been some of your proudest moments?

Goeser: Proudest moments? Oh, I guess one of my proudest moments was when the NRA gave me the Sybil Ludington Women’s Freedom Award in 2012. It’s an award given to one woman in the entire nation every year, and I was the recipient of that award for my Second Amendment advocacy work and that was a real honor for me that they would recognize all that I had done. That’s probably one of the big ones.

I’ve had so many moments that are just incredible. Of course, my boss is Dr. John Lott Jr., author of “More Guns, Less Crime,” and I have met some really incredible people and there are famous people I’ve met. But it’s funny because once you get to know them, you realize that they’re just people. They’re just like us. I mean, they put their pants on the same way we do. When you really talk to them and get to know them, I mean, they’re just good people. They’re just regular people.

I got to meet Allen West. I’ve got to meet Ted Nugent, his wife Shemane. I’ve gotten to meet Gunny, he was great. R. Lee Ermey, of course, he’s passed away now. Gosh, who else? There’s so many. I’ve gotten to meet Glenn Beck. I just had an interview the other night with Tucker Carlson.

Evans: Very cool.

Goeser: Just incredible people. Oh, Judge Andrew Napolitano. I’ve got to meet him. I’ve been honored to work for Congressman Thomas Massie. He’s just a great person. I loved working for him. True conservative, totally solid on the Second Amendment. He’s the chairman of the Second Amendment Caucus for Congress and I have a great deal of respect for him. …It’s hard to pick one. There’ve been so many great moments out of this horrible tragedy, but I just feel honored to have the opportunity to work with some really great people.

Evans: And have you had any legislative achievements?

Goeser: Well, I don’t know that I can take full credit. I can tell you that I certainly tried to help.

In the state of Tennessee, I actually worked with a Democrat. Now keep in mind, I am very conservative. I worked with the sponsor of the restaurant carry bill in Tennessee, who was a Democrat in the Senate, Doug Jackson. And he and I talked on the phone. I told him, “You know what had happened,” and I think he had seen it on the news, but the news wasn’t reporting that the wife of the murder victim had her hand gun carry permit, but she had to leave [her gun in] the car because of the law.

So when I told him, he’s like, “Oh my gosh, Nikki, we’re trying to get this bill passed and I may need to call on you to come to the Senate floor and tell your story.” And so that’s ultimately what happened. He had me come on the Senate floor. I don’t know if it flipped any votes or not, but it ended up passing. And then the governor, Phil Bredesen, Democrat, he vetoed it. And then they had to have an override vote and it passed.

Evans: Well, this is such a huge debate that we’ve really been seeing increasingly in America. There are two very passionate sides to the gun rights debate. But gun control advocates would likely argue that it’d only took cops three minutes to arrive on the scene of your husband’s murder.

Goeser: And that’s incredibly fast.

Evans: That is very fast.

Goeser: But I can tell you that when it’s happening to yourself or your loved one, it seems like an eternity.

Allen: Yeah, I’m sure. I’m sure.

Evans: And directly after the shooting as, as you mentioned, there were good Samaritans—

Goeser: Yes.

Allen: … that hopped on top of the shooter and took his gun away, but how do you think, if you had had that gun in your hand—

Goeser: Mm-hmm.

Allen: … how do you think the situation might’ve played out differently?

Goeser: You know, it’s really hard to say. I’ve definitely thought about it, but I don’t know that going back mentally over and over again with the should have, coulda, woulda scenario is healthy for me mentally.

Evans: Yeah.

Goeser: I’d like to think that with the training that I had—I was also a range volunteer so I would help with everything on the range when other people were trying to get their handgun carry permits—and doing armed security guard training and that sort of thing, I would like to think that those skills that I learned would’ve come in handy that night.

But here’s the thing, I think we all make decisions based on the options that we have. And when those options are not available to us, it changes the decisions that we make. So that’s hard to answer because those options were not available to me.

Evans: Andrew Pollack, gun rights advocate, and father of Meadow Pollack, we’ve interviewed him at The Daily Signal here before, wrote a very powerful intro to your book. He’s the father of a Stoneman Douglas High School shooting victim.

Goeser: Meadow.

Lauren Evans: Meadow.

Goeser: I love that name.

Evans: It’s beautiful. And he wrote, “If Nikki had gone to the press to denounce the Second Amendment, anti-gun activists would’ve flocked to her, propped her up and amplified her message. This book probably would have been published by Simon & Schuster, but when she stood in front of the press in tears and spoke out in support of the Second Amendment, the press edited her words out and she was left to fight alone.”

Allen: Wow. Yeah. So Nikki, this is a tragedy that so much of the media really has ignored and because it doesn’t fit into their talking points. But what is the message that you want the public to hear?

Goeser: I guess the message I want people to hear is I don’t want people to be paranoid. I just want them to be prepared. Because let’s face it, nobody really thinks that something this horrible can happen to them. People tend to think, “Oh, this is something that happens to other people. It happens to people I see on the news.” Well, now I’m sitting here with you and I am one of those people. And bad things happen to good people every day and evil can show up unexpectedly and you just have to be prepared. You just never know when evil is going to show up.

Evans: Yeah.

Allen: And in your mind what is really next in this gun rights debate? I mean, what are you working on now or are you still involved?

