Minnesota: Hamas-linked CAIR enraged, demands firing of barista who wrote “ISIS” on Muslima’s coffee cup

The involvement of Hamas-linked CAIR makes this suspicious on its face, as that unsavory organization has trumpeted many hate crimes that turned out to have been faked. But there are two other striking aspects to this story. One is that Hamas-linked CAIR “has yet to identify” the woman to whom this supposedly happened. Why not? Could it be that her name sounds something like “ISIS,” and would thus reveal this to have been an honest mistake on the part of the barista? Anyone who has ever been in a Starbucks knows that many baristas are not exactly intellectual giants, and for many, English is not their first language. Mistakes on names abound at Starbucks outlets all over the country, and most people shrug or laugh them off. Hamas-linked CAIR says: “A supervisor told the Muslim customer that ‘mistakes’ sometimes happen with customers’ names, suggesting that this is not the first incident in which a customer felt targeted or harassed by a Target employee’s conduct when receiving their coffee order.” Or maybe the customer was just noting that his or her name was wrong; not everyone assumes that a mistake means one is being targeted or harassed.

Hamas-linked CAIR has shaken huge sums of money out of corporations with intimidation tactics, claiming “Islamophobia” over honest mistakes. Could that be what is happening here?

“A Muslim woman ordered a frozen drink at Starbucks. The barista wrote ‘ISIS’ on her cup.” Sahan Journal, July 5, 2020 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

A Muslim woman said that on July 1 she ordered a drink at Starbucks within the Midway Target in St. Paul.

As soon as she started telling the Target Starbucks employee her first name, she said, the barista wrote something on a clear plastic drinking cup.

When the Muslim woman received her drink, she found “ISIS” written on the cup, according to the Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

The Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization said in a press release that the woman confronted the employee, asking why “ISIS” was written on the cup. ISIS, an acronym for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, is a terrorist group that is active in Iraq and Syria.

“The employee claimed that she had not heard her name correctly,” CAIR-MN stated in the press release. “Later, a supervisor told the Muslim customer that ‘mistakes’ sometimes happen with customers’ names, suggesting that this is not the first incident in which a customer felt targeted or harassed by a Target employee’s conduct when receiving their coffee order.”

CAIR-MN is calling for the firing of the Target Starbucks employee who wrote “ISIS” on the cup….

The woman, whom CAIR-MN has yet to identify, will appear at a press conference with the organization on Monday.

RELATED ARTICLES:

America Magazine discovers Muslim genocide of Christians in Nigeria, wishes US and European bishops would speak out

Italy: Police seize 30,000 pounds of amphetamines, “the drug of the jihad,” produced by the Islamic State

Georgia: Members of heavily armed black militia shout “Alhamdulillah”

Black Lives Matter founder: “Plz Allah give me strength to not cuss/kill these men and white folks out here”

NYC: North Korean and “Palestinian” protestors scream “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”

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

The Coming Collapse of the Republic

“We’re just one election away from full-blown socialism,” a man recently said to me during a short conversation. This sentiment has become increasingly common lately, even, notably, among the previously apolitical. Yet something is overlooked:

In keeping with President Reagan’s observation, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction,” being one election away from tyranny means that not enough people noticed and took action when we were one generation away — or two or three.

Also perhaps overlooked is that being one election away from tyranny now means we’ll be one election away after the next election — whatever happens November 3. The point is that politics being downstream from culture (and, really, from morality, faith and philosophy), this isn’t merely a “moment.” It’s not a fashion. It won’t just pass. And we need be prepared for things to come.

I’ve often cited late Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov, who in 1980s interviews warned of “demoralization” — an undermining of a nation’s morality that makes it ripe for leftist revolution — in America. As a young man in my late teens or early twenties at the time, I didn’t know about Bezmenov (no Internet back then). But I’d recently become more intensely “politically” aware and quickly realized, and began telling people, that the West and the U.S. were in decline and gravitating toward tyranny. Oh, I did realize the republic’s demise was decades away.

Now I suspect it’s years away.

General Michael Flynn, whom, it’s clear, was targeted by the Creep State for being a good man, just warned that if we don’t act, two percent of the people are about to control the other 98 percent. But I’m here to tell you: Long term, voting wont’ save us.

Oh, for sure, get out and vote in November as if your life depends on it (because in a way it does). But as was the case in 2016, a Trump victory and partial GOP control of Congress only amount to a “stay of execution.” The clock is ticking.

Moreover, President Trump’s re-election, like his election, would have to defy the odds. Along with traditional media bias — which a college professor determined aids Democrat candidates by 8 to 10 points every election (an underestimation, I believe) — there’s now social media/Big Tech bias. According to liberal psychologist Dr. Robert Epstein’s research, this factor can shift up to 15 million votes toward one party or the other (not an overestimation, I believe). This is enough to turn any modern election.

Add to this vote fraud and vote harvesting — the latter of which flipped conservative Orange County, Calif., from GOP to Democrat control in 2018 — and left-wing mail-in voting scams, and the picture is clear: Even if Trump wins, the chances of him having two simpatico Houses are slim. And if Trump triumphs but the Democrats hold the House and seize the Senate, there’s a good chance he’ll be deposed.

Really, though, focusing on this, the micro, is to not see the forest for the trees. An excellent high-profile commentator said a while back that this all (the current unrest, intensifying cancel culture, etc.) seemed to happen so suddenly. But only the spark, the George Floyd situation, and the fire were sudden, and something else could have triggered the blaze as well. The kindling, however, and the many-layered sea of morally dead and intellectually dry wood had long been burgeoning.

And the spark only catalyzed the firestorm because we’d reached a point of critical mass.

This is why what we began talking about in the ‘80s, political correctness, has metastasized into “cancel culture.” It’s why two people in two recent days — one a cop, the other an acquaintance — told me what’s plain: They, and everyone else, are afraid to speak their minds, fearing career and reputational destruction. It’s why social media censorship is intensifying by the month. An iron muzzle has descended upon America, and what can’t be spoken against can’t be effectively combated.

As I warned in 2012, there no longer is a culture war. “What is occurring now is a pacification effort.” Its progress is why corporate America, including the now-absorbed Chik-fil-A and NASCAR, has turned decidedly to the dark side (shifted “left”). It’s why prominent people, including Republicans such as Indiana senator Mike Braun, are bowing before terrorist group Black Lives Matter. It’s why mobs are enabled and good people hobbled for defending themselves from the mobs. It’s why we’re seeing a complete cultural collapse — portending a political collapse.

This is partially due to a new “woke” generation having entered the corporate sphere and others of influence. But what did you expect? The apocryphal saying (no, it’s not Lincoln’s) informs, “The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” Did you really think the Left could completely control academia for generations and that, somehow, it all would “stay in college”?

Leftists have also controlled entertainment, which could even be more significant. A (perhaps loose) paraphrase of ancient Greek philosopher Plato warns, “When modes of music change, the fundamental laws of the state change with them.”

Now, though, we have television and the Internet, whose effects I’ve examined, which dwarf music’s influence. Then there’s the aforementioned media (conventional and social). This culture-shaping media/academia/entertainment triad has long been leftist controlled, the result of the long Gramscian “march through the institutions,” the rotten fruits of all our squandered yesterdays.

Being a culture-shaper also ultimately means, again, being a politics-shaper (and civilization-shaper), and this brings us to conservative rationalization. Even if we could somehow seize control of the media/academia/entertainment axis, sorry, it takes generations to thus reshape society, and the time for that was 60 years ago. That ship has sailed (and sunk).

Then there’s our 1965-born immigration policy, which, I’ve estimated, gives Democrats 300,000 new voters yearly, three million a decade. And when the Democrats assume full control, they’ll legalize the illegal aliens among us and open the floodgates further (goodbye, wall), giving themselves perhaps tens of millions of new voters in short order.

So Democrat presidential sock puppet Joe Biden, echoing the man whose name he couldn’t recall a while back (because echoes are all he has left), not long ago said we had to “fundamentally” change America. But that fundamental change has already occurred. Does the 2020 U.S. even remotely resemble its few-generations-back former self?

So the question isn’t what’s coming, but this: Will you be ready? When the leftists take full political control federally, they’ll mercilessly impose their agenda as leftists always do. If you have no idea what that agenda is, you’re likely not reading this. But do know that it will be effected no-holds-barred.

For not only is there the critical-mass factor, but Machiavellian leftists have convinced their useful idiots, projecting all the way, that conservatives constitute a hateful, “racist,” fascistic, White Supremacist™ threat to civilization. They thus have an ideal pretext for iron-fistedly crushing opponents. When “Nazis” threaten your civilization, after all, you’re faced with desperate times requiring desperate measures, right, comrade?

So how do we proceed? This isn’t a defeatist screed. I’m not saying keep a cyanide capsule handy. But knowing tomorrow’s strategy requires knowing tomorrow’s battlefield. So what can be done when, after this election or the next, the federal government becomes a complete leftist leviathan wholly unmoored from constitutional constraints?

