Mary and I met with several black relatives for dinner at a restaurant in Baltimore. The jovial conversation drifted to politics. I was stunned that they know nothing about several important political issues. Because they only watch mainstream media, my relatives are either misinformed or uninformed.
For example: My relatives have never heard of Sharia Law. When I explained the tyranny of Sharia and how leftists are promoting it in America, my relatives were shocked. Overwhelmed, a relative said, “I’ve heard enough. Can we change the subject?”
The second thing that disturbed me was my relatives’ intense fear of pushing back against LGBTQ indoctrination that is impacting their lives. As I said, these are not political people. And yet, they know they had better not get caught opposing LGBTQ activists forcefully infiltrating every aspect of our lives; from public education to entertainment to Sunday morning worship.
A relative said her two granddaughters told her about a picture posted on the internet by their cousin. Their cousin is a girl who posted a picture of her kissing her girlfriend. All these kids are in elementary school. Disturbed, my relative asked her son, her granddaughter’s father, about the picture. He begged his mom not to say anything about the picture. He feared that disapproving of their cousin kissing her girlfriend could lead to him being deemed an unfit parent and losing custody of his daughters.
Another relative said his two little granddaughters were painting their fingernails. Having a little fun, he bent his hand femininely and said, “Paint my nails too.” The little girls immediately turned stone-faced. They said, “That’s not funny Pop-pop. It’s not right to make fun of them like that.” My relative was taken aback by how upset his granddaughters were with him. He did not know that kids are taught beginning in pre-k that homosexuality is superior to heterosexuality.
Another relative chimed in about a visit at his adult daughter’s home. His granddaughter looked beautiful in her gown for a formal high school event. He was shocked when her date arrived. It was a girl wearing a tuxedo. He thought this was terrible but hid his feelings, fearful of offending his daughter and granddaughter. He knew they would think he was an old-fashion, out-of-date hater if he showed any sign of disapproval.
Folks, LGBTQ activists’ domination of our culture has come a long ways from the days when they claimed they only wanted tolerance. Today, they demand that we bend a knee in total submission and approval of their lifestyle in education, entertainment media and even Christian churches. LGBTQ activists are aggressively seeking to ban the Bible, declaring it bigoted hate speech. LGBTQ activists seek to make it illegal to counsel those who wish to transition from LGBTQ lifestyles.
Leftists are thrilled about “Corpus Christi” which is a blasphemous movie in which Jesus and his disciples are portrayed as homosexuals. And yet, leftists are demanding that public schools forbid students from drawing pictures of Mohammad because Sharia law says to do so is blasphemy.
My late dad, Dr Rev Lloyd E Marcus said homosexuals were coming out of the closet and forcing us who believe the Bible into the closet. Truer words were never spoken.
Years ago, I wrote an article about how LGBTQ activists were aggressively seeking to infiltrate and take-down Christian institutions like the Boy Scouts of America. Tragically, LGBTQ activists have transformed the Boy Scouts away from its Christian founding, principles and values. Everything I stated in that article was 100% true. Shockingly, Christians, conservatives and Republicans who usually agree with me backed away from me. My article was branded “mean-spirited” and “anti-Christian”.
At that time, I was Chairman of a PAC which helped to elect conservative candidates. LGBTQ activists attacked our candidate, demanding that they disassociate from this “hater”, Lloyd Marcus. My employer warned that if the bad press intensified, he would be forced to request my resignation. This was my first time personally experiencing the wrath and punishment of LGBTQ activists, simply because I warned people about their mission to bully us into submission.
The surprising intensity of the LGBTQ attacks, reporters chasing me down and sticking microphones in my face, scared me. I could not give a rat’s derriere about what leftists think of me. I had to fight off feelings of guilt as I witnessed LGBTQ enforcers attacking everyone associated with me.
My wife Mary and I prayed about the situation. My wife is awesome. Mary said, “You must spread truth without fear of man.” Life has taught us that while my paycheck came from my employer, God is the true source of our financial security. The heated attacks over my LGBTQ/Boy Scouts article faded away. I was not fired.
However, another of my controversial articles sparked tension between my employer and me. Mary and I concluded that I must be free to write as I am led by God. I resigned from my position as chairman of the PAC.
For years, leftists have accused me of being a black “Uncle Tom sellout” highly paid by the Republican Party. This is not true. Quitting my position as chairman of a PAC was a serious financial decision; an act of faith. God is faithful and has sustained us. Praise God!
I left our family gathering at the restaurant feeling a bit disturbed that my relatives were so politically clueless and so fearful of attempting to stop LGBTQ activists from forcing their anti-Christian agenda down the throats of our children. Still, I am determined to continue spreading the truth and standing up for what is right. God is the source of my strength.
On a positive note, my wife Mary is a crab-cake snob. The crab-cakes at Romano’s restaurant were excellent.
RELATED VIDEO: Drag Queen Showdown – Bill Finley.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Lloyd Marcushttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngLloyd Marcus2019-05-03 18:34:052019-05-03 18:43:59Ignorance, Fear and LGBTQ
David Carlin: The former Veep is a liberal Catholic. It will be interesting to see how many bishops will offer corrections to his non-Catholic positions.
Joe Biden, a Democrat who happens to be a Catholic, is now officially running for President of the United States. And he’s doing so in an effort to save what he calls the “soul” of America.
His assumption seems to be that there are two (more or less Platonic) Ideas of America currently struggling for dominance, the true Idea and the false Idea. I suppose he sees himself and his views as symbolizing the true America, while he sees Donald Trump and his views as symbolizing the false America.
If Biden is to be the Democratic candidate, he will, of course, have to embrace and endorse the beliefs and values that currently prevail in the Democratic Party, and these beliefs and values include the following:
1. Abortion is a fundamental human right.
2. Homosexual behavior is a fine thing for people who are born that way; and anybody who disagrees is a homophobic bigot.
3. Same-sex marriage is a fundamental human right.
4. The U.S. Constitution, thanks to the theory of substantive due process, protects all human rights; and it’s up to any five members of the U.S. Supreme Court to decide what is, or what is not, a human right.
5. Non-liberal whites are almost always racists.
6. It is a great duty of the U.S. government to protect those among us who are most oppressed; namely, blacks, other persons of color, women, undocumented migrants, Muslims, homosexuals, transgender persons, and criminals (including drug dealers) who have committed no violent crimes.
7. When the rights of churches or religious individuals collide with the rights of the above-listed victim groups, the former must give way to the latter.
8. When the rights of parents collide with the rights of their transgender children, the former must give way to the latter.
9. Almost all our social ills can be cured, or at least significantly mitigated, by actions of the federal government.
Lest anybody think that the above is an invidious description of the Democratic belief system given by a person who is a lifelong Democrat-hater, let me assure the reader that I once possessed very strong Democratic credentials. I think I first thought of myself as a Democrat on that day when I was about eight-years-old and my father explained to me, “The Republicans are the party of rich people. The Democrats are the party of poor people, like us.”
Later in life I became a politician in my home state of Rhode Island. I served twelve years (1981-93) as a Democrat in the R.I. Senate, two of those as majority leader. In 1992, I was the (losing) Democratic candidate in my district for the U.S. House of Representatives.
By that date, it was clear that my party had become a pro-abortion party. Yet I, a pro-life Democrat, still hoped that the party’s anti-Christian momentum could be reversed. That, as it turned out, was quite foolish.
Increasingly, cultural enemies of Christianity have gained ideological dominance in the party. From abortion they moved on to homosexuality and same-sex marriage; more recently they have advanced to transgenderism; and, in the future, they will almost certainly move on to assisted suicide: first to voluntary euthanasia, later to involuntary.It is with regret that I say it, but my old and dearly loved party has become a party of atheistic anti-Christianity. This is Biden’s party, and if he doesn’t embrace its values he won’t get its nomination.
Some people may object to what I’ve said. They may point out that today’s Democratic Party still contains many Christians and is far from being a party made up solely of atheists. True . . . and beside the point.
Many persons who identify as both Christians and Democrats are simple souls who imagine that their party, because it has the same name it had in the good old days of FDR and JFK, is the same party it has always been. They don’t understand, or they won’t allow themselves to understand, how radically their party has changed.
But those people are followers, not leaders. The ideological leadership of the party is in the hands of persons who may be called Secular Progressives. These people are atheists and near-atheists. By “near-atheists” I mean agnostics, religiously indifferent people, and liberal Protestants (in contrast to Evangelical Protestants).
If liberal Protestants are Christians, it is in a Pickwickian sense of that word only. For more than a century now, liberal Protestantism, in an attempt to “save” Christianity for persons with a modern mentality, has been shedding one element after another of Christian belief.
Having shed almost all Nicene doctrines, they have more recently, under the impact of the sexual revolution, dropped all traditional Christian sexual morality plus the ancient Christian taboo against abortion. Nowadays liberal Protestantism, while not quite full-fledged atheism, is far closer to atheism than it is to traditional Christianity.
Liberal Catholicism, while drifting in the same direction, got its start later than liberal Protestantism, and so has not yet traveled quite so far down the road to atheism as has its elder brother. Its main project at the moment is to persuade the Church to remove its age-old condemnation of homosexuality. To all appearances, it has had considerable success with this project, not just among tolerant laypersons, but even among many priests and some bishops.
When Joe Biden tries to exploit the “fact” that he’s a Catholic, it will be interesting to see how many Catholic bishops will denounce his spurious appropriation of the faith. If the denunciation is nearly universal, it will be a sign that the Church in America is recovering its health. If not, it will be sign that we are still sliding downhill.
Question: If you believe in the traditional Judeo-Christian sex ethic—that no one should have sex apart from the bonds of holy matrimony (between a man and a woman)—should you be disqualified from making a presentation at a college campus?
Apparently, some key student leaders at Cornell University think so. Cornell is the only Ivy League school that was not explicitly founded as a Christian school.
Who would have agreed with the traditional Judeo-Christian sex ethic that intimacy is to be reserved for marriage?
