VIDEO: Planned Parenthood Minds Its Ps and LGBTQs

Imagine how upset you’d be to find out that your tax dollars were funding radical sexual propaganda targeted at your kids. Well, thanks to Planned Parenthood, you already are. Apparently, the nation’s biggest abortion business isn’t content with destroying innocent lives anymore. Now it wants to undermine your moral values too.

Of course, Americans got a whiff of this back in 2016, when then-president Cecile Richards surprised people by saying, “Planned Parenthood believes that reproductive rights are deeply connected to LGBTQ rights…” In an announcement that raised more than a few eyebrows, because there is no obvious connection, she made it clear that the organization was quickly becoming one-stop shopping for the Left’s social agenda. “[Our] affiliates now provide hormone treatments for transgender people in 26 centers across 10 states.”

Now, the group that enjoys more than a half-billion of your hard-earned tax dollars a year is already wrapping its tentacles around another hot-button topic: the transgender debate. And based on the firestorm in Sarasota, Florida, Planned Parenthood is off to a flying start. Its idea of a sex education video — men groping women and same-sex couples making out — made parents hit the fan.

Despite the backlash in Florida, the group is back at it this week with a special project for “Trans Awareness Week.” In partnership with the LGBT activists at GLAAD, Planned Parenthood has taken it upon themselves to teach people to be less offensive to men who identify as women and vice-versa. The campaign, called “Beyond the Binary,” includes a new vocabulary list that makes the abortion group the newest members of the politically-correct language police.

Among other things, Breitbart points out, the “linguistic guide” scraps the terms “boys and girls” for the more generic “children.” “His” or “her” should be “their” — which is not only ridiculous, but grammatically incorrect. Apparently, science isn’t the only casualty of the Left’s gender-free march. If activists get their way, English will be the next to go. Group salutations like “guys” are supposed to give way to “folks.” “‘Brothers and sisters,’ should simply be ‘siblings,’ while ‘ladies and gentlemen’ should be ‘distinguished guests.'” All of this, Williams goes on, with a backdrop of rainbow birth control. “With its cheery backdrop of multi-colored condoms, one could almost forget that Planned Parenthood’s chief business is killing little children in their mothers’ wombs.”

Although LGBT activism can’t be as lucrative as the group’s biggest moneymaker — abortion — it certainly diversifies their already fanatical portfolio. And with Planned Parenthood’s latest hire, Dr. Sara Flowers, the organization shows no signs of slowing down. Flowers may not be a household name — but she’s about to become a household presence, now that the former director at the Gay Men’s Health Crisis has just been put in charge of Planned Parenthood’s “education” efforts. And, as far as she’s concerned, sex ed is “more than learning about birth control and sexually-transmitted infections. Ideally, sex education should address… gender identity and sexual orientation…” If you think the public-school indoctrination is bad now, just wait. Planned Parenthood has unlimited access to more than 1.5 million kids through sex education. Is yours one of them? Make sure you contact your local district office and find out.

Meanwhile, when the group isn’t busy brainwashing children (or aborting them), it’s spreading plenty of misinformation online. In new videos targeting moms and dads (no doubt also funded by unwilling taxpayers), Planned Parenthood has disturbing answers to questions like “How do I know if my kid is transgender?” Children, they insist without a scrap of science to back it up, can know their gender identity by age three, the group suggests. And, “there’s nothing you as a parent can do to change [it].” Some little kids, the narrator says, “may understand that the gender that everyone says they are is not who they really know they are inside. And that’s the definition of transgender.” If you want to try counseling, the videos urge, talk with someone who’s “supportive of transgender identities.” Forcing them into a gender box, Planned Parenthood warns, will hurt them. That’s hardly the advice of the real experts at the American College of Pediatricians, who insist this kind of guidance is “child abuse.”

After its baby body parts sales, overbilling scandals, sexual abuse cover-ups, gender targeting, unsanitary clinic conditions, botched abortions, falsified medical information, and political campaigns, Planned Parenthood didn’t have a lot of credibility to fall back on. Now, with this stampede into LGBT activism, whatever shred of credibility Planned Parenthood had in claiming to be a “health care provider” should be put to rest. This is all the more reason for Congress to finish the job it started last fall and cut off Planned Parenthood’s funding at the source: the federal government.


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

ICE Queen: Harris Compares Immigration Workers to KKK

Truth Erased by Hollywood in Film Attacking Counseling Choice

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

Blaming the Victim in the Digital Age

Consider the following scenario:

A murder investigation is underway to determine the identity of the shooter. The detective questioning the suspect accuses him of shooting the woman he robbed. The suspect indignantly retorts, “BUT SHE WOULDN’T GIVE ME HER PURSE!!”

WHAT? The robber is blaming the victim because she refused to give him what he wanted! The victimizer is rationalizing his behavior and misrepresents himself as the victim.

The facts of this case are not in dispute – the suspect admits he shot the woman he was robbing. It is the interpretation of those facts that are being disputed – WHO is to blame – victim or victimizer?

In a sane society the shooter is blamed for the murder and is held criminally responsible. In today’s upside down world of Leftist Democrat identity politics, society accepts the shooter’s interpretation and the victim is being blamed for not surrendering to the demands of the victimizer. The perpetrator has been allowed to frame the argument.

The escalating antisemitism in Europe and America illustrates the same operating principle of blaming the victim where the perpetrators are being allowed to frame the argument. This is how it works.

Tabitha Korol’s recent article, “Paradise Long-lost,” documents the blatant falsehoods and misrepresentations in Randa Siniora’s October 25, 2018 anti-Semitic address to the UN Security Council. So, let’s investigate Ms. Siniora’s odious “blame the victim” presentation.

Ms. Siniora begins her address with a lofty self-aggrandizing introduction to frame the argument:

“Mr. President, Excellencies, Civil Society colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen, Good morning. Today, I speak in my capacity as the General Director of the Women’s Centre for Legal Aid and Counselling (WCLAC). I also speak on behalf of the NGO Working Group on Women, Peace and Security. I speak to you as a peace leader and as a human rights defender who has witnessed, documented, and spoken out about violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory for three decades.”

The body of Siniora’s 1500 word speech typifies the deliberate worldwide effort to demonize Israel. The incessant repetition of lies, distortions, and blaming Jews for Arab violence defines the current echo chamber that is propagandizing adults on the Internet and indoctrinating children in schools worldwide.

It is Hitler’s old tried and true political strategy – if you tell a lie big enough and long enough it will be believed as the truth.

Propaganda is a far more powerful tool than bullets in Western societies. Ever since oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia the greedy West has allowed itself to be propagandized by the anti-Semitic Jew hatred of the Arab world. Politicians were bribed, university chairs were bought, Internet behemoths began curating/censoring content, and pro-Arab policies became normative resulting in sharia compliant anti-Semites serving in public office.

We live in a 21st century digital world that is indoctrinating the public to blame the victim and believe that the Jews are the problem. Rational arguments and documented facts are not persuasive to those who embrace their political self-interest with emotional religious zeal. The anti-semitic echo chamber in Nazi Germany transformed a sovereign country into a killing machine. Today, the United Nations represents a worldwide anti-Semitic echo chamber united against Israel. The United States and Israel are powerful sovereign nations and formidable obstacles in the globalist campaign for one world government.

We are now at a global tipping point. The liberal Leftist Democrats in the United States and the ultra-left Labor party in England have been exposed for embracing the anti-Semitic lies of the echo chamber. The Leftist leaders will collapse their countries’ economies if they gain power and will blame the Jews for the collapse.

It is not enough for rational people to shake their heads confused by how it is possible for lies, inconsistencies, and distortions to be believed. They must fight back by exposing the deliberateness of the propaganda effort to blame the Jews and recognize that antisemitism is a galvanizing political tool. The lying echo chamber that promotes the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and supports Ms. Siniora is the same lying echo chamber that facilitated Obama’s catastrophic anti-American anti-Semitic Iran deal.

The Constitution of the United States has been America’s enduring, non-partisan, foundational document guaranteeing our individual rights and freedoms for 242 years. Leftist Democrats are seeking to transform our Constitution into a living breathing document that will reflect their partisan political aspirations. This partisan transformation will allow the institutionalization of antisemitism and legalize its blame the victim infrastructure.

It is essential to recognize that masses of illegal immigrants bring antisemitism with them when they cross the border. Population shifting and forced illegal immigration is a political strategy designed to collapse the economies and sovereignty of Western nations in preparation for one world government.

Like Hitler in the 1930s, Leftist leaders here and abroad are using the unifying tool of antisemitism to gain partisan power and control over their respective governments. They have embraced the Islamists and Globalists in a bizarre alliance of common cause.

Here is the problem.

The Leftist/Islamist/Globalist axis is the short term head of a poisonous three-headed snake. The Islamists believe they will prevail. The Globalists believe they will prevail. The Leftists are the useful idiots for both sides. Time will tell the outcome.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on the Goudsmit Pundicity. It is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Toa Heftiba on Unsplash.

The Golan Heights: Its History and Biblical significance

Why Historical Correctness must always trump Political Correctness.