I’ve long advocated nullification — meaning, in this case, the ignoring of unconstitutional federal and judicial dictates — something Thomas Jefferson called the “rightful remedy” for all federal overreach. This should have been embraced long ago (e.g., in response to the Obergefell opinion), but will become more conservative states’ only recourse in the not-too-distant future. Note, too, that we’d just be doing what leftists do with their “sanctuary” cities and defiance of federal drug laws.

In this vein, you can’t win a contest being a “connedservative” who insists on fighting by Queensberry rules while your adversary operates no-holds-barred. Remember that, more and more, we’re living in post-constitutional and post-rule-of-law America. We’re now increasingly subject to the rule of men and, in the coming conflict, it’s only a matter of which men will win.

America is irremediably divided — if a marriage, she would’ve dissolved long ago — and the above resistance would, of course, make that division more official. This brings me to what I believe will be our fate.

After having my ‘80s insights, I concluded that we’d just continue descending into autocracy, as burgeoning laws, regulations and mandates gradually extinguished freedom, placing us in the iron grip of a central government behemoth. But I long ago changed that view: I now believe our country will dissolve, as the USSR did before us.

Assuming this happens, the question is: Will at least one emerging land be a new shining city on a hill?

That’s up to us. And we’d better be ready for things to come, now — because it’s later than you think, and inside-the-box thinking won’t cut it in an outside-the-box future.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab or Parler (preferably) or Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Catholic Priest asks Bishops to Lift Clerical Speech Restrictions

PAVONE DEMANDS ACTION

A pro-life priest is begging the United States’ bishops to lift their restrictions on clerical, political speech.

On Thursday, Fr. Frank Pavone wrote an open letter to the U.S. Catholic hierarchy, asking them to either act — or permit the clergy to act — in the upcoming election.

Father Pavone told Church Militant that he and his organization, Priests for Life, have faced a consistent internal roadblock with the bishops, calling their lackluster response to Democrats’ abortion policies “embarrassing” and saying they need to “stop being hamstrung by their attorneys and act according to their own judgments.”

Canon 287, §2 states that clerics shouldn’t have an active part in political parties unless allowed by an ecclesiastical authority for the “defense of the rights of the Church or to promote the common good.”

Specifically regarding the partisan divide on abortion, he claims, “We do not have a division simply on policy, but on principle. Our political divide is not simply about prudential judgments, but about ‘the fundamental rights of man’ and ‘the salvation of souls.'”

Pavone has taken fire in the past for his support of President Trump after becoming a member of the Catholics for Trump advisory board and co-chairing the Trump 2020 campaign’s pro-life coalition.

Pro-life priests are currently banned from telling their parishioners to prefer the Republican Party, though it’s the only major party fighting abortion. And without the bishops’ approval, priests like Fr. Pavone will continue to be hindered in their fight for the unborn.

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Gorsuch Does Transgenderism: Notes on the Wreckage

Hadley Arkes: Let’s remember the constitutional role played by the political branches in the past, liberal and conservative, to narrow and counter court decisions.


n my previous column (“The Ebbing of Truth”), I was bracing for the decision that the Supreme Court was about to hand down in a case on transgenderism (Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC and Bostock v. Clayton County).  Some of us were girding our loins for a shock of seismic force because there had been rumors, now proven so regrettably true, that Justice Neil Gorsuch would defect from the conservative side.

The man who was appointed, with high fanfare, to take the place of Justice Scalia would now make the decisive vote, and write the opinion, in a case that promises to disfigure our laws and our lives, much in the way that Roe v. Wade has worked to remake the culture.

If the schools now begin to instruct the young on the even newer, liberated culture set before them, the youngsters may be given now to wonder just how stable are the differences that really distinguish their mothers from their fathers – or themselves, from their brothers and sisters.  As Michael Hanby, David Crawford and Maggie McCarthy argued, this case may well have brought, as C.S. Lewis had it, “the abolition of man” – and woman.

The case involved Anthony Stephens, who had been working at the Harris Funeral Homes in Michigan for several years before he informed his employers that he wished to “live and work fully as a woman.” In his opinion for the Court, Justice Gorsuch referred to Stephens as “Aimee” and used feminine pronouns at every point.

Gorsuch remarked that “Aimee” had “presented as a male” when “she first got the job.”  From the outset, Gorsuch absorbed the predicate of Stephens’ claim: that in his own understanding, he had in fact become a woman.

Michael Hanby and his colleagues correctly noted that the issue was not the freedom of Stephens to present himself as a woman. To confirm Stephens’ argument was to confirm the obligation of all people around him to respect that claim and treat him as though he were indeed a woman.  If they didn’t affirm that lie, they and their employers could be charged with sustaining a “hostile work environment.”

Some of my friends, reading the case closely, insist that Gorsuch never actually affirmed that Stephens had indeed altered his sex, in the strictest understanding of sex, as the objective differences in the ways our bodies are organized for the function of reproduction.

On the surface, that reading of Gorsuch may look and sound plausible.   But I think we can show, with an even closer reading, that this offers, as the saying goes, a “metaphysic without consequence.” That reading will do nothing to dislodge the judgment in this case, and I think it comes apart the closer we look.

Gorsuch remarked that his judgment did not reach the matter of bathrooms and locker rooms, for those situations were not contained in the case at hand. But Justice Alito quickly pointed out that the holding had been, after all, that it was wrong to turn away from anyone – to withhold a job or a benefit – because of an aversion to a person’s sexual choice of changing genders.  That judgment would presumptively apply to all instances of that discrimination, and indeed the first case has already been pressed on the side of a transgendered high-school girl, seeking admission to a boys’ bathroom.

In the meantime, some of the new, young conservative federal judges may be able to use these cases to resist the sweep of this new principle.  They hope then to induce the Supreme Court to take a sober, second look.

Congress could also make it clear again that the Civil Rights Acts do not bar all-female colleges, and it might deal as well then with female teams and locker rooms.  The Trump Administration has already acted in its own sphere – e.g., in denying access of transgendered women to “women’s shelters.”   It’s time to remind ourselves of the constitutional role played by the political branches in the past, liberal and conservative, to narrow and counter decisions of the courts.

Gorsuch did not have to say anything conclusive on that question of whether Stephens had in fact become a woman.   He could simply use his alchemy of “textualism,” working on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and settle on this limited point: that if Stephens came to regard himself as a woman, that is an understanding that the rest of us are obliged to respect when it comes to “discrimination on the basis of sex.”

But that may also be the key to explain why it will mean nothing in the end to note that Gorsuch had not exactly said that Stephens had changed his biological sex.  My friend Gerard Bradley distilled things in this way:  In the biological sciences, “sex is binary, innate, and immutable.”  And it goes beyond anatomical differences to penetrate to the level of cells.

But “gender identity,” as he says, “denotes a fluid belief system based on cultural constructs, emotion, experiences.”

Gorsuch and the Court can preserve their detachment on the question of whether a man can become a woman only if they simply ignore that inescapable, objective truth of what constitutes “sex.”  To admit that truth is to turn the decision into gibberish.  For if the meaning of “sex” was indeed so inescapably true, no one could be obliged to respect Stephens’ claim to be regarded as a woman.

The deeper irony is that this truth, as a truth, no more comes into sight for the conservative critics of this decision than it does for Gorsuch and his colleagues.  It may be the understanding of “sex” contained in the statutes and in accord with the dictionaries of 1964. But that truth would be there even if the statutes and the dictionaries had said something else.

And conservatives have not counted the ignoring of this truth as the deepest wrong in this decision.  For the melancholy fact is that the appeal to anchoring moral truths has long been ruled out of what has been taken, in our own day,  as “conservative jurisprudence.”

COLUMN BY

Hadley Arkes

Hadley Arkes is the Ney Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus at Amherst College and the Founder/Director of the James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights & the American Founding. His most recent book is Constitutional Illusions & Anchoring Truths: The Touchstone of the Natural Law. Volume II of his audio lectures from The Modern Scholar, First Principles and Natural Law is now available for download.

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2020 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

We’re All on the Frontlines Now

Robert Royal: The BLM-Antifa “uprising” is following the Marxist playbook. To end it, we need to stop its infiltration into schools and media.


A shrewd woman (to whom I happen to be married) recently read me some passages from an old news story about the re-naming of the Laura Ingalls Wilder Award, given to writers of children’s books: “’This decision was made in consideration of the fact that Wilder’s legacy, as represented by her body of work, includes expressions of stereotypical attitudes inconsistent with ALSC’s core values of inclusiveness, integrity and respect, and responsiveness,’” the Association for Library Service to Children said in a statement after the unanimous vote.”

The town librarian used to be the enforcer of “community standards” by preventing unsuitable material from falling into adolescent – or anyone’s – hands. And even in demanding good behavior, as per “The Music Man”:

For the civilized world accepts as unforgivable sin
Any talking out loud with any librarian
Such as Marian . . . Madam Librarian.

He/she still is an enforcer, but now – despite talk of “inclusiveness, integrity and respect, and responsiveness” – pushes Heather Has Two Mommies, proudly defends “drag-queen” story-hours that would make any normal child run screaming, and polices the literature of past, present, and future (certain books never get published for fear of running afoul of her/him).

