U.S. Church Leader: ‘We Don’t Get Political Around Here’

We challenge the typical American church. Politics and God are inextricably linked.

Washington’s Convenient Relationships with Dictators by Ted Galen Carpenter

US leaders routinely emphasize that America’s foreign policy is based on support for the expansion of freedom around the world. But as I point out in a recent article in the National Interest Online, Washington’s behavior frequently does not match the idealistic rhetoric. Too often, US policymakers seem to favor even brutal and corrupt authoritarian allies over boisterous, unpredictable democratic regimes.

During the Cold War, US administrations enthusiastically embraced “friendly” autocratic governments in such places as South Korea and the Philippines—even when there were viable democratic alternatives. Because it was uncertain whether democratic governments would be as cooperative with US foreign policy aims, officials preferred dealing with more compliant autocrats. Worse, US leaders repeatedly misrepresented such allies to the American people as noble members of the “free world.”

The tendency was especially pronounced in the Middle East, and that cynical policy has persisted longer there than in other regions. It began early, as the US Central Intelligence Agency helped overthrow Iran’s elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, in 1953 and restore the Shah to power as an unconstrained monarch. The Shah became America’s chosen Persian Gulf gendarme for the next quarter century, despite the regime’s appalling human rights record and pervasive corruption. Elsewhere in the region, Washington developed a cozy relationship with Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak that lasted three decades, even as he and his military cronies looted and brutalized that unhappy country.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration seems just as hypocritical as its predecessors when it comes to relations with Egypt and other Middle East countries. US leaders were reluctant to cut Mubarak loose even as pro-democracy demonstrations surged throughout Egypt in 2011.  In a PBS interview, Vice President Joe Biden even objected to describing Mubarak as a dictator and rejected calls for him to step down. 

Similar sentiments were evident after General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi led a coup against Egypt’s first elected president, Mohammed Morsi. Obama administration officials steadfastly refused even to describe the action as a coup. Not only has Washington continued to lavish weaponry on Egypt’s military, it has ignored mounting evidence of egregious human rights abuses by the Sisi regime. And as with respect to Mubarak, US officials pretend that Sisi is not a dictator, even though he became “president” through a blatantly rigged election that gave him more than 96 percent of the vote. American leaders used to scorn the results of such phony elections in communist countries, but they chose to view the farce in Egypt as progress toward a mature democratic system.

Hatred of hypocrisy is an emotion that tends to occur throughout very different cultures. US leaders do not help America’s reputation when they profess a commitment to freedom and democracy while they fawn over such allies as thuggish Egyptian dictators and the odious Saudi royal family. Victims of oppression were unlikely to take Washington’s alleged dedication to liberty seriously when they saw President George W. Bush strolling through the fields of his Texas ranch hand in hand with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah as though they were intimate friends.

Washington needs to walk the walk as well as talk the talk when it comes to supporting freedom as a key component of its foreign policy. It should at least stop undermining balky democratic regimes and embracing thuggish autocracies.

This post first appeared at Cato.org.

The Anchor Baby Tale is One Big Myth

blog_anchor_babiesLately the media has made a huge issue of immigration, especially illegal immigration and the whole Anchor Baby issue. This is only because Donald Trump has opened his big mouth numerous times on the subject and forced the other Republican Candidates for President to react and comment.  Often with the same fiery, hard line positions as Trump has espoused.

Let me first say that I am not against legal immigration. In fact, most Conservatives are not against legal immigration. We welcome LEGAL immigration. The simple fact is when it comes to the population of the Western Hemisphere, we are all immigrants including the Native Americans that were here before Europeans and others showed up. The USA is a beacon of hope around the world.  We stand for truth, justice, and a better way of life.  In short, America stands for opportunity and just about everyone on this planet knows that and this is why we have people from nearly every nation on earth living within our borders.  We are a great melting pot and we give those who are willing to work hard and work smart, the chance at a better life. They can even get rich if they so choose to.

I truly believe that America is humanity’s last hope for freedom and survival because we enjoy freedoms here that many around the world can only dream about.  We enjoy such freedom and opportunity that some people will try to subvert the very nation they wish to live and grow within. Those kinds of people are what we rightly call illegal immigrants or illegal alien and this is a huge problem because it is costing the legal citizens, the taxpayer a lot of money on an annual basis.  We are spending billions of tax dollars everywhere in our society, from local government, all the way up to the Federal Government level.

The truth is, we have lots of laws on the books currently to take care of this problem but we have a government that will not enforce those laws.  In fact, we have a Federal Government that even actively seeks to prevent local and state governments from enforcing the immigration laws.  We don’t need to change or add more laws.  We don’t need to give illegal immigrants a pathway to legal citizenship.  We don’t need to overhaul our immigration system because all’s we need to do is enforce the current plethora of laws already on the books that covers immigration into the USA.

We should not allow the so-called Anchor Baby method of getting into the USA on a legal basis.  In fact, the Republicans who are speaking out against this are on the right track.  Even the Constitution really states that you must come into the USA legally in order to have citizenship bestowed upon them or their children.  We are one of less than 5 nations on the entire planet that allows for this Anchor Baby scam.  And yes it is a scam.  A scam perpetrated by people illegally entering our nation for the purpose of making sure that their unborn child is born north of the Rio Grande River.

Oh, we have heard that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution allows for Anchor Babies.  Actually, if one READS that Amendment and the entire Constitution as well as the letters and speeches from the person who actually wrote the 14th Amendment, you would see and understand that this particular Amendment does not allow for Anchor Babies.  And even though the left leaning media keeps saying that there are lots of cases, including the Supreme Court ruling that “Anchor Babies” is the law of the land, it is not true because there are no major court cases that take this into account.

None.

The truth is that the Constitution including the 14th Amendment, states that the Congress shall be the sole determiner of who is a citizen and how people can become citizens.  We have a legal mechanism by which people can enter this nation legally, work legally, and become citizens legally.  Rhetoric is not a law, rhetoric is not a policy, and rhetoric is not the Constitution.  Rhetoric is nothing more than feelings and feelings have no merit when it comes to the law of the land. So is Donald Trump and some of the other Republican candidates correct?  Yes they are.  And it is pretty simple to fix our current immigration problems.  Build the border fence/wall which has already been approved because that will drastically cut down on the illegal invasion of our nation.  Then we need to find every single person here illegally and send them back to their home country. And if someone commits a crime within our nation, they get kicked out of this country and are banned for life from ever returning and if they return they shall face harsh penalty.  Just like other nation’s do.  And contrary to what some on the left claim, we can find them.  In fact we know who and where many of them are already.