Goeser: I feel like the criminal justice system really failed Benjamin and I back in Nashville. Here’s what happened. It was an insanity defense. OK. And I think people just think that insanity means, “OK, they’re crazy. They’re nuts. They’re insane.” No, insanity means you don’t know right from wrong. That’s it. That’s what it means.

And this man knew right from wrong and that was proven in the trial. But it was a bench trial. The murderer insisted on having just a judge. He did not want a jury. And for whatever reason, the prosecutor, I guess, decided to go along with that.

And the judge, his name was Judge Seth Norman, Democrat, unfortunately, despite all of the overwhelming evidence that showed what I believe is absolute premeditation, Judge Seth Norman dropped it from first degree premeditated murder to second degree.

In the state of Tennessee that’s only 15 to 25 years. This man got 23 years at 100% with no parole. But here’s the problem: 100% … I’ve recently learned this. 100% is not really 100%, no. He gets to earn early release good behavior credits while he’s in prison and he can have 3.5 years knocked off his sentence for good behavior. Well, I’ve also recently found out that my stalker has been writing me love letters from prison for years.

Allen: Wow.

Goeser: … I had hired an attorney to represent me and my civil lawsuit against him. I had a wrongful death suit, which I won, but the lawsuit paperwork obviously was sent to him in prison and so he knew my attorney’s address. He would send these letters to my attorney.

When you open them up, all these letters are to me, and there were a few envelopes where he actually put my name on the outside of the envelope and all the prison system does is stamp it and they just say, “This has not been inspected. We are not responsible for the contents of this letter.” And they come out now …

I can tell you this, at first, I was furious with the Tennessee prison system. I thought, “How in the hell can a convicted murderer write their victim while they’re incarcerated?” And I was really mad. I was like, “This is crazy.” But the more I thought about it, I thought, “You know what? If it were mandated that the prison system cannot let these letters out, then I would never know about this continued threat.”

And I think it’s important that women know, as disturbing as it is. I mean, believe me, I’ve had nightmares. This is very difficult to deal with mentally and emotionally on top of everything that I’ve been through. But I think it’s really important that women know.

So I would not want to see a mandate where these types of letters are prevented from leaving the prison. I think that women should know and women should be given the option to prosecute for stalking and harassment while this person’s incarcerated.

So I have hired attorneys and we’re in the process of working on this and hopefully I can do something about this man because I think he’s extremely dangerous. He’s extremely dangerous to myself, to my loved ones. And he should’ve gotten the death penalty, quite frankly. At the very least, he should have gotten first degree, but, unfortunately, he is going to walk free one day and I’m just going to try everything I can to keep him out of society because I believe he’s very dangerous.

He’s already proven what he’s capable of.

Allen: Wow. Twenty-three years. That’s nothing for shooting your husband in cold blood.

Goeser: Yeah. His release date is 10/21/2028. He was supposed to stay in until 2032 but because of the early release credits—

Allen: Oh, he’s already earned it?

Goeser: Yes. … He has an early release because of that.

Allen: So do you fear that date?

Goeser: Absolutely. It’s terrifying.

Allen: Yeah.

Goeser: I mean, it’s kind of strange. I’m terrified and I’m furious at the same time.

Allen: Yeah.

Evans: Will you have your gun on you on that date?

Goeser: Oh, I usually have my gun on me … All the time. Obviously, not here. I’m in D.C. So—

Allen: Yeah, they’re pretty strict here.

Goeser: Very, very strict here.

Allen: So what would you say to women who, obviously, they’re hearing your story and they want to be able to protect themselves, but they might not have grown up around guns, they might be fearful of the idea of carrying a gun? What would you say to them?

Goeser: There are different training facilities in just about every town in the nation. There are a lot of women out there that train other women on firearm safety and shooting skills, justifiable self-defense. …

Not that males are not good at training. I’m not saying that at all, but there are some females that feel a little intimidated by guys training with guns and they might feel a little bit more comfortable learning from another female.

So I always encourage my friends to go get good training and see if you can find a female firearms trainer.

I tell ya, I think one thing I really want to talk about, if you don’t mind—I started doing my own research online as to the advice that women are given about stalking. And how to deal with it. Different women’s advocacy, advocacy groups and stalking resource groups, etc.

And one thing that bothers me—and look, I think some of this advice is helpful or could be helpful. They’ll say things like, “You might want to consider changing your name, moving, getting a new job, don’t follow a routine, get a restraining order,” which I think is just a piece of paper. Let’s face it, it’s not going to do anything for someone who has already murdered, who doesn’t care about the laws.

But one option that is generally not ever given is you might want to consider the basic human right of self-defense, your Second Amendment rights. You might want to go get training on justifiable use of force and take responsibility for your own safety, protect yourself and your loved ones. Why is this subject seen as so taboo? It’s ignored.

I personally think that if all the options were laid out on the table, women can decide for themselves what best course of action to take to protect themselves. But give them all the options.

Allen: Absolutely.

Evans: So being the devil’s advocate, there are a lot of well-intentioned people on the gun control side who just don’t want more guns to be around because they’re worried guns do shoot people and they do harm people. What would your argument to them be?