People talk a lot about “cultural Marxism” now. I don’t know exactly what to make of the expression because during the Cold War some of us actually studied Marxism and its rigid tenets, which serious Marxists regarded as “scientific.” Marx himself would have looked askance at much of what falls under that rubric today. He had, for example, a rather low view of the non-white races – on the basis of the settled science of his time. Curiously, though there are statues of Marx all over Europe, none have been torn down recently.

For Marx, “scientific” history also predicted that Communism would emerge in the advanced nations, not in relatively backward places like Russia and China, which did not yet have the proper “objective” conditions. The revolution would occur in advanced capitalist nations that would so impoverish the masses that they would rise up in huge numbers and easily displace the exploiters.

Recent protesters are not a fulfillment of this fantasy. The vast majority of the people protesting (and even rioting) are not destitute or exploited. They live well compared to most human beings throughout history, at least materially. There’s a reason why Europe and America have to restrict the vast numbers of people – usually “people of color” from Africa and Latin America – who would like to enter despite alleged racism and prejudice. And everyone with a modicum of sense knows it.

So I get the anti-capitalism of the Marxists who founded the Black Lives Matter Movement; I don’t much get the “cultural Marxism” of BLM, which attacks “systemic” racism and promotes LGBTQ as if it were a natural part of Marxist thought.

I know something, however, about what serious Marxists have thought about “culture.” The most prominent of those figures, Antonio Gramsci, if he were alive today, might run with the pack against orthodox Marxism. But he’s enlightening nonetheless.

Gramsci knew the crucial importance of what he called una cultura capillare – “a capillary culture” that, like the capillaries in the body, would carry the revolution into every nook and cranny of society. He gauged – correctly – that you couldn’t defeat democratic liberty directly. It was just too powerful and entrenched.

Gramsci argued – shrewdly – that what was needed was something like what the Jesuits of the Catholic Counter-Reformation were able to achieve by developing and deploying an educational system that formed people in all the crucial cultural institutions. If Marian the Librarian (and all the main institutions to which she is attached) is Catholic, there’s no need for a frontal assault. The revolution imposes itself as a natural consequence.

Just think of the mental revolutions it took for a library association devoted to promoting children’s books to use words affirming its “core values of inclusiveness, integrity and respect, and responsiveness.” In normal times, those words point to goods to be celebrated and pursued. These are not normal times.

“Inclusiveness” does not mean adding voices that might want to raise legitimate questions about Laura Ingalls Wilder’s perspectives on minorities. It means using the old Marxist tactic of portraying others as “class enemies” and airbrushing them out of the picture. Including requires excluding.

“Respect,” in similar Marxist fashion, means judging who is worthy of respect on puritanical ideological grounds. So “respect” is to be shown to Native Americans and Blacks, who – to be clear – deserve it merely as our fellow human beings, whatever their individual foibles or the shortcoming of their “cultures.” Laura Ingalls Wilder, however, and the culture of her day, don’t get – don’t warrant – the same “respect,” whatever their shortcomings.

Once this process gets going in the library, school (and school board), university, media, HR department, even some churches, we are well on the way to what Gramsci knew would produce a revolution almost impossible to reverse.

Almost, because there’s nothing that stops us from carrying out a counter-revolution like what the Jesuits of another age were able to carry out.

Politics is important in this counterrevolution, to be sure. We are in an election year and TCT will be discussing some of the crucial questions for Catholics – and others – in coming months. (As a non-profit, we can neither support nor oppose candidates as such.) One thing we will constantly maintain, however, is that any candidate who is to be taken seriously must affirm the rule of law and denounce violence, whoever the perpetrator.

Barack Obama, the most prominent black leader in America at present, could have done all Americans a service in recent days by speaking out against riot and looting – even if he may have wished to support protests. It’s on such fundamental public distinctions that our future depends.

But the politics will fail if that’s all we do – if we neglect the day-to-day “capillary” efforts that we each have to make, in whatever place we find ourselves.

We’re all on the frontlines now.

Robert Royal

Dr. Robert Royal is editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing, and president of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington, D.C. His most recent book is A Deeper Vision: The Catholic Intellectual Tradition in the Twentieth Century, published by Ignatius Press. The God That Did Not Fail: How Religion Built and Sustains the West, is now available in paperback from Encounter Books.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The past doesn’t change; our memory does

Is it fair to accuse Enlightenment greats of racism?

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2020 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

VIDEO: CAIR Sucks Up to Black Lives Matter

I know, nothing you didn’t already assume, but I’m posting this to encourage you to follow the opposition. Knowledge is power!

Sign up, as reader Bob did, and receive regular missives from those groups working to transform America, two prime examples being the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

As I have reported recently, there is tension between Arab/South Asian Muslims and blacks so the leadership at CAIR obviously determined that it needed to suck up to BLM.

See CAIR unfurl its banner over its Washington, DC headquarters:

WATCH: The CAIR BLM the story and video.

And now see them chortling over a couple of white scalps in California.

Here see Ibrahim Hooper cheer the removal of California school officials whose Facebook posts offended them.

CAIR Central CA Welcomes School Officials’ Resignations after Bigoted Posts

(FRESNO, CA, 6/25/20) – The Central California office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CC) today welcomed the recent resignations of two school officials after they posted bigoted content on their Facebook pages.

Fresno’s Central Unified School District trustee Richard Atkins came under fire for a bigoted Facebook post he shared last weekend. He posted,

“If you don’t Love the Country you live in, then go back to the country you or your ancestors came from. I’m SICK of this S***.”

He resigned Tuesday from his position.

At the beginning of this week, the private Facebook account of Sara Wilkins, the president of the Madera County Board of Education, shared an image of a Confederate flag and stated: “I am proud to be white.” The post also read, “I bet no one passes this on because they are scared of be called a racist.”

A change.org petition, “Sara Wilkins needs to step down, resign, or be fired,” gained more than 1,500 signatures.

The Madera County Superintendent of Schools announced Wilkins’ resignation Thursday. In a statement, CAIR-CC Outreach Director Sukaina Hussain said: “We welcome the resignations of these public officials after their disturbing posts.

You will find a ‘sign-up’ opportunity on CAIR’s website. It is extremely useful to know what they are doing.

It is about silencing you and making you fearful, an important first step in their goal to destroy our cherished American way of life.

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

Minnesota State Rep: Antifa and Muslim Groups Plan to ‘Police Minneapolis Under Muslim Rule’

It would have sounded far fetched just weeks ago. It doesn’t anymore. My latest in FrontPage:

As the city of Minneapolis moves to dismantle its police force, Minnesota state Rep. Steve Green on Tuesday stated the obvious that virtually everyone else has been tiptoeing around and pretending isn’t there: “What you’re looking at, in my humble opinion, is communism moving into Minneapolis and St. Paul.” And not just Communism, but the Leftist/Islamic alliance. Green asserted that Antifa and Muslim organizations plan to “police Minneapolis under Muslim rule.” Those who scoff at such a notion simply aren’t paying attention to recent developments.

The Minneapolis City Council voted two weeks ago to abolish the city’s police force. Its plans beyond that have so far been sketchy, but something is going to have to be put in place as an alternative to the police. The New York Times noted that “many have called for relying more on self-policing by the community, in the way attendees often do at events like music festivals, with the police stepping in only when a true emergency arises. Some cited as an example how, in the days after the killing of Mr. Floyd, teams made up of dozens of members of the American Indian Movement patrolled streets and directed traffic in the Little Earth housing community in Minneapolis.”

If members of the local community end up policing Minneapolis, what might that look like? Back in 2016, a series of Minneapolis Muslims in man-on-the-street interviews stated matter-of-factly that they preferred Islamic law over American law. We have seen Sharia patrols in Germany, Britain, and even New York City, where the Muslim Community Patrol (MCP) is decked out in uniforms that strong resemble New York Police Department uniforms, and drives cars carefully designed to look like NYPD cars, to enforce “fundamentals of the Sharia.”

Muslim leader Siraj Wahhaj explained what that meant: “The mosques need protection and the MCP cars can help stop people who were not following the rules and regulations of the sharia, doing what they’re not supposed to be doing, but still doing it.” According to a Muslim involved with the MCP, this would involve stopping “Muslim women being out after dark, Muslim men hanging out in the corners doing dope, Muslims drinking liquor,” and enforcing, “basically, the fundamentals of the Sharia.”

If such a community patrol is launched in Minneapolis, it is likely to focus on the same things, but not do anything about the fact that the 5th Congressional District in Minneapolis, Rep. Ilhan Omar’s district, is the jihad terror recruitment capital of the United States. Stopping young Muslims from engaging in jihad activity is unlikely to be a high priority for a group that is dedicated to enforcing Sharia, since Sharia calls upon Muslims to wage war against and subjugate unbelievers.

The Sharia enforcers’ hard-Left allies in Antifa would have no problem with this. Islam historically has never had any difficulty coexisting with authoritarian governments; in fact, it is free republics that have never proved to be compatible with Islamic law. Consequently, Steve Green’s words don’t appear farfetched at all. The unholy alliance of Leftists and Islamic supremacists sees that its moment is now, and is grabbing all it can.

