VIDEO: It’s All Related — The Filth. And your damnation is the goal.

TRANSCRIPT

The operational word to describe things in the Church these days, to borrow from Pope Benedict, is filth.

And while the filth all comes in a number of different varieties, it is all related. And for the record, we should understand filth in the broad sense of that which leads people either away from the Faith or into sin, or both, but especially away from the Faith, thus essentially destroying their supernatural defense against the diabolical. So let’s examine the various types of filth, remembering that, at the end of the day, it’s still all filth.

There is, of course, the headline filth of homosexual predation on both adults as well as minors. But that’s not the only filth.

There is the theological filth of the past 50 years, and this has many facets to it. From the insanity that we have a reasonable hope all men are saved, to what amounts to a universalism that all religions are essentially the same and lead to God, to the demonic notion that your conscience, even uninformed or even malformed, is the final arbiter of truth.

All these individual pieces of theological filth are interrelated, each one feeding and feeding off the other. Then there is the liturgical filth manifest in nearly every parish: the lack of reverence in Mass; the failure to understand the Mass as a sacrifice, not a mere meal; the emasculation of many priests; the horrible, childish preaching; the non-stop emphasis on emotionalism; the focus on the community as opposed to the worship of God.

Moving down the filth list, we come across the particular filth of the acceptance of heresy. Many converts from Protestantism will tell you that more and more they don’t see that much of a difference between what they converted from and the Church.

That’s been intentional. Whatever the motives, and that depends on who you are looking at, there was and continues to be an intentional push to make the Church appear and sound more and more Protestant.

Protestantism is a heresy, with its emphasis on personal relationship with Christ outside of the Church, the sacraments, devotions, etc. Yet more and more, Church leaders continue to peddle these heretical beliefs as somehow able to be interpreted as Catholic, the Alpha program being the most notable, but by no means the only one.

The distinctions between Catholicism — the one true faith — and the 40,000 different heretical sects which comprise Protestantism are simply downplayed in classrooms, pulpits, writings, you name it.

Wherever a Catholic lives, you will find a Catholic priest short-changing the Faith and handing over spiritual poison to the faithful.

The failure to preach on the need for confession, the need to be properly disposed to receive Holy Communion, the need for a vigilant prayer life, a spirituality modeled on the saints and so forth. The majority of Catholics hear none of this the majority of the time. That’s filthy because the lack of this knowledge leaves them defenseless against the attacks of the devil.

But the underlying point is straightforward, all this filth is related, all from the same source, just expressed differently at different times in differing ways.

Be it moral, theological, liturgical, catechetical, it’s all the same filth. And it’s all accomplishing the same end: the destruction of souls.

Ask ourselves why would a Catholic have the slightest idea that the Mass is a sacrifice, a representation of the oblation of the Son to the Father.

How would he draw that conclusion when all he hears is “we are family” and “turn around and greet your neighbor” and lay people run around all over the altar handing out the bread to the community?

Ask yourselves why a Catholic would see any essential difference between the Church and heretical set of beliefs when all he sees and hears in the parish are those same heretical beliefs and notions, just with a thin Catholic veneer. The list goes on and on.

The Catholic faithful have been assaulted from every side and in every way from Catholic leaders for the past half-century, and now, they have been reduced to a remnant, the authentic believers.

Those who still go to Mass but do not either understand or believe the Faith will disappear soon enough as they die off, their parishes continue to close and their children and grandchildren never come into a Catholic parish.

All that will be left from that crowd is some vague memory that “grandma, I think, used to be Catholic, didn’t she? Whatever.”

This has been a master plan to repackage the Faith, to break from Tradition, for the past half-century and give the devil his due — he has been wildly successful. For any Catholics out there who are perhaps coming around to this reality but still aren’t sold on it, who think clapping in Mass and girl altar boys and so-called eucharistic ministers are okay, consider this.

Even if those things — and many others — were well-intentioned — and they weren’t — you have to admit they have been a colossal failure.

There are now fewer parishes in the United States then there were when all this began in 1965. And while owing strictly to overall population increases the raw number of Catholics has increased, there are fewer going to Mass and receiving the sacraments than, again, back in 1965.

Open your eyes, just like we had to here at Church Militant when all this became undeniable to us as well. Do you believe the Church is the means to salvation? Do you believe there is no salvation apart from the Church?

Then, if those doctrines of the Church are correct — notice the word “doctrines” — then wouldn’t Satan want to destroy the Church? If he wanted to destroy the Church, what would he do?

How about introducing, little by little at first, a level of filth and poison so as to corrupt the clergy who are the bearers of the sacred. He went after them at the Last Supper in the upper room and hasn’t stopped since.

All this filth has one goal: your damnation and the same for your families.

Karen Pence: The Teacher and the Religious Test

It was supposed to be a day celebrating religious freedom in America. Instead, liberals decided to show everyone just how much our First Freedom is at risk. For Christians, who’ve tried to warn people that these last several years were about a lot more than marriage, the attacks on Second Lady Karen Pence certainly seem to prove their point. Three years after Obergefell, all of the lies about “love” and “tolerance” have been eclipsed by the court cases, articles, and editorial demonizing people of faith. What Americans see now is the truth: the Left is coming for our freedom. And they have no intention of letting up.

Like Joe Biden’s wife, Karen Pence spent years in the classroom. When Mike was in Congress, she taught art at Immanuel Christian School in Virginia — and no one batted an eye. Of course, that was back in the early 2000s, when the Left’s charm offensive on same-sex marriage was still in full swing. We’ll be accommodating, they said. We just want to co-exist, they said. Our relationships won’t affect you, they said. A handful of years later, “affected” doesn’t begin to describe to what happens to conservatives who think differently than the totalitarian Left.

Of course, the Pences are not strangers to the other side’s viciousness. Every time the media is reminded about the family’s faith, they become hysterical all over again — a scene that played out this week when Karen announced she’d be volunteering at Immanuel Christian this spring. “I am excited to be back in the classroom and doing what I love to do,” she said in a statement. “I have missed teaching art, and it’s great to return to the school where I taught art for 12 years.”

She can’t go back there, LGBT activists raged! They reject homosexuality! Yes, well, that’s what orthodox Christian schools do. (Not to mention Jewish and Muslim ones too.) Would it have been headline news if Jill Biden taught at a Roman Catholic school? Probably not. Yet, the Left and their media chums are hurling profanity at the Pences for something that, even five years ago, wouldn’t have been controversial. Frankly, the only thing that would have been shocking is if Karen worked at a Christian school that didn’t act like a Christian school.