Rev. John Harvard and the Puritans who founded Harvard University in 1636 and named it in his honor because of the books and money he donated for its establishment.
The Puritan businessman Elihu Yale and the Congregational ministers who founded Yale around 1700, likewise to train ministers of the Gospel.
The Presbyterian elders who founded the College of New Jersey, which later came to be called Princeton.
And on it goes.
In fact, most Americans subscribed, at least ostensibly, to the Christian view of sex until about a generation or so ago. The sexual revolution upended everything and has brought in its wake ravaging sexually-transmitted diseases, countless divorces and broken families, subsequent poverty, and untold misery.
But now, if you hold those traditional views and have voiced them at some time, you could possibly be censored from speaking at a public event.
That’s what happened to a friend of mine, Jannique Stewart. Jannique, an African-American woman who grew up in Europe, speaks at colleges, high schools, and churches all over the country and even other countries—-providing a traditional view on the pro-life issue, on abstinence, and on sex.
At our church in south Florida, we have had Jannique speak at a couple of our “Salt and Light” events. She’s always been very positive, factually based, and upbeat.
Jannique has her own organization, loveprotects.com. And recently, she has been doing a lot of speaking for Scott Klusendorf’s Life Training Institute, an organization that tries to equip people to defend the pro-life perspective using science and philosophy. She notes: “We’re able to debunk a lot of the common myths and misconceptions” surrounding abortion.
An executive board member of Cornell Political Union contacted the Life Training Institute in January of this year to inquire about Jannique’s availability to speak at one of their meetings. The topic was going to be pro-life versus pro-abortion. They ended up inviting her, securing the date, working out the details—but then later they disinvited her. They did that when they found out two things about her.
She told me on my radio show the views that got her barred from speaking at Cornell: “One, that sex should be reserved for marriage, and two, that I believe that marriage is defined by God, our Creator, as the union of one man and one woman.” Well, I believe that too. So do millions of Americans.
By this criterion, Barrack Obama could have been disinvited in 2011 because he publicly professed to believe marriage was between one man and one woman. In fact, former Supreme Court Justice Kennedy, who wrote the pro same-sex marriage decision in 2015, said that belief in heterosexual marriage has been widely held around the planet for “millennia.” So her views on this are not unique to Jannique.
Jannique told me of her reaction to being disinvited: “That’s a form of viewpoint discrimination, and that’s wrong of them to do that—especially at a university campus, which is supposed to be a bastion of higher learning where we’re supposed to have a free exchange of ideas and then be able to debate those ideas.”
She says, “They felt that the students would not be able to listen to my prolife speech because they would be so focused on my views. And I thought, ‘Now, that really is insulting to their intellect because what they’re saying is that [their fellow] students at this Ivy League school cannot possibly listen, simply because of my views on pre-marital sex and marriage.”
What disturbed Jannique the most was how they viewed her views as being on the same level as racist views. She was told, “having me on campus with the ideas that I hold is very similar to having a racist on campus with pro-slavery and pro-Holocaust views. The board felt that way or the board felt the students would perceive me in that manner, and that is offensive. It’s not only offensive—it’s flat out wrong to try and compare the Biblical standard (and that which is natural marriage) as bigoted.”
When people like Jannique get censored on our college campuses, the students only get exposed to politically correct ideas. And truths that have stood the test of time—for “millennia”—get silenced.
But there is no constitutional right to not be offended.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jerry Newcombe, D. Min.http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJerry Newcombe, D. Min.2019-05-02 16:20:322019-05-02 16:21:03Campus Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Be Offensive
VATICAN CITY (ChurchMilitant.com) – An international group of notable clergy and prominent academics is urging the world’s bishops to investigate Pope Francis for the canonical crime of heresy in an open letter released Monday.
The group, comprised of specialists in theology and philosophy, opens their letter — which was dated “Easter Week, 2019” but published on the feast of St. Catherine of Siena, a saint who influenced several popes with her counsels and admonitions — by stating their two-fold purpose to the bishops. First, they accuse Pope Francis of the canonical delict of heresy; second, they request that the bishops take the steps necessary to deal with the grave situation of a heretical pope.
In a summary of the letter, the clerics and scholars place this open letter to bishops within the context of two previous attempts to correct Pope Francis on matters of faith and morals.
The first attempt was a private letter to “the cardinals and Eastern Catholic patriarchs” in 2016 “pointing out heresies and other serious errors that appeared to be contained in or favored by Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia.”
The group notes the second attempt was the widely reported filial correction addressed directly to the Holy Father in 2017 because, as they say, “Pope Francis had continued by word, deed, and omission to propagate many of these same heresies.”
The authors of the filial correction stopped short of judging at that time “whether Pope Francis was aware that he was causing heresy to spread.”
In the present open letter, this group goes a step further by making the claim that the Pope “is guilty of the crime of heresy.” The academics and clerics clarify that such a crime is committed “when a Catholic knowingly and persistently denies something which he knows that the Church teaches to be revealed by God.”
One of the most prominent members of the clergy to sign the letter is English academic and Dominican priest Fr. Aidan Nichols. Nichols served as the first John Paul II memorial visiting lecturer at the University of Oxford from 2006 to 2008.
Nichols is a notable English-speaking theologian and well-published author of numerable books related to theology. Other well-known clerics signing the letter are Fr. John Hunwicke, former senior research fellow at Pusey House, Oxford, and Deacon Nick Donnelly, clerics who are popular on social media.
The group says it’s comprised of “not only specialists in theology and philosophy, but also academics and scholars from other fields.” The list of prominent lay scholars signing the letter includes Professor John Rist, a specialist in classical philosophy and the history of theology. Rist has held chairs and professorships at the University of Toronto, the Augustinianum in Rome, the Catholic University of America, the University of Aberdeen and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Other lay Catholic scholars signing the letter include Georges Buscemi, president of Campagne Québec-Vie and member of the John-Paul II Academy for Human Life and Family. Another signatory is Maria Guarini, S.T.B., from the Pontificia Università Seraphicum in Rome and editor of Chiesa e postconcilio.
Dr. Claudio Pierantoni was another cosigner. Pierantoni is a professor of medieval philosophy at the University of Chile and former professor of Church history and patrology at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile.
Organizers of this open letter invite other clergy and academics to sign this open letter as well. They may request to do so by emailing their name and credentials to the following email address: openlettertobishops@gmail.com. Organizers note each request will be thoroughly vetted.
After taking all things into account, the group says the words, deeds, appointments and omissions of Pope Francis “amount to a comprehensive rejection of Catholic teaching on marriage and sexual activity, on the moral law, and on grace and the forgiveness of sins.”
In their 20-page open letter, they list seven heresies that Pope Francis has fostered but make it clear, however, that these heresies do not touch his teaching office as pope.
“It is agreed that no pope can uphold heresy when teaching in a way that satisfies the conditions for an infallible magisterial statement,” they affirmed.
They also are clear that no one has the authority to remove a sitting pope.
“It is agreed,” states the clerics and scholars, “that the Church does not have jurisdiction over the pope, and hence that the Church cannot remove a pope from office by an exercise of superior authority, even for the crime of heresy.” They go on to cite many other canonical opinions that include the opinion that a pope who commits heresy separates himself from the Catholic Church.
They are united in asking the bishops to look into the deliberate lack of clarity from the Pope on matters of faith and morals, statements which seem to contradict faith and morals by the Pope and the appointments of dubious men to key positions within the Church that propagate heretical views.
Despite the evidence that we have put forward in this letter, we recognize that it does not belong to us to declare the pope guilty of the delict of heresy in a way that would have canonical consequences for Catholics. We therefore appeal to you as our spiritual fathers, vicars of Christ within your own jurisdictions and not vicars of the Roman pontiff, publicly to admonish Pope Francis to abjure the heresies that he has professed.
They want the bishops to confront Pope Francis, and if he does not recant his errors, then they ask that he be charged by them with him the canonical crime of heresy.
Since Pope Francis has manifested heresy by his actions as well as by his words, any abjuration must involve repudiating and reversing these actions, including his nomination of bishops and cardinals who have supported these heresies by their words or actions. Such an admonition is a duty of fraternal charity to the Pope, as well as a duty to the Church. If — which God forbid! — Pope Francis does not bear the fruit of true repentance in response to these admonitions, we request that you carry out your duty of office to declare that he has committed the canonical delict of heresy and that he must suffer the canonical consequences of this crime.
Raised in the great outdoors of Montana, Brad’s at home with horses, camping and farm life.
While putting a Petroleum Engineering degree to work in Alaska’s oil field, he studied Engineering Management and enjoyed Alaska’s rugged outdoors. Catholic from birth, Brad began devoting more time to reading the Bible, prayer and volunteering at Covenant House Alaska, an organization that cares for runaway kids.
At 26, Brad left his occupation to follow a religious vocation with a start-up Franciscan third order community in Connecticut. After completing his seminary studies, Brad taught high school math, science and religion in addition to helping run Catholic summer camps.
After 22 years the religious community ended, so Brad began working as a writer and associate producer for ChurchMilitant.com. Three years later he married a devout Catholic, and God has blessed the couple with a son.
EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant column is republished with permission.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Church Militanthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngChurch Militant2019-05-02 16:09:512019-05-02 16:09:51Pope Francis Accused of Heresy by Clergy and Theologians
If that body (Congress) be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. President James Garfield
Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever persuasion, religious or political. President Thomas Jefferson at first inaugural address
Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. President James Madison, Federalist No. 51, February 8, 1788
The Russian collusion investigation was a coup…brought to us by those within the Obama administration and his Department of Justice (DOJ). Indications point to Obama as the director of this insurrection. It was a conspiracy, it was criminal activity with several violations of U.S. Title 18 code; the most shocking violation of the Constitution in criminal activity in the history, not just of America, but of a western government.
Much of this rises to the level of treason, as well as sedition, as it was a clear conspiracy. There should be indictments especially when the reality is that the collusion was on the Democratic side and the contrived dossier came from Russian intelligence. These people need to be indicted, charged, and sentenced. If they’re not, then our Constitution is nothing more than a sham.