How likely is it that Minneapolis really could end up under Islamic rule, with the blessing and cooperation of the hard-Left? According to the Minnesota Reformer, another Minnesota state Representative, Mohamud Noor of Minneapolis, did not deny the truth of Green’s statements. Instead, when asked about them, he “said rather than talk about things that inflame people and create division, Minnesota needs to address the challenge before it.” And of course, talk of Antifa/Islamic rule in Minneapolis might “inflame people,” so keep quiet. Keep quiet, that is, if you oppose such an eventuality, not if you favor it. Said Noor: “Minnesota is awake. They understand the challenges; they have been hearing the challenges for far too long. And we can’t wait any longer.”

Steve Green may turn out to have been a prophetic voice far sooner than anyone expects. And if any free people who may still be in Minneapolis want to head this off, the time is now to “inflame people” – not to riot and destroy after the manner of the Left, but to stand up decisively now and stop the power-grab of these insidious totalitarian forces.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Leftist Rioters Hate Andrew Jackson’s Indian Policy, But Their Multiculturalism Is Just Like It

Google, Facebook, Twitter censorship kills Voice of Europe site

Palestinian Authority honors jihad murderer of Israeli mother and three toddlers

Iran: Rouhani says Islamic Republic is ready for talks if US apologizes and returns to nuke deal

RELATED VIDEO: UK: Muslim threatens to murder ex-Muslim and his family “live on TV, in front of everyone” for criticizing Islam

https://twitter.com/TheHarrisSultan/status/1274144147729870848?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1274144147729870848%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.opindia.com%2F2020%2F06%2Fmuslim-blogger-threatens-to-hurt-ex-muslim-atheist-for-criticising-islam%2F

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

Iconoclasm – and Us

Eduardo Echeverria: If “white” equates to “racist,” then our institutions, though democratic, merely reflect determinism and, therefore, empty actions of moral responsibility.


Iconoclasm refers to the practice of breaking religious images (Gk. Eikonoi). American culture is currently under iconoclastic attack not mostly for its religious images. Rather, if you turn on the TV, you will see attacks by mobs attempting to destroy the historical monuments of “secular” icons of American culture, such as Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, and confederate generals.

How should we judge whether to remove these historical monuments? Alan Jacobs, a leading scholar of English literature, writer, and literary critic, helps us to think about this question with a pair of vital distinctions. He draws a crucial distinction in his book How to ThinkA Survival Guide for a World at Odds between “those who held what we now believe to a profoundly mistaken view, or tolerated such a view, simply because it was common in their time, and those who were the architects of and advocates for such a view.”

Jacobs considers the example of Margaret Sanger (1879-1966), the founder of Planned Parenthood. He argues that Sanger fits the latter category because she was a passionate advocate for eugenics that she linked to the practice of contraception. Sanger stated, “Like the advocate for Birth Control, the eugenicists, for instance, are seeking to eliminate the race toward the elimination of the unfit.” Jacobs argues that Sanger did not just “hold eugenicist ideas.”

Another example to which he applies his vital distinction is the historical figure of John C. Calhoun (1782-1850), who was a pro-slavery advocate. Jacobs argues, “Calhoun did not merely accept slavery, he was the single most passionate and influential advocate for slavery. He believed that slavery is a ‘positive good’, railed against ‘the fell spirit of abolition’, and called those who believe that slavery is sinful ‘this fanatical portion of society’ who wish to perform their insidious ‘operations’ on ‘the ignorant, the weak, the young, and the thoughtless.”

In sum, both Sanger and Calhoun “did not just hold the views of their time that most of us now find deplorable; they made those views.”

Furthermore, the great Hungarian-British intellectual, Michael Polanyi (1891-1976), argues in his 1958 Lindsay Memorial Lectures, The Study of Man, that we may commit three fallacies when criticizing historical actors: fallacies of rationalism, relativism, and determinism.

The first fallacy is committed when we “apply our own standards, without allowing for the difference in the historical setting of the acting persons.” Examples of those who committed this fallacy are the “historians of the eighteenth century, like Voltaire and Gibbon, [who] tended to judge the past in this narrow-minded manner.” Other examples currently abound in the recent iconoclastic attacks. On this view, unless there is no trace of racism in secular icons, such as Jefferson, his Memorial should be destroyed. Of course, Jefferson had slaves, as did others, e.g., Washington, and so the question is whether he merely held the view of his time or was an architect of slavery.

Clearly, owning slaves is in profound tension with the foundational principle of equality, and hence the deep truth about our God-created humanity, that Jefferson, the architect of the Declaration of Independence, expressed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” Lincoln helped to fulfill the “abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times,” asserted by the architect of the Declaration, or the “promissory note,” as Martin Luther King Jr. put it. Lincoln rescued it from the charge of contradiction with the Emancipation Proclamation.

Those who commit the fallacy of rationalism neglect not only the cultural differences in the historical setting between them and us, but also the clarifying distinction between holding and making the views of their time. We commit this fallacy, argues Polanyi, from a lack of “regard for the limitations imposed on a person’s responsibility by the acceptance of his native intellectual framework.” This fallacy abounds among the iconoclasts of our time.

The second fallacy – of relativism – is committed when people “judge past actions by the standards of their own time.” Polanyi adds, “When taken to its limit, [this approach] would sanction absolute conformity [to the times] and render thereby any criticism of the standards of a time meaningless.” Thus, on this view, the historical actors, such as Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and others, would be immune from criticism because they are not only influenced by but also bound to, the standards of their time. This fallacy presupposes that there are no objectively valid truths about human beings – such as that all men are created equal – and hence no truths independent of the standards of a time. This is cultural relativism and those who oppose rationalism sometimes embrace it.

The third fallacy – of determinism – is committed with “a materialist conception of history in which all actions appear determined by impulses of power and profit. Interpreted on these lines, all actions are devoid of moral meaning, and man is deprived altogether of responsibility to ideal obligations.”

Shelby Steele describes this materialistic conception by adding the deterministic impulse of race. Racism is a social determinism of “structural or systematic racism.” Steele explains:

Determinism was the idea that moved racism from the level of discriminatory events to the level of “impersonal” and “structural” forces that worked by the “invisible hand” to stifle black aspiration when real racists were nowhere to be seen. When racism is defined as a determinism, then whites and American institutions are part of a cultural pattern (“white privilege”) that automatically oppresses blacks; and blacks are automatically victims of this same pattern.

Being white as such is sufficient to condemn you to being a racist according to this social determinism. But this would mean that American institutions, like the police, and “ennobling conditions that free societies aspire to,” though democratic, merely reflect the social determinism of racism, depriving people “of responsibility to ideal obligations,” and emptying actions of moral responsibility.

Jacobs and Polanyi provide a helpful perspective in these challenging times for avoiding iconoclastic attacks against America.

COLUMN BY

Eduardo J. Echeverria

Eduardo J. Echeverria is Professor of Philosophy and Systematic Theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit. His publications include Pope Francis: The Legacy of Vatican II (2015) and Revelation, History, and Truth: A Hermeneutics of Dogma. (2018).

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2020 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

CONSERVATIVE MOMMA VIDEO: Shaun King’s War on Jesus

This new edition of The Glazov Gang features Conservative Mommawho discusses Shaun King’s War on Jesus, and she asks: What lives did Jesus not die for exactly?

Don’t miss it!

And make sure to watch our Special 5-Part Series featuring Conservative Momma, where she focuses on The Lockdown and America’s Enemies:

Part 1: Gatherings Aren’t Safe! Unless They’re For a Leftist Cause!

Part 2. The Leftist “Enforce-the-Lockdown-Forever” Syndrome.

Part 3: A Globalist’s Promise: Let Me ‘Take Care’ of You.

Part 4: The Mainstream Media on Corona — when hating Trump is the top (and only) priority.

Part 5: Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely — it’s not about what to ban, but what NOT to ban.

Subscribe to the Glazov Gang‘s YouTube Channel and follow us on Twitter: @JamieGlazov.

©All rights reserved.

PODCAST: The Annex Best Thing for Israel by Caroline Glick

President Trump has already done more than any administration in modern history for Israel. But this week, he and his White House team are weighing a move that could change the status quo of America’s ally forever.It’s a conversation that’s been going on since President Trump moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem in 2018. With Israeli’s new coalition government finally in place, it may finally be time to move forward with America’s support for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s sovereignty plan. For the administration, it’s not a question of whether the president supports the idea — Donald Trump has been ready to restore Israeli control to Judea and Samaria since he took office. The question, at least in most people’s minds, is when the policy would make the most political sense.

Caroline Glick, a senior columnist at Breitbart News, joined “Washington Watch” Tuesday night from Israel to talk about the move, which, as she points out, is more than 50 years in the making. The crux of Netanyahu’s sovereignty plan is to officially restore the country’s control over the Jewish communities inside Judea and Samaria, where a half-million Israeli’s live — and the Jordan Valley, which is Israel’s eastern frontier with Jordan. For the last 53 years, these areas, which include some important biblical heritage sights, have been under military rule — not civil law like the rest of Israel. It’s not a matter of giving away land, Caroline explains. “And it’s not annexation,” she points out, “because under international law, these are parts of the territory that was allocated for the Jewish state by the League of Nations 100 years ago.” It’s essentially “an administrative move.”