In the cesspit known as the United Nations – an oxymoron as most nations are not united except when depressingly voting as political fodder within murky voting blocs – one shining star remains above the UN’s corrosive hypocrisy. That principled star and lady is UN Ambassador, Nikki Haley, who declared in a statement previewing the perennial anti-Israel vote that “the United States will no longer abstain when the United Nations engages in its useless annual vote on the Golan Heights.” As she so resolutely said:

“If this resolution ever made sense, it surely does not today. The resolution is plainly biased against Israel. Further, the atrocities the Syrian regime continues to commit prove its lack of fitness to govern anyone. The destructive influence of the Iranian regime inside Syria presents major threats to international security. ISIS and other terrorist groups remain in Syria.

And this resolution does nothing to bring any parties closer to a peace agreement. The United States will vote no.”

But here is a telling and inconvenient truth for the assorted delegates to hear as they sit squirming in their comfortable chairs in the General Assembly of the United Nations. Israel has been in possession of the Golan Heights for 51 years, Syria occupied it for 44 years.

You see, the British tore the Golan away from Mandatory Palestine and gave it to France’s Syrian colony in 1923. Syria attacked Israel in 1967 and lost the Golan. Who then has possessed the Golan the longest?

Even as modern day Syria is convulsed in a murderous and bloody civil war with untold thousands dead and maimed; even as its tyrant, Bashir al-Assad, the minority Alawite Shiite dictator, now allies himself with Iran and Russia as he fights for his political and physical life; even with all this, he nevertheless spews forth his hatred of Israel and his call to take away the Golan Heights from the Jewish state.

Russia, as it has since the time of Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, seeks a warm water port in the Mediterranean and a physical presence south of the Black Sea. Syria provides both.

Iran, under the irrational yoke of ayatollahs and mullahs who desire one thing – a cataclysmic nuclear war that they believe will usher in the Muslim messiah; the twelfth Mahdi – are already bringing thousands ofIslamic terrorists to the Golan border between Syria and Israel in order to fulfill the extermination of the Jewish state, which it calls the Little Satan, and later to destroy with ICBMs the Big Satan; the United States of America.

Iran has already built military bases in Syria and continuously arms its huge terror proxy army in Lebanon and Syria, Hezb’allah, with advanced missiles and weapon systems. This terrorist horde has an army bigger than most European forces can deploy and has over 130,000 missiles aimed at Israel from southern Lebanon; all hidden in private homes, schools, hospitals and UN facilities constituting a crime against humanity and a massive threat to the civilian population of the Jewish state. At the same time, Iran which is the leading fomenter and financier of worldwide terror, directs the Hamas terrorists who occupy the Gaza Strip.

Those of us who have stood on the Golan’s 1,700 foot steep escarpment, are struck by its immense strategic value overlooking Israel’s fertile Hula Valley and the beautiful harp shaped lake below, called in Hebrew,Kinneret (the Sea of Galilee.)

But during Syria’s occupation of the territory, no agriculture of any significance took place and no restoration of its terrain was ever undertaken. Instead, the Golan was a giant Syrian army artillery encampment whose sole purpose was to deliberately rain down upon Israeli farmers, fishermen and villagers an endless barrage of lethal artillery shells.

So what is the history of the Golan Heights and what is its overwhelming Biblical significance to the reconstituted Jewish state? Perhaps we should return primarily to the biblical books of Joshua and Numbers.

Before the Tribes of Israel would cross the River Jordan and enter the Promised Land, the first among them had already taken possession of territory east of the River Jordan. These were the half tribes of Manasseh, Gad and Reuben who liberated the Bashan and Gilead from the Amorites.

Biblical Bashan incorporates today’s Golan Heights. Gilead is the fertile land, which lies in what is the north eastern area of today’s Kingdom of Jordan:

” … a little balm, and a little honey, spices and myrrh, nuts and almonds” (Gen 43:11.)

It was Canaan, correctly known by its time immemorial Biblical Jewish names (Judea and Samaria) west of the Jordan, (erroneously known by its Jordanian Arab occupation name of the so-called West Bank) which would pose the formidable challenge to Joshua bin Nun, the general leading the Israelite tribes. So it was that Moses, the Lawgiver, spoke to the children of Gad and Reuben thus:

“Shall your brethren go to war, and shall you sit here?” (Numbers 32:6)

The leaders of the two tribes replied that they would indeed send their combat men west into Canaan and fight alongside their brethren while their families would remain behind.

“We will build sheepfolds here for our cattle and cities for our little ones. But we ourselves will go ready armed before the children of Israel until we have brought them unto their place: and our little ones shall dwell in fenced cities because of the inhabitants of the land. We will not return unto our houses until the children of Israel have inherited every man his inheritance.” (Numbers 32: 16-18)

The story of reconstituted Israel and its people is mirrored in the Biblical story of those ancient ancestors. The young men and women of modern Israel have gone again and again from their homes; be they villages, towns or cities, to the borders and established communities there in times of danger and peril, just like those young men did from the Biblical tribes of Gad and Reuben.

The Jewish pioneers of today in Judea and Samaria – the Biblical heartland – are no different. But the world has chosen to demonize them as “obstacles to peace” and an impediment to the creation of a fraudulent Arab state to be called Palestine; a state that has never existed in all of recorded history – certainly not as a sovereign independent Arab state.

The pioneers are now pejoratively called “settlers” and their homes and farms derisively called “settlements.” It matters not to the infernal chorus that sings the international siren song of hate and ignorance that these pioneers are returned to their ancestral homesteads and seek to take up their ploughshares to sow, to plant and re-possess their ancient homeland.

But the purpose of this article is also to learn about the Biblical and post-Biblical history of the Jewish descendants of Gad, Reuben, Manasseh and all the original Jewish tribes.

The Bashan region, now known as the Golan Heights, is a part of the Biblical territory promised to the Patriarch Abraham and the people of Israel for an everlasting covenant – the Covenant of the Parts – recounted in Genesis 15. The city of Bashan was a refuge city (Deut, 4:43).

During the Biblical period of the Jewish Kings, a battle high on the Golan took place between King Ahab and the army of Aram. A Jewish victory took place at the present site of Kibbutz Afik, which lies a few miles east of Lake Kinneret, the Sea of Galilee.

After the end of the Babylonian Exile, and during the Second Temple Period, Jews returned to their homes on the Golan. Subsequently the returnees were attacked by hostile neighbors and Judah Maccabee brought his forces up to the Heights to defend them.

At the conclusion of the Hasmonean Period, King Alexander Yannai finally re-conquered the Golan and Jews returned yet again. They rebuilt communities in central Golan, including the major cities of Banias and Susita, which formed part of the defense of the Golan.

Their residents fought heroically against the Roman legions during the Great Revolt of 135 AD, known also as the Second Uprising. It was led by the charismatic Shimon Bar Kokhba, known as the “Son of a Star” and an authentic historical Jewish folk hero. Some 10,000 residents of Gamla alone perished fighting against Rome.

Second century Jewish coins were found on the Golan after its liberation during the last days of the June, 1967 Six Day War. These ancient coins were inscribed with the words, “For the Redemption of Holy Jerusalem.”

In the succeeding Talmudic Period, Jewish communities flourished and expanded. Archaeologists have found the remains of 34 synagogues on the Golan. Jewish life on the Golan largely ended after the defeat of the Byzantine army by Arabs from Arabia carrying the new banner of Islam and the region descended into a long period of neglect.

But Jewish life returned yet again in the latter years of the 19th century when members of the Bnei Yehuda society from Safed purchased land on the Golan. In 1891, Baron Rothschild purchased around 18,000 acres in what is present day Ramat Magshimim.

The Jewish pioneers of the First Aliyah (immigration) began to farm land they had purchased in the Horan region until the Turkish Ottoman occupiers evicted them in 1898. Their land was then seized, and in 1923 the entire Golan was given away by Britain to the French Colonial Mandate over Syria and Lebanon.

Zionist leaders had earlier demanded the Golan be included within the new Jewish National Home because of its immense historical roots in Biblical and post-Biblical Jewish history. But Jewish liberation of the ancestral land was not possible until Israel was forced to fight for its very survival during the 1967 Six Day War.

The Golan is only 60 miles from Haifa. The lofty snow-capped slopes of Mount Hermon, the highest point in the region, have been the eyes and ears of Israel. The Golan Heights were officially annexed to Israel in 1980. But it was the left wing Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, who first offered to give the Heights away in 1994.

Since then, Israelis have winced at the wrenching offers made by subsequent left leaning Israeli governments and politicians who declared publicly their desire to give the entire Heights to the Syrians in return for a delusional peace. The overwhelming majority of Israelis, however, are adamantly opposed to any such suggestion.

The Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group suggested that a way out for the United States from its Iraqi imbroglio would be for Israel to give the Golan Heights away to Syria. This sop, it was believed by the ISG, would bring Syria into responsible nationhood and wean her away from support of the “insurgents” attacking Iraqi and U.S assets. Of course this was before the successes of the “Surge” instituted by General Petraus made such appeasement moot.

“Obama’s carrot to the Syrian dictator, inevitably was to be the Golan Heights.”

U.S. President Obama mistakenly renewed diplomatic relations with Syria as a way, he believed, of distancing the Arab dictatorship from its alliance with Iran. This was yet another delusional act by the then U.S. President whose foreign policy was predictably in tatters.