Goeser: When the bad guys [are] the only one[s] with a gun, guess who wins? And you could ban, try to ban all the guns in the nation, OK? Let’s say that somehow we could wave a magic wand and ban all the guns. The war on drugs hasn’t worked so well, right? I’m pretty sure that criminals, people with evil intent can get illegal guns the same way they get illegal drugs.

I mean, if they banned all guns, how long do you think it would take before guns would start making their way back into the country? Twenty minutes at the border? I mean, what?

Evans: No, not long.

Allen: Not long at all.

Goeser: All it’s going to do is disarm good law-abiding people and then only the outlaws will have guns. This is not smart.

Evans: If our listeners wanted to learn more about your story and read your book, where can they find it?

Goeser: My book is available on Amazon and I believe it’s going to be up on Barnes & Noble soon. And I’ve got an audiobook coming out, so that should be available really soon as well.

Allen: Nikki, thank you so much for joining us and just for being willing to tell your really very powerful story, we so appreciate it.

Goeser: Thank you so much for having me on.

COMMENTARY BY

Lauren Evans

Lauren Evans is the multimedia manager for The Daily Signal and The Heritage Foundation. Send an email to Lauren. Twitter: .

Virginia Allen

Virginia Allen is a news producer for The Daily Signal. She is the co-host of The Daily Signal Podcast and Problematic Women. Send an email to Virginia. Twitter: .

A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Orlando Salazar, National Vice Chair of the Republican Hispanic National Assembly, Endorses Lt. Col. Allen West for Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas

/in , , , /by

GARLAND, Texas, March 4, 2020 /PRNewswire/ — Lt. Col. Allen West has garnered another key endorsement from Orlando Salazar, the National Vice Chair of the Republican Hispanic National Assembly. The RHNA is the largest conservative Hispanic organization in the country and boasts over 65,000 members nationally.

Mr. Salazar also works with the non-partisan organization, Bienvenido, which many compare to a more Hispanic oriented “Turning Point USA.” He is even the Chairman of Bienvenido Faith Assembly, which works to engage with Spanish-speaking Protestant and Catholic Churches to drive engagement.

It has been noted by Mr. Salazar that “Allen gets it. He has a plan. A plan to get in our local communities and stay there, 365 days of the year. Finally, someone that will do more than just provide lip service and work to earn Hispanic and black votes!”

If Republicans hope to stay competitive in key states such as Texas, having a leader dedicated to engaging with growing demographic groups is key. Allen West will be the man who can communicate the conservative message and bring these communities into the true big tent party.

If you wish to read the endorsements, or perhaps to endorse Lt. Col. Allen West yourself, click on the link here.

Colonel West’s full statement can be found here.

Learn more about Allen West, his campaign, and how to keep Texas Red by visiting www.west4texas.com.

SOURCE: West4Texas

© All rights reserved.

Stopping Fraud Against Seniors a Top Priority for the Attorney General Barr

/in , , , , , , , /by

AG Bill Barr and FBI Director Christopher Wray announced this week that an unprecedented number of cases of fraud against senior Americans have been charged or prosecuted and announced a hotline where you can report suspected fraud and help them catch more of the crooks, often foreign crooks, stealing from older Americans.

From CBS News  (good for them because I have seen very little elsewhere about this story from Tuesday):

Barr announces more than 400 charged for defrauding seniors over past year

Washington — More than 400 people have been charged with defrauding seniors out of more than $1 billion over the past year, the Justice Department revealed Tuesday. Attorney General William Barr announced the charges in Tampa on Tuesday at the Sun City Center Community Hall for seniors.

Barr explained why this issue has personal meaning for him. “I myself was used as a lure in a scam,” the attorney general told retirees. Before he became the nation’s 85th attorney general, the 1991 official photograph of Barr from his first stint in in the job in George H.W. Bush’s administration was used by scammers offering phony federal grants in exchange for money. “It was really heart-wrenching. People called in desperate hope that this was real,” Barr explained. “That crystalized the issue for me, and when I got to the department I wanted to make sure that this was one of our highest priorities to go after this.”

[….]

Barr has made elder fraud one of his top priorities as attorney general, and Tuesday’s announcement nearly doubles last year’s prosecutions.

Every U.S. attorney’s office across the country participated in either prosecuting or conducting proactive community outreach as part of the department’s sweep.

[….]

Scams targeting the elderly are usually foreign-based, like the “Nigerian prince” scheme or robocalls involving the impersonation of a U.S. government official who demands money from targets.

“The charges announced today demonstrate the great success of the Transnational Elder Fraud Strike Force to identify and stop those who are targeting our senior communities from overseas,” said FBI Director Christopher Wray in a statement. “We’re committed to continuing our efforts to keep our elderly citizens safe, whether they’re being targeted door-to-door, over the phone, or online.”

More here.

And, see the FBI Press Release on the announcement which includes a link to an interactive US map so you can see where some of the 400 cases are being prosecuted.

As I have said on innumerable occasions the President should be highlighting this fraud-busting work of his Justice Department, like this Transnational Elder Fraud Strike Force , at every one of his rallies.

Note to PayPal donors!  I want to thank all of you who send me donations for my work via PayPal. I very much appreciate your thoughtfulness. However, PayPal is making changes to their terms of service and I’ve decided to opt-out beginning on March 10, 2020.