Israel has had sovereignty over this area for decades, but they haven’t exercised it because of the international opposition. Now that President Trump has relocated the embassy to Jerusalem, there seems to be a growing sense that this is the right time to move forward in other ways. For too long, Caroline said, people have been afraid of the Arab world’s reaction. “There was this idea that to gain peace, Israel has to surrender to all the demands of the Palestinians. And that meant surrender all of its rights to Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem in order to get peace from the Palestinians.”

But from a moral and factual perspective, that was wrong. The world was trying to pretend that the state of Israel was somehow a new country — not the “reconstitution of the biblical Jewish commonwealth.” They wanted us to believe “that the Jews who live here have nothing to do with the Jews that were here at the time of the temple — which is a lie, of course. And therefore, we’re not going to recognize Israel capital in Jerusalem. We’re going to say that their capital is in Tel Aviv, the city that was only established in 1989.”

President Trump understood how ridiculous that was. He knew the reason that all of the past peace plans had failed because they were built on the lie that the Jewish people don’t have a legitimate claim to Israel. It’s the same concept, she explains, as Judea and Samaria. The Jews aren’t “occupiers” of a foreign land. It’s their land. “That’s the cradle of Jewish civilization. That’s the cradle of the Judeo-Christian civilization. It’s not only where Judaism was born and where we’re King David was born, and where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were. It’s also where Jesus was born in Bethlehem. And so when you say that Judea actually has nothing to do with the Jews, you’re denying Jewish history.”

With America’s support, Israel can move forward and claim the right that was already there. And believe it or not, a lot of Israelis on both sides support it. Even on the political Left, Caroline explains, people in the country think it’s a reasonable plan. “Whether it’ll work or not is a completely different issue,” she acknowledges, “but it has a better chance of working than anything else because at least it’s based on reality. And Israelis appreciate that.”


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

Virginia Is for Snoopers

America’s Hope: I Will Answer God’s Call 2 Fall — This Sunday!

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action podcast is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Seattle, Columbus, and Historical Fictions

Chief Seattle, who gave his name to the currently troubled city in the State of Washington, was pure Native American (father Suquamish, mother Duwamish). A mighty warrior, he essentially eliminated the rival Chimakum tribe in a battle on what is now the Quimper Peninsula. Like other native chiefs, he owned slaves. And he was a convert, probably in his fifties, to Roman Catholicism.

I learned about him more than 30 years ago, when I was researching my very first book, 1492 and All That, as controversy was raging about the 500th anniversary of Columbus’ first voyage to the New World. Seattle’s story shows how complex, to say the least, are our individual lives – and how false and disrespectful of those lives it is to use past historical figures in what are manufactured, simple-minded, ideological morality plays.

Native Americans are not supposed to have been violent, like “white men.” Or at least not against other Native Americans, because all those different peoples must have been One Harmonious Anti-White Thing, no?

And his tribe, as “people of color” (which for the moment seems to include Hispanic descendants of Spanish conquistadores), couldn’t have owned slaves or perpetrated “genocide” against another tribe.

And how could such a man, as a successful and mature adult, choose to become, of all things, a Catholic?

Yet he was hardly unique in these and many other ways. And, properly understood, is still a great and noteworthy figure whose name (and statue) should remain, undisturbed, in Seattle.

We’re all fallen creatures, in need of forgiveness and mercy, not least those who don’t know it. Shakespeare’s Hamlet had the old Christian wisdom and human decency exactly right: “Use every man after his desert, and who should ’scape whipping?”

I say this not out of any desire to deny Seattle’s – or anyone’s – sins, but to point out that he was more than those faults, even than the slavery. I said as much during a panel discussion on Columbus in the 1990s and was – still am – a bit shocked that one participant responded, “Well, slavery worked for them,” a black historian – who knew that the Indian cultures were not to be criticized.

Christopher Columbus is getting a bad rap, again, at this moment. And truth be told, he too indulged in a bit of the “noble savage” myth. In his report about his first voyage, he told Queen Isabella of the Tainos he encountered in the Caribbean: “They are very gentle and without knowledge of what is evil; nor do they murder or steal. . . .They love their neighbors as themselves, and they have the sweetest talk in the world, and are gentle and always laughing.”

Later, when the difficulty of two such different cultures meeting and mingling became clear, and his men were clashing with Native Americans, he sang a different tune: “I should be judged as a captain who went from Spain to the Indies to conquer a people numerous and warlike, whose manners and religion are very different from ours, who live in sierras and mountains, without fixed settlements.”

It’s curious that those who want to use such clashes to blame Columbus for every human evil that followed 1492 would never dream of giving him credit for all the marvelous things that have happened in the Americas since he joined two very different worlds previously unknown to one another.

We might even want to extend some credit to the overall legacies of St. Louis, Junipero Serra, Washington, Jefferson, Churchill, and many other fellow human beings currently being threatened with banishment from society.

Decent people do not judge others now living by groups – black, white, female, Jewish, Asian, etc. And it’s only right to try getting individual historical figures, even early Europeans who came to the Americas, in clear focus.

The great Dominican “defender of the Indians,” Bartolomé de las Casas knew Columbus personally and spoke of his “sweetness and benignity.” Cortez could be brutal, but ended in a monastery doing penance for his sins. Pizzaro was a psychopath.

Imagine, white people, even back then, differed from one another.

Columbus was something other than a “white” conqueror; despite the unprecedented difficulties he faced in the new cultures he encountered, there were remarkably few instances of his mistreating anyone and some touching moments of understanding. He was usually unsure of himself, as we ourselves often are. Las Casas said of him, “Truly. I would not dare blame the admiral’s intentions for I knew him well and I knew his intentions were good.”

In a way, this is no great surprise because Columbus was a serious, almost obsessive, Christian. Indeed, there’s considerable evidence that he had some sort of revelation about making his first voyage, even though he probably knew through his scientific studies that “the Indies” were farther than he let on. He finished his days dressed as an Observatine Franciscan.

These and similar facts are well known to historians. But you’d never know it from current public discussions.

I gave dozens of lectures at universities after my book on Columbus appeared  – a memorable one in a packed room at Princeton on October 12, 1992 organized by our friend Fr. John McCloskey, who was chaplain there at the time. I heard, quietly but multiple times, from history professors at whichever institution I happened to be visiting: We’re glad you said all that. We can’t.

My modest 1492 and All That was the only book of mine ever to be reviewed in the prestigious New York Review of Books. Oxford historian J.H. Elliott, who did the review, remarked at the time that it was regrettable that such a book even had to be written. But it did.

And still does. I’ve just agreed with Sophia Institute Press to do an updated and expanded second edition, which will appear on Columbus Day this year.

It’s almost forty years since the first edition, and we’ve not only learned nothing, we’ve forgotten what little we once knew and thrown away much of the human decency we still possessed. And there are many furiously busy today trying to make sure we never tell the whole truth. But when you cut the roots, it’s just a matter of time before the whole thing comes crashing down.

COLUMN BY

Robert Royal

Dr. Robert Royal is editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing, and president of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington, D.C. His most recent book is A Deeper Vision: The Catholic Intellectual Tradition in the Twentieth Century, published by Ignatius Press. The God That Did Not Fail: How Religion Built and Sustains the West, is now available in paperback from Encounter Books.

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2020 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

VIDEO: The Lockdowns Crushed Minority-Owned Businesses the Most

Meanwhile, corporations receive massive windfalls thanks to government ‘relief’ efforts.


Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, minorities have disproportionately suffered from the virus’s health effects. A new study reveals that the government-mandated economic lockdowns have also hit minorities hardest.

In response to the outbreak and under the guidance of federal agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control, state and local governments imposed quarantine orders and mandated shutdowns for many businesses deemed “non-essential.” Whether one supports lockdowns as a public health measure or not, they undoubtedly resulted in tens of millions of Americans and counting filing for unemployment and a sharp economic downturn.

Like all government interventions into the economy, the unprecedented shutdown has not affected everyone equally. The government’s response to this crisis contained clear carve-outs and favoritism for politically connected large corporations, yet imposed disproportionate negative impacts on less politically influential minority-owned small businesses.

new paper from Professor Robert Fairlie of the University of California, Santa Cruz exposes this reality for all to see.

“The number of active business owners in the United States plummeted by 3.3 million or 22 percent over the crucial two-month window from February to April 2020,” Fairlie found in his analysis of nationally representative government survey data. “The drop in business owners was the largest on record, and losses were felt across nearly all industries and even for incorporated businesses.”

This is a troubling economic observation in and of itself, yet the data are even more concerning when broken down along racial lines.

“African-American businesses were hit especially hard experiencing a 41 percent drop. Latinx business owners fell by 32 percent, and Asian business owners dropped by 26 percent,” the professor reports. For context, white business owners only faced a 17 percent drop.

“Simulations indicate that industry compositions partly placed these groups at a higher risk of losses,” Fairlie continues. “Immigrant business owners experienced substantial losses of 36 percent. Female-owned businesses were also disproportionately hit by 25 percent.”