The Marxist movement within the DNC is in control right now. The “regressive” goals of the Marxists fully match what the democrat left is promoting today.
Eliminating our sovereignty is one of their top goals. In order to turn this country into a globalist Marxist government, three things must be destroyed. They have to change the Constitution, especially the first and second amendments. As Marxists, they despise and target Christianity and want it destroyed because it underlines our Constitution and faith in our Creator mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. And, they must destroy the very founding principles of America…our culture.
All three of these goals are coming to fruition and this rises to the level of treason.
Mueller Shouldn’t Have Taken the Job
Robert Mueller should never have accepted the appointment of Special Counsel for an investigation into Russian Collusion. He knew from the very get-go that the dossier was a pile of schmutz, yet it is never mentioned in the final Mueller report.
Victoria Toensing, of diGenova and Toensing Law Firm, stated in her recent WSJ article that, “Justice Department regulations authorize appointment of a special counsel when the attorney general ‘determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.’” She goes on to say that Rod Rosenstein who was then attorney general because of AG Sessions’ recusal, disregarded the criminal conduct requirement and authorized a broad and vague counterintelligence probe, directing the special counsel to investigate “any links” between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. This was unprecedented and gave a blank check to Mueller, and his gang of Hillary supporting democrat attorneys, the right to go after anyone or anything related to President Trump.
Her final statement in this important article is, “Mr. Barr’s Justice Department can amend the regulations without Congress, just as Janet Reno’s department wrote the rules two decades ago. The democrats will scream and yell, but when they control the executive branch, they’ll love the clarity.”
The weaponization of the intelligence community and other government agencies created an environment that allowed for obstruction in the investigation into Hillary Clinton and the relentless pursuit of a manufactured collusion narrative against Trump.
A willing and complicit media spread unsubstantiated leaks as facts in an effort to promote the Russia-collusion narrative. Link
Rosenstein Retiring
Rosenstein is retiring as of May 11, 2019, and Barr has said, “Rosenstein served the Justice Department with dedication and distinction. His devotion to the Department and its professionals is unparalleled. Over the course of his distinguished government career, he has navigated many challenging situations with strength, grace, and good humor.”
Oh, Right AG Barr, the man who gave a blank check to Mueller and who allowed this improper, illegal, and unparalleled investigation of a sitting president is a devoted professional. This is the same man who protected the Clinton/Obama people, silent on her illicit emails and who signed off on FISA warrants from the bogus Trump dossier, who wanted to use the 25th amendment against the President and offered to wear a wire to record our President.
Excuse the hell out of me, but this is pure hogwash and I hope Barr knows it.
Mueller Targets
Lt. General Michael Flynn was the first of their targets for good reason and was set-up by the FBI, by Obama, Sally Yates, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and others. He never lied to anyone, including VP Pence who I believe was instrumental in working with the FBI to eliminate General Flynn. Fear of Mike Flynn was of top concern. He is an expert on China, Iran, Islam and our intelligence community and had to be dispatched. Many were involved in eliminating this brilliant veteran from helping our President. He should be freed of this horror his family has lived through for over two years. Please help defray the millions in legal debts by donating to the Mike Flynn defense fund whatever you can.
Paul Manafort was investigated by the DOJ in 2014 and they found his conduct not prosecutable. But the resurrection of the evidence by Mueller’s team has destroyed him because of his four-month position as campaign manager with candidate Trump. He spent nine months in solitary confinement because of democrat appointed judges when apparently multiple murderers, Charles Manson and Richard Speck, weren’t even put in solitary confinement.
Investigators accused Manafort of lying in court despite the fact that he denied candidate Trump’s prior knowledge of the June 9th, 2016 meeting he attended with Kushner and Donald Trump Jr. with a Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya.
The same goes for Jerome Corsi and Roger Stone who have been pressured to sign a plea deal falsely attesting to being conduits to Julian Assange. Roger also needs help with his legal defense fund. Both he and General Flynn have lost their homes.
Democratic Disappointment
The end of the special counsel’s probe shattered the Democrat’s claim of Russian conspiracy. Of course, we all know where the real Russian conspiracy lies, but main stream media will never divulge the truth. Americans are more interested in the economy, illegal immigration and health care than this spurious investigation of our President. Don’t forget that the left not only hates Trump, but they hate everyone who voted for him.
And what is in this final report is as revealing as what is not in the report…there is nothing whatsoever regarding a mention of the fraudulent and manufactured Steele dossier.
The dossier, characterized by Former FBI Director James Comey under oath as “salacious and unverified,” consisted of opposition research compiled by a former British intelligence officer and commissioned by the Hillary Clinton campaign. This piece of garbage was created by Hillary Clinton and the DNC; and Hillary’s campaign manager was pushing the fake Russia story at the DNC convention the very same day the FBI launched the Trump/Russia investigation. Link And yes, DNC lawyers met with the FBI on Russia allegations before the surveillance warrant.
At this point everyone should know about the involvement of Obama, Sally Yates, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce and Nellie Ohr, James Baker, Bill Priestap, James Clapper, John Brennan, Susan Rice, Loretta Lynch, former Director of National Security Agency Michael Hayden, and far more, including Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller himself, along with his 17 democrat attorneys who went after President Trump.
Comey was the catalyst that started this when he showed the Steel dossier to the President and then leaked it to the press. When James Comey was questioned by Congress, he answered, “I don’t know,” “I don’t recall,” and “I don’t remember” 236 times while under oath. But he remembered enough to write a book where he comes off as sanctimonious despite Amazon’s five-star promotion.
The FBI has admitted that those illicit emails from Clinton’s server were also found in the Obama White House. Yes, Obama knew! E.W. (Bill) Priestap, assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division, made the disclosure to Judicial Watch as part of court-ordered discovery into the Clinton email issue.
Where Were Whistle Blowers
Apparently, no one in the FBI thought it crazy that former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe said “F Trump” many times in a meeting with agents. And apparently no one in the FBI thought it absolutely insane for Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein to offer to wear a wire and record the President! But wait, there’s more. Strzok and Page both discussed sending a counter-intelligence officer to Mike Pence’s first transition briefing as Vice President elect. Where’s the investigation?
VP Pence says that he was deeply offended by Strzok and Page for their talk of infiltrating his transition team. I don’t hear him being deeply offended by what has happened to the President, to General Flynn, to Paul Manafort, to Roger Stone, to Papadopoulos, or to Jerome Corsi. This “shadow president” wants more than anything to be the leader of the free world. Surely the Koch brothers and Dick and Betsy DeVos will fund his campaign for President, just as they’ve funded him from the beginning of his political days.
AG Barr
Our new former Bush attorney general is being excoriated for standing by the President, when in fact, he seems to be standing by the law. Do I trust this long-time friend of Robert Mueller? Not yet. I want to wait and see what he does legally. So far, he’s been honorable, but I cannot give him credence as a man who would stand by the “rule of law” until the perpetrators of this conspiracy are brought to justice and until those who committed crimes are indicted.
The leftists are accusing AG Barr of a “coverup” and “exoneration,” but the real coverups lie with all of them and Obama’s DOJ, not to mention Robert Mueller who never investigated the dossier pack of lies. He obviously had no interest in the coup perpetrated by the very FBI which he led from 2001-2013…the last two years under Obama who kept him past the 10-year term via Congressional approval.
Mueller avoided opening the true can of worms…the Steele dossier, and actually covered for his FBI. He even kept Strzok on his investigation payroll for six months after the Strzok/Page emails became known. As Kimberley Strassel said in a recent Fox interview, Mueller was to investigate Russian interference in the election, but he never looked at the fact that the fake dossier may have been disinformation from the Russian government.
Strassel asks in her WSJ article,
“How did Mr. Mueller spend two years investigating every aspect of Russian interference, cyber hacking, social media trolling, meetings with Trump officials, and not consider the possibility that the dossier was part of the Russian interference effort?”
Let’s pray that the Inspector General, Michael Horowitz and our new Attorney General William Barr actually answer the questions Mueller refused to touch!
Conclusion
Todd Starnes reports that many advanced placement students across the fruited plain will be using an American history textbook that depicts President Trump as mentally ill and his supporters as racists. The textbook, published by British owned Pearson Education, is titled, “By the People: A History of the United States.” It was first exposed by radio host Alex Clark in 2018. Pearson promotes common core testing and corporate school-to-work education.
And all of this was brought to us by the Democratic Party’s nominee, Hillary Clinton, who stole the nomination from commie Bernie, stole debate questions, had the FBI bury evidence against her, financed a fake dossier, weaponized the FBI by spying on her opponent, outspent her opponent, and still lost to a man she called incompetent.
Why isn’t she in prison?
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Kelleigh Nelsonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngKelleigh Nelson2019-05-02 15:45:542019-05-02 15:45:54The Department of Justice’s Brazen Cesspool of Criminal Activity
After remaining quiet for five years, often reported dead, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, leader of the Islamic State, appears on a 17 minute video, rallying what remains of his forces to launch further attacks on the “Christian Crusaders”, making excuses for their loses at Baghuz, listing a long list of dead amongst a long list of other subjects covered.
Special thanks to VladTepesBlog for the translation and subtitles.
Jihadists don’t need a reason to kill anyone. Their revenge and retaliation claims are a psychological game to make us feel as if we are responsible for their violence against us.
After a mass shooting at a mosque in New Zealand, some people worried that revenge attacks would follow. And indeed, the Sri Lanka bombings of churches seemed to follow that pattern. Soon the media was full of claims that ISIS had murdered hundreds of Christians as revenge for the New Zealand shootings.
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka — Sri Lanka’s defense minister said Tuesday that the coordinated Easter Sunday attacks that killed at least 321 people were in retaliation for the recent Christchurch mosque massacre in New Zealand.
“Extremist group named National Thowheed Jamaath carried out Sunday’s terror attacks in response to terror attacks in Christchurch,” Defense Minister Ruwan Wijewardene said.