RELATED ARTICLE: Plastic Surgeon Charged with Drugging/Raping Women on Camera

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Videos of Pro-Palestinian Protester at AIPAC: ‘Hitler will come back! Burned, all of you!’

/in , , , , , , /by

It’s not an original idea.

The Brotherhood’s Qaradawi expressed the same idea.

Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers.

As did Hitler’s Mufti.

So despite the pretense, this guy at the anti-Israel, anti-AIPAC protest, is following in a proud tradition of anti-Israel activism.

Video is courtesy of Ford Fischer of News2share.

Aside from the Holocaust chant, there’s a sign, “Voting rigged by Jewish media”.

The chants of, “From the river to the sea” are calls for the destruction of Israel.

The rally’s attempts at deflecting attention by dragging along the terrorist-funded Neturei Karta cult, a small handful of nutjobs who are always available to provide cover for the terrorists, Think of them as If Not Now in religious drag.

But remember, according to the New York Times, it’s anti-Zionism, not anti-Semitism.

RELATED ARTICLES:

University of Maryland: Muslim student arrested for repeatedly sending antisemitic messages to female Jewish student

Anti-Zionism and “providing cover” for Palestinian Authority the only unifying factor for World Council of Churches

Defense Dept linguist accused of passing classified info about DoD computer systems and US intel assets to Hizballah

Notre Dame prof Gabriel Said Reynolds falsely claims that Qur’an teaches only Allah should take revenge

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Notre Dame Professor Gabriel Said Reynolds falsely claims that Qur’an teaches only Allah should take revenge

/in , , , , , /by

The fact that Gabriel Said Reynolds, who demonstrates here that he is either abjectly ignorant or willfully dishonest about Islam, is a professor of theology at Notre Dame shows how much our nation’s universities (and the Catholic Church) are dominated by fantasy and wishful thinking rather than being willing to deal with unpleasant realities. Reynolds is an academic laden with honors, employed at Notre Dame and published in the New York Daily News, not because he speaks the truth, with which he is either unacquainted or unwilling to disclose, but because he tells people what they want to hear: that Islam, if only it were properly understood, is actually a religion of peace. How it came to be that so many Muslims misunderstand the religion they follow so devoutly, he does not bother to explain.

Meanwhile, would the New York Daily News ever publish a comparably lengthy theological defense of Christianity? Not on your life.

Anyway, to make his case that in Islam, vengeance belongs to Allah alone, Reynolds quotes a number of Qur’an verses, but he doesn’t even mention or attempt to explain away others that disprove his case. There is actually a great support, passed over in silence by Reynolds here, in the Qur’an and Sunnah for the death penalty for blasphemy. It can arguably be found in this verse: “Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.” (5:33)

But if you don’t think that verse justifies killing those who insult Islam, there is this: “Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger – Allah has cursed them in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment” (33:57)

Yes, he has cursed them both in this world and the hereafter. What does a curse in this world look like? Muslims are told to fight such people: “If they violate their oaths after pledging to keep their covenants, and attack your religion, you may fight the leaders of paganism – you are no longer bound by your covenant with them – that they may refrain” (9:12).

Not only that, but the Qur’an explicitly says that Allah will punish people by the hands of the believers: “Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts of a believing people, and remove the fury in the believers’ hearts.” (9:14-15)

There is more in the hadith. In one, Muhammad asked: “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” One of the Muslims, Muhammad bin Maslama, answered, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” When Muhammad said that he would, Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab).” Muhammad responded: “You may say it.” Muhammad bin Maslama duly lied to Ka’b, luring him into his trap, and murdered him. (Bukhari 5.59.369)

“A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.” (Sunan Abu-Dawud 38.4349)

Why doesn’t Gabriel Said Reynolds mention any of those passages?

“What radical Muslims get wrong about the Koran: Vengeance is reserved for God alone,” by Gabriel Said Reynolds, New York Daily News, March 1, 2020:

In the name of Allah, militant Muslims continue taking up arms against people they consider threats to their faith and way of life. But does it make theological sense for humans to pick up swords and guns to exact retribution in this life?

The Koran, the book those same Muslims purport to revere, says no….

The irony of blasphemy laws, and the tragedy of these attacks carried out in supposed defense of Islam, is that the Koran time and again insists that it is God’s right, and God’s right alone, to exact vengeance.

Allah does not need Muslims to step in and punish those who insult Him. In fact, Allah does not want Muslims to do so. The God of the Koran is clear: He is the only avenger of Islam.

The case of blasphemy laws in Islam is particularly peculiar in light of the example of Muhammad himself. The Koran describes how the unbelievers in his native city of Mecca disputed his claims of prophethood and insulted him.

Koran 68:51 describes how they accused him of insanity: “Indeed, the faithless almost devour you with their eyes when they hear this Reminder, and they say, ‘He is indeed crazy.’”

The Koran does not respond by demanding that the blasphemers be killed for their insolence. It simply affirms the claims of Muhammad.

Elsewhere in the Koran, the voice of God counsels Muhammad to be patient when faced with opposition. Koran 16:126 alludes to some persecution or affliction which Muhammad has suffered from the unbelievers.

