AG Bill Barr and FBI Director Christopher Wray announced this week that an unprecedented number of cases of fraud against senior Americans have been charged or prosecuted and announced a hotline where you can report suspected fraud and help them catch more of the crooks, often foreign crooks, stealing from older Americans.
From CBS News (good for them because I have seen very little elsewhere about this story from Tuesday):
Barr announces more than 400 charged for defrauding seniors over past year
Washington — More than 400 people have been charged with defrauding seniors out of more than $1 billion over the past year, the Justice Department revealed Tuesday. Attorney General William Barr announced the charges in Tampa on Tuesday at the Sun City Center Community Hall for seniors.
Barr explained why this issue has personal meaning for him. “I myself was used as a lure in a scam,” the attorney general told retirees. Before he became the nation’s 85th attorney general, the 1991 official photograph of Barr from his first stint in in the job in George H.W. Bush’s administration was used by scammers offering phony federal grants in exchange for money. “It was really heart-wrenching. People called in desperate hope that this was real,” Barr explained. “That crystalized the issue for me, and when I got to the department I wanted to make sure that this was one of our highest priorities to go after this.”
[….]
Barr has made elder fraud one of his top priorities as attorney general, and Tuesday’s announcement nearly doubles last year’s prosecutions.
Every U.S. attorney’s office across the country participated in either prosecuting or conducting proactive community outreach as part of the department’s sweep.
[….]
Scams targeting the elderly are usually foreign-based, like the “Nigerian prince” scheme or robocalls involving the impersonation of a U.S. government official who demands money from targets.
“The charges announced today demonstrate the great success of the Transnational Elder Fraud Strike Forceto identify and stop those who are targeting our senior communities from overseas,” said FBI Director Christopher Wray in a statement. “We’re committed to continuing our efforts to keep our elderly citizens safe, whether they’re being targeted door-to-door, over the phone, or online.”
And, see theFBI Press Releaseon the announcement which includes a link to an interactive US map so you can see where some of the 400 cases are being prosecuted.
As I have said on innumerable occasions the President should be highlighting this fraud-busting work of his Justice Department, like this Transnational Elder Fraud Strike Force, at every one of his rallies.
Note to PayPal donors! I want to thank all of you who send me donations for my work via PayPal. I very much appreciate your thoughtfulness. However, PayPal is making changes to their terms of service and I’ve decided to opt-out beginning on March 10, 2020.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2020-03-05 07:44:462020-03-16 07:50:54Stopping Fraud Against Seniors a Top Priority for the Attorney General Barr
The Brotherhood’s Qaradawi expressed the same idea.
Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers.
As did Hitler’s Mufti.
So despite the pretense, this guy at the anti-Israel, anti-AIPAC protest, is following in a proud tradition of anti-Israel activism.
"The Holocaust will come back to you," one yelled at AIPAC attendees. "You're going to get burned if you don't give us the land!"
"Hitler will come back! Burned, all of you!"
Others tried to cool him down and keep him away from the frontlines a bit during this. pic.twitter.com/gpQIkFNJ0x
Aside from the Holocaust chant, there’s a sign, “Voting rigged by Jewish media”.
The chants of, “From the river to the sea” are calls for the destruction of Israel.
The rally’s attempts at deflecting attention by dragging along the terrorist-funded Neturei Karta cult, a small handful of nutjobs who are always available to provide cover for the terrorists, Think of them as If Not Now in religious drag.
But remember, according to the New York Times, it’s anti-Zionism, not anti-Semitism.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2020-03-05 07:28:082020-03-05 07:29:46Videos of Pro-Palestinian Protester at AIPAC: ‘Hitler will come back! Burned, all of you!’
The fact that Gabriel Said Reynolds, who demonstrates here that he is either abjectly ignorant or willfully dishonest about Islam, is a professor of theology at Notre Dame shows how much our nation’s universities (and the Catholic Church) are dominated by fantasy and wishful thinking rather than being willing to deal with unpleasant realities. Reynolds is an academic laden with honors, employed at Notre Dame and published in the New York Daily News, not because he speaks the truth, with which he is either unacquainted or unwilling to disclose, but because he tells people what they want to hear: that Islam, if only it were properly understood, is actually a religion of peace. How it came to be that so many Muslims misunderstand the religion they follow so devoutly, he does not bother to explain.
Meanwhile, would the New York Daily News ever publish a comparably lengthy theological defense of Christianity? Not on your life.
Anyway, to make his case that in Islam, vengeance belongs to Allah alone, Reynolds quotes a number of Qur’an verses, but he doesn’t even mention or attempt to explain away others that disprove his case. There is actually a great support, passed over in silence by Reynolds here, in the Qur’an and Sunnah for the death penalty for blasphemy. It can arguably be found in this verse: “Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.” (5:33)
But if you don’t think that verse justifies killing those who insult Islam, there is this: “Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger – Allah has cursed them in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment” (33:57)
Yes, he has cursed them both in this world and the hereafter. What does a curse in this world look like? Muslims are told to fight such people: “If they violate their oaths after pledging to keep their covenants, and attack your religion, you may fight the leaders of paganism – you are no longer bound by your covenant with them – that they may refrain” (9:12).