In the end, this sort of hard line policy will cost the American taxpayer less money.  It will make our nation and our citizens safer from all kinds of foreign threats and criminals and it will allow for a more robust economy because jobs will not have this downward wage pressure due to illegals getting jobs at below market prices.  A strong, legal, and robust immigration policy can be a boon to the United States again just like it was not so long ago.  But instead we have politicians and leaders and statesmen who will not do the right thing and protect the Constitution and the American People.

Do we really need comprehensive reform to do that?  Of course not.  All we have to do is follow the Constitution and the immigration laws already on the books.

A Genocidal Obsession Against America and Israel

Certainly you read about the six-year-old from Colorado Springs who got suspended from school for sexual harassment, specifically for kissing his little classmate on the hand.  It was his second suspension, the first for kissing the same little girl on the cheek when he was five.

Think of what “the authorities” would have done to this menace if he had told his teacher he hated her, or worse, that he wished she were dead. Permanent exile? Reform school? Mandatory psychotherapy? Banishment to Siberia?

The point is that this child’s totally benign, even sweet, behavior was taken with dead seriousness by the [idiotic] powers-that-be, and if he had verbalized any angry feelings, you know the punishment would have been even more draconian.

Contrast this with the behavior of the man who occupies the Oval Office when listening over the past decades to the bellicose chants of the mad mullahs in Iran––“Death to America, Death to Israel”––with the man who apparently thinks it’s okay for Israel’s enemies today to chant: “Israel must be obliterated!”

For this man, Barack Obama, no problem.

In fact in an interview in The Atlantic in May, writer Jeffrey Goldberg asked Mr. Obama how he squares his admission that the Iranian regime represents “venomous anti-Semitism” with his eagerness to sell them nukes, Obama––incredulously––responded in the following way:

“Well the fact that you are anti-Semitic, or racist, doesn’t preclude you from being interested in survival. It doesn’t preclude you from being rational about the need to keep your economy afloat; it doesn’t preclude you from making strategic decisions about how you stay in power; and so the fact that the supreme leader is anti-Semitic doesn’t mean that this overrides all of his other considerations.”

Uh huh. And it clearly doesn’t preclude Iran from carrying out a nuclear attack on a state and a people that has obsessed this lowly species of “clerics” for a lifetime of all-consuming hatred. The same self-interests didn’t stop Hitler! But Mr. Obama knows all this.

He is acutely aware that just this week, Iranian, ahem, “Supreme Leader,” Ali Khamenei, called for the destruction of the “barbaric, wolf-like and infanticidal regime of Israel” and the dispersal of the Jews who had emigrated to Israel from some other place.

But so obsessed is Mr. Obama with helping the chief purveyor of terrorism in the entire world gain a fast-track to nuclear bombs that he and his laughably impotent Secretary of State, John Kerry, caved on virtually every issue––on more than 12 key issues, also listed here ––that might have kept both America and Israel if not safe, than safer.

Then we learn of secret talks in which the Obama regime agreed and approved––in 2011, no less, behind the backs of every American––that Iran had a “right” to operate a nuclear program.

Of course, sane people pushed back immediately on Obama’s genocidal agreement. Within weeks, a majority of Americans of every political affiliation rejected the deal, as did every Republican member of the House and Senate––and also increasing numbers of Democrats.

Again, Obama showed the sentiments he simply can’t conceal, using all the anti-Semitic code words  that Jews have heard for centuries. His words “dredge up the [forgery of] “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” said the esteemed political science professor and Ford Foundation fellowship recipient Abraham Ben-Zvi of Haifa University––accusations about Jewish “money” and “lobbyists” opposing the Iran deal, all of which dredge up the toxic canard of dual loyalty.

In the news at the same time that the deadly deal with Iran was struck was an announcement that a Manhattan Federal Court awarded an immense amount of money––in the billions––to the families of American victims who were wounded or killed in the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) bombings and shootings that killed 33 and injured hundreds between 2001 and 2004. And as day follows night, Mr. Obama went to bat for––drum roll here––the terrorists! He insisted that the court lower the judgment so the extant Palestinian terrorists wouldn’t go broke.

Brings a tear to your eye, doesn’t it?

A child barely older than a toddler gets slammed for kissing his cute little girl crush, but a thug regime totally dedicated to murdering Jews and Americans gets a pass from Mr. Hope and Change.

And people wonder why a billionaire candidate who is pro-American, pro-Israel, pro-military, pro-capitalist, pro-taking out ISIS, is galloping toward a presidential nomination and why a doddering, lying, pro-Obama candidate is not only going down, but probably to Leavenworth!

Lawless Nation: Innocents Are Dying by Elizabeth Lee Vliet, MD

“But if the Watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet and the people are not warned, and a sword comes and takes a person from them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require from the watchman’s hand.” ~Ezekiel 33:6

Physicians have traditionally taken the Oath of Hippocrates to preserve life to the best of their ability and judgment. Your doctor is supposed to be a “watchman” over your health and life. Yet today, with rampant lawlessness on the part of our government leading to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings—from the most vulnerable unborn babies to America’s bravest warriors—physicians need to sound the trumpet. We cannot remain silent when life is at stake.

At one end of the spectrum the warriors that served our country here and abroad are denied prompt access to medical care when they need it, and many die waiting—either from disease or suicidal despair.

At the other end of the spectrum, euphemistically named “Planned Parenthood” is killing hundreds of thousands of innocent babies, then gruesomely and callously harvesting their body parts to be sold for profit.

Worse, both the unborn and our veterans waiting for medical care are dying at taxpayer expense! Taxpayers have been told they are paying for “women’s health” and “medical care for veterans” while both organizations bring death, not health.

Both Planned Parenthood and the VA have been shown to be violating multiple federal statutes. Both have a pattern of hiding their lawlessness from public and congressional scrutiny. Our government has failed to hold either accountable for their illegal actions. Whether deliberate or due to incompetence, the result is the same—death.

Lawlessness is out of control in many ways across our country. Many innocents are dying because of it. How can we expect the rule of law to prevail when it isn’t even followed in federally funded facilities that are supposed to care for health?