Remember that these abstract figures represent millions of actual people whose livelihoods were destroyed by the COVID-19 response. And as revealed in new reporting from the New York Times, the massive government programs passed as COVID-19 “relief” and “stimulus” efforts—we’re set to add a whopping $8 trillion in debt—are failing to help many of those who are most in need.

“Black-owned businesses also appear to be benefiting less from federal stimulus programs,” the paper reported. “Only 12 percent of black and Hispanic business owners polled between April 30 and May 12 received the funding they had requested.”

“It’s unfortunate that the businesses that need the funding, help and assistance the most are not receiving it,” the owner of a hair salon in the Bronx told the Times. “It’s like the Titanic. Where was the water coming up first? It was coming from the bottom. The people on the bottom were drowning first.”

Meanwhile, wealthy corporations are benefiting mightily from tax carve-outs in the congressional COVID-19 relief bill that was passed, the CARES Act.

Companies will receive more than $155 billion in benefits. This includes a whopping $862 million tax refund for the massive multinational corporation Boeing.

“The tax breaks were supposed to help ease companies’ red ink and keep paychecks flowing for workers,” Axios reports. “But most of the companies mentioned above, for example, have either furloughed employees or are pushing for buyouts.”

The lesson here is quite clear. When the government launches massive interventions into the economy and then passes 300+ page bills to “fix” the problem it helped create, political distortions will result in costs disproportionately borne by disadvantaged groups in society and benefits that skew toward the well-connected.

“I believe crony capitalism—the alliance between business and government—is the biggest problem of our age,” said economic historian Robert Higgs. “Crony capitalism, unfortunately, has a very active, organized, well-funded, and vocal constituency. It is the greatest threat to our prosperity and our freedom.”

“A free-market thwarts lobbying by taking the power that corporations seek away from government,” former Libertarian presidential candidate Mary J. Ruwart once said. “The only sure way to prevent the rich from buying unfair government influence is to stop allowing government to use physical force against peaceful people. Whenever government is allowed to favor one group over another, the rich will always win, since they can “buy” more favors, overtly or covertly, than the poor.”

The facts offered by this new paper and emerging COVID-19 data confirm theoretical predictions and offer a warning as to the unequal costs associated with mandating another lockdown if a “second wave” of COVID-19 emerges.

“Since bills keep piling up even when revenue isn’t coming in, many of these small [minority-owned] businesses face an uphill climb as it is,” the Wall Street Journal editorial board notes. “If they’re now getting back to work, and if they think they’ve taken the necessary precautions to do so safely, then the last thing they need is a politician ordering them to close shop for another month or two.”

Government lockdowns amid public health crises are ultimately a question of cost-benefit analysis. Whether one supports future pandemic lockdowns or not, we should all keep in mind that Americans do not bear the consequences of big government equally.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Bias of “Value of a Statistical Life” Measurements

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

MISSOURI: Muslim who once threatened to behead a rival with ‘the sword of Islam’ launches petition to rename city of St. Louis

Umar Lee is a convert to Islam from St. Louis, was once enough of an Islamic supremacist to write to a rival: “i could cut your neck with the sword of islam and watch you squeal like a bitch like daniel pearl.” In an email exchange with me, he endorsed the death penalty for apostasy. He is also an unstable personality who briefly returned to Christianity in 2013, only to become a Muslim again abruptly and under circumstances that were never explained. He has also been on record for years as a hater of America, writing back in 2009 that it was not permissible for Muslims to join an infidel army.

Now he is enjoying another moment in the spotlight due to the Leftist/jihadist alliance. Given the aggression and fanaticism of the Leftists who are tearing down statues these days, and the ignorant cowards on the other side who neither know their own history or are inclined to defend it, he may well get his wish. Make no mistake: this call to rename St. Louis is not based on Louis IX’s antisemitism. As far as Umar Lee and his cohorts are concerned, that is likely a mark in his favor. The problem with Louis IX is that he was a Christian, and not any ordinary Christian, but a Crusade leader. That will not do in our woke new world. Watch for the unveiling of Saladin, Missouri.

“Petition calls for St. Louis to be renamed, removal of statue on Art Hill,” by Sam Masterson, KMOX, June 19, 2020:

ST. LOUIS (KMOX) – A petition has been made with hopes of changing the city’s name in St. Louis and taking down a statue of its namesake, Saint Louis IX in Forest Park. The creators say the city’s name is “outright disrespect” to Jewish and Muslim residents and they’re asking for support.

The petition on Change.org was started this week, after the statue of Christopher Columbus in Tower Grove Park was taken away. Local writer Umar Lee is a co-signer of the petition.

“For those unfamiliar with King Louis IX he was a rabid anti-semite who spearheaded many persecutions against the Jewish people. Centuries later Nazi Germany gained inspiration and ideas from Louis IX as they embarked on a campaign of murderous genocide against the Jewish people. Louis IX was also vehemently Islamophobic and led a murderous crusade against Muslims which ultimately cost him his life,” the petition states.

The statue of Louis IX, which now sits on top of Art Hill in front of the St. Louis Art Museum, was unveiled in 1906. It served as the symbol of St. Louis until the Gateway Arch was completed in 1965.

Louis IX is the only King of France to be canonized in the Catholic Church. He became king when he was 12-years-old and is credited with changing the judicial process in France, with trials no longer being settled by combat, but instead by evidence and Roman law.

He was also known as a devoted Catholic, who ordered the burning of some 12,000 manuscript copies of the Talmud and other Jewish books.

“I ask all people of good faith committed to the modern values of equity and coexistence to sign this petition to rename the City of St. Louis to something more suitable and indicative of our values,” the petition states….

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: Cousin of migrant from Libya who stabbed three people to death says he converted to Christianity

Germany: Muslim migrants board tram, spit on woman, stab another passenger in neck, arms and shoulder

Austria: “In addition to ‘Black Lives Matter’ we should start a new campaign with the motto ‘Muslim rights matter’”

Canada: Muslim doctor gets no penalty for sex assault of 16-year-old, was ‘struggling to express’ gay identity

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

SPECIAL VIDEO REPORT: The Truth Behind BLM — Pushing LGBT, Marxism, abortion!

People around the world have rallied under the Black Lives Matter banner, believing it’s about racial equality. But in fact, its true agenda is far more sinister. Even more disturbing is the way Catholic clergy are seeking to find common cause with this movement.

WATCH: Special Report: The Truth Behind BLM

VIDEO BY:

Christine Niles

RELATED ARTICLES:

America Under Siege by Rabid Communist BLM Revolutionaries

Black Lives Matter Co-Founders: ‘We Are Trained Organizers – We Are Trained Marxists’

RELATED VIDEO:

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Trump Administration Accomplishments on Life, Family, and Religious Freedom

To date, the administration of President Donald Trump has taken significant action on issues of concern to social conservatives — life, family, and religious liberty:

2017

  • On January 23, President Trump reinstated and expanded the Mexico City Policy, which blocks funding for international organizations that perform or promote abortion. This new program is known as Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA), which now covers $8.8 billion in family planning and global health funds that go to organizations abroad (none of whom may perform or promote abortion).
  • On February 22, the Department of Education, in conjunction with the Department of Justice (DOJ) rescinded President Obama’s guidance that required public schools to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms and showers of their choice.
  • On April 7, President Trump’s nominee Neil Gorsuch was confirmed to the Supreme Court. Justice Gorsuch has already developed a reputation as an originalist who will rule the right way on religious liberty issues. Gorsuch is representative of President Trump’s judicial nominees overall.
  • On May 4, President Trump signed an Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty (known as the “Religious Liberty Executive Order”), broadly setting forth religious liberty as a policy priority of the administration, and requiring all federal agencies to take action to protect it. The order also more specifically addressed conscience protections, forthcoming guidance from the DOJ, and religious liberty in the context of free speech.
  • On August 25, President Trump announced changes to the Obama administration’s Department of Defense (DOD) policy which had allowed military personnel to serve even if they openly self-identified as transgender. (A DOD study found the Obama administration’s policy to be detrimental to military readiness, lethality, and unit cohesion.)
  • On September 7, DOJ filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court defending the religious freedom rights of baker Jack Phillips in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. This filing is representative of other actions defending religious freedom taking place throughout the Trump administration DOJ.
  • On October 6, DOJ issued guidance and an implementing memo (as instructed by the Religious Liberty Executive Order) to all federal agencies explaining religious freedom law and how religious liberty must be protected. This guidance laid out a broad defense of religious liberty based on multiple statutes and provided each federal agency with guidelines for protecting religious liberty.
  • Also on October 6, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed two regulations to deal with the Obamacare “HHS contraceptive mandate” that had for years violated conscience and religious liberty. These new regulations exempt organizations that have moral or religious objections to purchasing insurance that includes coverage of contraceptives and abortion-causing drugs and devices.