Not only that, but the Qur’an explicitly says that Allah will punish people by the hands of the believers: “Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts of a believing people, and remove the fury in the believers’ hearts.” (9:14-15)
There is more in the hadith. In one, Muhammad asked: “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” One of the Muslims, Muhammad bin Maslama, answered, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” When Muhammad said that he would, Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab).” Muhammad responded: “You may say it.” Muhammad bin Maslama duly lied to Ka’b, luring him into his trap, and murdered him. (Bukhari 5.59.369)
“A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.” (Sunan Abu-Dawud 38.4349)
Why doesn’t Gabriel Said Reynolds mention any of those passages?
“What radical Muslims get wrong about the Koran: Vengeance is reserved for God alone,” by Gabriel Said Reynolds, New York Daily News, March 1, 2020:
In the name of Allah, militant Muslims continue taking up arms against people they consider threats to their faith and way of life. But does it make theological sense for humans to pick up swords and guns to exact retribution in this life?
The Koran, the book those same Muslims purport to revere, says no….
The irony of blasphemy laws, and the tragedy of these attacks carried out in supposed defense of Islam, is that the Koran time and again insists that it is God’s right, and God’s right alone, to exact vengeance.
Allah does not need Muslims to step in and punish those who insult Him. In fact, Allah does not want Muslims to do so. The God of the Koran is clear: He is the only avenger of Islam.
The case of blasphemy laws in Islam is particularly peculiar in light of the example of Muhammad himself. The Koran describes how the unbelievers in his native city of Mecca disputed his claims of prophethood and insulted him.
Koran 68:51 describes how they accused him of insanity: “Indeed, the faithless almost devour you with their eyes when they hear this Reminder, and they say, ‘He is indeed crazy.’”
The Koran does not respond by demanding that the blasphemers be killed for their insolence. It simply affirms the claims of Muhammad.
Elsewhere in the Koran, the voice of God counsels Muhammad to be patient when faced with opposition. Koran 16:126 alludes to some persecution or affliction which Muhammad has suffered from the unbelievers.
The next verse, in response, suggests that Muhammad could strike back in moderation, but should simply endure the persecution patiently: “If you retaliate, retaliate with the like of what you have been made to suffer, but if you are patient, that is surely better for the steadfast.”
This does not mean that the idea of vengeance is foreign to the Koran. The question the Koran poses is not whether offenses against Islam and Muslims should be avenged, but who should do the avenging.
And the answer is consistent: “God.”
Remarkably, and if only Boko Haram and other Salafi-Jihadis would listen, the Koran even teaches this lesson specifically about Christians. In Sura 5, God asks some questions of Jesus about those who followed him, but Jesus does not demand that the wrongdoers be punished.
He leaves their fate in God’s hands: “If Thou chastisest them, they are Thy servants; if Thou forgivest them, Thou art the All-mighty, the All-wise.”
The same lesson is taught about Muslims who are unfaithful to the laws of Islam. In chapter 5, verse 95, the Koran describes the laws of the pilgrimage to Mecca (known as the Hajj). But as for he who breaks the rules, the Koran gives no worldly punishment: “God will take vengeance on him, God is all-mighty, Vengeful.”
So what does divine vengeance look like in the Koran? Allah punishes those who offend Him in hell. The Koran not only describes paradise in vivid colors (as a place with food, drink, and women), it also describes hell in gruesome detail.
Angels of punishment will strike the damned from the front and the back. The damned will be condemned to drink boiling water and eat from a tree named Zaqqum whose fruit is like the heads of demons.
The Koran clearly considers this punishment enough for an unbeliever. Whereas the standard schools of Islam teach that someone who leaves the religion, an apostate, is to be killed, the only punishment for apostasy spoken of in the Koran is hell: “’Did you disbelieve after you had believed? Then taste the chastisement for that you disbelieved!’” (Quran 3:106).
The Koran also teaches that God need not wait for the afterlife to punish unbelievers. He is the lord of the universe and can intervene when He chooses.
A number of chapters in the Koran tell a series of tales, dubbed “punishment stories” by scholars, in which unbelieving peoples are punished for rejecting the prophet who is sent to them. Among these prophets are Biblical figures including Noah, Lot, and Moses, and others who seem to come from Arabian lore with names like Hud, Salih, and Shuʿayb.
In each story it is not the Prophet but God who intervenes….