But Obama’s carrot to the Syrian dictator inevitably was to be the Golan Heights. After his re-election he chose to yet again appease Arab and Muslim dictatorships by applying brutal pressure upon Israel and to force it to give away yet more of its Biblical patrimony. Fortunately his malign pressure was successfully resisted.

To put any trust in a Muslim nation, especially the Iranian backed Syrian regime, is truly risky. Besides which, Iran has already stated that it’s ambition is also to take the Golan from Israel at the same time that it plans on making Syria, Iraq and vast swathes of Muslim lands a future part of an all-encompassing Islamic Caliphate.

And consider this again. The British colonial power gave the Golan to France’s Syrian colony in 1923. Syria attacked Israel in 1967 and lost the Golan. Syria had occupied it for 44 years. Israel’s liberation of the Golan has lasted 51 years. Ask yourself then, who has possessed the Golan the longest and who has millennial historic, religious, Biblical and post-Biblical attachment to it?

Victor Sharpe is a prolific freelance writer with many published articles in leading national and international conservative websites and magazines. Born and educated in England, he has been a broadcaster and has authored several books including a collection of short stories under the title, The Blue Hour. His four-volume set of in-depth studies on the threats from resurgent Islam to Israel, the West and to Judeo-Christian civilization is titled, Politicide: The Attempted Murder of the Jewish State.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Josh Appel on Unsplash. © Victor Sharpe 2018

VIDEO: A Former INS Senior Special Agent’s take on the “Caravan of Migrants”

On November 15, 2018 I was a guest on The Daily Ledger that is broadcast on the One America News Network.  My segment focused on the so-called “Caravan of Migrants” comprised of thousands of foreign nationals that is headed to the U.S./Mexican border with the apparent goal of enabling the members of the caravan to enter the United States either by running our borders and thus evading the inspection/vetting process conducted at ports of entry or by presenting themselves at ports of entry to make “Credible Fear” applications for asylum in the United States.

Where those applications for asylum are concerned, the majority of aliens who have made such applications never followup on those applications but merely use those applications and the claims of credible fear as a means of gaming the immigration system to head for towns and cities across the United States where so-called Sanctuary Cities shield them from detection by ICE agents and where the lack of ICE agents enable them to hide in plain sight with little fear of being caught or deported.

What is being blithely ignored by the mainstream media and the globalist politicians is that aliens who seek entry into the United States are supposed to apply for and receive visas before they present themselves at ports of entry and apply for admission. The tactic of making credible fear applications at ports of entry is simply a ploy to circumvent the established laws.

RELATED ARTICLES:

PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION ADDRESSES MASSIVE ILLEGAL ‘MIGRANT’ CARAVAN A dire national security threat.

TRUMP CONNECTS THE DOTS ON DANGERS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: But the Left attacks him for the picture it creates.

THE THREATS POSED BY THE IMPENDING INVASIONAll Americans need to wake up and pay attention. 

THE IMPENDING ALIEN INVASION: How the Left plays the “compassion card” for destructive ends. 

RELATED VIDEO: Ami Horowitz: The Truth Behind the Caravan.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Jorge Aguilar on Unsplash.

VIDEO: Washington State, ACLU Aren’t Letting Up in Crusade Against Florist’s Religious Liberty

How would you like to attend a political rally featuring President Donald Trump? How about one featuring former President Barack Obama?

Even better—why don’t you attend both? You get to help decorate the stage. You can even create a banner setting forth that party’s platform.

Given our polarized political climate, it’s a safe bet that most Americans would elect to participate in one rally or the other, but not both. It’s pretty easy to understand why: The whole point of those rallies is to support political positions that, for many of us, are rooted in deeply held beliefs.

This basic, logical principle seems to have eluded Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson and the American Civil Liberties Union. This duo sued Barronelle Stutzman, a 74-year-old floral artist from Richland, Washington, and her business, Arlene’s Flowers, because she declined to participate in and design custom floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding ceremony.

Ferguson and the ACLU say that if Stutzman creates custom arrangements for any wedding, she must create them for same-sex weddings.

But there’s more. Stutzman not only designs custom floral arrangements for weddings, but also attends and personally participates in those sacred events. She decorates the venue with her artistic creations, attends the ceremony, and participates in wedding rituals. But doing that for a same-sex marriage squarely conflicts with her faith.

This is why, even though Stutzman loved her longtime customer and friend Rob Ingersoll, she respectfully declined his invitation to help celebrate his same-sex ceremony. Instead, she referred Ingersoll to other florists in the area who, in her words, she “knew would do an excellent job for this celebration.”

The story could have, and should have, ended there for reasons completely unrelated to whether one agrees with Stutzman’s decision. It should have ended there because it is Stutzman’s decision. Because in a tolerant society, there is room for disagreement. There is room for Democratic Party rallies and Republican Party rallies. There’s even room for Green Party rallies, just don’t expect them to feature helium balloons (or, for that matter, many people).

But the story didn’t end there, because Ferguson was unwilling to allow certain beliefs to go unpunished—namely, a religious belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Despite the fact that he received no complaint from Ingersoll about Stutzman or her business, Ferguson sued this 74-year-old grandmother in her professional and personal capacity. The latter means that all of Stutzman’s personal assets, including her life savings, are at risk.

Stutzman went on to lose her case. After several years of legal proceedings, the Washington Supreme Court later ruled in State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers that Stutzman must pay penalties and attorneys’ fees for choosing to live consistently with her conscience.

But the story doesn’t end there, either. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing Stutzman appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which vacated the state high court’s ruling and ordered it to reconsider in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop. In that case, the Supreme Court condemned the hostility that Colorado demonstrated toward the faith of cake artist Jack Phillips.

This past Tuesday, Stutzman filed her arguments with the Washington Supreme Court, asking that it reverse the government’s punishment of her, just like the high court did in Phillips’ case.

As the Washington Supreme Court considers Stutzman’s plight once again, it would do well to remember there are people of good will on both sides of the marriage debate. The government should never be hostile to sincere religious beliefs of people of faith, and it should never seek to force anyone to violate their core convictions, especially by participating in a sacred event like a wedding ceremony.

Ours is a diverse society united by a commitment to freedom of belief, not a compulsion to uniformity of thought. A win for Stutzman will reaffirm that foundational American principle.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of James Gottry

James Gottry is a lawyer and writer with Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group founded to preserve and defend religious liberty. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Spontaneous Worship Breaks Out at White House as Top Christian Artists Gather

Campus senator labeled ‘homophobic’ for speaking her faith


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


EDITORS NOTE: This column with images and video is republished with permission. Photo: Alliance Defending Freedom.

Islamic State: California fires ‘Allah’s punishment for you. And insha Allah, you will see more fires.’

This has been a threat for years.

“‘Unleash Hell’: New Al Qaeda magazine describes in detail how to start huge forest fires across the U.S..with instructions on how to make ’ember bombs.’” — Daily Mail, May 3, 2012

“ISIS-linked media: California fires are retribution for Syria,” Preston Business Review, November 15, 2018:

ISIS, the terrorist organization that once controlled vast swaths of Iraq and Syria with its reign of death and destruction, hasn’t directly claimed responsibility for the horrific wildfires in California that have claimed more than 50 lives over the past few days.

But one media outlet known to be in support of ISIS has suggested the jihadist group is responsible.

on Wednesday that Al-Ansar Media is claiming the wildfires are retribution for America’s participation in the civil war in Syria.

Al-Ansar Media is circulating an image that uses a photo of a burning building and misspells the state “kalifornia.”

“O america, This is the punishment of bombing Muslims in Syria,” states the text. “This is Allah’s punishment for you. And in shaa Allah, you will see more fires. Praise be to Allah.”

Islamic jihadists long have threatened to use wildfires as a means of terrorism. WND first reported on such threats more than 10 years ago, and in that William Scott, a former National Security Agency official, said terrorists had been using fire as a tactical weapon.

That year there were some 35,000 fires that burned 3.9 million acres across the U.S. Large blazes were in Idaho, Montana, California, Alaska and other states.

“Perhaps the most simple form of economic warfare is wild land arson,” Scott said in his “Fire Wars” presentation at the time. “That’s just setting fires in U.S. forests [and] grasslands.”

He said that for any terrorists determined “to inflict significant damage with very little investment or risk, fire is an extremely high-leverage weapon of mass effect.”

Scott explained at the time that after U.S. Navy SEALs killed al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden, they “captured a treasure trove of material that provided some unprecedented insight into the al-Qaida plans. And one of those was a detailed campaign for starting fires throughout the [American] West.”

he wrote of the suspicious nature of blazes in the Jewish state.

“Just a day or two after most of us left, a rash of fires terrorized the country,” he wrote. “They weren’t just wildfires that spontaneously ravaged the tinder-dry countryside. Many of them were deliberately set – which is why I call them terror fires.”…

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared on Jihad Watch. The edited featured photo is by Hanan Edwards on Unsplash.

Social Conservative Review: An Insider’s Guide to Pro-Family News

In this age marked by cultural brokenness and political division, it can be easy for Christians to shake our heads in resignation to this seemingly discouraging predicament and say, “God’s Kingdom is obviously not here right now.”

Or is it? In the Gospel of Luke, the Pharisees ask Jesus when the Kingdom of God will come. He said in reply, “The coming of the Kingdom of God cannot be observed, and no one will announce, ‘Look, here it is,’ or, ‘There it is.’ For behold, the Kingdom of God is among you” (Luke 17:20-21).