The next verse, in response, suggests that Muhammad could strike back in moderation, but should simply endure the persecution patiently: “If you retaliate, retaliate with the like of what you have been made to suffer, but if you are patient, that is surely better for the steadfast.”

This does not mean that the idea of vengeance is foreign to the Koran. The question the Koran poses is not whether offenses against Islam and Muslims should be avenged, but who should do the avenging.

And the answer is consistent: “God.”

Remarkably, and if only Boko Haram and other Salafi-Jihadis would listen, the Koran even teaches this lesson specifically about Christians. In Sura 5, God asks some questions of Jesus about those who followed him, but Jesus does not demand that the wrongdoers be punished.

He leaves their fate in God’s hands: “If Thou chastisest them, they are Thy servants; if Thou forgivest them, Thou art the All-mighty, the All-wise.”

The same lesson is taught about Muslims who are unfaithful to the laws of Islam. In chapter 5, verse 95, the Koran describes the laws of the pilgrimage to Mecca (known as the Hajj). But as for he who breaks the rules, the Koran gives no worldly punishment: “God will take vengeance on him, God is all-mighty, Vengeful.”

So what does divine vengeance look like in the Koran? Allah punishes those who offend Him in hell. The Koran not only describes paradise in vivid colors (as a place with food, drink, and women), it also describes hell in gruesome detail.

Angels of punishment will strike the damned from the front and the back. The damned will be condemned to drink boiling water and eat from a tree named Zaqqum whose fruit is like the heads of demons.

The Koran clearly considers this punishment enough for an unbeliever. Whereas the standard schools of Islam teach that someone who leaves the religion, an apostate, is to be killed, the only punishment for apostasy spoken of in the Koran is hell: “’Did you disbelieve after you had believed? Then taste the chastisement for that you disbelieved!’” (Quran 3:106).

The Koran also teaches that God need not wait for the afterlife to punish unbelievers. He is the lord of the universe and can intervene when He chooses.

A number of chapters in the Koran tell a series of tales, dubbed “punishment stories” by scholars, in which unbelieving peoples are punished for rejecting the prophet who is sent to them. Among these prophets are Biblical figures including Noah, Lot, and Moses, and others who seem to come from Arabian lore with names like Hud, Salih, and Shuʿayb.

In each story it is not the Prophet but God who intervenes….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Defense Dept linguist accused of passing classified info about DoD computer systems and US intel assets to Hizballah

Canada: High school teacher reprimanded for insulting Islam on Facebook

Erdogan: “The number of refugees heading toward Europe will soon be in the millions”

Anti-Zionism and “providing cover” for Palestinian Authority the only unifying factor for World Council of Churches

University of Maryland: Muslim student arrested for repeatedly sending antisemitic messages to female Jewish student

Islamic Republic of Pakistan: Christian tortured to death for bathing in Muslims’ well

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Sanders Dumpster Dives Through the Ash Heap of Socialism’s History

/in , , , , , /by

It seems that Sen. Bernie Sanders can always find a way to look at the bright side of a communist dictatorship.

Right after praising Cuban communist dictator Fidel Castro’s literacy programs on CBS’ “60 Minutes” on Feb. 23, Sanders, I-Vt., decided to share a little praise of communist China as well.

In a CNN town hall last week, Sanders doubled down on his praise of the Castro regime in Cuba, then said:

“China is an authoritarian country, becoming more and more authoritarian. But can anyone deny—the facts are clear—that they have taken more people out of extreme poverty than any country in history?”

For a man so critical of the United States, it’s amazing how far Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, will go to make excuses for brutal dictatorships.

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>

Still, is there any merit to the idea that China has lifted more people out of poverty than any other country in history?

Certainly, China has made enormous economic gains in the past half-century. But those successes have to be put in perspective.

Much of the success that China has had in recent decades, at least economically, can be attributed to backing away from the socialist ideas Sanders espouses.

Anthony Kim, editor of The Heritage Foundation’s annual Index of Economic Freedom, explained how the Chinese economy has grown in spite—rather than because—of its communist government. It’s mostly due to the regime easing up on its most onerous controls over the nation’s economy.

“The case of China provides clear evidence of the power of free-market policies that Bernie has been trying to discredit,” Kim wrote in an email to The Daily Signal, adding:

To be crystal clear, China’s economic growth has not been stemming from the Communist Party and its socialist command-and-control economy. Rather, it is despite the presence of them. China had gradually embraced a range of non-socialist economic policies.

China abandoned its Maoist economic dogmas in the late 1970s by allowing limited private property rights to farmers, for instance, as well as other more free-market reforms, including wider trade with other nations.

Again, it was the departure from strict socialist doctrines that enabled growth to take place.

The true means of freeing 1 billion Chinese people from extreme poverty involved adopting a more market-oriented approach to economics, Kim says.

Chinese consumers and entrepreneurs, he says, not the massive tax increases and regulatory programs that Sanders peddles, spurred the transformation.

The problem for China in the long term is that it is still generally unfree. Heritage’s Index of Economic Freedom ranks China as the world’s 100th-freest nation out of 180 countries in its 2019 rankings. The index measures categories such as the rule of law, the size of government, regulatory efficiency, and open markets.