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2020-03-05 07:07:492020-03-05 07:12:29Notre Dame Professor Gabriel Said Reynolds falsely claims that Qur’an teaches only Allah should take revenge
Editor’s update: Chief Justice John Roberts issued a statement Wednesday condemning Chuck Schumer’s remarks, saying: “Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer warned two Supreme Court justices Wednesday that they “have released the whirlwind” and that they “will pay the price,” adding that they “won’t know what hit you” if they rule the wrong way.
Schumer spoke Wednesday at a rally in front of the United States Supreme Court where justices heard June Medical Services v. Russo, a case in which an abortion provider challenges a 2014 Louisiana state law that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges in a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion facility.
Opponents say the law would hinder and potentially eliminate abortion access in Louisiana. Louisiana lawmakers and pro-life activists maintain that the law protects women from unsanitary or unsafe abortion clinic practices.
Both pro-abortion and pro-life activists gathered Wednesday at the Washington, D.C. rally where the New York senator warned Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Neil Gorsuch against taking away “fundamental rights” related to abortion.
“I want to tell you, Gorsuch,” Schumer said, video from the event shows, “and I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”
“You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,” he added.
The senator’s comments referenced the political price Republicans “will pay for putting them on the court” as well as “a warning that the justices will unleash major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision,” Schumer spokesman Justin Goodman told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
In which Chuck Schumer threatens TWO sitting Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. pic.twitter.com/pA3mryeVK2
“Let me ask you, my friends, are we going to let Republicans undo a woman’s right to choose?” Schumer asked the crowd. “Are we going to stay quiet as they try to turn back the clock? Are we going to give up or waver when things get tough?”
The pro-abortion activists in the crowd responded to each of these questions with a resounding “No.”
“No, we are going to stand together in one voice and take a stand on behalf of women and families throughout the country,” Schumer said. “We are going to stand against all these attempts to restrict a woman’s right to choose and we will win.”
Republican Sen. Ben Sasse slammed Schumer, saying that Schumer threatened Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
“The Democratic Party is so radicalized on abortion politics that today Chuck Schumer threatened Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh if they didn’t strike down a simple, commonsense, pro-woman law that simply says that abortion doctors need to have admission privileges at a local hospital,” Sasse said in a statement provided to The Daily Caller News Foundation.
The Nebraska senator pointed out that if a Republican threatened Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor or Ruth Bader Ginsburg, “it would be the biggest story not just in Washington but all across America.”
“But, Chuck Schumer’s bully tactics aren’t getting much air time right now because there’s so many people in bed with his defense of abortion and his attack on an independent judiciary,” Sasse added. “These bullying tactics need to stop.”
The case marks the first time the Supreme Court has reviewed an abortion case since Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court justice’s confirmation was marked by anxiety from the pro-abortion movement that Kavanaugh would rule favorably for pro-life policies.
He was accused of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford, whose lawyer Debra Katz said Ford’s accusations were motivated by putting “an asterisk next to” Kavanaugh’s name before “he takes a scalpel” to Roe v. Wade.
“In the aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court,” Katz says in a video exclusively obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation in September 2019.
“He will always have an asterisk next to his name,” Katz continues. “When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important; it is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.”
RELATED PODCAST: The Daily Signal’s Rob Bluey breaks down the case with Louisiana Attorney General Jeffrey Landry and Louisiana Solicitor General Liz Murrill, who argued it.
This is a must watch. NOTE: Pastor Hind’s sermon starts at the 26:45 minute mark.
Since Pastor Hind’s sermon two people in Sarasota County have been hospitalized with what appears to be the coronavirus. Governor Ron DeSantis has declared a public health emergency in the Sunshine State due to the virus. As of March 1, 2020, “The Florida Department of Health (Department) has announced there are two presumptive positive cases of 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in Florida. Both individuals remain in isolation at this time. Despite these cases in Florida, the overall immediate threat to the public remains low.”
Governor Ron DeSantis said, “I have been working with federal partners and our Department of Health to ensure that communities are ready to handle the challenges presented by COVID-19. The dedicated professionals at our county health departments, as well as those working at local medical providers, are well equipped to address these and future cases. State Surgeon General Dr. Scott Rivkees has taken appropriate, decisive action to help affect the best possible outcomes, and I will continue directing our state agencies to do whatever is necessary to prioritize the health and well-being of Florida residents.”