What does this mean? When Christ said these words in first century Judea, they would have caused great confusion amongst the Jews since it was clear from the Roman occupation of their ancestral land that there was certainly no “Kingdom” currently present. But Christ wasn’t speaking of the potential reign of an earthly king. He was asking those who were listening to realize that God’s Kingdom was right in front of them–in Christ’s own witness of love, mercy, and healing. He was asking them, and therefore all of us, to look into our hearts and see that whenever we act with love, compassion, and sacrifice, God’s Kingdom is literally “among” us.

It should give us great encouragement to know that whenever we show Christ’s love to others, we are an ambassador for Christ’s Kingdom on earth. Keep in mind that showing love can take the form of seemingly small acts, such as simply giving encouragement to someone we encounter in our daily lives who seems like they are in need of a boost. Whenever we do any act of love, whether great of small, we bring God’s Kingdom in our midst.

Thank you for your prayers and for your continued support of FRC and the family.

Sincerely,

Dan Hart
Managing Editor for Publications
Family Research Council


Share with Friends


FRC Articles

Evangelicals Power Republicans to Senate Victories — David Closson

Voters Say ‘Full Steam Ahead’ On Judges — Travis Weber and Alexandra McPhee

America Deserves Better Than the Broward County Disaster — Ken Blackwell

School Board Says Boys and Girls Have Different Brains — Except in the Bathroom — Cathy Ruse

Post-Midterm optimism for religious freedom — Alexandra McPhee

Is the Republican Senate Ready to Advance Pro-Life Policy? — Patrina Mosley

The Supreme Court can fix Establishment Clause jurisprudence with the Peace Cross case — Alexandra McPhee

Speaker Series: The Reality of Faith-Based Adoption Services

Truth Obscured by Hollywood Take on Sexual Orientation Therapy — Peter Sprigg

Must the State Recognize All Identities? — Dan Hart

The Times En-“genders” Controversy with Ignorance of “Sex” — Peter Sprigg

Notre Dame Students Take a Stand Against Porn — Patrina Mosley

Religious Liberty

Religious Liberty in the Public Square

Supreme Court’s latest church-state conundrum: Must a ‘peace cross’ memorial to World War I vets come down? — Richard Wolf, USA Today

Muslims, the Bladensburg Cross, and the Preservation of Order — Ismail Royer, Public Discourse

Professor Sues after University Requires He Use Student’s Preferred Pronoun — Jack Crowe, National Review

Trump Administration Updates Conscience Exemptions for Contraceptive Mandate — National Catholic Register

The State of Hate — David Montgomery, The Washington Post

Christian student senator at UC Berkeley harassed for abstaining from pro-LGBTQ vote — Caleb Parke, Fox News

Fordham University Political Science Department Mandates Use of Students’ ‘Preferred Pronouns’ — Alana Mastrangelo, Breitbart

International Religious Freedom

What you should know about the persecution of Kachin Christians — Joe Carter, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

78 Kidnapped Cameroonian Students from Christian School Freed — Aliya Kuykendall, The Stream

Christians Dragged Out of Cars and Beaten, Haunted With Fear as Asia Bibi Case Tears Pakistan Apart — Stoyan Zaimov, The Christian Post

Christians, pray for your brothers and sisters in North Korea — Christopher Summers, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

Asia Bibi Leaves Pakistani Prison–Open Doors Calls for Urgent Prayer — Lindy Lowry, Open Doors USA

Life

Abortion

The Point of Gosnell — Charlotte Allen, First Things

6 claims of Planned Parenthood’s new president debunked — Kristi Burton Brown, Live Action

New Planned Parenthood CEO: “I Plan to Expand” Abortions. We Have a “Moral Imperative” to Kill Babies — Micaiah Bilger, LifeNews

Pro-life ballot measures win passage in two of three states — Valerie Richardson, The Washington Times

Adoption

Philadelphia foster families continue fight for Catholic Social Services — Perry West, CAN

3 ways your church can participate in orphan care and prevention — Brittany Salmon, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

Bioethics

Canadian Doctors Get Ready for Child Euthanasia — Wesley J. Smith, National Review

Family

Marriage

How Expectations Affect One’s Happiness in Marriage — Dianne Grande, Psychology Today

When the Military Takes a Toll on Your Marriage: Reflections on ‘Indivisible’ — Gary Chapman, Military.com

Men and Women: Should We Just Call the Whole Thing Off? — Rachel Lu, The American Conservative

One Couple’s Fight to Honor God With Their Bakery — Benjamin Hawkins, Focus on the Family

37.8 Percent in Generation That Starts Turning 21 Next Year Was Born to Unwed Moms — Terence P. Jeffrey, CNS News

Parenting

How to Respond When Your Kids Are Bullied — Jonathan McKee, Focus on the Family

Mothers Against Macron — Joy Pullmann, First Things

I’m Raising an Old Soul And It’s Such a Gift — Heidi Hamm, HerViewFromHome

Making of a Mom: How Motherhood Helped my Anxiety Disorder — Casey McCorry, Verily

New Findings Add Twist to Screen Time Limit Debate — Jean Twenge, Family Studies

Podcast: Your Teenager Needs Discipleship — Jen Wilkin and Melissa Kruger, The Gospel Coalition

Video: How is spiritual warfare involved in parenting? — Phillip Bethancourt, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

How to Be a Kindness Role Model for Your Kids — Dale V. Atkins and Amanda R. Salzhauer, Greater Good Magazine

Postpartum Depression and the Christian — Kathryn Butler, The Gospel Coalition

Economics/Education

9 Years Into Common Core, Test Scores Are Down, Indoctrination Up — Joy Pullmann, The Federalist

The Wealth of Nations Begins at Home — W. Bradford Wilcox, Family Studies

Your Family, Your Choice — Oren Cass, Family Studies

Faith/Character/Culture

10 ways your unsatisfied life is a blessing — Amy Simpson, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

Honoring the ‘Invisible Work Force’ of Family Caregivers — Amy Ziettlow, Family Studies

How to Love People You Don’t Like — Greg Morse, Desiring God

Cultural winsomeness will not be enough for Christians — Andrew T. Walker, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

In An America This Ignorant, It’s No Wonder We Struggle To Stay Free — Stella Morabito, The Federalist

I Cremated My Unborn Son — Tish Harrison Warren, Christianity Today

8 Signs Your Christianity Is Too Comfortable — Brett McCracken, The Gospel Coalition

A Fresh Perspective on Joy — Liberty McArtor, The Stream

‘Remarkable’ decline in fertility rates — James Gallagher, BBC News

Human Sexuality

Where to Find Hope and Help amid the Sexual Revolution — Sam Allberry, The Gospel Coalition

Kissing Purity Culture Goodbye — Abigail Rine Favale, First Things

What ‘The New York Times’ Gets Wrong on the ‘Transgender Memo’ — Andrew T. Walker, The Gospel Coalition

Jesus Befriended Prostitutes. So This Victorian-Era Woman Did Too. — Kimi Harris, Christianity Today

‘Boy Erased’ Suggests Sexual Desire Can’t Change, So Religion Must — Brett McCracken, The Gospel Coalition

Where Angels Fear to Tread: The Fraud of Transgenderism — Babette Francis and John Ballantyne, Public Discourse

Pornography

The Problems of Pornography: Sexual Dysfunction and Beyond — Freda Bush, Focus on the Family

House Dems out to Get Religion

One of the most important religious freedom laws in America turns 25 this Friday. But will it make it to 26? House Democrats are doing everything it can to ensure it doesn’t.

A quarter of a century ago, nothing about religious liberty was controversial. In fact, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was so popular that all but three members of Congress voted yes. When Bill Clinton signed RFRA into law, no one dreamed that two decades later, his same party would be trying to sanctimoniously kill the law.

For most Americans, the Democrats’ shift hasn’t exactly been subtle. A party platform that mentioned God seven times in 2004 kicked him out in 2012. A senator who said, “We worship an awesome God” in 2004 declared war on faith as president a few years later. Now, a party that almost unanimously agreed that the government shouldn’t undermine religion in 1993 has 172 cosponsors to scrap RFRA and take a sledgehammer to our First Freedom. And they’ll have control of the House to advance their attack.

In an important column for the Washington Examiner, Ernest Istook points out that one of the people behind this push is about to become the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.). Of course, he and the rest of his party want you to believe that Democrats wouldn’t destroy RFRA, they’d just carve out areas where it wouldn’t apply — like marriage, sexual orientation, gender identity, abortion, health care, and any other area where long standing religious beliefs clashed with the vogue values of the Left’s agenda.

“In short,” Istook explains, “an explicit constitutional right would be declared less important than other claims never mentioned in the Constitution and often not even legislated by elected officials.” The repeal of RFRA, he warns, would be a nightmare for men and women of faith – especially Christians, who just want the freedom to live out their beliefs in peace. That’ll be incredibly hard to do, Istook warns, since the Democrats’ bill would wipe out the Supreme Court victories in the Hobby Lobby and Masterpiece Cakeshop cases. The world that Chai Feldblum envisioned will have finally arrived. Asked what should happen when religious liberty clashed with the LGBT agenda, Obama’s EEOC chief said she’d have “a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” The modern Democratic Party agrees.