Like everything coming out of the Sri Lankan government, this should have been taken with a grain of salt. It’s not just the Jihadists who want to shift responsibility for the violence on to us. The Sri Lankan government ignored warnings about the attack. It’s convenient for them to shift the blame. Reports from ISIS and the terrorists have been mixed. But now the Caliph of ISIS has released a video.
“And as for your brothers in Sri Lanka,” he is heard saying while footage of the attackers and attacks rolls, “they have put joy in the hearts of the monotheists with their immersing operations that struck the homes of the Crusaders on their Easter, in vengeance for their brothers in Baghuz.”
This appeal to Baghuz (also spelled Baghouz), the last vestige of ISIS’ caliphate in Syria, reclaimed by coalition and Syria Democratic Forces in late March, is the most critical element of Baghdadi’s statements. The loss was a major blow to the so-called caliphate and a staple of some leaders’ narratives of the group’s “defeat.”
Why would ISIS care, let alone launch a major operation in Sri Lanka over mass shootings in New Zealand?
That never made any sense.
Baghdadi plausibly positions the attacks in relation to the defeat of ISIS in Baghuz.
ISIS badly needs credibility after its losses and the Sri Lanka bombings provided them. The media however has less interest in reporting this statement by Baghdadi because it finds the New Zealand meme far more politically useful for its purposes.
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column with video is republished with permission.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2019-05-02 15:29:182019-05-02 15:32:41VIDEO: Sri Lanka Bombings Revenge for ISIS Caliphate, Not New Zealand
This story has been in my queue for a couple of weeks and am finally getting to it.
What is so galling about the news is that our law enforcement has spent time and (our) money to investigate a crime and now incarcerate a man for something that has nothing to do with us.
We apparently ‘welcomed’ a Yemeni family to live in the Buffalo, NY area who brought all of their cultural/religious baggage to America (and even went ‘home’ for awhile) and we get to straighten out the mess the ‘new Americans’ created.
By the way, Yemen is one of the countries now on Trump’s so-called Muslim ban list!
I first saw this short press announcement at the U.S. Justice Departmentwebsite and then looked for more news.
BUFFALO, N.Y. – U.S. Attorney James P. Kennedy, Jr. announced today that Yousef Goba, 45, of Yemen, who was convicted of making extortionate threats to harm and kidnap a minor, was sentenced to serve 41 months in prison by U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy C. Lynch, who handled the case, stated that between February 2015 and April 2015, Goba contacted an individual who resided in Western New York (the victim) through both telephone and text messages. During those communications, Goba threatened to kidnap and injure the victim’s minor child. The minor child went to Yemen with her mother in September 2013. While in Yemen, the minor child, her mother, and siblings lived with Goba for a period of time. When the mother wanted to move from Goba’s residence, the defendant refused to let the minor child leave and threatened that he would have the minor child marry a Yemeni man, if money was not paid to him. On April 8, 2015, during a call recorded by the FBI, Goba demanded that the victim pay him $11,000 as well as money for other expenses for the release of the minor child.
I checked around and found this story from Buffalo Newsthat includes additional information….
….including the fact that Goba is the brother of a Yemeni man convicted on terrorism charges right after 9/11.
Child extortion plot stretching from Lackawanna to Yemen sends man to prison
The girl’s mother, who has since divorced her husband and remarried, took the children to Yemen in September 2013 to live temporarily so the father could save money while working here. [And, we are expected to believe that?—ed]
The following summer, after spending time with the father’s family in Yemen, the mother and children moved in with Goba. When they tried to leave, the defendant allowed the mother and other children to depart, but not the girl, the prosecution maintains. [So this woman moves in with a man not her relative, but the brother of a convicted Islamic terrorist?—ed]
The government also claims Goba threatened to marry off the girl to a Yemeni national willing to pay for her, and that Goba sent the father a photo of the girl pointing to a wedding cake and a second picture of her with a ring on her finger.
In pleading to extortion, Goba said he was just trying to get the father to reimburse him for the money he spent providing for the family while they lived with him in Yemen. He was arrested in New York City in 2015 as he returned to the United States.
Goba is the brother of Lackawanna Six member Yahya Goba, but sources said there appears to be no connection between Goba’s case and his brother’s involvement with the Lackawanna Six.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2019-05-02 15:17:162019-05-03 19:18:59Yemeni Man gets Prison Time for Extortion Plot Involving a Child Bride
As of this writing, the Florida Legislature is considering bills that would prohibit adult Floridians over the age of 18 from purchasing non-combustible nicotine products or nicotine dispensing products (“vapors”). The legislation may include an artificial definition of these products as “tobacco.” Such a move would be in error.
As conservatives, we demand that government’s intrusions upon our lives be as small as possible. Yes, government has a bona fide role in ensuring the health, morale, welfare, and safety of the people, but such an intervention in this case would do neither.
During the late twentieth century, government played an active role in discouraging cigarette smoking. This campaign was met with resistance from those who believed that it was not government’s role to meddle in their lives. Nevertheless, in that campaign there was direct and incontrovertible evidence that smoking was intimately tied with lung cancer, not only for the smoker, but for those who secondarily inhaled the smoke. In the end, most agreed, because of the incontrovertible, causative correlation between cigarette smoking and cancer, both its regulation and the active discouragement of its use was an appropriate role for government.
In the case of vaping, no such correlation exists.
The tars that plague cigarette smoke are not present in vaping products, nullifying the cancer links. Additionally, the American Cancer Society has stated that that giving up combustible cigarettes is the single most important thing a smoker can do to improve her health, even it if she accomplishes this goal by using e-cigarettes.
Additionally, Moffitt Cancer Center’s Thomas Brandon, PhD., Director of Moffitt’s Tobacco Research and Intervention program in Tampa, Fla., stated on February 28, 2018, that “…e-cigarettes represent the most important change in the landscape of tobacco use [in decades]” and encouraged society to harness this change “to maximize the public health benefit from it.”
Somehow, the discussion regarding e-cigarettes and government’s role in regulating it has gone wildly wrong. Here we do not have a product, as best as science can tell, that is killing people, but one that may be helping them and even saving lives. We have a product that stands unlinked to cancer and may serve as a needed substitute for another that is. For the Florida legislature to consider banning the sale of these products absent the causative link present in smokable and chewable tobacco (and perhaps even representing a net societal benefit) is a clear example of an overstep of government’s proper role.
Yes, there are many who find e-cigarette vapors annoying, but a local annoyance is no reason for government to step in. Rather, it is up to business-owners and individuals to regulate themselves.
Florida ought to avoid policy changes that would inhibit adults from exercising their freedom to access vaping products known to have health benefits and devoid of proven, life-threatening consequences relied on by many, including member of our military, to kick the smoking habit.
The Florida legislature to reject this invitation to excessively intrude into the lives of its citizens.
EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Julio Gonzalezhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Julio Gonzalez2019-05-02 15:03:302019-05-02 15:03:49Republican-Run Florida Is Pushing Vaping Ban?
Despite possible short term difficulties, Israel should seize on the impending collapse of the Palestinian Authority as an opportunity to extricate itself from the deadly cul-de-sac, into which the Oslo process has lured it.
It is all or nothing. We will not take any money if they do not give all of it—even if it means the collapse of the Palestinian Authority and an unequivocal declaration that the Oslo Accords are dead.—Ashraf al-Ajami, former Palestinian Authority (PA) minister for Prisoners Affairs, on Israel’s decision to deduct the sums paid to convicted terrorists and/or their families from the tax revenue that Israel collects for the PA, Galei Israel, April 19, 2019.
If the existential goal of the PA—according Ashraf Ajami as well as according to Abu Mazen—is to persist in paying salaries to terrorists, because if it does not pay salaries to terrorists, it breaks up, then perhaps we need to ask what we signed the Oslo Agreement for, if all we did was establish an Authority whose function is to promote terror –Brig-Gen. (res) Yossi Kuperwasser, former Director-General of the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, Galei Israel, April 19, 2019.
The Oslo Agreements, which spawned the Palestinian Authority, were born in sin. Today that is beyond any reasonable dispute.
Oslo: The product of betrayal and bribery
After all, without the support of Gonen Segev, who was later convicted and imprisoned for drug trafficking and fraud and, several years later, for treason and espionage, they would never have seen the light of day. Indeed, as readers might recall, Segev was elected to the Knesset on a hardline hawkish platform that opposed the very far reaching concessions that the Oslo Agreements entailed. However, he was coaxed (read “bribed”) by Yitzhak Rabin with the lure of a ministerial portfolio, to betray his voters and cross the political lines to endorse the Oslo initiative –that starkly contradicted the core values of the platform on which he was elected.
As a product of both political betrayal and bribery, the Oslo Accords soon began to deliver its heinous results. Thousands of Israelis paid with their lives and limbs for the ill-considered initiative. What was grotesquely dubbed “the peace process” left café’s, buses, and sidewalks strewn with body parts and gore, while the Oslo advocates doggedly refused to admit error, callously dismissing the dead and injured as “victims of peace”.
Sadly, but not foreseeable, Oslo has brought nothing positive to Israel or to Israelis. Indeed, none of the promises of sweeping benefits by its proponents have been fulfilled; while virtually all the dangers, of which its opponents warned, did indeed materialize.
Accordingly, by any reasonable criterion, the jury is no longer out on the Oslo process. As might have been expected from its ignominious genesis, it has proven itself an indisputable—and irredeemable—failure. The time has come to openly acknowledge this inescapable reality.
PA collapse as an opportunity, not a threat
In this regard, there should be a sea-change in the prevailing perception of the significance for Israel of the collapse of the PA and with it, of the entire mendacious Oslowian edifice.
After all, if the only way for the PA to endure is for Israel to collaborate in the financing of the slaughter of its own citizens by transferring “pay-to-slay” funds to perpetrators of terror, grave doubts must be cast on the prudence—indeed, the sanity—of sustaining this state of affairs.