There is currently no vaccine to prevent COVID-19. The best way to prevent illness is to avoid being exposed to this virus. As a reminder, the Department always recommends everyday preventive actions to help impede the spread of respiratory diseases, including:
Avoiding close contact with people who are sick;
Staying home when you are sick and avoiding contact with persons in poor health;
Avoiding touching your eyes, nose and mouth with unwashed hands;
Covering your cough or sneeze with a tissue, then disposing of the tissue;
Washing your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, especially after going to the bathroom, before eating, after blowing your nose, coughing or sneezing;
If soap and water are not readily available, use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol. Always wash hands with soap and water if hands are visibly dirty; and
Cleaning and disinfecting frequently touched objects and surfaces using a regular household cleaning spray or wipe.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2020-03-03 09:23:242020-03-04 07:24:06FLORIDA: Baptist Pastor’s Sermon Puts the Coronavirus into a Scientific and Religious Perspective [Video]
The Left seems to love creating hysteria and mocking Bible-believing Christians — so they couldn’t have asked for a better gift than the coronavirus. Not only does it give the media a chance to fuel the fear and fill headlines, but it’s also given them a chance to take another whack at Vice President Mike Pence. Not because he’s done anything wrong, of course. But because of what he believes.When a picture circulated of the vice president praying with his coronavirus emergency team, extremists saw the opening and pounced. After a week of bashing Pence for not having the experience to lead the response, liberals went ballistic at the idea that the man in charge of America’s task force would “waste time” praying. “We are so screwed,” Thomas Chatterton Williams posted. Others were upset that he’d dare to bow his head with other agency heads. But one of the worst responses had already come from CNN’s Don Lemon, before the picture, when he argued, “Is that the person you want in charge of the coronavirus outbreak? Someone who needs to pray on something instead of looking at science? …I don’t have a problem with praying. I have a problem with someone who is allowing people to die because he doesn’t want to look at science and to save lives.”First of all, who said the Vice President isn’t looking at the science? Just because the vice president is a Christian doesn’t mean he’s ignoring the research. On the contrary. The people who say faith is incompatible with science or health care either don’t have a grasp of history or are intentionally ignoring it to fit their narrative. Throughout the human experience, Christians have been behind the discovery of some of the world’s most important vaccines and treatments. Not only that, but the entire hospital network in this country — and others — is dominated by the Catholic church and other religious affiliates. To suggest that religion and science are mutually exclusive is not only ignorant — but insulting.
“The entire country,” Mike Huckabee argues, “should have found it reassuring when the president appointed Vice President Mike Pence to coordinate the Trump administration’s coronavirus response efforts. [He] has direct experience with this type of work, having overseen Indiana’s public health system as governor in 2014 when the first U.S. case of the MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome) virus [a deadlier version of the coronavirus] emerged in that state.”
The Left is ridiculing him to get a political advantage, President Trump argued, “but this shouldn’t be a political thing.” He’s right. Nor, Rep. Greg Murphy (R-N.C.) pointed out on “Washington Watch” with guest host Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.) should any of us be panicking to begin with. A medical doctor himself, Murphy has watched the coverage spiral out of control, when, he explains, “The lethality rate here in the United States are actually outside of China has been less than one percent. So it is not nearly as lethal as the other viruses that have been encountered.” People need to worry more about getting the flu, Dr. Murphy insisted. “The regular old flu. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be cautious and smart. But it does mean we shouldn’t overreact.
“We’re going to have to change our habits a little bit. But there is no reason whatsoever for panic. You know, a lot of people have put a big rush now on getting face masks. Those are totally not necessary. The face masks do… nothing to prevent somebody from getting the virus. What they do is if somebody has the virus, it decreases the amount of secretions that they actually push out. S o, again, it really goes back to basic techniques of just making sure you’re washing your hands and… [decreasing] the amount of human contact, handshaking, those kind of things in the next few months. And hopefully, this will not nearly be the calamity that some are screaming that it’s gonna be.”
As for Don Lemon’s comments that Mike Pence isn’t qualified to deal with this because he has faith, that’s “flat-out absurd.”
“You know, people have said, ‘What does he know about science? What does he know about infectious disease?’ He doesn’t have to know anything about them. A leader is someone who gathers around them smart individuals of different areas of expertise and helps coordinate a response… And that’s what he is doing… He will have doctors in the room. He’ll have epidemiologists. He’ll have hospital administrators. He’ll have military in the room, all putting their heads together and their areas of expertise together to continue to mount a response to this problem. So that that’s irresponsible reporting. And when it comes to prayer,” Rep. Hice went on, “for crying out loud, you know what? I want people praying for our country and for protection on this. And the more the better as it comes to addressing what could be a pandemic type scenario in our country.”
Tony Perkins’s Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2020-03-03 07:12:232020-03-03 07:13:33PODCAST: Media Injects Faith Debate into Coronavirus
“It’s not feeling safe and honestly feeling like I’ve been failed by the system,” says the victim, Alicia Clarke, and she is right. Not only has she been failed by law enforcement authorities, but also by the establishment media. The KSDK story below contains no hint of the fact that the attacker was a Muslim migrant. It was left to the victim’s sister to reveal that on Facebook. It is clear from KSDK’s coverage that Muslim migrants are a protected class, and that the establishment media avoids reporting on anything that might reflect poorly upon them. Was a concern to protect their image also part of the authorities’ considerations in dismissing the case? That’s what the KSDK reporters should have been asking. Instead, they completely whitewashed that aspect of the story.