CNN’s Kate Bennett was just one of the talking heads who doesn’t get it. “So, lemme get this straight,” she tweeted, “the second lady of the United States has chosen to work at a school that openly discriminates against LGBT adults and children?” “So, lemme get this straight,” Ben Shapiro fired back. “You’re a reporter but you’ve never heard of religious people before? ‘BREAKING: Pence’s wife is working for a Christian school that requires that Christian students pledge to abide by Christian standards of sin that have not changed in 2,000 years.'”

To be honest, the Left’s real problem isn’t that Mike Pence’s wife is working at an evangelical school — but that evangelical schools exist at all. Since they do, the last thing liberals want is for anyone in public office to be associated with them. And despite what you’ve heard from the forces of intolerance, Immanuel Christian doesn’t “ban” anyone from their school. What they do, Chad Greene, points out, “is require a specific set of behavioral and religious belief standards equally applied to everyone. Many in the Christian world make a distinction regarding LGBT people that the left typically refuses to consider, between a person and his actions.” As Christians, our behavior doesn’t define us — we define our behavior.

Immanuel is in the business of teaching Christianity. What would be the point of a religious school if it didn’t? This “immediate, visceral reaction” shows just how far the Left will go to shame people of faith into silence. Worse, it proves the day they told us was coming is finally here. Back in 2015, during the Obergefell arguments, President Obama’s top lawyer, Donald Verrilli pulled back the curtain on the Left’s real goal in one surprisingly candid moment. When Justice Samuel Alito pressed the solicitor general on whether same-sex marriage would give the government a weapon to threaten Christian schools, Verrilli seemed uncomfortable but admitted, “It’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is — it is going to be an issue.”

We haven’t seen the Left fully implement their plans, because they haven’t had the benefit of another radical president in the White House to build on the liberal legacy of Barack Obama. But we don’t have to guess what they’ll do if they get one. It’s all spelled out in the most recent Democratic National Platform. Religious freedom, as Americans have known it for 233 years, will not be safe in the hands of a movement that is surgically targeting people of faith.

When I talked to the vice president on “Washington Watch” earlier today, he didn’t mince words. “Karen and I have been in and around public life for almost two decades, and so — to be honest — we’re used to the criticism. But the attacks on Christian education by the mainstream media have got to stop. We cherish the freedom of religion in this country. This administration stands four-square for the freedom of religion of people of all faiths. And to see the mainstream media to criticize my wife because she’s choosing to return to the classroom of an elementary Christian school is wrong.”

There used to be a consensus in this country that religious liberty was for everyone. When the Religious Freedom Restoration Act came before Congress, only three members voted against it. Over time, some liberals tried to isolate faith — to churches, Christian schools, or family rooms. You’ve heard me say before that the Left’s hope is to quarantine religion within the four walls of the church. Now, it’s becoming clear — even that won’t satisfy them.

“I have always had a problem with the idea that religion is something we must keep to ourselves,” Matt Walsh writes in the Daily Wire. “Indeed, the Christian faith requires exactly the opposite. But in the case of Karen Pence and her new employer, they are doing exactly what the Left demanded. This school is merely trying to operate by biblical principles within its own walls and on its own property. It is a Christian school simply being a Christian school. It isn’t bothering anyone. It isn’t invading anyone’s home and lecturing them about their sexual behavior. It isn’t preventing anyone from working or living or enjoying their lives. It is just saying, very reasonably, very unobtrusively, ‘We are going to conduct ourselves according to Christian moral tradition. If you don’t want to accept that moral tradition, then by all means go somewhere else.'”

“This is exactly, precisely, the approach that the Left for years endorsed and insisted upon. But suddenly it’s a problem. Suddenly, even Christianity behind closed doors, on private property, in a private school, is a target of outrage and scorn. It was a lie all along. They were never planning to stop outside the walls of our homes and our churches and our schools. That’s just what they said to lull us to sleep.”

“Now the next phase begins.”

Sign the pledge to pray for Karen Pence openly lives her faith by biblical truth.


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

Pelosi’s #SOTU Shutdown Showdown

‘The Light Doesn’t Stop Shining When It Gets Darker

Podcast: A Former Planned Parenthood Employee Shares Why She Changed

Today is the March for Life in Washington, D.C., and we’re joined by Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood employee who had a change of heart and is now a pro-life advocate. Plus: Rachel del Guidice shares why she’s been attending the march for the past 13 years.

We also cover these stories:

  • A day after Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged the president to delay his State of the Union speech, President Donald Trump delayed Pelosi’s trip overseas.
  • A measure pushed by House Republicans that would keep the government closed but would provide pay to affected government employees failed, with only six Democrats voting for it.
  • Sen. Lindsey Graham re-introduced a bill that would ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunesSoundCloudGoogle Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show!

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

PODCAST BY

Portrait of Rachel del Guidice

Rachel del Guidice

Rachel del Guidice is a reporter for The Daily Signal. She is a graduate of Franciscan University of Steubenville, Forge Leadership Network, and The Heritage Foundation’s Young Leaders Program. Send an email to Rachel. Twitter: @LRacheldG.

Portrait of Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko is managing editor of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal podcast. She is also a member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors. Send an email to Katrina. Twitter: @KatrinaTrinko.

Portrait of Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis is the commentary editor of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal podcastSend an email to Daniel. Twitter: @JDaniel_Davis.

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with images and podcast is republished with permission. Photo: Melanie Stetson Freeman/The Christian Science Monitor/Getty Images

Medical Jihad Means Death to the Patient

Islam has been at war with competing ideologies since the time of Muhammad. The objective was and continues to be the establishment of a worldwide Islamic caliphate. In 1928, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Egyptian cleric Hassan al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood which continues to be the voice of Islamic expansionism and a source of virulent antisemitism worldwide.

According to al-Banna, “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.” The Muslim Brotherhood’s founding manifesto clearly and unapologetically states its tenets:

“Allah is our goal, the prophet our model, the Koran our constitution, the Jihad our path and death for the sake of Allah the loftiest of our wishes.”

German scholar and historian Matthias Kuntzel explains the connection between Islamism and antisemitism in his extraordinary 2007 book Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism, and the Roots of 9/11. Kuntzel identifies the Muslim Brotherhood as the ideological reference and organizational core of radical Islam. He warns that, “whoever does not want to combat antisemitism hasn’t the slightest chance of defeating Islamism.” 

Kuntzel argues that, “The Brotherhood’s most significant innovation was their concept of jihad as holy war, which significantly differed from other contemporary doctrines and, associated with that, the passionately pursued goal of dying a martyr’s death in the war with the unbeliever.” He identifies “the start point of Islamism as the new interpretation of jihad, espoused with uncompromising militancy by Hassan al-Banna, the first to preach this kind of jihad in modern times.” 