Moreover, for Israel to back down on this issue would not only greatly undermine its credibility—and hence its deterrence capabilities—but would constitute a sharp slap in the face for its staunch allies in the US Senate, who passed the Taylor Force Act to curtail American support for the PA—unless it halts payments to perpetuators of terror and/or their families.
It is generally considered that the imminent financial collapse of the PA comprises a threat to Israel, heralding increasing instability and security problems.
Although this may be true to some extent in the short run, it must be rejected as a long term constraint on Israeli strategic thinking. Indeed, rather than a threat, the impending collapse of the PA should be perceived as an opportunity to extricate the nation from the hazardous cul-de-sac into which the deceptive Oslo process lured it.
Treating the enemy as the enemy
The key to making the transformation from perceiving the collapse of the PA as a threat to an opportunity is to set aside the dictates of political correctness and confront political truth. Thus, rather than persist with the fiction that the PA is a prospective peace partner, it must be treated as it sees itself—i.e. as an implacable enemy.
Accordingly, Israel has no obligation—ethical or otherwise—to sustain the socio-economic edifice of its enemy dedicated to its destruction. Indeed, if anything, its moral duty is to bring about its collapse.
This is particularly relevant—and immediately feasible—for Gaza, where almost a decade and a half of abysmal government by Hamas has caused the widespread breakdown of the civilian infrastructure. Thus, according to Nada Majdalani, Palestinian Director of EcoPeace Middle East in a recent address to the UN Security Council: “97% of the groundwater under Gaza is not suitable for human consumption…Thirty percent of illnesses in Gaza [is] from water-borne pathogens. With a four-hour average of power supply, waste water facilities fail to operate, emptying the equivalent of 34 Olympic-size swimming pools of raw sewage daily into the Mediterranean…”
Significantly, she warned:
“A humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip is happening right now, right before our eyes. If no immediate action is taken in Gaza, people will flee by heading out in boats, just like other Middle Eastern refugees…”
Gaza: A missed opportunity
Regrettably, Israel failed to seize on an earlier opportunity created when head of the PA, Mahmoud Abbas (a.k.a Abu Mazen), cut the funding to Gaza—and acted to relieve the pressures this created by allowing Qatari money to flow into the Hamas-controlled enclave.
This will not only prove futile but detrimental. For as long as Israel remains entrapped within the confines of the policy paradigm that envisions Arab self-rule in Gaza, persisting with the conventional form of humanitarian aid will only perpetuate—but, exacerbate—the humanitarian crisis—see Gaza: Let their people go.
In this regard, I have for decades made the case that the solution to Gaza’s humanitarian plight is not its reconstruction, but its deconstruction. Indeed, there is rapidly accumulating evidence that the only thing preventing a mass exodos from Gaza is money—or rather, the lack thereof—to facilitate emigration of Gazans to other more stable, less harrowing destinations.
For the humanitarian debacle is Gaza has not been precipitated by a perennial lack of cash (indeed, Gaza has been among the highest per capita recipients of international aid on the planet); or the lack of Israeli largesse in wishing to improve living conditions there (by permitting hundreds of truck-loads a day and millions of tons of merchandize a year into the enclave).
None of this has done anything to blunt the anti-Israel animus of the regime or ameliorate the living standards of the populace. Clearly, persisting with the same policy will serve little purpose other than continuing to enmesh the fate-stricken residents in their present—and deteriorating—predicament.
Callous indifference
Callous indifference to the fate of the people is not confined to the Hamas regime in Gaza. Indeed, it seems no less characteristic of the Ramallah-based PA itself, willing to inflict grave hardship on the public rather than accept a marginally reduced lower amount, with the sums designated for the terrorist recipients deducted from the overall total.
According to UN reports, Israel plans to withhold $140 million in 2019 – approximately $11.5 million each month – in tax revenues over the terrorist payment issue. The sum Israel is withholding comprises 6% of the total tax revenues it collects for the PA. The overall tax revenues collected by Israel represent 65% of the PA’s budget or 15% of the PA’s entire GDP.
Indeed, after over a quarter of a century of endeavor—backed by munificent international aid and almost universal political endorsement—all the attempt to foist self-governance on the Palestinian-Arabs has achieved is a corrupt kleptocracy under the Abbas-led PA, and an arguably no less corrupt tyrannical theocracy under Hamas in Gaza.
Moreover, the cause of peace between the Jewish state and the Palestinian-Arabs has not been advanced one iota. If anything, quite the opposite!
Accordingly, in light of this abysmal and enduring failure, alternative paradigms must be advanced.
If not Oslo, what? A moral alternative.
One of the options for Israel would be of course to stop collecting the taxes (mainly customs duty on imports) and leave it to the PA to collect them itself. But given the perennial culture of corruption, inadequate infrastructure and widespread tax evasion, the net impact on revenues is likely to be dramatic—and unsustainable in the long run.
Another, more radical, but ultimately more effective alternative would be to use the withheld funds to launch an initiative I have long advocated as the only non-kinetic policy option that can ensure the long term survival of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people: A comprehensive initiative for incentivized emigration of Palestinian-Arabs in which non-belligerent Palestinian-Arab residents would receive generous grants that would allow them to find better, more prosperous and more secure lives elsewhere—free from the clutches of the callous cliques, who have led them into their current plight.
The moral rationale for such a measure is clear and compelling: The tax revenues collected by Israel do not belong to Israel. Accordingly, Israel cannot appropriate the money for its own purposes, but it can offer it to the Palestinian-Arabs who have been utterly failed by their leadership, which clearly has no compunction in inflicting further hardship on them!
How to really relieve the humanitarian crisis
Of course, the tax revenues collected by Israel would comprise only a small fraction of the overall sum required for a numerically significant “evacuation-compensation” plan to resettle sufficient numbers of Palestinian-Arabs in third party countries. But the self-induced collapse of the PA, precipitated by its obstinate insistence to sponsor terror, may well be an auspicious opportunity to launch it.
Indeed, the moral superiority of such an initiative over the Oslowian formula, entailing Palestinian statehood, is unassailable.
After all, nobody—not even the most avid two-state proponent—has ever advanced persuasive reasoning why any prospective Palestinian state would be anything other than (yet another) homophobic, misogynistic, Muslim-majority tyranny, whose hallmarks would be: gender discrimination, persecution of homosexuals, religious intolerance and oppression of political dissidents.
Accordingly, the moral question that must be forced into the discourse is this: Why is offering financial inducements to Jews in Judea-Samaria to evacuate their homes to facilitate the establishment of said homophobic, misogynistic tyranny, which, almost certainly, will become a bastion for Islamist terror, morally acceptable; while the notion of offering financial inducements to Arabs in Judea-Samaria to evacuate their homes to prevent the establishment of such an entity, is considered morally reprehensible?
The way forward should therefore be clear—both in terms of moral merit and practical pragmatism. It must, however, begin with allowing the iniquitous and largely dysfunctional PA to collapse. That is the only measure that will allow the eventual humanitarian plight of the Palestinian-Arabs to be effectively addressed.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Martin Shermanhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Martin Sherman2019-05-02 14:45:122019-05-02 14:45:28Let the Palestinian Authority Collapse
David Kirkpatrick at the New York Times is without a doubt the most deeply dishonest journalist working the Islamic beat today. Kirkpatrick ‘s favorite thing in life seems to be the Muslim Brotherhood. So when there was talk that the Trump administration might designate the Brotherhood a terrorist group, the Times decided to have Kirkpatrick write up an explainer defending the Brotherhood.
And this may be the most bizarre line in that deeply dishonest explainer.
Is the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood terrorist?
No. Even experts critical of the Brotherhood agree that the organization does not meet the criteria for a terrorist group.
Really?
Three experts at the DeSantis hearing on the Brotherhood agreed that it was.
Which experts does Kirkpatrick mean? Who knows. He later cites “historians”, but never clarifies which historians he means.
Experts critical of the Brotherhood have been highly supportive of this move.
“Historians say there has been no evidence since then that the Egyptian Brotherhood, as an organization, has engaged in violence,” Kirkpatrick writes.
Are these nameless historians aware of the assassination of Hisham Barakat and the conviction of Muslim Brotherhood members for that attack?
Since the military takeover of Egypt’s government in 2013, some members of the Brotherhood have broken off to form organizations that carry out acts of violence against the military-backed government.
Two of those groups, Hasm and Liwa al-Thawra, have been designated as terrorist organizations by the United States government.
Kirkpatrick’s argument is that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a terror group, it just keeps generating them, over and over again, as plausible deniability.
But even experts who consider the Muslim Brotherhood sinister say that they have never seen enough evidence to convince a court that it was a terrorist group.
“Suicide attacks represent the highest level of martyrdom, because there are no civilians in Israel.” Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi.
“It is obligatory on all Muslims to resist any possible attack the US might launch against Iran,” Qaradawi said in a 2007 interview. “The U.S. is an enemy of Islam that has already declared war on Islam under the disguise of war on terrorism and provides Israel with unlimited support.”
In September 2004, Qaradawi proclaimed that it was a religious obligation for Muslims to fight U.S. and British troops in Iraq. The communiqué, signed by Qaradawi and 93 other clerics, said that “the Jihad – waging Iraqi people’s resistance to the foreign occupation … is a Shari’a duty incumbent upon anyone belonging to the Muslim nation, within and outside Iraq, who is capable of carrying it out,” and that it was “forbidden for any Muslim to offer support to the occupiers.”
Never enough evidence.
In a statement that aired on Al Jazeera TV in 2009, al-Qaradawi said the Holocaust was a “punishment” for Jews and expressed hope for Muslims to carry out another genocidal campaign in the future.
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2019-05-02 08:29:172021-10-08 01:46:18New York Times Falsely Claims No One Believes Muslim Brotherhood is a Terror Group
“Young people are looking for a deeper conversation than just red-meat talking points,” says Rep. Dan Crenshaw in an exclusive interview with The Daily Signal. The popular Texas Republican, who was elected to the House in 2018, has already made waves, appearing on “Saturday Night Live” last fall. “There is a generational gap … and I’m trying to close that gap,” says Crenshaw, a veteran. Read the full interview, posted below, or listen to it on the podcast:
Or watch the interview:
We also cover these stories on the podcast:
Democratic leaders say they’ve reached preliminary agreement with President Donald Trump to spend $2 trillion on an infrastructure bill.