“‘I’ve been failed by the system’ | Teen walks free after neighbor says he broke her nose, left her in bruises,” by Justina Coronel and Robert Townsend, KSDK, February 24, 2020 (thanks to Gateway Pundit):
ST. LOUIS — A St. Louis woman feels like the judicial system failed her, after she said her teenage neighbor attacked her and walked away free.
Alicia Clarke said exactly a week ago she went for a quick run outside her south city home. When she came back, she noticed her shoes had been moved to a different spot and her cell phone was gone.
From there, she used Find My iPhone to search for it. The location said it was on her property grid. She used her work phone to call it.
“I open my back door to call it and I hear it in my neighbor’s backyard behind me,” Clarke said.
Clarke said she hopped the fence to get it and jumped back over to her yard. Another neighbor yelled out to her and said, “Hey, I told him, ‘I know you did this and I’m calling the police!’”
Clarke said that’s when the 6-foot teen jumped the fence and tackled her.
“He knocked me down, pulling my hair, kicking,” she recalled.
Before he ran off, she said he grabbed her personal cell phone again. She used her work phone to call police.
“I am on the phone with St. Louis police dispatch, making my way to my backdoor, when he comes back with a weapon. He is on top of me. There was blood everywhere. I was literally fighting for my life at that point,” she told 5 On Your Side.
Clarke said as he was on her back, he stabbed her in the head and face with a metal rod.
She was able to get the weapon out of his hand and ran inside. He ran away again, taking her second cell phone this time.
Police arrested the teen on charges of first-degree robbery, second-degree burglary and third-degree assault.
Clarke thought the fight was over. But when she went to juvenile court a few days later, she learned his case was dismissed.
“The most hurtful thing of all of this, is the dropped charges. That was much more hurtful than the physical assault,” Clarke said.
A juvenile court official said a staff attorney dropped the case before even going to the judge. The courts weren’t able to comment specifically on this incident, since it involves a juvenile. Clarke said she was told her accused attacker was found incompetent to aid in his own defense because he has an IQ of 49….
“It’s not feeling safe and honestly feeling like I’ve been failed by the system,” Clarke said….
Updated 2/26. See addendum #6 below. It’s worth the scroll!!!
This is my sister. On Monday night she was attacked by her 15 year old neighbor. He stabbed her in the head and face with a screw driver. She fought him off and was able to escape to a neighbors house to call the police. The boy was taken into police custody and brought to juvenile detention center. No clear motive was ever established.
Alicia has a broken nose, staples in her head and stitches to the puncture wound under her eye.
Hassan is a 15 year old refugee from Somalia who lives with his family. He is 6’ and approx 175lbs, much larger than my sister. He has broken into Alicia’s car 3 different times and broken into another neighbors house. The police were involved every single time and reported that nothing could be done since he was a minor. Surely this time would be different, though.
This morning we went to the juvenile courts building for the deposition hearing where we would find out if he would be held in custody while he awaits his court date, or if he would be allowed to return home. It had been explained to alicia by the victims advocate that the 3 charges he was facing each independently carry a strong recommendation of remaining detained; all three compiled was almost a sure thing. We arrived feeling very hopeful.
On arrival, we learned from that same patient advocate that Hassan’s IQ is 49. This makes him incompetent to aid in his own defense, therefore all charges were formally dismissed by the prosecutor, Sakina Ahmad. We never entered a courtroom, saw a judge, nothing. Hassan was able to go home with a family member. He likely left the building as a free person before we even learned all the above information.
The prosecutor sympathized with our frustration and explained that because he is a mentally handicapped, juvenile refugee, every safeguard available is to his benefit and to Alicia’s detriment. She went on to tell us, VERBATIM, that even if alicia had been KILLED, the outcome would be the same and that this case would be dismissed. Now, Go ahead and read that last sentence again….
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2020-03-03 06:48:512020-03-03 06:50:20ST. LOUIS: Muslim migrant robs, beats, stabs woman with a metal rod. He is let off because he has an IQ of 49
CLEVELAND, Feb. 29, 2020 /PRNewswire/ — In a political environment marked by what they call “divisive, mean-spirited rhetoric,” the national officers of the United Church of Christ are urging church members to use their vote as their voice in the 2020 elections. In this pastoral letter, the denomination’s executives encourage involvement in voter registration, issue-education and voter mobilization. They have asked congregations to distribute this letter as Super Tuesday approaches.
The 2020 election cycle is stirring strong interest and concern across the United States and around the world. In these difficult and challenging times, this is not surprising. There is much at stake as we head to the voting booth this November.
Divisive, mean-spirited rhetoric dominates the airwaves and the public dialogue. Thoughtful, respectful, constructive exchange across differences on the key issues of the day is becoming more difficult to achieve. This is precisely why our voice and efforts as people of faith are needed. We can play a unique role in this election cycle by encouraging respectful, informed dialogue that builds community and a hope-filled vision of the future that includes all people.