The VA issues were in the news months ago. They are being investigated, while veterans continue to die preventable deaths. Planned Parenthood’s flagrant disregard for existing laws is just now coming to light as a result of the investigative journalism work by the Center for Medical Progress.

Practices at Planned Parenthood that call for urgent investigation and possible prosecution include:

  • Trafficking in human body parts
  • Harvesting organs and removing them from babies who are alive.
  • Harvesting organs without proper consent from the mother.
  • Altering normal abortion procedures specifically in ways to allow salvage body parts for sale (such as liver, brain, heart, thymus, legs).
  • Failure to report statutory rape, thus protecting sexual predators.
  • Failure to attempt to save babies born alive in a failed abortion—instead using them for organs.

Planned Parenthood has fought vigorously to prevent mothers from seeing an ultrasound of their baby prior to an abortion, knowing that the majority of women choose not to abort once they have seen the baby’s image and beating heart.

In addition, Planned Parenthood consistently violates the ethical requirement to obtain informed consent. Clinic staff mislead women by using words to disguise that “it” is a human baby: they call “it” a fetus, they tell women their baby is just a “blob of tissue,” “isn’t a baby yet,” or “it cannot feel pain.”

Planned Parenthood’s “talking points” to clients violate principles of “truth in advertising” required in other medical and business settings.

  • CLAIM: “Abortion is only 3% of our business.” FACT: Based on prenatal visits (fewer than 19,000), adoption referrals (fewer than 2,000), and abortions (more than 300,000), Susan B. Anthony List said abortion was 94% of “pregnancy-related services.”
  • CLAIM: “If Planned Parenthood is defunded, women will not have access to women’s health services.” FACT: In fact, there are thousands of federally qualified community health centers across the United States that provide all of the necessary women’s health services. Abortion is theonly service not provided.
  • CLAIM: “Planned Parenthood is a women’s health organization.” FACT: The abortion centers are the leading killer of black and minority babies, following Margaret Sanger’s Eugenics agenda to “exterminate Negroes.”
  • CLAIM: “Defunding Planned Parenthood would prevent women from getting mammograms.” FACT: Planned Parenthood clinics are not certified for and do not perform mammograms. All mammography services are referred to other facilities.

On August 14, Congress sent a letter to Planned Parenthood demanding answers to the above issues. Multiple state investigations are underway, but the Obama administration has threatened to punish states that are cutting off state Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood while they investigate violations of state and federal law.

Physicians and the American people must now be the Watchmen, sound the trumpet, and act together to stop this Lawless Nation and slaughter of innocent babies and our deserving veterans.

dr elizabeth lee vlietABOUT ELIZABETH LEE VLIET, M.D.

Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D., Dr. Vliet is Chief Medical Officer of Med Expert Chile, SpA, an international medical consulting company based in Santiago, Chile whose mission is high quality, lower cost medical care focused on preserving medical freedom, privacy, and the Oath of Hippocrates commitment to individual patients.

Dr. Vliet is a past Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS).

Dr. Vliet also has an active U.S. medical practice in Tucson AZ and Dallas TX specializing in preventive and climacteric medicine with an integrated approach to evaluation and treatment of women and men with complex medical and hormonal problems.  Arizona Foundation for Women 2007 Voice of Women award for her pioneering medical and educational advocacy for overlooked hormone connections in women’s health.

She received her M.D. degree and internship in Internal Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School, and completed specialty training at Johns Hopkins Hospital. She earned her B.S. and Master’s degrees from the College of William and Mary in Virginia.

Dr. Vliet has appeared on FOX NEWS, Cavuto, Stuart Varney Show, Fox and Friends, Sean Hannity and many nationally syndicated radio shows across the country as well as numerous Healthcare Town Halls addressing the economic and medical impact of the 2010 healthcare law.  Dr. Vliet is a past co-host of America’s Fabric radio show.

Dr. Vliet’s health books include: It’s My Ovaries, Stupid; Screaming To Be Heard: Hormonal Connections Women Suspect– And Doctors STILL Ignore; Women, Weight and Hormones; The Savvy Woman’s Guide to Great Sex, Strength, and Stamina, and The Savvy Woman’s Guide to PCOS. Dr. Vliet’s websites are www.HerPlace.com, and www.MedExpertChile.com.

Generations of Stolen Black Dreams

In response to my article, “Please Tell Black Lives Matter to Shut Up and Go Away”, a sincere black activist emailed asking me with what would I replace it? I asked him to explain. The bottom line of his lengthy passionate reply is “Negroes” are still not free in America. He says America has reneged on its promise of liberty and justice for all.

I am black. I asked my beautiful white wife of 39 years a rhetorical question. “Am I an Uncle Tom? Is there something wrong with me? Because for the life of me, I do not have a clue what he is talking about. What is America suppose to do for blacks that it has not done?”

Mary replied, “You’re normal. They’re wrong, stuck in a mindset.”

Black unemployment, particularly under Obama, is extremely high. While many blacks have achieved their American dream, many have not. It is not white America’s fault. Behavioral issues are laying waste in the black community. Over 70% fatherless households and 70% school dropouts leads to gangs, drugs, blacks murdering blacks and incarceration; all resulting in poverty.

So what is Obama’s solution to fixing these problems plaguing blacks? He lets drug dealers who prey on urban youths out of jail, claiming their crime is non-violent. He has his DOJ bully police across America to back off urban thugs. Obama minion Baltimore mayor said, “Let them loot. It’s only property.” Violent crime is up big-time in Chicago, New York and Baltimore. 

Despite claims otherwise, America has not failed its poor. We have welfare and entitlement programs out the ying-yang; a huge chunk of America’s national debt. Also, there is nothing saintly about being poor. Don’t beat me up for saying that. I have been poor.

Then there is the claim that America “systematically” and “institutionally” hinders opportunities for blacks. Hogwash! A black college professor friend heads a program offering blacks free college tuition. He has trouble finding applicants. This is a guy who worked his way through college and grad school. He was stunned when students thought having to pay their cell phone bill was a legitimate excuse for not purchasing the book and materials for his course.

Back in my late twenties, Christ delivered me from my wild and crazy drug-filled life. I wanted others to experience my joy. I spoke at youth detention centers and prisons. I remember weeping with a young guy who had attempted suicide. It was shocking seeing so many bright, talented and gifted young black men in prison. The two things they had in common was negative attitudes and victim mindsets. Thank you Democrat Party.