The streets of Venezuela erupted in clashes as interim president Juan Guaido announced the “final phase” of an uprising against the country’s socialist dictator, Nicolas Maduro.
As the border crisis continues, Trump is changing the rules surrounding asylum.
Rob Bluey: We’re joined at The Daily Signal by Congressman Dan Crenshaw of Texas.
Rep. Dan Crenshaw: How you doing?
Bluey: Congressman, good to be with you.
Crenshaw: Great to be with you guys.
Bluey: I want to begin by just asking you what it’s been like to serve in Congress these past few months? Obviously, a lot of news coming out of Washington. What’s it like to be a freshman coming to the House?
Crenshaw: It’s a little bit like combat, just with less honesty. That’s what it’s like. I didn’t come into this naïve, I didn’t come into this with any idealistic expectations. I know how Congress is supposed to work and it’s supposed to be somewhat dysfunctional. It’s not supposed to be easy to get representatives from 50 different states to come together and agree on really substantive issues.
It never has been easy, but it is divisive. There’s a lot of games being played, a lot of virtue-signaling happening that I think is unfortunate, and just really gets in the way of …
It’s fine if we don’t agree and we don’t get things done, but let’s at least have a real debate about those things, and that’s what’s lacking, unfortunately. It doesn’t appear to happen in committee. Most of the bills that we’ve seen come to the floor don’t really go through any kind of committee … they don’t really go through a debate in any real way that normal Americans would think it would.
And it’s unfortunate because the result is really nothing gets done. You’re seeing bills come out of the House that have no chance of getting through the Senate, and they know that, so what’s the point?
A lot of Democrats ran saying that they wanted to run to get things done and they don’t care about party, and you hear that kind of rhetoric all the time from the more moderate Democrats, but, in practice, it turns out not to be true at all. They have no intention of working with us.
Bluey: You have such a remarkable story in your own life. Tell us why you chose to run for Congress.
Crenshaw: Well, I never wanted to leave the military, so I got to back up a few steps to help people understand how this came to be. I was wounded in 2012 and I ended up leaving the military in 2016, so for those four years, I was fighting the Defense Department pretty hard to not leave. I wanted a medical waiver, I wanted to keep deploying, and I did go overseas a couple more times, actually, back to the Middle East and in Korea.
Eventually, I just had to be medically retired, late 2016, and I wanted to stay in public service. And I went to the Harvard Kennedy School, I did my masters there, with an eye, so to speak, on some kind of public service, probably national security related, and I almost went that direction. And then Ted Poe, Congressman Ted Poe announced retirement in my district and we just decided overnight to go for it.
Because in the end, it’s about impact. How many different policies can you impact? You can go into the policy world, per se, but you’re very narrowly focused on something if you’re doing that and a lot of people, that’s what they want to do. I cared about a lot of different issues and I wanted to make an impact on all those issues, and in order to make that impact, you need to be in public office. You need to be an elected official.
So we went for it, and we knew why we were running. I was running because I wanted to give conservatives a future, because I worry about that quite a bit, especially with our generation, and that was the message we told people and it worked.
Bluey: Let’s talk about some of those issues that you want to have an impact on. Obviously, being from Texas, immigration is a big issue. I know you’ve talked about spending and health care. If you could pick three of the top issues that you’re really focused on in Congress, what are your priorities?
Crenshaw: My priorities campaigning have remained the same. It’s flooding issues in Houston, so these are not national issues, necessarily, but this is a very big issue for Houston. What does that translate into, in a more national conversation? It’s infrastructure, it’s maybe the way we do disaster relief funding, so these are not really partisan issues, luckily.
If there was just one thing that Democrats and Republicans generally agree on, it’s we want to streamline that system and build out our infrastructure to be better prepared for natural disasters and there’s some very specific things in Houston that we need to do, so that’s a big focus.
Border security’s a huge focus. That was something we ran on, of course. The Rio Grande Valley in Texas is the No. 1 crossing area for illegal immigrants right now, and it’s only getting worse.
On the southern border, we’re seeing 3,000 illegal crossings a day. Those are just the apprehensions, by the way, and Border Patrol generally estimates that they maybe catch 1 in 3, so you can triple that number. And this is crisis-level numbers. We can’t possibly sustain this.
This is fundamentally about whether it’s fair to cut in front of the line. And I think that’s how conservatives need to make this argument. I think we’ve been making the argument in a very poor way for the last couple years and I think that’s why we’ve effectively lost this debate, unfortunately.
Our argument needs to be this. This is unsustainable, we can’t afford it, we can’t absorb this many people at one time, we can’t afford it in our school systems, our hospitals, or our court and law enforcement costs, and it’s not fair.
It’s not moral to legal immigrants. We should want to have legal immigrants. And if we want to have a conversation about even raising quotas for legal immigration, let’s have that debate. That’s a fair debate to have, it usually is, and there’s a lot of good arguments to suggest we need better skilled workers coming into this country in the medium and high school ranges.
But instead of having those debates, we have Democrats that simply want … I mean, at this point, cynically, I have to suggest that they simply want people coming across. Because every argument they give me only leads to that conclusion.
I didn’t always believe that, but after seeing this debate play out, I unfortunately do. So we’ve got to get a handle on our immigration system, and that includes physical infrastructure, it includes reforming our asylum process and how we go through that. That would have an immediate effect. We need to implement that as soon as possible.
Aside from those two issues, I’m on the Budget Committee, so I’m concerned greatly about the debt and what causes that debt. The debates that happen in Congress right now are … It would surprise most people here and all of your viewers, but we actually debate what causes the debt.
So Democrats think it’s tax cuts, we think it’s spending. And I think we have all the numbers on our side to suggest that it’s mandatory spending that truly drives the debt, and it’s health care costs and Social Security and whatnot because it’s 70% of our spending.
They think that history began two years ago and that the tax cuts created a giant debt, which is just fundamentally false, on a mathematical level and a conceptual level, but that’s the debate we have, so that’s what we’re fighting out.
Bluey: Thank you for fighting on those issues. I want to go back to immigration for a moment, because you told a story recently on Sebastian Gorka’s radio program about an 18-year-old woman who came to you and I was hoping that you could share that experience with our listeners because it profoundly impacted me, in terms of the way I think about it, and I’m not sure that people necessarily recognize the scope of the problem. Can you share that?
Crenshaw: Before I tell that story, let’s give everybody the framework of how to understand that story and it is this: Our immigration system incentivizes you to bring a child across. If you don’t bring a child across, if you’re a single adult, there’s a good chance we can quickly adjudicate you and deport you. Our system works OK for single adults.
It doesn’t work OK when you have a child with you. Our system breaks down at that point, that’s where catch and release happens. This truth catches on, eventually, and everybody realizes that they should bring children across. OK, what if you don’t have an actual child? Well, then they find a child. OK, so now it results in child trafficking and Border Patrol will see the same kids recycled with different adults on the border all the time.
And again, it goes back to also that it’s fundamentally immoral and unfair to be able to use this loophole to cut in front of the line, but it incentivizes child trafficking in pretty terrible ways and who are they paying? It’s the drug cartels. They have operational control of the border.
So that’s the framework. And so this particular woman, she was saved by a nonprofit organization that does sting operations and works with law enforcement and actually saves these kids all around the world. It’s really incredible what they do. And they brought her in to tell her story and she was 18, but she was brought to the United States when she was 13.
She was told by these traffickers that they would give her a better life, make her a princess in the United States. She didn’t have a great home life in Mexico and they get her across on their third try. Because the first two times, they were turned back. Third time, as she talks about it, they could just walk her across.
And again, a wall seems so simplistic and so medieval, as the Democrats like to say, but it does work. If there’s a wall there, you won’t just walk across and maybe you’ll go where there’s no wall, but you’ll get caught by Border Patrol and they can at least distinguish—because they have methods of doing this—”OK, are you really a parent or are you not?” And they will separate them if they believe that they’re being trafficked.
But when there’s nothing there, traffickers can just walk these children across and then they send her to New York. And for five years, she was basically raped, every single day, as a slave.
Eventually, she was able to devise a plan to escape and put those traffickers in jail. And I think that case is ongoing, but it’s just heartbreaking to hear that and what the people of good intentions don’t want to believe is that our system incentivizes it. Their good intentions directly incentivize this terrible, terrible behavior and it’s the saddest story you could imagine.
Bluey: It is a tragic story and I thank you for sharing it with us, though, so we can better understand the consequences of what’s going on.
You spoke earlier about the importance of the future of conservatism and you yourself have been able to serve as an inspiration for a lot of young people.
You have prolific social media accounts and your message spreads virally in many different ways. What is it about that that you think has caught on, particularly with younger people?
Crenshaw: Young people are looking for a deeper conversation than just red-meat talking points. That should be very obvious. They want to know why you believe what you believe and I think too many conservatives have gotten too comfortable just spewing the talking points. “Limited government and constitutionalism.” Great. What does that mean? Where did it come from?
Young people are hungry to hear that and so I like to talk about the cultural narratives that lead to the constitutional principles that we had and young people are willing to hear that.
They want to feel like they’re informed, they want to feel like they’re getting a little bit more information than the usual talking points. They want to be independent-minded and they’ll say this often, right? Most young people still identify as independents and they have their mantras of fiscally conservative, socially liberal.
That’s what they’re comfortable in right now, which gives us an opening. It gives us an opening to talk to them and we just have to do it. And we have to do it in their language, also.
So there is a generational gap, I think, and I’m trying to close that gap. And so it’s easy for me to talk to people in their 20s, because I’m close to their age, I grew up with them.
It’s not a lot more complicated than just engaging and going to college campuses and high schools and simply engaging and helping people understand why you came to believe what you believe. That is huge because then maybe they’ll find something they can relate with, so it’s telling a story.