In these tumultuous times, it can be tempting to withdraw and disengage from what feels like a polarizing, divisive process. We can lose heart and hope. Yet, grounded in our faith, we can renew our vision and take up the hard work of restoring community and lifting up a vision of the common good.
For people of faith, the public arena we know as “politics” represents much more than the partisanship we see on the news. It is a means by which we live out the commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves. Scripture reminds us over and over that building right relationships in human community and with God’s creation is an act inseparable from our relationship with God. Therefore, it is important for faith communities to engage in nonpartisan voter education and empowerment programs that help us reflect on our collective life and work to uplift the common good through the political process.
We can be inspired by the words of Doris Haddock, “Granny D,” a grandmother from Arizona who in her 90s walked across the country to be a voice for restoring the integrity of our electoral process: “If we allow the greedy and inhuman elements to steal away from us our self-government because we didn’t have the energy or courage to fight for it and to use it as a tool for love and wisdom, how shall we answer to that?”
Our vote? Yes, it matters. Voting is one way to give voice to the change we want to see in the world, a world that cries out for healing.
The UCC Our Faith, Our Vote campaign provides information and ideas to assist individuals and congregations in developing nonpartisan and meaningful ways to engage the political and electoral process. The Our Faith, Our Vote resources can empower UCC members to engage in voter registration, issue education and voter mobilization. We must equip ourselves and our communities to make informed, thoughtful decisions about who will lead us into the future. The Our Faith, Our Vote campaign is one way to do just that, and we hope you will join this effort in 2020.
Faithfully yours,
The National Officers of the United Church of Christ The Rev. John C. Dorhauer, General Minister and President The Rev. Traci Blackmon, Associate General Minister, Justice and Local Church Ministries The Rev. Karen Georgia Thompson, Associate General Minister, Wider Church Ministries
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2020-03-01 07:48:142020-03-01 07:50:18‘Our faith, our vote, our voice’ all matter, church leaders say in pastoral letter
During his appearance with the other Democratic candidates in South Carolina, Bernie Sanders was asked if he would “move the American Embassy back to Tel Aviv from Jerusalem”; he did not find that an outrageous idea. In fact, he said he would think about it, that it would be “under consideration.” Those who know that among Sanders’ most enthusiastic supporters are Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Linda Sarsour, that Sanders refuses – and has always refused – to attend a meeting of AIPAC, an organization which he regards as suffused with “bigotry,” and that he has repeatedly called Prime Minister Netanyahu a “racist” were not surprised. In Israel, Foreign Minister Yisrael Katz expressed the horror that many, in Israel, America, and around the world, felt at Sanders’ remark.
Israeli Foreign Minister Yisrael Katz denounced US presidential candidate Bernie Sanders on Wednesday [February 26] for what he described as a “horrifying” comment made by the Vermont senator at the Democratic debate in South Carolina the previous night.
Asked by a moderator whether, as president, he would move the US Embassy in Israel back to Tel Aviv from Jerusalem, Sanders replied noncommittally, but noted it would “be under consideration.”
“I’m very proud of being Jewish,” Sanders went on to say. “I actually lived in Israel for some months. But what I happen to believe is that right now, sadly, tragically, in Israel, through Bibi Netanyahu, you have a reactionary racist who is now running that country.”
Sanders’ statement came only two days after he announced he would not attend the upcoming annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference in Washington, DC, accusing the lobby group of providing a platform for “leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights.”
In an Army Radio interview on Wednesday, Katz said, “The remark by Sanders, who is of Jewish background, is his second against the State of Israel on topics that are at the core of Jewish belief, Jewish history and Israel’s security” — a reference to a declaration by Sanders at a J Street conference last fall that he would condition US military aid to Israel.
“The last time he talked about Gaza — without understanding at all the reality and the threat and the rockets and everything we face as those who are being attacked by radical Islam and defending ourselves,” Katz recalled. “He in effect wanted to deny us the right to self-defense.”
“And now, Jerusalem,” the Israeli foreign minister — a veteran member of the ruling Likud party — continued. “There is no Jew who hasn’t dreamed of Jerusalem for thousands of years, to return, and we returned and I think President [Donald] Trump did an important thing, without connection to internal disagreements within the US. He recognized the reality that Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people, the capital of the State of Israel.”
“Now, in the new peace plan, the deal of the century, he recognizes Jerusalem in its entirety as Israel’s capital,” Katz added. “And we will stick to that and insist on that, and, of course, act to persuade [people] in the US regarding those things. And whoever comes out against that — naturally, people who very much support Israel will not tend to support him.”