I fought the urge to grab them by the collar, slap them and yell, “Snap out of it! You were blessed to be born in America, the greatest land of opportunity on the planet! Stop this nonsense and go for your dreams!”

For crying out loud, people around the world are risking everything crossing shark infested waters in cardboard boats held together with duct tape, desperate to get to America.

Like formerly fat people who continue to see an obese person in the mirror, Democrats have ingrained in blacks that they are victims of an “eternally” racist America; despite glaring evidence proving otherwise.

With sadness in his voice, a black conservative friend phoned me. “Have you heard? Another unarmed young black man was shot.” The cop was a white rookie. Regardless of the facts, the MSM is married to its cops-murder-blacks narrative. Upon investigation, I learned that the black youth was armed and pointed his gun at police. Still, I sensed that even my conservative buddy was infected with the Left’s America mistreats blacks mindset.

In hindsight, when my friend asked if had I heard about another shooting of a black youth, I should have said are you talking about the 40 shot in Chicago over the Memorial Day weekend or the 29 shot in Baltimore by fellow blacks? Oh, you must be talking about the 7 year old just shot in a drive-by. The grieving boy’s mom tearfully said, “He had plans. He was going to be somebody.”

Sadly, there are a large number of black Americans whose brains are entombed in a victim mindset; impenetrable by the truth. A prime example are the disgusting comments made by a black woman during a TV interview, expressing her support of a black youth. He didn’t do no wrong. He just shot a cop.” This hateful woman is the equivalent of the KKK justifying killing blacks.

Like the deranged black woman, the MSM, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Democrats refuse to hold blacks accountable for anything. AA calls those who make it comfortable for an alcoholic to continue behaving irresponsibly, “enablers”. Not holding blacks accountable severely undermines black empowerment. Surrendering your success or failure into the hands of someone (white America) other than you weakens you.

To my sincere black activist friend, I say we replace “Black Lives Matter” with “Tough Love.” Tell blacks to stop blaming whitey, seeking more doomed-to-fail government programs and voting for Democrats. Generations of black dreams have been stolen due to Democrats addicting blacks to government dependency. While Planned Parenthood/Democrats push blacks to abort themselves into extinction, Democrats are replacing black voters with millions of unskilled, uneducated and poor illegals; taking jobs from blacks

Today, liberals excuse irresponsible behavior, defending it with fancy intellectual sounding language. My late mom would simply say, “Stop acting stupid.”

Stop acting stupid black America. Stop acting stupid.

How Do Planned Parenthood Supporters Talk to their Children?

What is it going to take? After the release of another horrific Planned Parenthood video, what is it going to take for the American Left to call evil what it is?

The Planned Parenthood videos began with discussions of the harvesting of the organs of aborted children. Next, the videos graduated in their depravity to conversations about selling the organs for a “better than break even” price. A short time later, another video was released where Planned Parenthood officials were caught on tape discussing using “less crunchy” abortion techniques to preserve the organs of aborted children in order to sell them. Despite the disgusting content of the aforementioned videos, sadly, the videos have grown in their gruesomeness. The latest video released, where a former Planned Parenthood employee describes in disturbing detail how an aborted child, with a beating heart, had its face cut through with scissors to harvest his brain, is so painful to watch that I had to stop just a few minutes into it.

I am proud to call myself a liberty loving conservative and I take every opportunity to explain to my two young daughters why I believe in free people, free markets, free speech, freedom to worship, and the respect for, and the preservation of, all human life. How do Planned Parenthood supporters talk to their children? If they are so proud of what Planned Parenthood is doing then I wonder if they proudly show these videos to their children and discuss the content with them.

Please spare me the “medicine can be disturbing to watch” garbage because I have zero problem watching a medical operation on video, nor do I care in the least if my daughter watches one. I have an arthritic left shoulder that needs to be replaced and recently watched a YouTube video of the surgery to prepare myself for what’s in store for me. There was nothing gruesome about the shoulder surgery video because, in watching the amazing power of medicine, through a talented surgeon’s hands, give the gift of pain-free movement back to someone like me who lives with chronic pain I was comforted that, despite the anatomical visuals during the surgery video, it was to preserve and further the quality of life, not destroy it.

Also, please spare us all the “these videos are edited” tripe that some Planned Parenthood sycophants are desperately floating to the media in an attempt to preserve this evil organization.

First, the unedited videos are available for the world to watch. Second, no one at Planned Parenthood is claiming that the Planned Parenthood employees and business associates in the videos are actors. Third, the same frauds claiming that the videos are “edited” had ZERO problem with promoting the Mitt Romney “47%” video which was unquestionably “edited.”

Again, what is it going to take? What more does Planned Parenthood have to do before the American Left does the right thing? What level of depravity and gruesomeness in Planned Parenthood’s talk and actions do they have to reach before the Left is willing to call evil what it is? Despite my dealings with the hard Left and my skepticism that they are straight shooters, even I am surprised at their callous defense of Planned Parenthood in the face of such obvious evidence of Planned Parenthood’s ghoulish actions.

It is time for a great American awakening. I refuse to believe that America has morphed into a country where a major political party’s values have degenerated to such a point that the statement “all lives matter” is controversial to them, yet using scissors to cut through the face of a live child to harvest its brain for sale isn’t.

We must stop the moral decay that appears to be growing in intensity. I’m not a preacher or a counselor but I ask that you please, talk to your children about these videos and, more importantly, about the people who support the people in the Planned Parenthood videos. Truth is our most powerful weapon in the war for our collective moral future and avoiding uncomfortable topics, because of the gruesome nature of what is happening, only allows what is happening to continue happening.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The featured image of abortion protesters in Columbia, Missouri is by Don Shrubshell | AP Photo.

The Pope’s Misplaced Focus

Pope John Francis’ upcoming visit to the U.S. is generating quite a bit of excitement here, especially among his Catholic faithful.  But for me and many others, his visit is generating consternation, not excitement.

Usually, most people tend to have great respect and affection for the Pope.  He is usually viewed by the public as a beacon of moral guidance, even for those who are non-Catholics.  This is definitely a view I once had of previous Popes.

But I must admit that my respect for this current Pope, John Francis is somewhat diminished.

I am totally confused by his constant advocating for policies that goes against the Catholic Church’s own teachings.  On the issue of homosexuality his position is, “Who are we to judge?”  Though church doctrine is very clear on this issue.