The good news, for now, is that the GOP-controlled Senate would never go along with something as extreme as gutting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The bad news — at least for the Democratic party — is that neither will their heartland base. Not everyone is on board with the Left’s hard turn on religion. As Yale’s Stephen Carter wrote, “When you mock Christians, you’re not mocking who you think you are.” And if Democrats aren’t careful, they’ll fall right down the God gap they’ve created.

“Spend much time in secular progressive circles,” David French writes, “and you’ll quickly encounter the kind of sneering, anti-Christian elitism evident in pieces such as the recent New Yorker creed against Chick-fil-A. But this culture is fundamentally at odds with the lived experience of the Democratic party’s black and Latino base.” In their beliefs, Pew Research Center warned earlier this year, “nonwhite Democrats more closely resemble Republicans than white Democrats.” That’s significant — not just because it creates tension in the Democratic Party, but, as French points out, “to the extent that faith informs politics, it could crack open the progressive coalition.”

Just last week, exit polling showed how misguided the Democrats’ war on religious expression is. Of all the competing social values — life, marriage, privacy, gender identity — religious liberty was far and away the most popular consensus issue. When McLaughlin & Associates asked 1,000 Americans if the government “should leave people free to follow their beliefs,” a whopping 70 percent of the respondents said yes. Only 18 percent agreed with this radical crusade to end religious liberty as we know it.

In a lot of ways, it’s the Democrats’ liberal agenda that’s boxed them into a godless corner. They’ve had to become hostile to public faith because it acknowledges a moral standard. And when you embrace policies that are antithetical to the stated values of any orthodox religion — like same-sex marriage or abortion — there’s only one way to reconcile it. You get rid of faith — or, at the very least marginalize it.

Make no mistake: The threat to RFRA from Democrats is real. But so is the threat to Democrats if they keep alienating faith and the voters who embrace it.


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

If Gender Is Subjective, Makes Sense Age Should Be, Too

Permission Impossible? Racy Video Takes Parents by Surprise

Promoting Marriage Makes Cents

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

Paradise Long-lost

Rebecca Ratcliffe’s article in the Guardian, (Women in Paradise face violence and political exclusion, campaigner tells UN, Oct. 26), concerned Randa Siniora, director of the Women’s Centre for Legal Aid and Counseling, and her recent address to the UN Security Council.  Siniora presented multi-faceted accusations against Israel, with scant background or context.  She referred to Israel as an occupying power despite the UN’s declaration of Israel’s sovereignty as a state in 1948 over territory that had been Jewish-occupied for 3,000+ years, and never ruled or developed by Muslims.  The brief “occupation” of Gaza by Israel, won in a defensive battle against five attacking Islamic armies, was voluntarily relinquished in 2005; Gaza has since been ruled by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, a terrorist organization.  Siniora’s address represents Islam’s perpetual jihad.  To Islam, the entire world falls into two kinds of “houses” – The House of Peace, Dar al-Islam, the land that Islam as already conquered, and the House of War or Chaos, Dar al-Harb, literally the rest of the world that is targeted for conquest for Allah (8:40).  There are no other designations.

Siniora shamelessly provided partial stories in an effort to elicit a biased response.  She spoke of women being chased from their homes, but neglected to explain whether the homes were legitimately built on land zoned for such construction, in keeping with Israel’s laws (and particularly because of Israel’s size), or if the homes belonged to the families of Palestinian terrorists who had harmed or killed Israeli citizens.  Or they may have been the families of the young men who were responsible for the incendiary balloons and kites that destroyed seven square miles of agricultural land, forestry, nature reserves, livestock, people’s homes and livelihoods, and causing respiratory illnesses.  She chooses to not acknowledge these deadly activities or the bombed school buses, bus stations and restaurants; the terror tunnels that lead to schools and villages for the sole purpose of murder or kidnapping.  (At this writing, the Palestinians fired 400+ rockets today alone into Israel.)  The confiscation of their families’ homes as a consequence of these actions is a very light penalty, indeed.

On the inflated claim of a “humanitarian crisis,” she was also seeking additional funding for UNRWA, which was established in 1949 to support the 700,000 Arab refugees who fled the Arab armies’ attack against Israel, but which offered no safe haven to their brethren; the funds were never extended to the more than 850,000 Jews who fled Arab and Muslim persecution around the same time.  It is time to reduce the aid due to its “endless and exponentially expanding community of entitled beneficiaries,” the Palestinian rejection of Israel’s sovereignty and Jerusalem as its capital, their constant animus toward the United States, and because much of the subsidy is funneled through the UNRWA to support terrorism.  By allowing them to appropriate our humanitarian funds for killing, we have become their accomplices.

Her bemoaned “humanitarian crisis” is, in point of fact, a result of the harshness with which women have been treated by men since the time of Mohammed, and continues to this day.  In the Islamic ideology, men are given complete authority over women, where beatings are acceptable (4:34); their lives lived in stark contrast to the “paradise” quoted in the article’s title.  Domestic violence is undeniably rampant in the Arab community and the male’s foremost whipping boy is usually the female, his property – his wife, who must assume the blame for the faults and incompetence of others.  Would not this situation of homegrown cruelty be more closely examined and perhaps eased if the truth were exposed to the UN?  However,  like Linda Sarsour, Siniora is a jihada who uses lies (taqiyyah) to hide the truths of Islam and protect the violent ideology that perpetuates it, whether out of fear of repercussion or out of a desire to be accepted in the greater jihadi community.

Why does the woman who has achieved stature and access to the nations of the world not expose and speak out against the barbaric, sadistic FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) that UNICEF estimates has disfigured 200 million women in 30 countries?  Why do Siniora and her peers not rally against the burqas that restrict, confine, and isolate, but are also used to spotlight the non-Muslim women as fair game for rape or acid attack?  Why does she not work against the woman’s subservient status of one-half to one-quarter of the man’s value in their court system?  Why does she not try to save the children from terror training so that they won’t grow up to be the next generation of hate-filled, sadistic, controlling husbands who live to dominate the women and kill non-Muslims, particularly Israeli Jews?  Arab women’s subjection comes from the Koran and women like Siniora and Sarsour, who might be in a position to improve their lot, instead lend assistance to the injustice.  If either has gained access to the UN, why doesn’t she use this opportunity to speak out for Muslim women and insist on working toward equalization?   Sadly, they are jihadas, who clearly prefer the platform of propaganda and the tawdry glory of being temporarily raised from the diminished female status of the Muslim woman.

In spite of their public announcements, since polls were first taken in 1996, Israeli Palestinians, 20 percent of the population, have consistently rated Israel’s democracy as the one they most admire in the world.  This is not surprising, since all Arab municipalities receive government funding for education and infrastructure.  Israel has enacted affirmative action policies to help its minority citizens achieve full social and economic equality. Within Israel, there is legal protection against religious discrimination and hate crimes and Israel is the only Middle Eastern country where the Christian population is thriving instead of disappearing as they do under Islam.

Siniora claims the Arabs in Gaza are experiencing an increase in male violence due to Israel’s “occupation,” although that ended in 2005.  Of course, she is  antagonistically claiming the whole sovereign State of Israel as “occupation,” an attitude that nourishes the Arab hostility toward the Jews (9:30) (4:89). She alleges that when Jews counterattack, the Arab men increase their violence toward their wives and children.  How is it, then, that when Arabs attack Israelis, the Israeli men only devise more methods of defense and build new shelters for their families’ protection?

Are we to believe that Arab men are peaceful when Israel is a non-factor?  On 11/11, a woman was hacked to death with a machete by ADF, and her five children kidnapped in the Democratic Republic of Congo. On 11/10, six civilians were killed by Islamist shrapnel in Syria, and an official was killed by Taliban bombers in Afghanistan.  On 11/9, a man was killed by a motorcycle bomb blast in Pakistan; four family members were killed by a shell to their house in Yemen; a man praised Allah while attacking a group of police with an axe in Indonesia; a man tried to blow up hundreds of worshippers in a church but succeeded in slashing the priest with an ax in Indonesia; three Somalian suicide bombers killed 40 at a Somalian hotel and stabbed passersby while praising Allah; armed fundamentalists killed 17 local security personnel in two attacks in Afghanistan. During the month of October, there were 158 Islamic attacks in 20 countries, 801 people killed and 712 injured.  Are these the behaviors of an otherwise nonviolent people?

It is obvious that Siniora thus addressed the UN in order to deflect from the shame of her culture and to delegitimize Israel’s sovereignty. The philosophy of Islam is the life of Mohammed and his savagery.  A seriously flawed individual, frustrated by his lack of success, he turned to violence to achieve his ends and his world-ambitious followers continue his bloody legacy into the modern age.

If there is to be improvement for the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza, they must assume full responsibility for removing the ills from their society, stop the blame/shame ideology, and begin to create a government that allows them to flourish.  I recommend the Constitution of the United States as a guide.

RELATED VIDEO: Tom Trento On Location Israel-Gaza Border, Sderot, Israel 2018.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Toa Heftiba on Unsplash.

Collectivism and the 8th Commandment

In the 18th century our Founding Fathers fought the War of Independence to escape the tyranny of the British monarchy. Our Founding Fathers envisioned a New World where citizens of the United States of America would be bound by the Constitution and live as free individuals in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

The 10 Commandments were foundational to the Judeo-Christian tradition of the United States and to its ordered liberty. The Commandments provided the infrastructure and moral basis for the secular laws written to govern American society.