Sanders likes to tell the world, even as – or especially as – he denounces Israel and its leadership (that “reactionary racist” Prime Minister Netanyahu) that he is “proud of being Jewish,” and furthermore, he once spent a few months living in Israel as a young man. This is supposed to shield him from criticism of his clear antipathy toward Israel, an antipathy which is likely based on his ignorance. He may indeed be “proud of being Jewish,” but a little less emphasis on that pride, and a little more attention on his part to actually learning about the history of the Jews, and their connection to the Land of Israel that Sanders appears not to comprehend, would be welcome. It would also be useful if Sanders would learn about the history of the Arab wars against the Jewish state, and the Islamic basis for that hostility.
As to Jerusalem, does Sanders think that the Jewish claim to the city is no greater than that of the “Palestinians”? Jerusalem is mentioned 669 times in the Hebrew Bible, and not once in the Qur’an. Jerusalem has been at the center of Jewish life and longing for several thousand years. “If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget my cunning”(Psalm 137:5), and for mourners throughout the period of sitting Shiva to be comforted with the phrase “May The Omnipresent (One) comfort you among the mourners of Zion and Jerusalem.”
It is not the entire city of Jerusalem that is holy to Muslims, but a particular site in that city – the Temple Mount, where the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock are situated. In the Qur’an, Muhammad is described as going from the Great Mosque in Mecca to “the farthest mosque” (al-masjid al-aqsa), on his strange winged creature Buraq, where he tethered him,and then ascended, with the angel Gabriel, up through the seven stages of Heaven, before returning to earth, all in a 24-hour period. The place of the “farthest mosque” was assigned by the Muslims to the Temple Mount precisely because it is the holiest place for the Jews. There was no mosque in Jerusalem until long after Muhammad’s death; it is an act of faith, not a dictate of history, that nonetheless places the “Farthest Mosque”on the Temple Mount. By claiming the Temple Mount as the site of the “farthest mosque” where Muhammad landed when he arrived from Mecca, and from which he then ascended into Heaven, the Muslims were deliberately appropriating that holiest Jewish site for themselves.
The claims of the Jews to Jerusalem is based on thousands of years of recorded history. You do not have to be Jewish to learn about, and believe in, that history. It’s a matter of record. But the claims of the Muslims to Jerusalem are based not on history but on belief. The Muslim claim to Jerusalem is based on a story in the Qur’an about Muhammad, who supposedly flies on a strange winged creature, from Mecca to the “farthest mosque’ and then accompanied by Gabriel, ascends up into the Seventh Heaven and back, all within 24 hours.
One claim to Jerusalem — that of the Jews — is based on history. The other claim – that of the Muslims – is based on a desire to appropriate part of that same history. It is one more example of how Muslims have appropriated the holy sites of others. Think, for example, of how many of Hinduism’s most important temples were destroyed, and at the very same spot, mosques – making use of the building material of the ruined temples — were built, as the Babri Masjid was built over the site where the Hindu God Rama was said to have been born, and where a Hindu temple existed before the Muslims destroyed it. Think, too, of how many Christian churches were turned into mosques – the most famous such transformation was that of the Church of John the Baptist which was turned into a celebrated Umayyad Mosque.
This information about the comparative significance of Jerusalem to Jews and to Muslims might make Sanders a bit more understanding of why moving the American Embassy to Jerusalem, which has been regarded by Jews as the center of their political and religious life since the 10th century B.C.E., that is, for 3000 years, made sense. He need only take the time for a few days of sustained study of Jerusalem’s — and Israel’s — history. When the Trump Administration moved the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, it finally did what the last three presidents – Obama, G. W. Bush, and Clinton – had all promised to do, but were too fearful of offending the Arabs that they never got around to fulfilling that promise. Trump, on the other hand, did.
Moving the Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem makes moral, historical, and political sense. It makes moral sense because it recognizes, at long last, the central role of Jerusalem in Jewish history, and does not make a specious equivalence between the profound claim of the Jews, based on that history, and the claim of the “Palestinians” which originates in the Muslim desire to appropriate the holy sites of other faiths. It makes historical sense because no other people have claimed Jerusalem as their capital. No other people can claim a 3000-year attachment to, and presence in the city. The Arabs turn toward Mecca, not Jerusalem, when they prostrate themselves in prayer. Their holy cities are Mecca and Medina, with Jerusalem a very distant third. No Arab leader or dignitary — save Sadat when he addressed the Knesset — has visited Jerusalem since King Abdullah of Jordan, who was assassinated there in 1951. That is some indication of how little importance has actually been given to the Old City of Jerusalem, where Temple Mount is located, by the Muslim Arabs. But in 1967, when Israel captured the Old City, and East Jerusalem, and suddenly all of Jerusalem was in the hands of Jews, the city suddenly Jerusalem became very precious to the Muslim Palestinians, for whom the city had become their own “eternal capital.”