Kuntzel explains the intimate connection between jihad and Jew-hatred, and the behavior of, “University students who blow themselves up with the aim of heavenly self-improvement, priests who throw hydrochloric acid into young women’s faces to punish them for violating the obligation to wear the veil, parents who cheerfully prepare their children for jihad with dummy explosive belts: anyone seeking to find the motives for such behaviors enters a world in which reason is considered betrayal, doubt a deadly sin, and the Jews ’the brothers of monkeys, murderers of the Prophet, bloodsuckers, and warmongers.’”

Matthias Kuntzel explores some forms of the Muslim Brotherhood’s holy jihad in America but not all of them.  

The conversion of America from a Judeo-Christian country into a sharia compliant Muslim country through public school indoctrination was the unapologetic objective announced by Muslima Sharifa Alkhateeb in her 1989 speech hosted by the Muslim Brotherhood organization the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Alkhateeb, the late managing editor of the American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences (AJISS), advocated using US public schools to proselytize and convert America to Islam. 

Alkhateeb was born in Philadelphia 1946 but lived with her husband in Saudi Arabia from 1978 and 1987 where she was a teacher. In 1988 she returned to the United States and became a diversity consultant with the Fairfax County Public Schools in Fairfax, Virginia. 

Three decades later, what is most disturbing is how effective the Muslim effort has been in proselytizing Islam in the public schools and shattering our constitutionally guaranteed separation of church and state. What is most stunning is the Muslim supremacist and imperialist attitude that perversely insists that Islamization of infidels is the path to world peace.  

In the 1960s Alkhateeb, an active member of the Muslim Brotherhood offshoot the Muslim Students Association (MSA), worked with Hillary Clinton. Under Bill Clinton, a top Muslim Brother became his “Muslim outreach officer” and selected all of the imams for our prison system and military; most still in place today.

The virulent antisemitism fomented by the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States and embraced by the leftist Democrats, was exponentially increased under Obama and has produced the current antisemitic Democratic Party of Jihad that seeks to overthrow the government of President Donald Trump.

American citizens enjoy enviable levels of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and the possibility for upward mobility unequaled elsewhere in the world. Historically, American life has elicited two irreconcilable responses. The first is emulation where people seek to live like Americans either by legally immigrating to the United States and assimilating, or by attempting to reform their home countries.

The second response is anger and envy where people seek to destroy American life because the freedoms in America pose a threat to the stability of their home countries or to their ideological hegemony. It is the second response that connects the Muslim Brotherhood to America and to Muslims inside America including American born Muslims who embrace Islam’s supremacist tenets of sedition.

It is seditious to advocate the overthrow of the government and to attempt to replace Constitutional law with Koranic sharia law. Former radical Muslima Isik Abla lists eight types of jihad currently being waged against Western countries, including the US, in their campaign to rule the world under Islam.

1. Population jihad- Media jihad

2. Education jihad

3. Economic jihad-

4. Physical jihad

5. Legal jihad

6. Humanitarian jihad

7. Political jihad

America has just been introduced to the 9th jihad, medical jihad, and its current manifestation 27 year old Lara Kollab – the genocidal Muslim American doctor who vowed to purposely give Jews the wrong meds. WHAT?? The silence of the medical community regarding this outrage is deafening. The only thing worse than Kollab’s unconscionable intention to deliberately kill Jewish patients is that there are those who believe that this medical jihadi should be given a second chance!!

Muslims in America must choose between the two irreconcilable responses to the freedoms of American life. American citizens, including Muslim-American citizens, who embrace American life and honor the constitution are welcome in America. Those who reject American life and seek to replace our constitution with supremacist Koranic sharia law are enemies of the state and should be treated as such. 

First comes Saturday and then comes Sunday. Islamic antisemitism in America will be followed by Islamic anti-Christianism. Islamists are already slaughtering Christians in the middle east. The Islamic caliphate does not differentiate between Christians and Jews – we are all infidels.

Americans must understand that Islamic expansionism and all forms of Islamic jihad must be identified, opposed, defeated, and expunged from America. Silence is no longer an option. We must proudly shout our intention to preserve the Judeo-Christian traditions that are foundational to freedom, liberty and justice in America. 

It is imperative that the Muslim Brotherhood be designated a terrorist organization and an existential enemy of the United States. Islamic jihad means death to America as clearly as medical jihad means death to the patient.

EDITORS NOTE: This Goudsmit Pundicity column is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Leonardo Yip on Unsplash.

‘Muhammad in His Own Words’ Premiers in Manhattan Movie Theater on September 11, 2019

NEW YORK, Aug. 31, 2018 /Christian Newswire/ — After three-and-a-half years of production, Muhammad in His Own Words; The Founder of Islam Speaks will be released in New York City on September 11 in a Manhattan movie theater.

The name and address of the theater is being withheld until next week for security reasons.

Muhammad in His Own Words uses ancient Islamic texts and art, as well as Muslim voice actors and original art compositions from four continents to tell the story of Muhammad’s life, and the founding of the religion of Islam. All of the material is meticulously footnoted for the viewer to verify, and research in further depth if they choose.

Written and Directed by Randall Terry, MA; Diplomacy, International Terrorism.

Randall Terry has a Master’s Degree in Diplomacy, with a concentration in international terrorism from Norwich University. Norwich University is one of the oldest, and most prestigious military schools in America, including being the birthplace of the ROTC program.

The bulk of Mr. Terry’s research for his Master’s Degree focused on modern Islamic terrorism, and the ancient Islamic texts. These “sacred texts” provide the narrative that Islamic terrorists imitate and the commands they obey.

As Mr. Terry did his research, he learned that no movie had ever been created utilizing the “sacred texts” of Islam regarding the life of Muhammad.

Hence, Muhammad in His Own Words; The Founder of Islam Speaks was conceived.

As might be expected, Mr. Terry has been subjected to multiple death threats as a result of this project.

Also, Facebook has canceled the movie’s account, and YouTube is threatening to cancel the movie’s channel.

Randall Terry states:

“I am thrilled that after three-and-a-half years of writing and production, Muhammad in His Own Words is ready for release. My research and subsequent writings demanded rigorous adherence to the facts – as presented by Muslim historians and theologians.