The separation of church and state was an acknowledgement that different religious doctrines existed within the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment was a defense against the tyranny of an official state religion.

What our Founding Fathers did not envision was the secular tyranny of collectivism – collectivism is a late 19th century political ideology.

“Thou Shalt Not Steal” is the 8th Commandment that strictly forbids stealing. So, let’s talk about stealing – the taking of another person’s property.

Stealing assumes a separation between self and other and is an acknowledgement of property rights. That is, one person cannot take another person’s property unless both parties acknowledge that each person has a separate existence and that property belonging to one is not the property of the other.

There would be no moral injunction against stealing and no Commandment or secular law against stealing without this fundamental acknowledgement.

The problem with collectivism, whether it is socialism or communism, is that it defies this most fundamental acknowledgement. Collectivism denies the property rights of an individual and, therefore, that individual’s existence as a separate entity.

Collectivism says that what is yours belongs to the state and the state is the entity that determines its distribution. Theoretically, without property rights there are no human rights because if what I produce is not mine and the fruits of my labors belong to the state, then I do not belong to myself. I am without human rights.

Collectivist ideology is antagonistic to the Judeo-Christian tradition because it denies the existence of the self. In collectivism the individual’s life belongs to the group.

This most fundamental and critical issue of property rights and its connection to human rights and the self is denied by the humanitarian hucksters selling socialism. When Obama tells business owners “You did not build that” he is denying their human rights and misappropriating them to the state. Obama is the prime time humanitarian huckster disingenuously selling socialism as the provider of social justice and income equality. He is the consummate con man deceitfully selling “resistance” as freedom fighting.

What Obama and his sycophants are not saying is that first socialism steals your property and then socialism steals your freedom. Ask the good people of Venezuela who were duped by the humanitarian hucksters selling socialism in their once beautiful and prosperous country. The ruling elite in Venezuela stole the private property of its citizens by socializing the country. Without private property the government had complete cradle-to-grave control of the population – the population ceased to exist as individuals – they had forfeited their freedom to socialism.

The Leftist Democrat Party is the party of collectivism in America that envisions a New World order similarly antagonistic to the individual. The Left denies the property rights of the individual (You did not build that) and, therefore, that individual’s existence as a separate entity. President Donald Trump is the existential enemy of the Leftist Democrat party because he rejects collectivism entirely. POTUS believes in Americanism, the sovereignty of the United States, equal opportunity, and the freedom of the individual.

Decades of insidious educational indoctrination of America’s youth toward collectivism has made socialism and anything anti-Trump fashionable today.

The recent midterm election was a referendum on socialism and the ongoing contentious battle between individualism and collectivism.

Craig Biddle’s clarifying article explained the divide in 2012, Individualism vs Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice.

Ayn Rand articulated the implications of the choice in the 1960’s:

  • “Whoever claims the ‘right’ to ‘redistribute’ the wealth produced by others is claiming the ‘right’ to treat human beings as chattel.”
  • “Both [communism and socialism] negate individual rights and subordinate the individual to the collective, both deliver the livelihood and the lives of the citizens into the power of an omnipotent government – and the differences between them are only a matter of time, degree, and superficial detail, such as the choice of slogans by which the rulers delude their enslaved subjects.”
  • “There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism – by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.”

The Leftist Democrat party of collectivism wants open borders, sanctuary cities, illegal immigration, birthright citizenship, and chain migration so that illegal aliens can VOTE!

The Leftist Democrat party has embraced the tyranny of collectivism in defiance of the 8th Commandment. Leftist Democrats are stealing your liberty with every socialist policy that redistributes your private property, your voting privileges, and your tax dollars to illegal immigrants who will then vote the leftist Democrats into power. Incentivizing illegal immigration to vote themselves into office will eventually award your private property and your individual freedom to the government which is precisely how socialism enslaves the population by vote.

Open borders and the importation of illegal immigrants is a humanitarian hoax. It is a power grab by Leftist Democrats designed to install themselves as rulers of a socialized America. Venezuela is a cautionary tale. A commitment to socialism is what Obama pledged when he deceitfully promised to fundamentally transform America.

Capitalism provides equal opportunity for the American dream in our constitutional republic. Socialism provides equal outcome as promised – eventual shared national poverty because as Margaret Thatcher so wisely remarked, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” The choice is ours – individualism vs collectivism.

Our 18th century Founding Fathers could not envision the tyranny of collectivism but we 21st century Americans can.

We cannot allow the Left to steal America – remember the 8th Commandment – Thou Shalt Not Steal.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Goudsmit Pundicity. The  featured photo is by Ryan Loughlin on Unsplash.

Dave Eubank: Soldier of God [Video]

Dave Eubank is a father, a husband, a Christian, a veteran, and an all-American hero. For more than 20 years now, Dave Eubank and his family have lived in some of the most dangerous areas of the world: Burma, Sudan, and Iraq. He’s gathered the things he learned as a member of the U.S. Special Forces and from the Bible as a Christian and has put all of his energy into administering aid, providing nourishment, saving lives, and bringing hope.

Dave exemplifies heroism, and his example of what it means to be an American and a Christian impacts the lives of people he serves.

In the inaugural episode of Oliver North’s American Heroes, LtCol Oliver North tells the amazing story of a truly heroic man who has risked life and limb to bring hope and happiness to oppressed people around the world.

The Vortex—’Sodomitic Filth’

RELATED ARTICLE: Vatican, US bishops face class-action lawsuit from victims of clergy sex abuse

TRANSCRIPT

What the latest crisis in the Church has caused is the dropping of all pretenses.

Just like Trump’s presence on the political scene has caused all issues and agendas to be brought into the light, so too the newest scandal of cover-ups and lies has focused the white-hot spotlight exactly where it needs to be burning: the sodomitic filth in the ranks of the clergy.

And if you find that phrase a little disquieting or off-putting, then take it up with St. Peter Damian, who wrote to the Pope in the 11th century imploring him to save the Church from “sodomitic filth that insinuates itself like a cancer in the ecclesiastical order, or rather like a bloodthirsty beast rampaging through the flock of Christ.”

The phrase was recently used again, this time by Cdl. Walter Brandmüller in an interview where he lays the blame for the corruption in the clergy squarely at the feet of sodomite clergy.

In so doing, he echoes exactly what Abp. Viganò declared in his first testimony back in August that there is a homosexual current in the Church strangling the life out of the Church, with far-reaching tentacles, like an octopus — his analogy.

Cardinal Raymond Burke has openly said the same thing and that’s not surprising. But what may give a good many people pause is that none other than Fr. James Martin — clerical gay cheerleader himself — has openly admitted that first: there are loads of gay priests — he says thousands.

But add to that, he is now on record at talks and conferences as publicly stating that Pope Francis is deliberately appointing sodomy-friendly bishops and cardinals and even names Cupich in Chicago and Tobin in Newark as two examples.

In so doing, Martin legitimizes another of Viganò’s main points and names the same names. Martin deftly avoids the pressing issue of whether the men themselves are actually same-sex attracted.

Viganò names them as part of the homosexual current, which can be understood in two ways: either being homosexual themselves or allying themselves with the homosexual agenda or both.

That Martin would just come right out with it and add that the reason they were appointed by Francis was precisely to push this new acceptance of homosexuality by lay Catholics and clergy is a bombshell, which of course got tremendous downplay in the usual bought and paid for establishment Catholic media.

So let’s step back shall we — big picture here.

This infestation of gay men into the clergy was first spoken of by Communist Party USA leader Bella Dodd, who claimed to have planted over a thousand Communist agents into American seminaries back in the 1920s and 30s at the prompting of Joseph Stalin to begin a destruction of the Church. Stalin insisted that many of them be homosexual, owing to their immorality.

Undoubtedly, a sizable number of these men rose to positions of authority over the intervening years, and by the time the 1960s rolled around, they were firmly ensconced in the power structure.

They would have been appointing seminary rectors and religious house leaders and so forth who, in turn, would have begun a generational cycle of deliberately recruiting other homosexual men into the priesthood.

The timing here lines up perfectly. That second generation of priest recruits lines up almost identically with the explosion of child sex abuse cases in the 1970s through the 1990s, which came to full light in the early 2000s owing to The Boston Globe reporting and other secular outlets.

Sodomite clergy raping young men — physically mature males in their teens — and homosexual bishops covering it all up. And if the bishops involved in the cover-up weren’t homosexual themselves, they nevertheless played along with it extremely well.

And yet, in the face of all these facts, lying prelates like Blase Cupich — although he certainly isn’t alone — have the gall to say none of this crisis has anything to do with homosexual men in the clergy.

Cupich, being a cardinal and all, is sure to have a larger-than-life presence at the bishops’ meeting in Baltimore because, despite what many other bishops think of him personally, they know he is anointed by Pope Francis to turn the Church gay, and none of them will challenge him.

Many of these men have no supernatural faith; if they ever did have it, they don’t now. Their mission is destroy, plain and simple, and they are legion.

Some of the more good-willed bishops, extending a little too much good will in fact, just can’t seem to comprehend that there are enemies of Christ in their midst sitting right next to them in their meetings — priests of Satan.