Though China’s economic gains in recent decades have been impressive, it’s nonetheless important to keep in mind what its system really is; namely, one based on communist authoritarianism.

The communist government allows some economic freedoms, but then it smashes basic rights to speak and protest while keeping close tabs on its citizens through Orwellian monitoring mechanisms, such as the social credit score, and at the same time cracking down on religious liberty and putting religious minorities into concentration camps.

The Washington Post recently highlighted how many large multinational companies that rely on manufacturing in China, such as Nike and Apple, have been supplied with forced labor by Uighur Muslims from the Xinjiang region.

In the end, slavery couldn’t endure in an America founded on, and committed to, the idea that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights.

That profound ethos has unleashed prosperity for Americans, who have the right to pursue happiness secured by a limited government still bound to the rule of law by the Constitution.

Needless to say, communism has no place for God-given rights or limitations on governmental power. The regime decides who is equal and who may be deemed more equal than others.

Yes, in China you may be able to make a buck—as long as you have the government’s blessing. But you are certainly not free and could never expect to enjoy a concept such as equal opportunity in the eyes of the law.

In communist China, your wealth always will be at the mercy of the whims of the authorities. This is a far cry from the American system, in which property rights are ensured and the state largely remains circumscribed from wielding arbitrary power.

Contrary to Sanders’ claims, China has not lifted a billion people out of extreme poverty. The Chinese people have, in many cases, lifted themselves out of poverty, despite the ever-present threat that authorities will take the fruits of their labor away.

Yet, the Vermont senator continues to cobble together reasons to offer the Chinese communists’ system praise, despite nods to their obvious authoritarianism.

That shouldn’t surprise us.

Sanders favorably compared the Soviet communist system with the U.S. capitalist system while on his honeymoon in the USSR in 1988, when the Soviet Union was on the brink of collapse.

Notably, this was long after the world became aware of the Soviet Union’s vast gulag network of prisons and labor camps, but shortly before the entire—let’s call it what it was—evil empire completely imploded due to the rot at the heart of the system.

When wretched socialist regimes collapse, Sanders is long on excuses and short on answers, and does what he can to put lipstick on a pig.

The bottom line is this: Those who continue to insist that socialism is an improvement on our free economy were on the wrong side of the Cold War.

It’s time we do more to understand why our system has succeeded, rather than wait for a kinder, gentler socialist “utopia” that will never come.

COMMENTARY BY

Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman is a contributor to The Daily Signal and co-host of The Right Side of History podcast. Send an email to Jarrett. He is also the author of the new book, “The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America’s Past.” Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Democrats: Crazy Vs Senile

Chinese Media Put on Notice by Trump Administration

American Imprisoned in Cuba Says Bernie Told Him He Doesn’t Understand What’s So Wrong With Cuba

Judge Declines to Declassify More of FBI’s Request to Spy on Trump Campaign Volunteer

Unserious Objections to Bolstering Free Speech on Campus

A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Coronavirus Highlights The Importance Of The Trump Doctrine Succeeding

/in , , , , , , , /by

We are seeing the folly of past administrations of both parties playing out in real time, illuminated by a deadly virus out of the heart of China. And it is making something abundantly clear.

President Trump was more right on trade and border security than even I thought — and those were the two areas I considered him strongest in 2016. In fact, no one else was even talking about trade agreements.

The underlying thesis of Donald Trump’s push to re-do trade agreements with China and our North American neighbors — which might be called the Trump Doctrine — was to restore manufacturing at every level. The idea is that the world’s industrial democracies, led by the U.S.,  should not be beholden to the world’s largest Communist tyrants in order to simply have the basics required for their economies to operate.

This is literally the supply chain that is now threatening to crater the world economy because lousy, weak, vision-less American leadership has left us vulnerable. We should have understood that trade agreements favoring countries with cheap labor and allowing them to cheat endlessly and blackmail U.S. companies was not only wrong, it was dangerous. Trump saw that.

National security and now, obviously, health security are inextricably tied to better trade deals and more border security. I’m not saying Trump foresaw the coronavirus issue. There’s no evidence of that. But he saw American workers being hurt and he saw America and our allies being made vulnerable.

And boy was he ever right.

This clarity of vision, absent among his opponents to this day, is why he ordered the shutdown of most flights from China to America in late January, more than a month ago. At the time, Democrats, including Joe Biden, rattled out on their rickety carts the same old tired, hackneyed dogmas: This is xenophobic! It’s racist! Discrimination! Ugh. It’s exhibit 4,871 why they should not be in charge of anything.

Trump’s quick, bold actions are likely why our reported cases of coronavirus are so relatively small, even though of course they will rise like everyone else’s for a period of time. We are China’s biggest trading partner, with enormous amounts of travel between the nations. But his quick actions shutting that down undoubtedly slowed it. Democrats paralyzed by intersectionality and grievances, would have been much slower to act and we would be seeing many more cases in the U.S.

Notice how some countries are beginning to close their borders to stop the spread of a pandemic, including the Europeans. But we are unable to do that effectively on our southern border until we have some sort of wall that turns floods of people into trickles, and funnels them to legal ports of entry. Everyone is safer then.