2018

  • On January 16, DOJ filed an amicus brief with the District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on behalf of the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. The Archdiocese had wanted to promote a religious message during the Christmas holiday but, had been denied advertising space within the District’s public transit system.
  • On January 18, DOJ filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue defending the First Amendment rights of parents and students who attend a religious school, to participate in a private school scholarship program.
  • On January 18, HHS announced a new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division within its Office of Civil Rights (OCR). This new division was established to enforce federal laws that protect conscience rights and religious freedom.
  • On January 19, HHS issued a new proposed regulation on conscience protections related to abortion. Specifically, the regulation proposed to implement 25 laws that protect pro-life healthcare entities against discrimination by federal agencies — or state or local governments receiving federal funds — due to their objections to participating in abortion, sterilization, and other morally objectionable procedures.
  • On January 24, Sam Brownback was confirmed as U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom. In choosing Brownback for this role, President Trump demonstrated the administration’s commitment to religious freedom by choosing someone with gravitas and experience on the issue.
  • On March 23, 2018, the White House and DOD issued a new policy allowing existing personnel to remain in the military while preventing those who have been diagnosed with “gender dysphoria” or had undergone gender transition surgery from joining the military. Those who are transgender and stable for 36 months could join so long as they serve in accordance with their biological sex.
  • On April 26, Mike Pompeo was confirmed as Secretary of State. In choosing Pompeo for this position, President Trump chose someone who cares deeply about religious liberty and will make it a priority to see the issue advanced through this administration.
  • On April 30, during a press conference with Nigeria’s president, President Trump raised the issue of religious freedom and the killing of Christians in that country — bringing attention to an issue that had largely been neglected by other government officials.
  • On May 22, HHS issued a new proposed regulation reversing the Title X family planning regulations implemented by President Clinton. The proposed regulation would restore the separation of abortion services from the federal Title X family planning program, which President Reagan first implemented. The proposed regulation would also ensure parents are more involved in the decisions of minors to obtain services from Title X clinics. It reverses the discriminatory abortion referral requirement the Clinton regulations implemented and is poised to put a dent into Planned Parenthood’s roughly $60 million annual revenues from the Title X program.
  • On June 13, DOJ announced the Place to Worship Initiative, designed to increase enforcement and public awareness of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUPIA). This federal law protects places of worship and other religious uses of property. Through this initiative, federal prosecutors will receive training about legal protections for houses of worship.
  • On July 24-26, the State Department held the first-ever Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom. Political and civil society leaders from around the world gathered in Washington, D.C. for a three-day summit to discuss religious freedom issues and solutions. The Potomac Declaration, issued at the Ministerial, made a strong statement about the state of religious freedom around the globe and provided a plan of action for promoting global religious freedom. The U.S. also announced the International Religious Freedom Fund (to provide emergency assistance to victims of religiously motivated discrimination and abuse around the world) and the Genocide Recovery and Persecution Response Initiative (which has provided nearly $373 million to help persecuted ethnic and religious minorities in northern Iraq restore their communities). The U.S. was among 25 countries who signed a statement condemning terrorism and the abuse of religious believers by non-state actors.
  • On July 30, DOJ announced a Religious Liberty Task Force to fully implement religious liberty guidance and policy across all components of the DOJ.
  • On August 1, the Trump administration relied on Executive Order 13818 (which builds on Global Magnitsky Act authority) to sanction two Turkish officials over the detention of American pastor Andrew Brunson due to his Christian faith. This Executive Order ultimately resulted in Pastor Brunson’s release.
  • On September 24, HHS terminated a $15,900 contract with Advanced Bioscience Resources to procure fetal tissue from aborted babies for research. The termination of this contract led HHS to announce an audit of all acquisitions and research involving human fetal tissue to ensure consistency with statutes and regulations.
  • On October 6, President Trump’s nominee Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh is the second constitutional originalist the president saw confirmed to the Court.
  • On November 7, HHS finalized its two regulations to protect conscience and religious liberty from long-running problems with the Obamacare “HHS contraceptive mandate.” These two final regulations exempt organizations with either a moral or religious objection to purchasing insurance with coverage of contraceptives and abortion-causing drugs and devices. The regulations took effect on January 14, 2019.
  • On November 9, HHS proposed a new regulation to address an abortion surcharge hidden in many plans purchased on the Obamacare exchange. This proposed regulation would enforce the requirement that abortion surcharges are to be collected separately from other insurance premiums. This requirement was not closely followed under the Obama administration, leading HHS to now more strictly enforce the separation of abortion payments from other payments.
  • On December 26, DOJ filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court defending a publicly-displayed cross-shaped veteran’s memorial that had been challenged as a violation of the Establishment Clause. This position is representative of the Trump administration’s originalist approach to the Constitution concerning First Amendment rights and other issues. Such an approach results in legal analysis that interprets the law rather than injecting policy preferences into it.

2019

  • On January 18, HHS notified California that its law requiring pregnancy resource centers to post notices about how to obtain an abortion violated the pro-life Weldon and Coates-Snowe Amendments. This marks the first time that the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division at HHS found a state in violation of these laws. This demonstrates the administration’s commitment to enforcing conscience protections and its pro-life priorities.
  • On January 19, at the request of 169 members of Congress and 49 senators, President Trump sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in which he promised to veto any legislation that weakens current pro-life Federal policies and laws. This letter was a message to the new Democrat majority in the House that longstanding pro-life protections like the Hyde Amendment and safeguards protecting the conscience rights of health care providers are not negotiable.
  • On Februa ry 22, HHS announced final rule changes governing the Title X family planning program. Consistent with federal law, these rule changes ensured that Title X clinics would be financially and physically separate from abortion facilities and would not refer patients for abortions. Since the implementation of the rule, Planned Parenthood and several pro-abortion states voluntarily decided to withdraw from the program rather than quit performing abortions or referring patients for abortions.
  • On March 8, U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback criticized China’s poor religious freedom record in a speech he delivered in Hong Kong.
  • On April 12, the Trump administration’s policy on military service by those with gender dysphoria went into effect. This policy will help halt the deterioration of military readiness, lethality, and unit cohesion caused by social experimentation in the military.
  • On May 2, HHS announced a final rule to expand the structure in which federal conscience laws are enforced. In 2011, President Obama issued a rule that enforced only three federal conscience provisions. The new regulation under President Trump covers 25 existing statutes, which will be enforced by the new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division, part of the HHS OCR.
  • On May 5, at the World Health Assembly, the Trump administration issued a joint statement on behalf of the United States and eight other nations calling on other countries to join an effort to focus on women’s health issues that unify rather than create dissension among members (like abortion and sexual and reproductive health). This statement was the first action taken under the administration’s new Protecting Life in Global Health Policy (PLGHP), which seeks to build a global coalition to promote women’s health while also protecting unborn life and strengthening the family. This policy works in conjunction with the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) program, which restricts funding for organizations abroad that perform or promote abortion.
  • On May 24, HHS proposed a new regulation that clarifies that discrimination on the basis of sex in section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act was to be interpreted under the plain meaning of the word. Therefore, it does not include “gender identity” or “termination of pregnancy” as set forth by a 2016 Obama administration regulation. The HHS regulation will continue to enforce existing civil rights protections; however, it makes clear that the federal government will not force physicians to participate in gender reassignment surgeries or abortions.
  • On June 5, after an extensive audit into fetal tissue research, the Trump administration announced a major change in the enforcement of research contracts. HHS would no longer conduct intramural (internal) research using tissue from aborted babies and would greatly increase the ethics rules and safeguards that govern extramural (external) fetal tissue research contracts. All new external contracts will be subject to a congressionally authorized ethics advisory board, making it much more difficult for fetal tissue research contracts to be awarded by the National Institute of Health.
  • On July 16-18, the State Department held the second Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced a new global initiative, the International Religious Freedom Alliance, meant to provide a way for like-minded countries to work together to advance religious freedom. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai gave a compelling speech condemning the use of technology to track and control the lives of religious minorities. The United States was among 14 signatory countries on a statement of concern about technology and religious freedom. The U.S. was also one of 34 countries that signed a statement of concern on counterterrorism as a pretext for the repression of religious freedom; one of 27 countries that signed a statement condemning blasphemy, apostasy, or other laws that restrict religious freedom; and was one of 46 countries that signed a statement that called upon government officials to condemn attacks on places of worship and to work with religious communities to protect these places. At this event, the State Department and USAID also announced new religious freedom training programs for foreign service officers.
  • On July 16, the State Department placed targeted sanctions on Burmese military officials for their human rights and religious freedom violations committed against the Rohingya Muslim population.
  • On July 18, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and HHS Secretary Alex Azar issued a joint letter on International Partnerships that called states to join a coalition of countries that seek to advocate against pro-abortion policies at the World Health Organization and the United Nations (UN).
  • In August 2019, DOJ filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court in two important religious liberty cases, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Bostock v. Clayton County/Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda. Through these filings, DOJ advanced a biologically binary definition of sex and those who operate accordingly, whether because of science or religious belief.
  • On August 15, the Department of Labor (DOL) proposed a new regulation that would clarify the scope and application of religious exemptions for federal contractors. Under the Obama administration, the scope of religious exemption at the DOL was severely narrowed. The current DOL relied on the history of our nation’s preservation of religious liberty, the First Amendment, and Supreme Court decisions to re-invigorate the exemption to its historical and constitutional parameters.
  • On August 28, the HHS OCR issued a notice of violation to the University of Vermont Medical Center for forcing a nurse to participate in an abortion despite a conscience objection. This marks the third time that the HHS Religious Freedom Division under President Trump has investigated a conscience complaint related to participating in or promoting abortion.
  • On September 10, the State Department placed targeted sanctions on Russian officials for their religious freedom violations and torture of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
  • On September 23, President Trump hosted a meeting during the U.N. General Assembly and gave a speech solely on the topic of religious freedom. During the speech, he announced a U.S. policy initiative to protect places of worship, pledging an additional $25 million in funding to protect religious sites and relics. President Trump also announced the U.S. would form a coalition within the business community to protect religious freedom. This is the first time a U.S. president has hosted a meeting focused solely on religious freedom at the UN.
  • On September 24, President Trump discussed the need to protect religious freedom during his UN General Assembly speech, in which he also discussed China and Iran — two major violators of religious freedom.
  • On September 25, HHS Secretary Alex Azar delivered a statement at the UN General Assembly stating that there is no international right to abortion, and that the U.S. does not support ambiguous terms like “sexual and reproductive health” in UN documents.
  • On October 7, the Department of Commerce blacklisted 28 Chinese companies whose surveillance technology products are used to systematically oppress and control — and violate the religious freedom — of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, China.
  • On October 11, 2019, Attorney General Barr delivered a striking defense of religious liberty at Notre Dame Law School. He noted, “[t]he imperative of protecting religious freedom was not just a nod in the direction of piety. It reflects the Framers’ belief that religion was indispensable to sustaining our free system of government.” The Attorney General proceeded to remind the audience that religion gives us the “right rules to live by.” Barr highlighted the recent attacks on religious liberty, and that the DOJ under his leadership has been fighting back and protecting religious liberty.
  • On November 14, the U.S. government lead a statement on behalf of itself and 10 other countries at the Nairobi Summit, once again calling upon the international community to focus on areas of consensus instead of divisive issues like abortion and sexual and reproductive health.
  • On November 19, HHS issued a rule removing burdensome requirements that all grantees, including those that are faith-based, must accept same-sex marriages and profess gender identity as valid in order to be eligible to participate in grant programs. This included the adoption and foster care space, where these requirements had been used to shut down faith-based providers of foster care and adoption.
  • On November 27, President Trump signed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act into law, which affirms Hong Kong’s semi-autonomous status and protects against Chinese government encroachment, which is a threat to Hong Kong’s religious freedom.
  • On December 19, the Treasury Department sanctioned two Iranian judges responsible for human rights violations. One of the judges was known to violate the rights of Iran’s Christian and Baha’i religious minority communities
  • On December 20, the center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced a final regulation to address the abortion surcharge hidden in many plans purchased on the Obamacare exchange. This final rule aligns federal regulations with section 1303 of the Affordable Care Act, ensuring that consumers know their health care plan covers abortion and that funding for abortion is kept separate from all other covered services.