“Muhammad in His Own Words is the fruit of thousands of hours of research. It is based solely on primary Islamic sources, the writings of the most respected Islamic historians and theologians. Namely,

  • The Translation of the Meanings of Sahih Al-Bukhari: Arabic-English (Nine Volumes.)
  • The English Translation of Sahih Muslim (Seven Volumes.)
  • The History of al-Tabari (39 Volumes),
  • The Life of the Prophet Muhammad, by Ibn Kathir, (Four Volumes) and
  • The Sira (biography) of Muhammad – also known as The Life of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq.
  • The Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law (Sharia Law.)

“This movie is nothing more or less than the facts of Muhammad’s life, as preserved and presented by his most devoted followers, and Islam’s most respected sources. I hope this presentation is helpful in these critical times.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images and video by Christian Newswire is republished with permission.

Unsafe “Safe Spaces”

Randall Smith: Rarely does anyone really feel “safe” when so many people are struggling just to avoid offending everybody else.

I walked by an office the other day on which I saw a sign that said, “Safe Space.” I immediately felt unsafe.

I hope everyone who comes into my office feels safe. But shouldn’t the people who come into my office tell me whether they feel safe there rather than me telling them?

Either way, it’s a moot point, because I usually meet students in coffee shops, some of which are “safer” spaces than others. I once had a student, a young Army veteran, who told me he had come to see me at a coffee shop where he knew I used to work in the evenings but hadn’t found me there. “When did you get there?” I asked. “About 9:20 p.m.,” he told me. “I arrived within five or ten minutes. Why didn’t you wait a few minutes?” “No, no,” he said, “the place was full of hipsters (it always is), and I could feel them looking at me and judging me, so I had to leave.”

I have no doubt that most of the people in that coffee shop imagine themselves very “open” and “welcoming.” But these things can be oddly relative. What seems “safe” and “welcoming” to one group of hipsters who style themselves as very progressive can be alienating to a host of others who feel “judged” for being too “plain,” too “normal,” or not “hip” enough.

I suppose I had this same instinctual fear of being “looked at” and “judged” when I saw the “Safe Space” sign. Was my gaze approving enough? Was my body language right? Someone noticing the slightly quizzical look on my face might have thought I was expressing disapproval, which was not my intention.

If the occupant of the office had popped her head out and asked, “You’re looking at my sign. Is there a problem?” what would I have said?” “No, no, no; not at all – just reading. . .you know, your. . .um, sign.” Would she have believed me? Or would she have remained suspicious? Would she have reported me?

And what if she somehow guessed I am a Catholic? What then? What assumptions might she have made about the horrible things I supposedly think about gay people? Would I have been able to convince her that I don’t think all those horrible things? I could never convince even my own Protestant parents that Catholics don’t believe all the things they thought they knew Catholics believed.

So perhaps what made me anxious about the “Safe Space” sign is the knowledge that one of the most popular past-times in American culture these days is a version of what an author in an earlier generation playfully called “upmanship”: “one-upping” the other guy. You say, “I met with the mayor of London last week.” And your conversation partner says: “The mayor of London? What a delightful man! I had him in for lunch last week” – thereby making your little meeting with the mayor look very unimpressive. He one-upped you.


The benefit of a plaster, or, A cure for a scold!!!, (J.L. Marks Publishers) c. 1820 [Lewis Walpole Library, Farmington, CT]. This image depicts a husband attempting to silence his wife. Click here to see an expanded version.

In the United States, increasing numbers of people seem intent on playing a slightly different, but similar game we might call “to-the-left-manship,” the goal of which is to get to the left of the other guy. You say, “I sent my daughter to a very liberal, progressive, all-girls school.” And then your conversation partner asks, with barely concealed contempt: “They still call themselves girls? I mean, so many of those “all-girls” schools don’t understand how damaging the word “girl” can be to the transgendered.” Hence that very progressive school in which you proudly enrolled your daughter (and which you were looking forward to bragging about) is now looking less progressive, perhaps even discriminatory.

You begin to feel, as intended, very small indeed.

People may do as they wish, but it’s not clear to me that all these little language wars we fight in the refined realms of academia have really done anything to help the people we say we want to help. After decades of obsessive speech patrolling, are inner-city kids getting a better education? Are homosexual persons feeling less anxious? Are minorities being treated with greater justice in the workplace, housing, and education? Are women given greater respect?

Because if the answer is no, and if all we’re doing is playing language games to make ourselves feel better, as if we too are doing something to solve the problems, to show we care, not like those other people who are less “woke” than we are, well, then, I would prefer not to pretend.

Rarely does anyone feel “safe” when so many people are struggling just to avoid stepping on one of the ever-increasing number of landmines set by those engaged in the “take-no-prisoners” war of “Left-manship.” Spaces that keep out those with “incorrect” views and attitudes are usually the opposite of safe.

So, for example, a pressure group recently petitioned the University of Oxford to remove John Finnis, a Catholic, from the faculty for having “extremely discriminatory views against many groups of disadvantaged people” (i.e., for disagreeing with their view on same-sex sexual activity and transgender surgery). They insisted that the University “clarify its policy on discriminatory professors” because, right now, students and staff actually have to wait for a “person-to-person instance of harassment or victimization before they can complain about the intolerant atmosphere and intimidation that these professors create . . . through their published work.” They don’t have to treat you badly, just have the wrong views.

For now, Oxford has refused. But what message does this petition send to other faculty members about their “safety” if they don’t agree to express the “approved” views of some campus group or other, whether it has to do with gay marriage, Muslim treatment of women, or Israeli-Palestinian politics?

That’s one question. But another is this: Is the tactical maneuvering of the people engaged in this game of “Left-manship” really doing anything to help the minorities and disadvantaged people it is supposed to be helping?

Is it even safe to ask that?

COLUMN BY

Randall Smith

Randall Smith

Randall B. Smith is the Scanlan Professor of Theology at the University of St. Thomas in Houston. His most recent book, Reading the Sermons of Thomas Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide, is now available at Amazon and from Emmaus Academic Press. The featured photo is by Casey Botticello on Unsplash.

EDITORS NOTE: This column by The Catholic Thing with images is republished with permission. © 2019 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. The featured photo is by Casey Botticello on Unsplash.

These 2 Democrats Are Finally Standing Up to Anti-Christian Bigotry in Their Party

Democrats pride themselves on “diversity.”

With the new Congress, they’ve hailed two new Muslim House members, made accomodations for religious headwear on the House floor, and celebrated record numbers of minorities in their freshman class.

This penchant for diversity makes their growing blind spot all the more glaring. That blind spot is anti-Christian bigotry, seen in the hostile questions that Democratic senators have aimed at Trump nominees that inch dangerously close to a religious test for public office.

Until recently, only Republicans had cried foul.