The new North American trade agreement with Canada and Mexico is fortunately in place, laying the groundwork for a more vibrant manufacturing base and safer supply chain as Western companies begin seriously re-thinking using China for all their cheapo manufacturing needs. This third world virus in a row emanating from China, and its mishandling, is making clear to the private sector that China is just too risky.

This will not be a quick change, and companies will always be looking for cheap labor, but they will have to factor in much more now. And with the improved trade agreements, the highly productive American labor force will be much more competitive and attractive.

Down the road, we will be less at the mercy of China and other unscrupulous countries, and more in charge of our own destiny, just as we are now with energy independence — thanks to innovative American fracking that Democrats vow to ban.

This better future will be largely due to the clarity of vision of one man: Donald Trump.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Coronavirus Doesn’t Change Good Economic Policy

Weaponization of Coronavirus

Border Security Key to Curbing Coronavirus, Cuccinelli Says

Sanders: Trump’s Plan to Deal With Coronavirus ‘Disgusting’

FLORIDA: Baptist Pastor’s Sermon Puts the Coronavirus into a Scientific and Religious Perspective [Video]

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Biden: ‘I Am The Only Candidate Who Can Beat Ronald Reagan’

/in , , /by

HOUSTON, TX—Fresh off his afternoon nap, presidential candidate Joe Biden gave a fiery, high-energy speech in Houston today, claiming to be the only candidate who could beat incumbent Ronald Reagan.

“I am the only candidate who can unite the party to defeat Reagan,” he said to scattered applause. “When Super Thursday hits here in a few weeks, we can rally the 150 million Democrats here in the great country of Texas to vote for me so we can get Reagan and his crony Dick Cheney off the Iron Throne there in the Imperial Senate. Go Hoosiers!”

Aides scrambled to turn off Biden’s mic but he beat them away with his walker.

“The time has come for the reign of Tippecanoe and Tyler too to end!” he shouted, though by this point he had wandered into a nearby field and no one could hear him.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Dems Break Ties With Taliban After They Make Deal With Trump

Controversy As Transgender Woman Wins Jar Opening Contest

Bernie Sanders Yelling At Kids To Get Off His Many, Many Lawns

Nation Optimistic About Future Now That All Presidential Candidates Projected To Die Of Old Age Before Election

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire column by The Babylon Bee column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Virginia US Senate Candidate, Victor Williams, Speaks on Dual Threats of Coronavirus and Democrats’ Leftist Lurch to Socialism

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

ARLINGTON, Va., March 3, 2020 /PRNewswire/ — “The Fed must act immediately to cut interest rates and boost liquidity” says Prof. Victor Williams. “The Fed must act now.  The Fed has foolishly fallen behind other central banks. The US Fed must lead in rate cuts and liquidity boosts immediately.”

According to Prof. Williams, a Law & Economics expert who is also a 2020 candidate for the U.S. Senate in Virginia, the Fed is again showing a woeful lack of leadership.  Prof. Williams stated:

“By its delayed response to coronavirus uncertainty, the Fed threatens to stall the booming American economy.  A significant (75 basis point) rate cut and a substantial boost to liquidity is needed now.  By delay, the Fed jeopardizes America’s economy and its own credibility.”

Williams argues that American markets actually face two different threats – coronavirus uncertainties and the Democrats’ leftward-lurch to socialism:

“The Fed must act now to protect the economy against uncertainties of coronavirus but Fed action is also needed to buffer the markets reaction to the Democrat Party’s hard-left lurch to economic socialism.”

Williams continued:

“We do not know the extent of future disruptions by coronavirus. However, we know from history — with absolute certitude – what horrendous economic and social damage will be caused by the Democrats’ dangerous socialism.”

“For America’s economic health and future, Democrats like Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, AOC+3, and Mark Warner must be stopped.  There is not a dime’s worth of difference between Sanders, Biden, and Warner. Warner has joined in the hard-left lurch as his party threatens to:

  • Legalize and Encourage Late Term Abortions (including post-birth infanticide);
  • Kill Economic Growth and Fiscal Stability (with increased taxes and regulations bankrupting Virginia’s coal industry);
  • Throw Open the Southern Border (to allow a massive flow –invasion — of aliens who will then be given free health care and other largess);
  • Eliminate Medicare (insuring “Medicare for None” with socialist schemes raising taxes on American workers and making private-employer insurance illegal).”

Williams’ statement against Warner continued:

“Virginians remember that Mark Warner has never adequately explained his own 2014 Phil Puckett scandal.  He has never explained his offer to sell a federal judgeship in a quid pro quo for a local politician’s partisan cooperation?  “Puckettgate” remains a viable issue in 2020. “

Warner’s weak and conflicting responses to the 2019 Northam/Fairfax scandals are best described as “Puckettgate II” as Warner again chooses corrupt politicians over Virginia’s interests.  Sen. Warner actually said that Ralph Northam had a “right” to keep his high office if the Governor could manage to talk his way out of the racist scandal. ”

16 years of Warner is enough.  Virginia deserves much better.”

On July 4, 2019, Prof. Williams announced his campaign with the intention of promoting an early, strong GOP field of candidates.

Today, Williams praised all his competitors in the primary contest.  However, Williams gave special praise to veteran Daniel Gade for his proven fundraising abilities and his tireless campaigning throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia:

“I announced my campaign stating that I wanted to encourage the strongest, best Republican candidate to emerge early.