He is a fanatical supporter of open borders; in his view people have an inherent right to enter illegally into any country they choose as long as the ends justify the means.

He rabidly promotes theories in support of global warming, despite the fact that he is one of the biggest contributors to it.  When the Pope travels, he normally charters an Alitalia A320 jet.  It is estimated that the pope travels about 100,000 miles per year.  So this means based on the type of plane the Pope flies, he emits 20 pounds of CO2 for every mile of flight which is 2,000,000 pounds a year.

Every denomination has their own precepts that their members must abide by.  Likewise, nations have laws that their citizens or visitors must abide by.

Poverty or wanting a better life is not sufficient reason for people to break our laws to enter into our country.  The Pope expects Catholics to abide by the rules of Catholicism; so why should America expect anything less from those who seek entry into our country?

So, by the Pope’s standard I, as a Baptist, should still be able to participate in all things Catholic; even though I don’t adhere to Catholicism.

The Pope, in many ways, is operating just like Obama is in the U.S.  They both are picking and choosing which rules and laws they want to abide by.

Forgive me for not being able to get beyond the fact that the Pope has spent very little time dealing with the child abuse that has taken place in his church; but yet he seems to have plenty of time to meet with illegals, homosexuals and promote global warming

Am I the only one who finds it offensive that the Pope will be meeting with some of those in the U.S. illegally, but will not be meeting with families that have had family members killed, raped, or maimed by illegals?

Am I the only one who finds it offensive that the Pope will not be meeting with any of the victims of sexual abuse from within the Catholic Church?

Am I the only one who finds it offensive that the Pope constantly talks about income inequality and the need for employers to pay their employees more money; but he has never discussed what is the obligation of employees to their employers (more productivity and more efficiency, etc.)?

The Pope should not be aligned to a political agenda, but rather what is right or wrong.

America has no moral obligation to allow those who enter our country illegally to stay in our country no more so than the Pope allowing someone who refuses to abide by the rules of Catholicism should be allowed to say they are a member of the Catholic Church.

Furthermore, the Bible is very clear, a man’s first responsibility is for the well being of his family, not his neighbor’s family.

The Pope seems to be on a global tour to promote an entitlement agenda as opposed to being a beacon for right and wrong.  Even if you are poor and downtrodden, you still are responsible for being responsible.

Many of the illegals coming to the U.S. are having children that they can’t afford to provide for.  How many speeches has the Pope given on individual responsibility?

How many speeches has the Pope given on the need to fire and prosecute every priest that has molested or covered up sexual abuse of kids in the Catholic Church?

How many speeches has the Pope given about what are an employee’s obligations to his employer?

I really believe the Pope’s heart is in the right place, but the issues he is focusing on should be subservient to the more critical issues listed above.

I definitely think the church can and should play a constructive role in our society, especially to those who are in need.  In many respects, I think the faith community is better equipped to deal with a lot of the social ills of our society than our government is.

But the Pope cannot shine the light on my darkness until he is first willing to shine the light on his on darkness.  Until then, the Pope’s moral compass is pointing in the wrong direction.

Obama Defends Iran Deal by Attacking Opponents

Instead of the issues, there is a shrill war of words against good faith opponents.

In a recent speech at American University, President Obama attempted to sell his Iran nuclear agreement to a skeptical American public, which according to all reliable polls opposes the deal overwhelmingly.  By making his pitch in a speech instead of a press conference, he avoided having to answer questions, clarify past inconsistent statements, and discuss the distortions that have been used to justify the deal.  Rather than allay concerns that are causing worry even among Congressional Democrats, he instead heaped scorn on Republicans, attacked his critics, derided Binyamin Netanyahu, and minimized the threat to Israel.  His speech was as self-congratulatory as it was detached from geopolitical reality.

And for once, liberal Jewish organizations disagreed with him publicly.

Mr. Obama attempted to woo Jewish groups into supporting the deal before his speech, but instead met with stiff resistance.  Although known more for lobbying than open confrontation, AIPAC strongly opposed the deal and urged Congress to reject it.  The Anti-Defamation League likewise objected, announcing in a public statement that:  “We are deeply disappointed by the terms of the final deal with Iran … which seem to fall far short of the President’s objective of preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state.”  Underlying these statements is the realization that the deal will facilitate Iran’s nuclear program and encourage a regional arms race.

The concerns of the liberal Jewish establishment were perhaps best summed up in an August 5th op-ed by David Harris of the American Jewish Committee, which stated among many other things the following:

By abandoning the earlier negotiating posture of dismantling sanctions in exchange for Iranian dismantlement of its nuclear infrastructure, and instead replacing it with what is essentially a temporary freeze on its program, the P5+1 has indeed validated Iran’s future status as a nuclear threshold state, a point that President Obama himself acknowledged in a media interview.

Given the nature of the Iranian regime and its defining ideology, AJC cannot accept this prospect. It is too ominous, too precedent-setting, and too likely to trigger a response from Iran’s understandably anxious neighbors who may seek nuclear-weapons capacity themselves, as well as, more immediately and still more certainly, advanced conventional arms, adding an entirely new level of menace to the most volatile and arms-laden region in the world. Surely, this cannot be in America’s long-term security interests.

After fully articulating his organization’s fears and concerns in the piece, Harris wrote that “AJC opposes the deal and calls on Members of Congress to do the same.”

Irrespective of his past assurances that no deal would be preferable to a bad deal, he is attempting to force a very bad deal on the US and its allies.

Though the ADL and AJC were deferential in acknowledging the efforts of President Obama, John Kerry and their European partners in negotiating with Iran, they nevertheless concluded that the deal is bad for the United States and Israel.  This view echoes a growing concern that it accomplishes none of the goals used to justify negotiations in the first place, and the nagging realization that Iran will fulfill its nuclear ambitions even if it does comply.

Based on its history, Iran is unlikely to comply in the absence of effective monitoring procedures; and without truly verifiable compliance, it will likely continue enriching uranium clandestinely and may well have enough reserves to produce weapons before the deal expires.  Some intelligence experts believe that Iran already possesses a sufficient stockpile.