It’s like the Last Supper when Judas was doing his thing, and the Apostles were absolutely clueless, thinking when he left to go spring the trap, that he had instead gone out to get something for the meal.

The men of good will among the bishops better wisen up and realize what’s at stake here. Many of them were recruited by this wicked cabal precisely because they were seen as weak men who could easily be manipulated and fooled and would never confront the evil.

Back in their own seminary days, they were being watched and studied and determinations were made that they would go along with whatever they were told. They were handpicked because of their lack of confrontational spirit. They would ensure the status quo would remain in place so the work of destruction could carry on out of site.

Weak men are the best allies of evil men. So here we have sodomitic filth in the clergy, for successive generations now, a hapless group of good-willed but incredibly naive clergy who are, for the most part anyway, unwittingly complicit and a laity being ravaged by all of it.

And now, the moment arrives for the laity to stand up and be counted and call for an end to the episcopal sodomy, and the bishops hire extra security, try to move venues at the last minute and then lie about us to the cops — painting us as violent Antifa-type protestors.

Thank God it’s not a massive, massive crisis where the bishops can investigate themselves and conclude it has nothing to do with homosexuality.

We’ll be keeping you updated on the goings on here in Baltimore in the coming days, and please remember to tune in to the live-stream of the Silence Stops Now rally beginning at 1:25 p.m. ET tomorrow, Tuesday the 13th.

EDITORS NOTE: This video was first published in The Vortex.

Podcast: Supreme Court Will Hear Case on Veterans’ Cross Memorial Atheists Oppose

The Supreme Court recently announced that it will hear an appeal for a case involving a memorial cross. This large cross stands in an open field in Bladensburg, Maryland, and commemorates the sacrifice of 49 local servicemen who gave their lives in World War I. We talk with Jeremy Dys of First Liberty, the organization that is defending the memorial against the American Humanist Association. Listen below, or read the transcript, slightly further down.

We also cover these stories:

  • The midterm elections are today—and the Justice Department is not going to tolerate fraud. Officials will be monitoring voting in 19 states.
  • The U.S. government restored economic sanctions that the Obama administration lifted in 2015 as part of the Iran nuclear deal. The sanctions target Iran’s energy, shipping, and banking sectors, among others.
  • Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says the United States will hold accountable the men who murdered Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, while still maintaining the strategic U.S.-Saudi relationship.

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 following transcript has been edited for length and clarity. Jeremy Dys is the deputy general counsel for First Liberty, a law firm that defends religious freedom for all Americans, and is representing the American Legion in this veterans’ cross case. 

Daniel Davis: Last year my colleague Jarrett and I went out to Bladensburg, Maryland, to see the memorial cross that your organization is now defending in court. And when we got there we saw a list of names on the monument, men who had given their lives in World War I, and it was sobering because we knew that if the court rules a certain way, it could soon be gone.

Can you give us some background here? Why is this memorial cross under threat?

Jeremy Dys: Well, a couple years ago the American Humanist Association decided that, for the first time in the 90-plus-year history of this memorial, it is violating the Constitution because it appears on public property. And the reason they say that it is violating the Constitution is that it is in the shape of a Celtic cross.

In fact, the Gold Star mothers who designed this memorial back in 1919, a hundred years ago now, they chose the shape that mimicked the markers that sat over the top of the graves of many of their sons over in Europe. Most of the men who died in World War I were buried under a Celtic cross. Teddy Roosevelt’s son, for instance, famously was buried under a Celtic cross in the European battlefields.

And so they knew that Americans would forget the sacrifice of their sons if they didn’t have something to visually remind them of that. So they decided to design this monument in the design of a Celtic cross. And then they built it.

The American Legion jumped in to help out, and by 1925 that monument was erected right there, right at the terminus of the National Defense Highway, which is itself a World War I memorial. It runs between D.C. and Annapolis, Maryland.

And it’s been standing there, perfectly innocently keeping watch over the memory of these 49 men from Prince George’s County, Maryland, just as their mothers had wanted nearly a hundred years now until the Humanist Association decided that they’d had enough, and that that could no longer be tolerated. And so they managed to get the 4th Circuit to agree and now we’re at the Supreme Court of the United States.

Katrina Trinko: Yeah, I have to say, I have a family member who lives near that cross, and every time I pass it … you don’t really think a lot about World War I, and it is a very poignant reminder.

Jeremy, what are some of the possible implications of this case? Obviously we have religious-themed art throughout the United States and government buildings. We’ve talked some about Arlington National Cemetery. Could this case have wide-ranging implications?

Dys: Very much so. And to answer that, I have to remember Martha Redmond, whose son William is on the side of that memorial. When she was organizing support for the memorial back in 1919, she wrote to her senator and said, “The reason I’m so excited about this memorial is that I very much view this as my son’s gravestone.”

She couldn’t go to her son’s grave. It was over in France. You couldn’t just jump on a plane and go visit it at the time, so this was, in her mind, her son’s gravestone. And I think it’s appropriate that we think of it as that, as a gravestone for 49 men from Prince George’s County, Maryland.

So if that goes down, then it unleashes a bulldozer across the country. It’ll start there in Bladensburg, Maryland, and then it’ll go across the river to Arlington National Cemetery, where you’re going to knock the Argonne cross, the Canadian cross of sacrifice.

You may have to sandblast the side of the Tomb of Unknown Soldier that has religious language on it. Teddy and Bobby Kennedy’s gravestones are going to have to come down. They’re both buried under a cross in the grounds of Arlington. And you can keep on going across the country.

But this is why this case is so vitally important.

Not only do we want to avoid this—the erasure of the memory of the service and sacrifice of these 49 fallen servicemen from Prince George’s County, Maryland—we want to ensure that there’s a restoration of common sense here. Just because something is in the shape of what some people view as religious, doesn’t mean that it is somehow in violation of the Constitution if it shows up on public property.

That’s what I think Justice Clarence Thomas has in mind when he talks about how the Establishment Clause jurisprudence of our country is in “disarray.” And so I think this presents a great opportunity for the Supreme Court to provide clarification to that. Protecting this memorial in the first place, but providing guidance to the country as to what the Establishment Clause is meant to actually mean.

Davis: Yeah. I was actually just about to ask about that, because that’s such a key point. The other side is arguing with the Establishment Clause, basically having any religious symbolism or language on public property is basically equivalent to establishing a religion. And so you have to get rid of all of that. How do you respond to that assessment?

Dys: I think I’m as confused everybody is, right? Even those who did go to law school like me are confused. Which test are we supposed to apply now? You’ve got three, four different tests that might apply on Establishment Clause cases. The reasonable observer that is talked about is almost always offended at anything that is smacking of the religious.

And so it’s almost impossible for the Establishment Clause not to be violated by anything that bears on the religious and comes on public property. …

The bottom line is this. The Supreme Court has the opportunity to provide guidance on these issues. And more particularly, the Supreme Court is really the last hope for preserving the 90-year-old Bladensburg World War I veterans monument, and the memory of the 49 men from Prince George’s County that it represents.

Trinko: So of course the American Legion is involved in this. Have you, throughout First Liberty’s work on this case, encountered veterans or their families, and is this a case that you expect they’ll be following closely?

Dys: We are very privileged to represent the American Legion in this lawsuit. I should point out that, if you haven’t seen the memorial, what you need to know is that this concrete memorial right in the dead center of the cross has the emblem of the American Legion right there.

Don’t forget the American Legion was formed out of World War I, and so these guys coming back to the United States wanting to remember the men who had died, men like Howard Morrow who received the Distinguished Service Cross for his bravery overseas as a grenadier.

These were remarkable men, some of whom were not able to be … Well, I mean, you weren’t able to find enough of them to bury. These were heroes beyond what words are able to describe. And families felt the real loss of these things. But they would have been members of the Legion had they survived.

So I think the Legion feels a particular duty to remember the men that they served with or that served with their forebears, and preserve the freedom that you and I possess today. And so their duty is turn to them and say, “We’re going to watch over this memorial,” this gravestone, as Martha Redmond called it. And make sure that their memory is never forgotten come hell or high water, or the Supreme Court of the United States.

Davis: So Jeremy, what’s next in this case? And when are you all going to be in Washington, D.C., arguing the case?

Dys: I would guess probably in the early spring the Supreme Court will have arguments. They set aside an hour for the argument on this case. So maybe March or so we might be seeing arguments before the Supreme Court, and that would be followed, of course, by June when we would have an order coming from the court finally articulating whether or not this monument is going to have to be turned into an obelisk, or razed to the ground, or somehow removed. Now we’re not going to remove it. We’re not going to take that monument down.

It’s a very key decision that the Supreme Court has to make here. I think they should just simply honor the way that Gold Star mothers chose to remember the service and sacrifice of their sons who died defending our freedom. That’s the easiest solution here.

Trinko: You mentioned that there’s been several times that the courts have weighed in on this issue. Justice Kavanaugh, of course, will not have a history on the Supreme Court on this, but have any of the other justices been involved in rulings that maybe hint at how they would approach this?

Dys: Well, it’s a great question and one I’d have to go back and do my own research on … Justices Thomas and Ginsburg have had the opportunity to see a few of these cases.