Bluey: And one of the ways that you did engage and relate to people was through “Saturday Night Live,” of course.
“Saturday Night Live,” for those who might not know, while I’m sure many do, poked fun of you in an episode, and then a week later, you chose to show up and go on. Take us back to that moment and why you decided to do it the way you did.
Crenshaw: It was a perfect opportunity because they went far enough to make everybody outraged, but … it was also clear that it was a bit of a misstep.
So we can have space for those missteps and that’s where we get confused sometimes in the public debate because I’ll get slammed, because I’ll criticize somebody, and they’ll say, “I thought you were forgiving.” I’m like, “Well, no, they meant it.” Yeah, I still criticize words. What I don’t do is criticize the intent or character of somebody and that’s the place we need to get to.
And it was not clear that they truly wanted to attack my character. Maybe you could argue they did, but they did call us gross people and then list us, but was I really offended by it, was the question. Is it even possible for me to be offended? You should hear the kind of jokes that we tell on the SEAL teams, … these go far beyond any normal sense of humor. We have very thick skin.
I just wanted to take that moment to say, “We don’t always have to be offended.” We can say it was wrong or we can say you shouldn’t have said that, it wasn’t even funny, but I don’t have to be outraged, I don’t have to be a victim. And that was the place I was trying to get to and it just ended up being a lot of fun.
And it gets to another way to reach people and this is the more shallow … So I gave you the deeper answer before, and the more shallow answer is it’d just be fun and cool. That’s it. Then you will reach a lot of people that way. If they can see something of themselves in you, then they might want to hear some of the deeper ideas that you have.
We forget about how important that is, to engage in pop culture.
Bluey: Absolutely, it’s so important. I want to ask you, finally, you yourself have certainly gained a lot of attention as a Republican member of Congress, but there are those on the other side of the aisle who have gained a lot of attention as well—Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar. What’s it like to be in that class, with some of these other people, who almost on a daily basis it seems are front and center in the headlines?
Crenshaw: At first it was sort of funny. Now it’s getting worse. It’s just the truth, it’s becoming more divisive, as they seem to get angrier and angrier and angrier and almost everything that comes out of their mouth is really taking shots at somebody, oftentimes me.
So I’m not sure where to go from there. It’s just getting to this point where I think, try to ignore them as much as possible, unless they’re saying something that I think truly needs to be addressed. But what’s it like? Geez. It’s interesting.
A lot of this plays out in the public sphere. It doesn’t really play out behind closed doors. Again, we don’t really get to debate each other on the House floor or in a committee. Even if we’re in the same committee, and Omar and I are on the Budget Committee, but during a hearing, she’ll only show up when she’s asking questions. And vice versa. All of us are coming in and out. There is not this debate that happens. You almost wish there was, and maybe a lot of people think there is, but very often there isn’t, and people need to understand that.
You’re more debating the people giving a witness testimony. So the only time that we actually interact is on social media because there isn’t another opportunity to really do it. And this is a debate of ideas.
People can be upset about that, but it’s kind of our job, to go up there and publicly debate ideas and do your best not to do ad hominem attacks. And I never have. We get ad hominem attacks all the time because what’s the single line if they disagree with you? You’re a racist, bigot, homophobe, right?
And that’s the wrong way to debate, and I think that undermines their argument in the long run and we just have to keep debating ideas, telling people why we have the right ideas, and stand strong on that.
Bluey: Thank you for keeping the focus on ideas. Thanks for also sharing the insider’s perspective, as a new member of Congress. We appreciate your being with The Daily Signal.
Crenshaw: Thank you. Great to be with you.
Bluey: Congressman Dan Crenshaw, everyone. Thank you very much.
Rob Bluey is executive editor of The Daily Signal, the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. Send an email to Rob. Twitter: @RobertBluey.
Dear Readers:
With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal podcast, video and column are republished with permission.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2019-05-01 06:17:592019-05-01 06:17:59VIDEO: This Popular Lawmaker Explains How to Talk About Conservatism With Next Generation
Several people sent me this storyfrom The Atlantic about a new computer program that is being tested by the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Societyto determine which American town or city could be the most hospitable to a third worlder arriving in the U.S.
I’m posting it just so you know about it and especially for those of you who came over from Refugee Resettlement Watch and have told me you miss news about refugees.
Before I give you a few snips from the story, you need to know that at present the nine federal resettlement contractors meet on a regular basis in the Washington, DC area and divide up the incoming cases. One long-time observer refers to the process as “bidding for bodies.”
I would love to be a fly on the wall watching the process because, at the present time, the Trump Administration has drastically reduced the incoming refugee flow and so I suspect there is some squabbling among the ‘humanitarian’ agencies for those few paying customers. (For newbies, refugee contractors are paid by the feds on a per refugee head basis.)
I see some pitfalls in the system described inThe Atlanticstory. But, first, here is a bit of it,
How Technology Could Revolutionize Refugee Resettlement
For nearly 70 years, the process of interviewing, allocating, and accepting refugees has gone largely unchanged. In 1951, 145 countries came together in Geneva, Switzerland, to sign the Refugee Convention, the pact that defines who is a refugee, what refugees’ rights are, and what legal obligations states have to protect them.
This process was born of the idealism of the postwar years—an attempt to make certain that those fleeing war or persecution could find safety so that horrific moments in history, such as the Holocaust, didn’t recur. The pact may have been far from perfect, but in successive years, it was a lifeline to Afghans, Bosnians, Kurds, and others displaced by conflict.
The world is a much different place now, though. The rise of populism has brought with it a concomitant hostility toward immigrants in general and refugees in particular.
Does it make you feel better that a computer algorithm will decide if your town or city will be a resettlement site?
Annie’s algorithm is based on a machine learning model in which a computer is fed huge piles of data from past placements, so that the program can refine its future recommendations. The system examines a series of variables—physical ailments, age, levels of education and languages spoken, for example—related to each refugee case. In other words, the software uses previous outcomes and current constraints to recommend where a refugee is most likely to succeed. Every city where HIAS has an office or an affiliate is given a score for each refugee. The higher the score, the better the match.
This is a drastic departure from how refugees are typically resettled. Each week, HIAS and the eight other agencies that allocate refugees in the United States make their decisions based largely on local capacity, with limited emphasis on individual characteristics or needs.
Too funny! Refugee workers fear being replaced by technology! (Maybe this is the only good news in this story!)
There is concern that, as Annie and similar tools improve, an algorithm will take over a critical task—placing refugees—that a human is now performing. Officials at HIAS and the programmers who developed the software told me they were aware of those fears. Their solution: Annie will only ever make suggestions; Monken and her colleagues at HIAS make the final decision.
What they are not telling you is that much consideration has been given in recent years to place refugees (without notice) into unsuspecting communities (and states) as the Leftwing resettlement contractors (like HIAS) seek to diversify white American towns.
So I can see some resistance coming within their own ranks to a program that presumably is based on job availability, housing capacity, and a ‘welcoming’ environment all to benefit refugees as criteria for algorithms for ‘Annie.’
Although I suppose it is possible that ‘Annie’ has built-in bias toward towns in need of a dose of diversity (as determined by the Libs!). Oh joy! Artificial Intelligence picking your neighbors!
I don’t have the time to address every point made in this article, but here, as I see it, is the largest impediment to their theory—-refugees move!
And, they are free to move in America.
Oftentimes they move within months of placement (called secondary migration) because they want to be near others of their own kind—their own nationality or religion—and are thus forming ethnic enclaves in various parts of the country.
Or, they learn about a new meatpacking plant opening up in the next state and they move for the jobs. Sometimes they hear that welfare is more generous in another state and move to take advantage of those social service benefits.
The Dems are always yapping about democracy (except when it comes to who decides about the demographic makeup of neighborhoods!)
Personally, if we must take refugees, I would like to see a system where the local community gets a say about refugees being placed in their town or city through an open forum process and let the citizens who live there decide how ‘welcoming’ they wish to be.
As it stands, the nine contractors (with or without ‘Annie’) are deciding on what kind of future your town will have! And, frankly that is patently unfair.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2019-05-01 05:36:422019-05-01 05:38:04Computer Program Dubbed ‘Annie’ Making Decisions about Refugee Placement (so we are told!)
Gallup recently released an interesting report discussing the erosion of attendance and membership in organized religion. They claim membership in churches, synagogues, and mosques has reached a new low, 50%. From 1938 to 1999, membership averaged 70%, but since then it has steadily declined to its current level. This helps explain why so many institutions are suffering financially and being forced to make dramatic changes, such as selling their building, terminating leaders and staff, mergers and consolidations, etc. Interestingly, the same can be said for other nonprofits, such as fraternal, civic, trade groups, and amateur sports institutions. Most, if not all, are experiencing a decline.
The downsizing of membership in organized religion is interesting as there are political ramifications in play. According to the Gallup report, Republicans show a modest decline in terms of membership, dropping from 77% to 69%. However, Democrats showed a more dramatic decline, going from 71% to 48%.
Why the significant drop in membership? Some people theorize religion has become synonymous with the Republican party and, as such, do not want to be associated with such values. I believe it goes well beyond this though. As the Democrats have become more radically liberal, thereby embracing Socialism, there is a natural inclination to avoid religion and abandon God. This explains why moderate Democrats are leaving the party and are either voting independently or switching over to the Republican party as they do not want to see their religion ridiculed by the far Left. Let us not forget, there have been efforts in the last few Democrat conventions to eliminate “God” from the wording of the party platform.
In particular, Christianity has been in the cross-hairs of radical Democrats for a long time, and still is to this day. To illustrate, the San Antonio City Council, controlled by Democrats, recently banned the popular Chick-fil-A restaurant from opening a new store in the city’s airport. Although the company was originally included in the plans, they were forced out apparently for their charitable donations to Christian groups who allegedly are anti-LGBTQ. According to a USA Today report, San Antonio Councilman Manny Pelaez (D) even went so far as to “lambaste, denigrate, and openly mock the otherwise upstanding corporate citizen of Chick-fil-A.” Further, “He described Chick-fil-A as a ‘symbol of hate’ because it has donated to religious charities that he considered to oppose LGBTQ rights.” All of this has resulted in a request for an investigation into the City Council’s decision based on religious discrimination.