It is significant that Jewish criticism of the deal is not coming solely from conservative groups like the Zionist Organization of (ZOA), Americans for a Safe Israel and the Republican Jewish Coalition.  Liberal establishment organizations finally seem to grasp that Obama’s Mideast policies have promoted the growth of Islamic extremism and have threatened Israel’s safety and security.  They also understand that the deal will lead to nuclear proliferation in the region.  Accordingly, American Jews who had always supported the President and downplayed his hostility for Israel are now calling on Congress to reject the deal.

Senator Chuck Schumer, whom many predicted would support the deal to preserve his chance of being named the next Democratic Senate leader, announced that he would vote against it.  Though early reports predicted that Schumer would vote for the deal, he may have been swayed by the thousands of letters sent by alarmed constituents urging him to vote no.  As a consequence, he is being pilloried by the political left and the White House and has been the target of anti-Semitic slurs.

The President’s allies are responding to criticism by attacking those who oppose the deal, casting aspersions on their motivations, invoking classical anti-Semitic canards of undue Jewish influence and dual loyalty, characterizing Jewish dissent as unpatriotic, and accusing Israel of orchestrating the opposition.

Liberal criticism of the deal is usually couched in expressions of thanks to Obama and Kerry for their efforts – despite their clear animus for Netanyahu and mocking dismissal of Israel’s existential concerns.  Still, it cannot be disputed that many liberals now recognize that Obama’s stated goal of preventing Iran from going nuclear is inconsistent with the final agreement, which legitimizes and enables its nuclear program.  Irrespective of his past assurances that no deal would be preferable to a bad deal, he is attempting to force a very bad deal on the US and its allies.

Many Americans are concerned that the deal does not require Iran to destroy its nuclear infrastructure, submit to “anytime, anywhere” inspections, fully disclose all of its nuclear activities or cease subsidizing terrorism – former red-lines that American negotiators ultimately conceded.  They are also bothered that Obama agreed to lift ballistic and conventional weapons bans – against the advice of military advisers – and that Iran can beat monitoring efforts by evasion, misdirection or simply failing to disclose its covert nuclear facilities.  This is especially problematic in light of the existence of secret side agreements (which neither Kerry nor Obama disclosed to Congress) affecting the ability to monitor compliance by, among other things, allowing Iran to provide its own soil samples to inspectors.

A growing number of Jewish Democrats are also troubled that the deal places trust in an Islamist regime that remains unrepentantly anti-American and antisemitic, brazenly states that it will not honor agreements with infidel nations, and repeatedly threatens to destroy Israel and exterminate her people.  Contrary to the naïve claims of its supporters, the deal will only destabilize an already volatile region, provide Iran with funds to continue financing terrorism and regional unrest, and motivate the Sunni states to acquire their own nuclear arsenals.

Rather than assuage any of these concerns, Obama used his speech to belittle and disparage all who question the deal and to compare his Republican critics in Congress to Iranian hardliners.  Though he’s elevated combative, divisive politics to a high art since his first days in office, this comment troubled many Democrats for its insulting tone and moral vacuity.

The ease with which Obama compares good faith opponents to fanatical religious extremists is all the more disturbing in light of his seemingly compulsive aversion to offending Islamist sensibilities and his failure to condemn the pernicious doctrines used to justify terrorism.

The President’s war of words will probably grow shriller as the Congressional vote in September draws closer, especially if more Democrats reject the deal in advance.  He will continue to attack those who disagree with him, malign Netanyahu for speaking truth to power, and bully Israel by threatening her with isolation.  He will not be moved even if most liberal Jews end up opposing the deal.  They have acted as his apologists for more than six years; and if they no longer support him, he may simply lump them together with those assertive Jews who have always been critical of his policies and question their loyalty.

On the surface, President Obama remains unmoved by the domestic and international consequences of his ill-conceived foreign policy.  But if, as many believe, his real intent is to reduce American global influence, legitimize Islamist regimes, and treat Iran as the dominant power in the Mideast, he may be following a knowing strategy that accepts, and perhaps welcomes, the regional and global risks.

Mr. Obama’s agreement with Iran has been compared to Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Nazi Germany.  The comparison may be inapt, however, because Chamberlain hoped that ceding territory would satisfy Hitler and prevent war.  The deal with Iran, in contrast, will give the mullahs a nuclear muscle that they have repeatedly vowed to flex.  Whereas Hitler lied in Munich about the prospect of peace in exchange for land, Iran has affirmatively promised terrorism, war and genocide when it gets what it wants.

Though Congress may not be able to trust the President’s hollow assurances, history suggests that it can certainly take the Iranians at their word.

Donald Trump gave Marine Sergeant Tahmooressi $25,000 after He was Freed

Justin Carters from IJReview.com reports:

On Thursday, Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren revealed the identity of the GOP candidate who helped Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi after he was finally freed from a Mexican prison.

The candidate, Donald Trump, acknowledged Sustersen’s activism at a town hall earlier this week.

He said:

“We don’t have a good relationship with Mexico. Remember Sergeant Tahmooressi, they kept him in jail, we couldn’t get him out. We had a president that wanted to make a phone call. He was in that jail, rotting in that jail and I helped him with Greta and some people, and I helped him financially.

And finally he got out. But he was in there so long. By the way without her, he’d probably still be there.”

As it turns out, Trump sent Tahmooressi a big check to help get him back on his feet.

One thing Trump has said while on the campaign trail is that our “veterans are treated like third-class citizens.”

Trump sent Marine Sergeant Tahmooressi a check for $25,000 to help him get back on his feet after his extended imprisonment in Mexico.

The ‘Fatal Flaw’ in the U.S. Supreme Court Gay Marriage Case

Marriage between a man and woman has been codified in America since the 1600s when marriage licences were first issued. The deconstruction of marriage has been a goal of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, and the progressive feminist movement since the early 1900s.

The prime objective is to make government the ideal marriage partner.

For it is only government that can be the true leader of the new family, one where love, monogamy and biology are irrelevant. Marriage is defined by the state in order to create dependency and increase control over the individual. Homosexual marriage has now fallen into that carefully setup government trap, as have those in traditional marriages much earlier. Government now totally controls gay marriages. Traditional and gay marriages are no longer real marriages.

Tia Ghose in her column History of Marriage: 13 surprise facts, writes:

Monogamy became the guiding principle for Western marriages sometime between the sixth and the ninth centuries, [Stephanie] Coontz, [the author of “Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage,”] said.

“There was a protracted battle between the Catholic Church and the old nobility and kings who wanted to say ‘I can take a second wife,'” Coontz said.