But this is a pretty unique one. I mean, you’re looking at a 100-year-old monument. Don’t forget that most of these men died a hundred years ago last month, in October of 1918. So most of the men, in fact, the grand majority of the people who died in World War I from America, died in that offensive at the end of World War I in 1918.

And so this certainly is historic, and it presents a great opportunity for the court to remind everybody that we forget what we don’t see. And so we ought to honor the sacrifice that these men made.

PODCAST BY

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.


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


EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is of the World War I veterans’ memorial is in Bladensburg, Maryland. (Photo: The Daily Signal)

Keeping Our Eye on the Prize

Keep your eye on the prize and run to win! That was Paul’s charge to the Corinthians in pursuing the call of God upon their lives. Knowing their love of sports, he told them they should run with the same determination, discipline, and focus that they would use to win the prize in the Isthmian games held in Corinth. Paul’s appeal to these qualities in the pursuit of what should be our ultimate goal, living life by God’s design, only serves to underscore the importance of these characteristics to success in any undertaking that is worth pursuing.

In America today, determination, discipline, and focus are also what is required to continue on our current path of restoring the core values that built a great and prosperous country. In particular, we have seen the end to eight years of a withering assault on religious freedom, an issue that motivated voters in the 2016 election.

A clarion call to respect people of faith and our First Freedom — religious liberty — could not come at a better time as we mourn as a nation the loss of life in Pittsburgh where a man allegedly motivated by hatred against Jewish people committed an act of violence.

That barbarism illustrates why respect for people of faith and protection of religious liberty is so important, especially after years of marginalization by the last administration.

The anti-faith attacks could be seen most clearly in our own government prosecuting nuns, who were aiding the least of these, for refusing to violate their religious beliefs and fund contraceptives, including abortifacients, in their health care plans.

There were also the cases of Soldiers, Airmen, Coastguardsmen and Marines punished for seeking to live out their religious faith in the most basic ways, like having a Bible on their desk or chaplains like Wes Modder being removed from his command for counseling according to the principles of his biblical faith.

We witnessed small business owners like Don Vander Boon, whose family owns a meat packing facility in Michigan, told by agents of the federal government that he had to remove Bible-based articles from his breakroom where employees gathered, or the government would shut their business down.

But stopping this prejudice is only the first step to righting our course. It will take a concerted and consistent effort to rebuild respect for America’s First Freedom throughout the ranks of a government, which the previous administration had mobilized to attack.

Less than two years in office, the Trump administration is restoring religious liberty. In May of 2017, President Trump issued an executive order directing the Department of Justice to ensure all federal agencies were protecting and promoting religious freedom. Despite tremendous opposition from leftist groups that are suing the DOJ and other agencies to hinder or stop the effort, the restoration of our First Freedom continues.

For the first time in a long time, religious freedom has also become a priority in U.S. foreign policy, most notably demonstrated in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Just three months into his post, he hosted the first-ever Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom, attended by leaders from over 80 different nations.

It is essential to each individual American, especially to Christians who are called to follow the teaching of Scripture no matter what they do: “whether eating or drinking, do all to the glory of God.” This understanding that religious freedom is the ability to live every aspect of our lives according to our faith is deeply rooted in what historians describe as America’s Protestant work ethic, which has led to unparalleled productivity and prosperity, as work is an act of worship done in service to God.

French historian Alexis De Tocqueville, in his historical analysis of America’s growing prosperity in the 1800’s, made clear that the foundation and anchor for democracy and prosperity in America was the Christian faith pioneered by the Puritans. In other words, America didn’t create religious freedom; religious freedom created America.

Many will be quick to try and dismiss the connection between religious freedom, economic prosperity and social stability, but a growing body of academic research shows the correlation. Indeed, a study by the Religious Freedom and Business Foundation reports that “religion contributes $1.2 trillion to the U.S. economy annually, more than the combined revenues of the top 10 technology U.S. companies including Apple, Amazon and Google.”

Is it a coincidence that as religious freedom is being promoted and protected again in America, our economy is growing and unemployment is shrinking to historic lows? Maybe, but economic growth and prosperity cannot be long sustained without religious freedom. And for religious freedom to impact the economy, it has to be an individual freedom that permeates all aspects of society. The mere freedom of worship, which seeks to quarantine the practice of one’s faith within the walls of a church, is not authentic religious freedom.

The Trump administration has done more to restore religious freedom than any other administration since the steady assault began over a half century ago. This election is about whether or not we continue on a path that restores America’s First Freedom, which is foundational to genuinely making America great again. We must be disciplined in systematically pursuing those policies that will restore religious freedom and stay focused on the prize — one nation under God with liberty and justice for all.

For more motivation heading into Tuesday, check out this op-ed by FRC’s Patrina Mosley and David Closson, “For Christians, Voting Is Not an Option. It’s a Divine Calling.”


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

An Eventful Sunday! Live from Colorado…

One Kavanaugh Accuser’s Claim to Frame

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

New York Times writer “Negroes Are Anti-Semitic Because They’re Anti-White”

Photo of James Baldwin from Biography.com.

The title of this column is from a 1967 New York Times article written by James Baldwin. Mr. Baldwin, according to Biography.com, was an essayist, playwright and novelist regarded as a highly insightful, iconic writer with works like The Fire Next Time and Another Country. I found a link to Baldwin’s article while reading another New York Times article written by Ginia Bellafante on October 31, 2018 titled “Is It Safe to Be Jewish in New York?.” Ms. Bellafante wrote:

A related issue is that bias stemming from longstanding ethnic tensions in the city [of New York] presents complexities that many liberals have chosen simply to ignore. “When we were growing up in Harlem our demoralizing series of landlords were Jewish, and we hated them.” So begins an essay by James Baldwin that appeared in The New York Times in 1967 titled “Negroes Are Anti-Semitic Because They’re Anti-White.”

It is worthwhile reading Mr. Baldwin’s column to understand the phenomenons of “white privilege” and anti-Semitism.

Wikipedia defines these two terms as:

White privilege is the societal privilege that benefits people whom society identifies as white in some countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.

Antisemitism is hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews. A person who holds such positions is called an antisemite. Antisemitism is generally considered to be a form of racism.

The idea of white privilege has led some individuals, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren, to portray themselves as non-white. According to Ms. Bellafante “anti-Semitic incidents have constituted half of all hate crimes in New York this year, according to the Police Department. To put that figure in context, there have been four times as many crimes motivated by bias against Jews — 142 in all — as there have against blacks. Hate crimes against Jews have outnumbered hate crimes targeted at transgender people by a factor of 20.”

This divisiveness has lead to attacks against synagogues, like the killing of 11 Jews in Pittsburgh in 2018 and the foiled bombing attack in Florida in 2016.

White privilege and anti-Semitism are both racist ideologies. One discriminates against others based on the color of their skin, the second on a person’s religious affiliation.

How are White Privilege and Anti-Semitism connected?

Perhaps Mr. Baldwin put it best in his article stating:

The root of anti-Semitism among Negroes is, ironically, the relationship of colored peoples–all over the globe–to the Christian world. This is a fact which may be difficult to grasp, not only for the ghetto’s most blasted and embittered inhabitants, but also for many Jews, to say nothing of many Christians. But it is a fact, and it will not ameliorated–in fact, it can only be aggravated–by the adoption, on the part of colored people now, of the most devastating of the Christian vices.

Mr. Baldwin is connecting the hate for blacks to Christians and Jews. Perhaps Mr. Baldwin would be appalled by the statements made by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and members of the Black Lives Matter movement?

Capitalism, Jews and White Privilege

Mr. Baldwin also blames capitalism for the plight of the blacks stating:

Of course, it is true, and I am not so naÔve as not to know it, that many Jews despise Negroes, even as their Aryan brothers do. (There are also Jews who despise Jews, even as their Aryan brothers do.) It is true that many Jews use, shamelessly, the slaughter of the 6,000,000 by the Third Reich as proof that they cannot be bigots–or in the hope of not being held responsible for their bigotry. It is galling to be told by a Jew whom you know to be exploiting you that he cannot possibly be doing what you know he is doing because he is a Jew. It is bitter to watch the Jewish storekeeper locking up his store for the night, and going home. Going, with your money in his pocket, to a clean neighborhood, miles from you, which you will not be allowed to enter. Nor can it help the relationship between most Negroes and most Jews when part of this money is donated to civil rights. In the light of what is now known as the white backlash, this money can be looked on as conscience money merely, as money given to keep the Negro happy in his place, and out of white neighborhoods.

We see what Mr. Baldwin describes from his personal experiences today.

So what is the answer?

Mr. Baldwin concludes his article noting:

All racist positions baffle and appall me. None of us are that different from one another, neither that much better nor that much worse. Furthermore, when one takes a position one must attempt to see where that position inexorably leads. One must ask oneself, if one decides that black or white or Jewish people are, by definition, to be despised, is one willing to murder a black or white or Jewish baby: for that is where the position leads. And if one blames the Jew for having become a white American, one may perfectly well, if one is black, be speaking out of nothing more than envy.

Baldwin concludes, “The crisis taking place in the world, and in the minds and hearts of black men everywhere, is not produced by the star of David, but by the old, rugged Roman cross on which Christendom’s most celebrated Jew was murdered. And not by Jews.”

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Shalom Mwenesi on Unsplash.