As another instance, former President Barack Obama and Sec. Hillary Clinton, recently commented on the bomb attacks in Sri Lanka on Easter Sunday, by referring to the victims as “Easter worshippers” and not “Christians.” The snub was subtle, but significant in that it reflects the attitude by the Democrats to disrespect Christianity.
In a related story, it was recently announced the New York Yankees and Philadelphia Flyers will no longer play Kate Smith’s rendition of the Irving Berlin classic, “God Bless America,” a time-honored patriotic song, claiming Smith was a racist. Please remember Kate Smith was the woman President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (a Democrat) introduced to Winston Churchill years ago as “Mrs. America.” Smith was also the recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom for her singing during World War II. In other words, something smells fishy here; is it the singer or the song on trial here? I suspect the latter.
It is perfectly obvious the Democrats are rebelling against the 4-C’s of Republicanism:
Christianity – Not only are they abandoning church, they are working to subvert it because of the moral values involved. The truth is, they are jealous of Christians in terms of what they have accomplished through their work ethic and benevolence.
Capitalism – They are trying to replace it with Socialism in order to expand government control and create dependencies (aka, “Master/Slave” relationship). Democrats have abandoned the concept of “earning a living,” preferring entitlements instead.
Constitution – They have made numerous attempts to undermine our governing document as it is perceived as an antiquated encumbrance against the Democrat agenda. This is why they wish to eliminate the Electoral College, change the makeup of the Supreme Court, implement gun control, and other changes to our Bill of Rights.
Conservative values – These are values developed over the country’s history and includes such things as love of country (patriotism), citizenship, reverence for family, belief in deity, being a good neighbor, lending a helping hand, etc. Instead, the Democrats have developed a set of moral values diametrically opposed to conservatives in an attempt to redefine history, government, freedoms and rights. According to Gallop polls in 2017 and 2018, liberal positions have led to a sharp decline in morality in the country as we know it today. This is greatly assisted by the entertainment and news media who no longer feel restrained from promoting liberal values and demeaning those of conservatives.
So, in terms of organized religion, the Democrats are rapidly becoming the anti-God party as it doesn’t fit in with their political agenda. Whereas the United States used to be considered one of the most religious countries in the world, it’s ranking has slipped due to the departure of the Democrats. Again, this will likely cause our sense of morality to continue to stumble and fall.
The refutation of the 4-C’s represents a rejection of the traditional values of the country. It ultimately represents a radical re-definition and implementation of America, one where liberty is steadfastly controlled by government. Yes, it is all about “control.”
EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right podcast and column is republished with permission. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Tim Brycehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngTim Bryce2019-04-30 07:40:252019-05-02 06:56:34PODCAST: Why Are Democrats Abandoning Religion?
President Donald Trump on Monday called the New York state attorney general’s newly announced probe of the National Rifle Association illegal, and an expert on laws regarding nonprofits contends that the probe is at minimum improper.
Trump said it was a concerted effort to “take down and destroy” the NRA.
“When a state attorney general uses the power vested in the attorney general’s office to improperly use [it] against organizations for political purposes, it could be illegal,” Cleta Mitchell, a Washington lawyer who advises nonprofits and was co-counsel to the NRA in a 2002 Supreme Court case, told The Daily Signal.
“The NRA, in court, would have a good predicate to argue political bias against the organization to show that hostility toward the organization’s existence,” Mitchell said.
Over the weekend, the attorney general’s office announced it commenced an investigation into the NRA’s nonprofit status and would be subpoenaing financial records.
The announcement came in the midst of turmoil in the organization, after the NRA ousted Oliver North as president in what became a public dispute between North and NRA Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre. North reportedly said he was forced out because he alleged financial improprieties.
New York state has taken separate action against the finances of Carry Guard, the NRA’s branded insurance program.
Even the liberal American Civil Liberties Union filed a brief on behalf of the NRA last year that argued New York “indisputably targeted the NRA and similar groups based on their ‘gun promotion’ advocacy.”
The ACLU brief continued: “It is important to note that, however controversial it may be, ‘gun promotion’ is core political speech, entitled to the same constitutional protection as speech advocating for reproductive rights, marijuana legalization, or financial deregulation.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James pledged as a Democratic candidate for the office to “use the constitutional power as an attorney general to regulate charities, that includes the NRA, to investigate their legitimacy,” it noted.
The new probe could be entirely legitimate, but it faces questions because of New York’s past actions, said Amy Swearer, a senior legal policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation.
“State AGs certainly have a duty to investigate credible allegations of financial misconduct by nonprofits incorporated in their states,” Swearer told The Daily Signal. “At this point, it’s unclear what evidence exists that might threaten the NRA’s nonprofit status, but this type of investigation is not in and of itself unlawful.”
She continued:
Unfortunately, as the president alluded, New York has a long history of taking actions against the NRA to silence the organization’s pro-Second Amendment voice, and even the ACLU has come to the NRA’s defense over recent unconstitutional attempts by New York to stifle the organization financially.
Because of the state’s history of taking unconstitutional and bad-faith actions against the NRA, a dark cloud of suspicion will justifiably continue to hang over what might otherwise be a justified and good-faith investigation.
The NRA is clearly working through some internal problems, and the president is right to suggest that this distracts the organization from what it does best—working to strengthen the Second Amendment against those who would rather destroy its protections.
Trump tweeted on Monday that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the attorney general “are illegally using the state’s legal apparatus to take down and destroy this very important organization.”
The president said the NRA “must get its act together quickly, stop the internal fighting.”
An NRA spokesman did not respond to phone and email inquiries for this article.
The New York attorney general’s office responded to the president Monday.
“Attorney General Letitia James is focused on enforcing the rule of law. In any case we pursue, we will follow the facts wherever they may lead,” the office said in a public statement. “We wish the president would share our respect for the law.”
The New York attorney general’s office has subpoenaed banks for financial records related to the Trump Organization, the president’s business, and is suing the Trump Foundation charity.
“This is the same office that has gone after the Trump Foundation,” Mitchell said. “The attorney general obviously has a pattern and practice of going after an organization it does not like.”
With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2019-04-30 06:05:482019-04-30 06:05:48New York Is Illegally Targeting the NRA, Trump Says
After the horrific mass murder of 50 Muslim worshippers in Christchurch, New Zealand, there was widespread coverage and a torrent of mainstream news networks contemplating the threat of white supremacy.
These conversations, completely reasonable and necessary in the face of violent attacks from a racist gunman, soon began deteriorating into politically motivated and specious claims contending that “white supremacy” had become the predominate terror threat in the world.
Well, the coordinated bomb blasts aimed at Christian worshippers on Easter Sunday, which killed at least 290 people and injured hundreds more, demonstrates the kind of meticulous planning, funding, resources, and support that is still exclusively the domain of radical Islamic terrorism.
It’s not merely that the act was planned to maximize the death toll, but that it is a continuation of long-standing efforts by Islamists to destroy the Christian communities left in Asia.
Those who kill in the name of Islam are part of a worldwide, historic, ideological, and political movement that includes, to various degrees and various reasons, radicalized men and women from both great factions of the faith.
Then again, terrorist groups—as well as their recruitment and propaganda outfits—are often functioning in Islamic regimes, which either actively sustain terror, tolerate these groups, or pay them off to engage in terrorism elsewhere.
The Christians who remain in the Islamic world are often oppressed in other ways. In a number of these nations, publicly praying in any faith but Islam is forbidden and, in many, converting to Christianity is still punishable by death.
“Islamic extremism remains the global, dominant driver of persecution, responsible for initiating oppression and conflict in 35 of the 50 countries on the list,” according to Open Doors, a worldwide Christian group.
The idea that a similar threat exists in the West is risible. There’s not a single Western country that doesn’t afford Muslim citizens the same rights it does as all other citizens. No government on Earth supports white supremacy.
There is no funding infrastructure for those who support white power. There is no Christian or Jewish denomination, or any notable political factions, in those nations that imbue white supremacy with any theological or ideological legitimacy. There is no white supremacist government trying to obtain nuclear weapons, and none sending its terrorists to other countries. In the world’s free nations, where any political party can participate in the process, the power of racist groups is minimal.
Yet the American left continues to downplay the danger, first by arguing that Islam has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism, and then by lumping every white-skinned person who commits a terrorist act into one imaginary coherent political movement to contrast against it.
It’s true that Americans have been spared much Islamic terror since 2002—a year that, curiously, nearly every graph media uses to measure domestic terrorism starts—but only because we’ve spent billions of dollars each year and immense resources, both in lives and treasure, keeping it out of the country and fighting it abroad.
Another reason the majority of Americans might not comprehend Islamic radicalism’s reach is the skewed intensity of the media coverage. Political correctness and a chilling fear of being labeled “Islamophobic” makes it difficult to honestly report on terrorism around the world.
In addition to the massacre this Easter in Sri Lanka, at least 200 Christian civilians have been murdered in Africa by Islamic militants thus far in 2019—many of them killed by machete, some by bombings. Many more Christians have been murdered during the past calendar year.
In November 2018, for example, 42 people were slaughtered in an attack on a Catholic mission in the Central African Republic. In October, 55 Christians were murdered by a group of Islamists in Nigeria. Another 29 were killed when 10 churches were burned down in Ethiopia last summer. Another seven Coptic Christians were gunned down in Egypt—and others spared only because of the good work of police.
There are pockets of racists in the world, and individuals who engage in terrible acts of violence against innocent people. These are dangerous men, capable of doing tremendous damage. But no group threatens global peace the same way that political Islam does. None has its reach or material and theological support. None has created more mayhem and death in the world since the end of the Cold War. The Sri Lankan massacre is just another harrowing reminder.
With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