The Church eventually prevailed, with monogamy becoming central to the notion of marriage by the ninth century.

Donald DeMarco, Ph.D., a senior fellow of Human Life International and an adjunct professor at Holy Apostles College and Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut, in his column Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Negates Both Reason and Reality writes:

The fatal flaw in the recent Supreme Court decision lies in its failure to recognize the nature of marriage and its consequent judgment that the very limits which give marriage its meaning are discriminatory restrictions that should be abolished. Thus, five justices believed that, by removing one of the essential factors of marriage to accommodate the wishes of same-sex couples, they would enlarge it. The truth is that by flagrantly disregarding the nature of marriage — particularly the male-female requirement — these justices have embarked on a course to disparage, if not to destroy, marriage.

Marriage is defined in terms of several factors that distinguish it from all other forms of human alliance. It requires the mutual consent of two unmarried people who have no blood ties, are of appropriate ages and are members of the other sex. Traditional marriage is not marriage in its abbreviated or abridged form. It is real marriage.

Dr. DeMarco notes that in the 1972 American “National Gay Rights Platform” (endorsed by Canadian homosexuals), calls for:

  1. the abolition of all laws governing “age of sexual consent,” thus enabling adults to have sex with consenting children of any age or either sex;
  2. the repeal of all laws against sodomy and adult or child prostitution; and
  3. the repeal of all laws that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.

Read more:

As Tina Turner asked in her song, what’s love got to do with it?

Iran’s Supreme Leader: U.S., Israel conspiring against the Qur’an

Obama hardest hit. After all his pandering to Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamic groups in the U.S., all his fantastic praise of the nonexistent Muslim role in building the United States, all his appeasement and accommodation of Iran, this is what he gets.

 

“Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei urges Islamic unity against real enemies: U.S. and Israel,” by Kellan Howell, The Washington Times, August 22, 2015:

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme religious leader, on Saturday called on the Islamic nations to unite in the face of the world’s “bullies” and greatest enemies: the U.S. and Israel.

Mr. Khamenei accused the U.S. of seeking to incite “third-party” states against the Islamic Republic but said “such third parties are only deceived puppets,” Iran’s Fars news agency reported.

He argued that the bullying powers are conspiring “against the [Koran] and not Shiism and Iran, because they know that the [Koran] and Islam are the center of awakening nations.”

Mr. Khamenei added that Iranians chant slogans like “death to America, death to Israel” because they have “realized that their real stubborn enemy is the world arrogance of Zionism,” the Times of Israel reported.

Speaking to Iranian officials in charge of the Hajj — the massive annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca — Mr. Khamenei said the pilgrimage was the perfect opportunity for Iranians to convey his message to other Muslims and encourage Islamic unity.

“The world bullies are fully, seriously seeking to stir violence and discord under the name of Islam and are trying to disrepute the religion of Islam, foment internal fights among Islamic nations and even among the people of one nation to weaken the Muslim Ummah, and transferring the Iranian nation’s experience about unity and recognition of the enemy to other nations in the Hajj season can defuse these plots,” he said, The Times of Israel reported….

France train jihadi who trained in Islamic State “dumbfounded” by terror accusations
Hamas-linked CAIR: Denial of service over hijab sign of “fossilized policies”

UTD President Fed Ingram (and Superintendent Carvalho) stick it to Miami-Dade Teachers on the Way Out to FEA

Fed and AC

UTD President Fed Ingram (left) and Miami-Dade Superintendent Alberto Carvalho.

As previously reported in another article in January, United Teachers of Dade (UTD) President Fed Ingram is seeking higher office within the Florida Education Association at their annual Delegate Assembly in October.

To assist in this effort, and to apparently put M-DCPS Superintendent Alberto Carvalho in a good light and short change the teachers in the process, UTD negotiated a very bad deal Friday night in which teachers will not be given a step at all over the next two years.

Teachers will be given a definite “salary adjustment” on their current step for this year and a vague, uncertain salary adjustment for the next school year.

Obviously, teachers want their steps as they are four steps down and want to see progression and to truly advance.

Union members received an email Friday night complete with scare tactics of the consequences of voting against it.

“Teachers voted down a bad proposal in the recent past and got a better deal,” says Trevor Colestock, citizen journalist and litigant against M-DCPS. “They are obviously scaring the membership into voting yes by offering two years of security in supposed salary adjustments and minimal healthcare benefits in exchange for giving up their steps which is a raw and very bad deal.  No wonder UTD membership is dwindling and declining. This is just one bad deal following two previous bad ones. It just gets worse and worse.”

FEDruns4FEA-225x300Mr. Colestock goes on to make a very interesting point: “If Fed and UTD could not and would not protect and stand up for me, a decorated and accomplished steward that was correct about the test cheating at Miami Norland Senior High School as outlined in the Final Miami-Dade OIG Report, and stayed silent as I was displaced and currently undergoing litigation while a fellow union member (Emmanuel Fleurantin) was fired and another cheater who was a non-union member (Brenda Muchnick) is still at Norland to this day while teachers who did the very same thing are in jail in Atlanta, how can Fed and UTD stand up and look out for you at the bargaining table?”

“Obviously, given this deal that benefits the District, they did not and cannot, and I am voting no.”

To read the terms of the Tentative Agreement and the scare tactics, click here.

Shawn Beightol pointed out in his recent article that through three straight years of property tax collection surpluses the property tax revenue is available to fund a better deal and to offer a step.

Therefore, why cannot the teachers have a salary adjustment (cost of living) and a step (raise)?

Mr. Carvalho does well for himself as he makes about $318,000; most district administrators make between $150,000-$200,000 a year; and most principals make about $100,000 or more a year.

Miami-Dade teachers are asking: Why cannot the teachers who work the hardest and face the most accountability share in the financial success that the higher ups enjoy?

Mr. Carvalho used to be Fed’s chemistry teacher; apparently, he is still taking Fed to school and both appear to have a low opinion of teachers and their intelligence given this deal according to some.

Teachers may vote no in solidarity and get something better.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of UTD President Ingram is from Twitter.

Reduce Firearm Ownership, Say Anti-Gun Researchers

A new “study” by David Swedler, trained at the (gun control crusader Michael) Bloomberg School of Public Health, and co-authored by longtime anti-gun researcher David Hemenway, of the Harvard School of Public Health, uses rigged methodology to conclude that law enforcement officers are more likely to be murdered in states that have higher levels of gun ownership. As a result, Swedler and Hemenway say, “States could consider methods for reducing firearm ownership as a way to reduce occupational deaths of LEOs.”