Senators like James Lankford, R-Okla., and Mike Lee, R-Utah, came to the defense of Amy Coney Barrett in 2017, whose qualifications to sit on a U.S. appeals court were questioned on account of her “dogma.” One senator had the gall to ask her directly whether she considered herself “an orthodox Catholic.”

So it comes as genuine relief this week that a Democrat, finally, is saying enough is enough.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii published a searing op-ed on Tuesday chiding her Democratic colleagues in the Senate for questioning Brian C. Buescher, a Trump judicial nominee, over his affiliation with the Knights of Columbus, the world’s largest Catholic civic organization.

Back in December, Sens. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, used their questioning time to scrutinize the Knights’ “extreme positions” on same-sex marriage and abortion. (Shock: The Knights of Columbus oppose both, in accordance with the Catholic Church.)

Hirono asked, “If confirmed, do you intend to end your membership with this organization to avoid any appearance of bias?”

Harris pried: “Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when you joined the organization?”

Buescher answered: “I do not recall if I was aware whether the Knights of Columbus had taken a position on the abortion issue when I joined at the age of 18.”

In her editorial for The Hill, Gabbard pulled no punches toward her colleagues for using a man’s Catholic faith and affiliations against him. She wrote:

While I oppose the nomination of Brian Buescher to the U.S. District Court in Nebraska, I stand strongly against those who are fomenting religious bigotry, citing as disqualifiers Buescher’s Catholicism and his affiliation with the Knights of Columbus. If Buescher is ‘unqualified’ because of his Catholicism and affiliation with the Knights of Columbus, then President John F. Kennedy, and the ‘liberal lion of the Senate’ Ted Kennedy would have been ‘unqualified’ for the same reasons.

Gabbard was almost completely alone among progressives. Her side reacted furiously.

But she wasn’t completely alone. Illinois Rep. Dan Lipinski, one of the only pro-life Democrats left in the House, voiced his concern on the matter:

I would never, ever have expected that membership in the Knights of Columbus would be something that would be viewed with suspicion and maybe even worse. It’s terrible to see membership in the Knights of Columbus questioned like that, but at the core this gets back to the question of religious freedom, and it’s something that we have to continue to speak out about because we, our country, can’t afford to lose that freedom that we’re guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Senators who dismiss the Knights of Columbus as “extreme” show just how little they know about the organization. The Knights mostly focus on charity work for the poor, disabled, and orphaned, while raising money to educate underprivileged students who come from all religious affiliations.

They have also been working to aid persecuted Christians in the Middle East and all over the world.

The Knights of Columbus are, essentially, a Catholic version of the Rotary Club. And the depth of their giving is impressive to say the least.

The Federalist’s Helen Raleigh put it best: “The only thing extreme about [the Knights of Columbus] is their generosity.”

As we have noted before at The Daily Signal, religious tests for public office are clearly forbidden by the Constitution. Senate Democrats’ increasing hostility to nominees who hold deep Christian beliefs is a regression back to a sectarian sensibility we thought we had left behind.

In the 1920s, there was heightened tension between Catholic and Protestant Christians in America. Some, like the Ku Klux Klan, openly questioned whether Catholics could even be Americans—especially in light of the sharp increase of immigrants from Catholic countries.

The Klan painted the Knights of Columbus as a Catholic conspiracy to overthrow the Constitution and install the pope in its place. It also waged a campaign to abolish increasingly popular Columbus Day celebrations, which it considered another dastardly Catholic attempt to normalize their religious beliefs.

Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd was the last ex-klansman to serve in the Senate. But it appears some modern progressives have amnesia and are picking up the anti-Catholic torch yet again.

Certainly, a judicial nominee’s views and legal positions are relevant as to whether they are fit to serve, but attempting to disqualify them for the simple fact that they are affiliated with a specific religious group is corrosive.

The charge against the Knights of Columbus, and Buescher, seems to be that their true religion is Catholicism and not progressivism. That is a religious test in disguise—but they cannot be allowed to get by with it.

The Heritage Foundation’s Joel Griffith recently pointed out that anti-Semitism has gained a new foothold in the 116th Congress. So has anti-Catholicism. But it’s encouraging to see two brave members of the Democratic Party finally pushing back. Let their tribe increase.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman is an editor and commentary writer for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast.Send an email to Jarrett. Twitter: @JarrettStepman.

Portrait of Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis is the commentary editor of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal podcastSend an email to Daniel. Twitter: @JDaniel_Davis.

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

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with images is republished with permission. The featured images is from Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard’s Facebook page.

NYC: Giant sculpture proclaiming ‘There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet’ goes up at Ground Zero

Said Jenkell: “Given the unique and justified sensitivities surrounding the World Trade Center, it came to my mind to propose to remove the sculpture showcasing the flag of Saudi Arabia, or relocate it to a less sensitive location. But there is no way I can do such a thing as the flag of Saudi Arabia is entirely part of the G20 just like any other candy flag of this Candy Nations show.”

City officials should move it. Would a giant sculpture containing Shinto inscriptions be put up at Pearl Harbor? But nothing will be done about this. To move it would be “Islamophobic,” and the de Blasio administration would rather have its teeth pulled out with rusty pliers than do anything that might even give the appearance of “Islamophobia.”

“A Sculpture Celebrating Saudi Arabia Has Been Erected on Ground Zero,” by Davis Richardson, Observer, January 9, 2019 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

A sculpture celebrating Saudi Arabia’s place in the G20 Summit was erected on the World Trade Center grounds last week, a stone’s throw away from the 9/11 memorial.

Shaped to resemble a piece of candy, the nine-foot-tall statue bears the Kingdom’s emerald flag emblazoned with the Arabic inscription, “There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is the prophet.” It was created by French sculptor Laurence Jenkell in 2011 as part of the larger installation “Candy Nations” which depicts G20 countries as sugary delights….

“I first created flag candy sculptures to celebrate mankind on an international level and pay tribute to People of the entire world,” Jenkell told Observer in a statement. “Given the unique and justified sensitivities surrounding the World Trade Center, it came to my mind to propose to remove the sculpture showcasing the flag of Saudi Arabia, or relocate it to a less sensitive location. But there is no way I can do such a thing as the flag of Saudi Arabia is entirely part of the G20 just like any other candy flag of this Candy Nations show.”

The installation was curated and installed by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey….

Although the installation was originally created in 2011 to convey “an optimistic message of unity beneath external differences,” its placement at the World Trade Center raises questions given longstanding accusations directed toward Saudi Arabia in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. In 2003, hundreds of families affected by the 9/11 terror attacks sued the Kingdom over its alleged involvement in harboring terrorism—given that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi.

Last March, a U.S. federal judge rejected Saudi Arabia’s motion to drop the charges.