As Virginia filing deadline approaches, veteran Daniel Gade is fast emerging as that strongest candidate.

Dan Gade clearly has the public support, dedication, and passion to defeat Mark Warner in November 2020.

Williams, who is the  founder of “Law Professor for Trump” also predicted that Donald Trump will win Virginia in the 2020 presidential contest.

Prof. Williams returned to his more immediate message:

“But meanwhile, the laggard Fed must significantly cut rates and substantially boost liquidity.”

Paid for by: Victor Williams for Virginia  vw4v.com.

© All rights reserved.

Voters on High Alert for Fake News, Ad Fraud, and Misinformation in 2020

/in , , , , , , /by

NEW YORK, March 3, 2020 /PRNewswire/ — With the 2020 presidential campaign in full swing, voters still feel stung by the effects of the 2016 election, with more than 77% saying they are concerned about fake news and misinformation this time around, according to a new study by Integral Ad Science (IAS), the global leader in digital ad verification. IAS asked prospective voters to weigh in on their perception of digital media in the midst of the election cycle. Political advertising is skyrocketing in 2020, with Democratic and Republican campaigns already committing an unprecedented $2.8B to digital media.

In the last presidential election, voter engagement with fake news articles on Facebook increased as election day approached, eventually surpassing engagement with mainstream news articles. With digital traffic patterns set to replicate or outperform those from 2016, the possibility of advertising alongside fake news articles presents a challenge for both brands and politicians. IAS found that 76% of voters believe that online advertising will play an important role in determining the outcome of the election, and this is especially true among younger audiences

At the same time, ad fraud spiked around midterm election dates in 2018, corresponding with increased online traffic. It’s no secret that fraudsters follow the money, making the upcoming 2020 election a prime target for fraudulent activity. 51% of respondents in the IAS survey are most concerned about political ad fraud in the 2020 election, and 86% of surveyed voters said that it would be irresponsible for political advertisers not to take measures to prevent online ad fraud. This is especially true among older audiences.

“2020 is poised to be a major year for advertising for both brands and politicians, and there’s no slowing down the boom in news and content around the upcoming presidential election,” Tony Marlow, Chief Marketing Officer at IAS, said. “Our latest political research explores how and where voters give their attention to political news, and what impact advertising will have on an election expected to bring the highest voter turnout in American history.”

For more information, download the results of the study.

About Integral Ad Science

Integral Ad Science (IAS) is the global leader in digital ad verification, offering technologies that drive high-quality advertising media. IAS equips advertisers and publishers with both the insight and technology to protect their advertising investments from fraud and unsafe environments as well as to capture consumer attention, and drive business outcomes. Founded in 2009, IAS is headquartered in New York with global operations in 18 offices across 13 countries. IAS is part of the Vista Equity Partners portfolio of software companies. For more on how IAS is powering great impressions for top publishers and advertisers around the world.

SOURCE: Integral Ad Science, Inc.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Pro-Abortion Joe Biden Wins Big in Super Tuesday States, Finishes Ahead of Bernie Sanders

Surprise: Bloomberg Refuses to Apologize for Counter-terror Program [Video]

/in , , , , , /by

My latest in PJ Media:

The main impression that Michael Bloomberg has given the world as a presidential candidate is one of weakness. He has fumbled awkwardly when fielding questions about his crude remarks about women. He allowed himself to be bullied into apologizing for New York City’s Stop-and-Frisk program, despite the fact that crime levels have risen significantly since it was scrapped. No one would have been surprised if he succumbed to pressure and renounced New York’s post-9/11 counterterror program of surveillance in Muslim communities. Instead, against all expectations, on Thursday he defended it.

WATCH:

In an interview on PBS NewsHour, Bloomberg said:

“We sent to some officers into some mosques to listen to the sermon that the imam gave. We were very careful. And the authorities that looked at us said, yes, you complied with the law. But we had every intention of going every place we could legally to get as much information to protect this country. We had just lost 3,000 people at 9/11. Of course we’re supposed to do that.”

That’s true. Of course the mayor of a major city that has just been hit with a catastrophic jihad terror attack should take realistic and effective steps to prevent another such attack. This shouldn’t even be controversial; it’s a sign of the effectiveness of the sinister campaign to paint all resistance to jihad violence as “Islamophobia” that anyone is upset with Bloomberg about this. “There were imams who publicly at that time were urging the terrorism. And so of course that’s where you gonna go. That does not, incidentally, mean that all Muslims are terrorists or all terrorists are Muslims. But the people who flew those airplanes came from the Middle East.”

There is much more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Illinois: Muslim leader says “Allah will grant us the Caliphate….Under its leadership, Rome will be conquered”

France: Macron condemns “Islamist separatism,” “political Islam” and Sharia inferiority of women

Macron Tries to Harden His Stance on an “Islam of France” (Part 1)

Christ Subverts Iran’s Islamic Republic

India: Media whitewashes how Muslim school was used as an attack base and Hindu school was vandalized

Netherlands: Muslim murderer wrote “Those who follow Sharia go to paradise…Allah lets me kill you” on his gun

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.