In what may be the understatement of the century, Swedler and Hemenway concede that it’s “possible” that law enforcement officers are more likely to be murdered than other Americans because they have “more frequent encounters with motivated violent offenders.” To say the least. According to the FBI, from 2004 to 2013, 46 percent of officer murderers had prior arrests for crimes of violence, 63 percent had been convicted on prior criminal charges, 50 percent had received probation or parole for prior criminal charges, and 26 percent were under judicial supervision, including probation, parole, and conditional release, at the time of the officers’ murders.

On the other hand, Swedler and Hemenway say, law enforcement officers are able to defend themselves because they carry handguns, an argument that on its face endorses the carrying of handguns by private citizens, which is certainly not what the anti-gunners intended.

In painstaking academic detail, economist John Lott shows that Swedler and Hemenway skewed their study by comparing the number of law enforcement officers murdered with firearms in each state, to the percentage of suicides committed with firearms in each state, pretending that the latter accurately measures each state’s level of gun ownership. Additionally, the anti-gun researchers didn’t extend their comparisons over time to determine whether law enforcement officer murders increased or decreased in each state or did so in comparison to other states.

The anti-gunners also try to measure gun ownership with survey data, which is problematic, because over-reporting takes place in states where people are more supportive of gun ownership, while under-reporting takes place in states where anti-gun viewpoints are more common.

For the obvious reason, Swedler and Hemenway didn’t point out that law enforcement officer murders have been decreasing while ownership of firearms has been increasing dramatically. From 1993 to 2013, the most recent year of data from the FBI and BATFE, the annual number of law enforcement officers feloniously killed with firearms dropped 61 percent, while the American people acquired 140 million new firearms. In 2013, the number of law enforcement officers feloniously killed with firearms was less than half the annual average of the last 20 years.

That, however, is not what you want to point out if you’re jockeying for a cut of the $10 million that President Obama has asked Congress (p. 8) to throw at so-called “gun violence research” or to continue to promote an anti-gun agenda.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on the NRA/ILA website.

Open Letter from Iranian Human Rights Activists: ‘Do Not Appease the Iranian Regime’

iran_woman

Unidentified Iranian woman protesting.

In the past few weeks, some Iranian activists have vocally supported the nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 (China, Russia, France, United Kingdom, United States and Germany). While we deeply respect the experience and views of these men and women, it is important to hear all perspectives.

We represent another collection of Iranian activists who share the world’s hope for a better future but believe that appeasing the Iranian regime will lead to a more dangerous world.

We have spent our lives advocating for peace, justice and freedom in Iran. We represent a diverse array of Iranians who hope to warn the world of the danger of this regime regardless of how many centrifuges spin in Iran.

This deal will provide up to $150 billion windfall of cash into the bank account of our tyrants and theocrats. This money will not be spent on the Iranian people but rather to enrich a repressive regime.

Sadly, the world has not demanded real improvements in human rights. Thousands of activists continue to languish behind bars (including several Americans) and it is tragic that their release was not included in these discussions.

We are sounding the alarm bells before it is too late. Those who care about peace should help restore focus to the Iranian regime’s brutal human rights records, its support for global terror and role in destabilizing the Middle East. More pressure should be applied to the regime, not less.

One day when the Iranian people are finally free, they will hold an accounting of who stood on their side and who stood on the regime’s. It is not too late to hold the Iranian regime accountable for their continued human rights violations.

Today in Iran, political prisoners are tortured. Bloggers, journalists and teachers remain behind bars. Sexual and religious rights are trampled. Women are treated as second class citizens.

Western apologists and appeasers of Iranian theocracy do no favors to the Iranian people. They distance the likelihood of positive change and undercut the hopes of the Iranian people.

When the Iranian regime no longer fears its people, then the world will no longer have a reason to fear the Iranian regime.

Signed by:

Mahvash Alasvandi (two sons executed)
Bijan Fathi (two sons executed)
Sayeh Saeedi Sirjani (father jailed, died in custody)
Banafsheh Pourzand (father jumped to death under house arrest)
Ahmad Mostafalou (jailed, tortured, escaped execution)
Shadi Paveh (father executed) 
Borzumehr Toloui (uncle executed)
Soheila Dorostkar (brother executed, his body was never recovered)
Shabnam Assadollahi (jailed and tortured)
Afshin Afshin-Jam (jailed and tortured)
Ahmad Batebi (jailed and tortured)
Kaveh Taheri (jailed and tortured)
Marina Nemat (jailed and tortured)
Shiva Mahbobi (jailed and tortured)
Salman Sima (jailed and tortured)
Roozbeh Farahanipour (jailed and tortured)
Abbas Khorsandi (Jailed and tortured)
Abazar Nourizad (father jailed and tortured, out on bail, prohibited from leaving Iran) 
Nima Rashedan (jailed)
Alireza Kiani (jailed)
Amir Hossein Etemadi (jailed)
Siavash Safavi (jailed)
Saeed Ghasseminejad (jailed)
Behzad Mehrani (jailed)
Roya Araghi (Jailed) 
Marjan Keypour 
Sheema Kalbasi 
Majid Rafizadeh 
Youhan Najdi
Masood Masjoodi
Liuna Issagholian
Ahmad Eshghyar 
Daniel Jafari
Ashkan Monfared
Hossein Ladjevardi 
Avideh Motamen Far
Afshine Emrani
Bahram Bahramian
Sirus Malakooty
Babak Seradjeh
Shahla Abghari 
Siavash Abghari
Majid Mohammadi
Damon Golriz 
Hassan Dai
Keyvan Kaboli
Sam Yebri
Elham Yaghoubian
Shayan Arya 
Peter Kohanloo
Amir Khosrow Sheibany
Soheila Nikpour
Reza Taghizadeh 
Setareh Yavari
Mansoureh Nasserchian 
Maryam Moazenzadeh
Parviz Sayyad
Farrokh Zandi
Partow Nooriala
Alireza Saghafi
Manda Zand Ervin
Fati Mohammadi
Akhtar Ghasemi (jailed)
Maryam Namazie
Aynaz Anni Cyrus (Jailed and tortured)