RELATED ARTICLE: Antisemitic Congresswoman Given Seat on House Foreign Affairs Committee

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Nik Shuliahin on Unsplash.

The Irony of Refusing to Swear in on the Bible

Last week, the first openly bisexual senator was sworn in…and she refused to be sworn in on the Holy Bible, as is customary. She instead opted for a law book with the Arizona Constitution and the U.S. Constitution, because, she says, of her “love for the Constitution.”

Senator Kyrsten Sinema has a first name that ironically means, in Latin, “Follower of Christ.” In addition to being openly bisexual, she is also listed, according to the Pew Research Center for Religion and Public Life, as the “only member of the Senate who does not identify as a member of a religion.”

Why do we have this system of swearing in public officials in the first place? And swearing in on the Bible? And saying, “So help me, God.”—which, by the way she did (indirectly, at least)?  Who cares about such “antiquated” customs?  Do these symbols matter? Well, Senator Sinema has a role in our government, thanks in part to the Bible for the creation of that government.

I wrote a whole book about how the Bible played a pivotal role in the founding of America. And the more I study the subject, the more convinced I become of it.

Historically, taking oaths is a way to seal one’s commitment —but to do it with God as a witness. Just as marital vows are oaths before God.

George Washington noted in his Farewell Address (1796) that if we undermine religion (in his day, he was speaking to a largely Christian audience), we undermine oaths and fidelity.

Said Washington,

“Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?”

If there is no God to Whom we shall give an account, we can do whatever we want.

When George Washington was sworn in as our first president under the Constitution, he used the Holy Bible. After being sworn in with his hand on the Bible, Washington even bent down and kissed the holy book. Dr. D. James Kennedy once remarked of that action: “Why, that’s enough to give the ACLU apoplexy!”

I’ve seen documentary footage where President Truman, our 33rd president, also deferentially kissed the Holy Bible as he was being sworn in.

But some people today don’t even want to be sworn in on the holy book. Meanwhile, some recent Muslim elected officials expressed an interest in swearing in on Thomas Jefferson’s copy of the Qur’an—but, as Bill Federer points out, the reason Jefferson got a copy of the Muslim holy book was to try and figure out why Muslims were, without provocation, attacking U.S. ships in the Mediterranean and elsewhere. Early 19th century jihad ultimately led to our Marines being sent “to the shores of Tripoli” to get Islamic attackers to stop stealing our men on the sea and selling them into slavery. 

One of the key points about America’s heritage that is often overlooked is that the Biblical concept of covenant gave rise ultimately to our two key founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

They are written agreements, under God, signed by the participants. More importantly, our founding documents are the culmination of about a hundred or so compacts and frames of government created by the Puritans and other Christians, using a Biblical covenant as the model.

I once interviewed Dr. Donald S. Lutz of the University of Houston, who has been studying constitutions for decades. He told our viewers, “Without a belief in the Bible, we would not have the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution as we have it.” 

In his book, The Origins of American Constitutionalism, Lutz notes:

“The American constitutional tradition derives in much of its form and content from the Judeo-Christian tradition as interpreted by the radical Protestant sects to which belonged so many of the original European settlers in British North America.”

For example, the first fully developed Constitution on American soil was the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639), which declares the purpose of the colony is “the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus.” This Constitution was inspired by a sermon based on Deuteronomy 1:13 and 1:15, where Moses essentially implements “the consent of the governed” around 1400 B.C. This is just one example of hundreds of how the Scriptures helped pave the way to create the United States.

No wonder the U. S. Supreme Court declared in 1892, when it reviewed all the evidence:

“These and many others which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.” 

Senator Sinema might not like that. But the very authority she has been given comes courtesy of those who sacrificed so much to create this nation in the first place, with the help of God and His holy Word.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Kiwihug on Unsplash.

Is Hyatt actually renting to hate spewing Islamists while banning certain Christian and Jewish groups?

Florida Family Association published an article on October 20, 2018 titled Will Hyatt actually comply with Sharia law by banning groups that criticize Islam?  The article reported in part:Latimes.com published an article titled Hyatt hotels won’t rent to hate groups, CEO says; Muslim group claims a victory.DCist.com reports in part that CAIR wants Corporate America to ban associations with groups that openly criticize Islam.

Hyatt Crystal City is hosting on January 10, 2019 a Council on American Islamic Relations event featuring Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.

Ilhan Omar mocked Vice President Mike Pence’s Christian faith.

Rashida Tlaib profanely attacked President Donald Trump.

CAIR has hundreds of articles posted on its news release web page that openly and aggressively attack government officials, companies, teachers, professors, candidates for office and individuals who dare say anything negative about Islam, Sharia law or Muhammad. 

Where is Hyatt’s concern about Ilhan Omar’s hate for Mike Pence’s faith, Rashida Tlaid’s hate for President Donald Trump and CAIR’s hate for patriotic, law abiding citizens?  There has been no new news reports since Hyatt announced its plans to censor organizations it deems as “hate groups.”  Why has Hyatt taken this posture when other hotel chains have not?   Is Hyatt actually allowing hate spewing Islamists to rent facilities while banning certain Christian and Jewish groups?

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to express concern to Hyatt officers and directors regarding how it appears that Hyatt is renting to hate spewing Islamists while banning certain Christian and Jewish groups?  Please feel free to change the Subject line and Email Content.

Click here to send your email to Hyatt officials.
For Gmail, Yahoo and other email clients that require comma separation of addresses.
YAHOO works best in Yahoo Mobile App, not so well with internet browser.

Click here to send your email to Hyatt officials.
For Outlook and other email clients that require semicolon separation of addresses.

VIDEO: The Ties That Divide

TRANSCRIPT

As we get into the new calendar year, all signs point to an explosive year for the Church, a great disruption, a great divide. The year was barely 48 hours old and the U.S. bishops had begun to meet on retreat about the scourge of sexual abuse among the clergy.

But even here, on this topic, there is a divide among so many of the bishops. A few well-balanced ones who don’t really have any connection to the errant theology and formation from the 1970s know and say that the problem is homosexuality.

But the vast majority of them, because they are slaves to that malformation of the 1970s, refuse to admit this reality even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

They are, frankly, a pitiful crew to behold. Even with the feds and state attorneys general raiding their chanceries looking for secret files covering up cases of sexual abuse of minors — 80 percent of whom were teenage boys — even still, they will not admit the reality.

And that’s because too many of the bishops themselves are gay. And let’s be very clear here: One gay bishop is too many. But in the USCCB, it would be the height of naivete to not understand that many of the men sitting in that room saying it’s not a gay problem are gay themselves, so of course they are going to say that.