2020

  • On January 16, HHS Secretary Alex Azar hosted 34 countries for a meeting on how to promote women’s health and protect the lives of the unborn. This meeting followed an invitation sent by Secretary Azar and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to 70 different countries inviting them to join a coalition to oppose international efforts to enshrine abortion as a human right.
  • On January 16, the Departments of Education and Justice issued guidance on constitutionally protected prayer and religious expression in public elementary and secondary schools. This guidance ensures that prayer in schools is properly protected and not unconstitutionally prohibited or curtailed.
  • On January 16, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) sent a memo to the heads of executive departments and agencies providing guidance on Executive Order (EO) 13798 “Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty.” In order to protect the ability of religious organizations to operate in the public square, this memo required the agencies to review the EO and publish policies on how they will comply.
  • On January 17, nine federal agencies (the Departments of AgricultureEducationHomeland SecurityVeterans AffairsJusticeLaborHealth and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development, along with the U.S. Agency for International Development) proposed rules leveling the playing field for faith-based organizations wishing to participate in grant programs or become a contractor. The rules eliminated two requirements placed on faith-based organizations that were not placed on secular organizations.
  • On January 22, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services at HHS approved a family planning waiver for Texas to implement a state-run Medicaid program that excludes abortion providers like Planned Parenthood. This makes Texas the first state to receive Medicaid funding for a family planning program that does not include abortion providers.
  • On January 24, President Trump became the first sitting president to give remarks in person at the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. In his address he stated the eternal truth that every child is a sacred gift from God and reiterated his effort to defend the dignity and sanctity of every human life.
  • Also on January 24, HHS Secretary Alex Azar announced live at Family Research Council’s ProLifeCon event that HHS issued a notice of violation to California for violating the federal Weldon Amendment by mandating all health insurers provide coverage for abortion. California’s abortion coverage mandate has deprived over 28,000 residents of plans that do not cover abortion. This marks the second time that HHS has issued a notice of violation to California for violating federal conscience laws and is the fourth enforcement action taken by the HHS OCR’s Conscience and Religious Freedom Division.
  • In February, the Trump administration filled the role of Special Adviser to the President on International Religious Freedom within the National Security Council. This role was authorized by the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, but has remained unfilled for over 20 years since that law’s enactment. President Trump is the first president to dedicate a full-time staffer to this role and fill it on a permanent basis.
  • On February 4, during his State of the Union address, President Trump called on Congress to pass legislation that would ban late-term abortions. To highlight the need for this legislation, he invited special guest Ellie Schneider, who was born at just 21 weeks gestation.
  • On February 5, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo launched the International Religious Freedom Alliance. The Alliance will unite government leaders from like-minded nations to strategize ways to promote religious freedom and protect religious minorities around the world.
  • On February 25, OMB issued a Statement of Administrative Policy strongly supporting two pro-life bills being voted on in the U.S. Senate: the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Had Congress passed these bills, the president’s advisors would have recommended that he sign both into law.
  • On March 24, DOJ filed a statement of interest in a case protecting women against men intruding on their sporting competitions. The statement made clear that athletic qualifications on the basis of “gender identity” were harmful to women’s sports.
  • On March 28, amid the coronavirus pandemic, HHS OCR issued a strong statement reminding health care entities of their obligation to treat persons with disabilities with the same dignity and worth as everyone else. OCR reiterated its duty to enforce current civil rights laws and has already worked with states like Alabama and Pennsylvania to remove discriminatory practices from their pandemic health plans.
  • On April 2, U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback held a special briefing. He called upon China, North Korea, Iran, and Russia to release their prisoners of conscience in light of the contagious coronavirus. Many of these prisoners were imprisoned for their religious faith.
  • On April 3, after hearing from Family Research Council and other organizations, the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued a FAQ document confirming that churches and religious nonprofits are eligible for assistance like the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) in the coronavirus relief legislation known as the CARES Act. These clarifying protections ensure organizations would not be discriminated against based on their religious affiliation and would not have to give up their religious freedom in order to participate in these programs. In addition, the administration used an affiliation rule to ensure that large abortion providers like Planned Parenthood would not be eligible for coronavirus relief in the CARES Act.
  • On April 14, DOJ filed a statement of interest protecting the religious liberty of church-goers in Greenville, Mississippi. During the coronavirus pandemic, the city of Greenville banned all religious services, even those that were able to abide by social distancing standards with drive-in church services.
  • On April 17, the Department of Homeland Security included “clergy for essential support” in its list of personnel and entities deemed “essential” for purposes of responding to the coronavirus. This designation allows clergy and pastors more freedom to continue to operate and serve those around them in need at this time.
  • On April 27, Attorney General William Barr directed federal prosecutors to monitor and, if necessary, take action to correct state and local policies that discriminate against religious institutions and believers while battling the coronavirus pandemic.
  • On May 3, DOJ filed a statement of interest supporting the religious freedom of Lighthouse Fellowship Church in Chincoteague Island, Virginia. After the church held a 16-person worship service on Palm Sunday (following strict social distancing protocols), a criminal citation and summons were issued against the pastor pursuant to Governor Ralph Northam’s executive order which banned in-person religious services but allowed large gatherings for businesses like liquor stores and dry cleaners.
  • As of May 12, the Trump administration has overseen the confirmation of 193 federal judges, including two Supreme Court justices and 51 federal appeals court judges. Counting seven other judicial confirmations for roles outside the federal court system, President Trump has confirmed 200 judges so far during his time in office. An overwhelming number of President Trump’s judicial nominees have been constitutional originalists, who will interpret the law as written, rather than interpret it according to their personal policy preferences. As judges, these nominees will rule correctly on religious liberty and pro-life issues.
  • On May 15, the DOL issued guidance implementing the administration’s Religious Liberty Executive Order and the DOJ religious liberty guidance. The DOL guidance also cited tothe OMB memo from earlier this year which directed all grant-administering agencies to detail how they will protect religious liberty in the context of such grants, and included specific action steps to ensure that religious liberty is protected.
  • On May 18, USAID Acting Administrator John Barsa sent a letter to the UN Secretary General advocating that the UN not push abortion during the coronavirus crisis. Barsa noted that abortion is not an “essential service,” and there are many actual health needs at this time. Therefore, the United States, which stands with the international pro-life community under the Trump administration, does not look kindly on these efforts topromote abortion.

Text “Actions” to 51555 to get this document texted directly to your mobile device

Click here to download the PDF

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.