Others who are not directly sexually attracted to other men are still complicit, because they refuse to either admit the horror of this sin, or, they turn a blind eye to it because they do not wish to face the wrath and rage of gay priests in their dioceses, like Abp. Allen Vigneron here in Detroit.

According to his own seminary faculty member, Mary Healy, who said publicly that he will not end the homosexual anti-Catholic group Dignity’s weekly Mass because he’s afraid to anger the gay priests here in Detroit.

He and others like him, however, never seem to be so concerned about angering traditional Catholics or people fighting for the Faith in their own lives. And all this with news now spreading that the much-anticipated $200 million fundraising campaign is going to be announced in the next week or two. It’s disgusting.

Here’s the gist of the problem on this question of “division.” It’s a smokescreen, the charge that someone is “divisive” or causes division. What a panty-waist accusation to hurl at someone. Seriously, from a bishop, “You are divisive”?

Do they not know how all the prophets and patriarchs, apostles, saints and martyrs spoke routinely? And, oh yeah, the Son of God. All these men were “divisive.” That’s the point.

But the limp-wristed, light in the loafers, emasculated theology of most of today’s bishops has as its greatest sin giving offense. Anything, and we mean anything else, is acceptable, worthy of a second, third or even fourth chance, but if you come off as socially impolite, you’re done.

The homosexual or homosexual-minded man should not be ordained in the first place, and all Hell breaks loose when they are consecrated to the office of bishop.

They sacrifice truth and its bold preaching to their own disgusting femininity and cowardice and lack of authentic masculinity and hide behind the skirts of calling people divisive.

Catholicism is all about division, bishops. Do you not understand that? What do you think Heaven and Hell is all about?

What do you think being in a state of grace versus a state of mortal sin is all about?

But see, the combination of their poisonous homosexuality and intellect-rotting malformation they got back in seminary in the 1970s has made them unable to see this truth.

They want the Church to be this big soft, squishy “all are welcome” cacophony of confusion so they hide in it and rationalize their psychological illness of sodomy.

If some of the collateral damage happens to be some teenage altar boys happen to get raped along the way, oh well.

If thousands and thousands of seminarians are driven from the seminary and lose their vocations, and even sometimes their faith, oh well.

And if some of these young men end up in lives of addiction and sexual exploitation and even kill themselves, oh well.

As long as we all get along and not say things that are divisive, that’s all that matters. The bishops themselves are the cause of the division in the Church, especially the homosexual bishops and their allied bishops who now exercise great control over vast portions of the Church.

They are a cancer in the episcopate, they are destroyers of souls, and without repentance, they will suffer outrageous tortures in Hell for eternity, which is why they spend so much time ignoring Hell or promoting the spiritually insane idea that we have a reasonable hope all men are saved.

That is homosexual-think, not sound theology, and bishops who say it, promote, defend it or let it slide need to be called out.

See, the Faith itself is always whole, always pure, always a unity. But too many of these men — many, perhaps most, but not all being homosexual — are the ones who have brought about the division and then stood on their sacred office and promoted it.

Then when faithful Catholics shine the light on the division they have caused, they accuse us of creating it. That’s exactly what you expect from the mind of someone who has given himself over to the demonic.

To reveal the already existing division in the Church caused by these bishops, to bring it to light, is the work of God. There exists today in the Church a great division, largely between a huge number of bishops and the faithful.

To be frank, we and they don’t believe the same faith, just like St. Peter and Judas did not believe the same thing about Our Lord. One said He was the Messiah, the Son of God, the other betrayed Him — not the same faith.

Father James Martin and I do not believe the same faith. Cardinal Blase Cupich and I do not believe the same faith. Cardinal Joseph Tobin and I do not believe the same faith. They obfuscate and deceive souls on the altar of sodomy and support of it. What they preach is not the authentic Catholic faith.

It is they and their ilk that divide; they divide souls, separate from the truth. In what manner could it be said we accept the same foundations of the faith? It can’t. Now, many of you watching this have the same reality, just because someone in your circle says they are Catholic doesn’t mean they are, and they should not be allowed to remain in that mindset.

They either need to understand that they are mistaken about Church teachings or, if they reject them, then leave the Church in practice, because they already have in soul. All of this has been brought you by the modernist heretics crowd, largely fueled by warped and sick homosexual bishops and those among them sympathetic to it.

Want to know where all the division is from, look there — not at faithful Catholics trying to expose it.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with video and images by Church Militant is republished with permission.

The Constitution’s Affirmation Option Was Not Designed To Accommodate Secularists.

It’s one of the most often utilized arguments by secularists when making the case that the Constitution is a secular document and that the nation’s Founders, in thirteen short years, went from affirming the central role of the Creator in informing the relations of man and government to a complete abandonment of God.  As the argument goes, so dismissive were the Framers of religion’s role in governance that the even the Oath was given an elective role in the swearing of a public servant’s allegiance to the United States and the Constitution; a role that was equal in standing to the godless affirmation.  

In point of fact, nothing could be further from the truth. 

There are two major reasons for the Constitution’s apparently secular tone.  First, it was a working document designed to serve as a blueprint for government. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, it did not have an aspirational or declaratory purpose, nor did it need to explain itself “to a candid world.”

Second, the Constitution had to specifically avoid, as much as it could, any references to religion because, as discussed by countless sources of the time and memorialized in the subsequent First Amendment to the Constitution, religion was to remain within the purview of the states, not under the auspices of the new national government.  This is also why the Framers prohibited any religious test from being employed to determine the qualifications of any of its members.  

Even so, deference to God is still encountered within the Constitution of the United States in at least two locations.  First, the Constitution specifically references God in acknowledging that the date of attestation took place “in the year of our Lord.”  Second, the Constitution skips Sunday in the number of days allowed for the President to return a bill passed by Congress.  There is no coincidence that this day was skipped because it was one of rest and worship amongst Christians.  

Secularists foolishly argue that notwithstanding those two references, the placement of the affirmation as an alternative to an oath clearly demonstrates the Framers’ secularist intent and their secularist design for their new nation.  That assertion is wrong.  

In Article II, the Framers required an incoming President to take an “Oath or Affirmation.” Additionally, in Article VI, the Framers wrote, “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution.” 

The importance of this requirement is striking when one considers that an “oath” is often defined as “a solemn promise”[i]with the words “calling on God” as witness included in many definitions.[ii] It is viewed as an appeal to God to witness the veracity or solemnity of the words or actions about to be taken.[iii] No greater act of contrition, or of subservience to God, can be required of one about to undertake an action than to require the person to make the statement under the direct appeal to God.  The oath requirement within the Constitution of the United States is a preeminent acknowledgment of the existence of God and of the subservience of every American elected official to Him.

However, what about the affirmation?  

In point of fact, the affirmation was designed to accommodate those with an ostensibly greater subservience to God; not to secularists.  According to Professor Steve Sheppard, a law professor at the University of Arkansas, in including the affirmation as an option, the Framers were attempting to appease the faith requirements of Quakers and those like them, whose fears of God was so great that they were prohibited from undertaking an oath.[iv] Consequently, the affirmation inscribed within the Constitution was far from Godless, as some would like to argue today. It was merely an option to be exercised by those whose fear and respect for God was so great that they could not bring themselves to invoke His name in an oath, but would nevertheless place themselves under the threat of perjury when making their declaration.  

It stands as indisputable that the Constitution is a document divinely inspired.  Man could not arrive at such a solemn document, albeit with its many imperfections, without some guidance from God. However that modern-day secularists should use a capitulation made in honor of the most pious as an affirmation of the document’s secularity, is as ironic as it is false.  

REFERENCES:

[i] American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Ed. (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company).
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, 2nd ed.. (The Gale Group, Inc.: 2008),
[iv] Steve Sheppard, “What Oaths Meant to the Framers’ Generation: A Preliminary Sketch,” Cardozo Law Review,de Novo 27, (2009): 279.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. The featured photo is by John Bakator on Unsplash.

Is Jennifer Wexton (D-VA) flying a Pedophile Pride flag outside of her Congressional Office?

At least one newly elected member of Congress is showing her support for the LGBTQ community, but has she gone too far?

U.S. News and World Report published the below photograph of Rep. Weston’s office stating:

Image may contain: 1 person, smiling, standing and outdoor

Rep. Jennifer Weston (D-VA). Photo: Facebook.

In this photo [below] provided by the Office of Congresswoman Jennifer Wexton, a transgender pride flag, right, is displayed along with U.S. left, and Virginia, second from right, flags, outside newly elected Virginia congresswoman Rep. Jennifer Wexton’s office in Washington on Friday, Jan. 4, 2019. Wexton is a Democrat from 10th District in northern Virginia who was sworn in Thursday, Jan. 3. (Office of Congresswoman Jennifer Wexton via AP) 

The Associated Press

Note that Wexton is not displaying a traditional rainbow flag of the LGBT movement. The flag is light blue, pink and white striped. The flag, now flying in the halls of the U.S. Congress looks eerily like the Minor Attracted Persons (MAPs) flag. The MAPs flag is known as the pedophile pride flag, shown below.

Obviously the two flags are not identical. But this new flag is problematic in that it may be the first step in embracing the MAPs as a protected category?

The Western Journal in an article titled “Pedophiles Desperately Trying To Join LGBT Movement with Their Own ‘Acceptance’ Flag” by Erin Coates notes:

Pedophiles have renamed themselves as “Minor Attracted Persons” in order to try and get acceptance and inclusion into the LGBT community.

The Daily Caller reported that Urban Dictionary defines Minor Attracted Persons — also known as MAPs — as a blanket term that includes infantophiles (a person attracted to infants), pedophiles (a person attracted to prepubescent children), hebephiles (a person attracted to pubescent children) and ephebophiles (a person attracted to post-pubescent children).

There are also NOMAPs or “Non-Offending Minor Attracted Persons” who reportedly don’t act on their attractions. “Just because someone is attracted to a child does not mean they are automatically going to sexually abuse them,” The Prevention Project said.

It should be noted that all pedophiles are not homosexual. However, by definition all pederasts are.

As Ayn Rand wrote,

“The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”

Unless members of Congress tell Rep. Wexton to take down this flag, we are on the path to making sodomy, and pedophilia, the official ideology of America.

RELATED ARTICLE: 30 Transgender Regretters Come Out Of The Closet

RELATED VIDEOS:

Controversy Over Push to Redefine Pedophilia.

Homosexuality

RELATED FBI INFORMATION ON PEDOPHILIA.

wikileaks-fbi-pedophile-symbols

When ‘Islamophobes’ Free Muslim Slaves [+Video]

I have a friend who travels to the Middle East twice a year. He recently returned from a trip that took him to Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon. His mission has been for many years to free families from slavery. He has Muslim contacts in the Middle East who go to slave markets, yes these still exist, and using money he has raised purchase women and children. In America we call this human trafficking. He then places these women and children into shelters run by Christians. The children attend a school, also run by Christians. They are taught the Bible. Many are of the Yazidi faith, Muslim but believers in Jesus.

My friend is a Christian and therefore an enemy of Islam. Because he believes that Jesus is the Son of God and openly says so, he is considers by some an “Islamophobe.”

The Glazov Gang did an interview with Dr. Charles Jacobs, President of Americans for Peace and Tolerance. Dr. Jacobs sheds light on when “Islamophobes” free Muslim slaves, and also on the curious phenomenon of “racists” freeing black slaves.

An Act of Sedition

In the news: “Newly elected Detroit congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib, is going to use Thomas Jefferson’s Koran for her swearing-in ceremony.”

Let’s get the facts straight.

Fact: It is not Jefferson’s Koran.  It is Mohammed’s Koran.

Fact: Jefferson owned a Koran to understand and defeat the Islamic Barbary Pirates.  How many members of Congress have read the Koran & Sunna from cover to cover or have any idea what is written on these pages?

Fact: We have evidence of our forefathers’ reference to the Koran: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, March 28, 1786

Fact:  Tlaib is swearing her oath on a Koran in which over 20% written in Medina is about violent jihad.

Fact:  Tlaib is swearing her oath on a Koran that has 17% of its text from Mohammed’s time in Medina devoted to Jew hatred.

Fact:  Tlaib is swearing her oath on a Koran that says that Muslims are superior to all and the non-Muslim (Kafir) is lower than animals. It also says a Muslim is not the friend of a Kafir.

Fact:  Tlaib is swearing her oath on a Koran that says wives can be beaten.

Fact:  Tlaib is disingenuous when she says ““I believe in secular government…“ According to Islamic doctrine, a Muslim must be governed by the Allah-inspired Sharia, because Kafir (man-made) secular laws are not worth following.  So either she is not a good Muslim or she is using taqiyya, sacred deception, to advance Islam.

Fact:  Tlaib is swearing her oath on a book that declares our U.S. Constitution is not the highest law of the land.

In short, Rashida Tlaib, by swearing her oath on a Koran, commits an act of sedition.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Rashida Tlaib’s personal Koran from her Facebook page.