Although the Palestinians threatened that if Trump moved the embassy to Jerusalem all hell would break lose, nothing much happened. A handful of very brief protests in the streets of Arab capitals. No cutting off of diplomatic relations. There was, of course, the expected pro-forma condemnation by the Arab League and the O.I.C. (Office of the Islamic Cooperation). Trump’s firmness was enough to discourage the Muslim Arabs from their usual displays of fury; they knew they would get nowhere and might increase his antipathy toward them. Still more disheartening for the Palestinians, the Arab states, having issued those pro forma condemnations of the move, did nothing concrete to support the Palestinians. The other Arabs, especially Egypt and the Gulf Arabs, have shown a growing weariness with the Palestinians; their cause, which was once at the center of Arab concerns, has been pushed to the side. That is entirely understandable, given the many different threats so many Arab states now must deal with, including domestic effect of the civil wars in Libya, Syria, and Yemen, the threats to national security from the Muslim Brotherhood and from remnants of both Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, and above all, the major danger from Iran, that has made the Gulf Arabs now see Israel as their most important ally against the Islamic Republic.
The deed is done. The Embassy has been functioning smoothly in Jerusalem for almost two years, since May 14, 2018. Guatemala has followed suit. Brazil and Australia have both opened trade offices in Jerusalem, which some believe presages moves of their embassies. Other countries — Honduras, Hungary, Moldova, and Romania – have spoken about moving their embassies. A historic injustice is, little by little, thanks to the Trump Administration’s willingness to act, being rectified.
If Sanders were President, and if he were to put “under consideration” moving the American Embassy back to Tel Aviv, this would have disastrous consequences. It is because the Arabs were convinced that they would get nowhere in persuading Trump to move the Embassy back, that their protests were so feeble. But if a President Sanders says he would be willing to consider moving the Embassy back, that would provide the impetus needed for the Arab street to start protesting, and demanding – with a President Sanders in the White House – that the Embassy be moved back. It is enough for the Palestinians to know that Sanders has shown his antipathy for Israel, so much so that he would even be willing to undo the Embassy move, for them to seize the opportunity and once again explode in protest, this time for an American President likely – he’s not Trump – to be swayed by such demonstrations.
If Sanders were to be willing to “consider” moving the Embassy back, this would signal to all the Israel-haters that their moment had come round again at last, after four years of the most pro-Israel President in American history. Led by the likes of Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Linda Sarsour, they would organize the BDS-ers and the Muslim American community, and the far-left which is convinced of Israel’s wickedness as a “colonial-settler state,” to go all out to persuade Bernie Sanders to undo the “terrible decision of Donald Trump” and return the Embassy to Tel Aviv. All the “progressives” who have been Sanders’ solid supporters will be for that move. Why would Bernie Sanders let them down?
If a President Sanders were to move the Embassy back to Tel Aviv, the consequences would be severe. It would be a huge diplomatic defeat for the Israelis, devastating to their sense of security, for if even their closest ally, the United States, reneges on a matter that goes to the very heart of their national and religious identity — Jerusalem as the eternal capital of Israel and of the Jewish people — who or what can they count on? It was hard during all those decades that have passed since the Six-Day War to see successive administrations promise to move the embassy and never do so; it would be much worse, having finally achieved that goal, to see it undone by a man who claims to be “proud of being Jewish” but surrounds himself with the “Squad” of Israel-haters.
Meanwhile, the Palestinians will be gleeful at what they will rightly assume is a terrific defeat for the Zionists. If even Israel’s friend, the United States, feels compelled to undo “the great wrong” of the Embassy move, that shows the Palestinians that if they keep refusing to negotiate it is Israel, not the Palestinians, who will be pushed about by a Sanders presidency. For Sanders keeps expressing his sympathy for the Palestinians who, in his view, have never received a fair shake. He has apparently failed to notice all the negotiations arranged by Washington where it was the Palestinians who refused, and refused, and refused, every offer made to them, for 97% of the West Bank, and then for 95% of the West Bank, and now, for a Palestinian state that would have the exact same acreage as the Palestinian territories do today, with some of the territory reassigned to Israel made up for by the two large chunks of Israeli territory on the border with the Sinai that would, as recompense, be given to the Palestinians as part of their state. This move of the Embassy back to Tel Aviv will tell the Palestinians that their strategy of not engaging in substantive negotiations is working; that they must be patient, waiting for the Sanders administration to pressure Israel on the issue of settlements – that is, what they formulaically call “illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian land,” as Sanders and his supporters would have it — and even, one suspects, Sanders might support a modified form of the so-called “Right of Return,” where not five million, but “only” a million or two of the “Palestinians,” would move to the West Bank.
Undoing the Embassy move would be a signal to the rest of the world that even the United States is abandoning Israel’s “right-wing” demands. Those countries which have been on the brink of moving their own embassies to Jerusalem will be stopped cold. Why should Brazil, or Australia, go out on a limb for Israel if even the Americans found it necessary to renege on their Jerusalem move? They cannot be certain why the Americans would do this, but they will assume that economic pressure from the Arabs proved decisive, and they would rather not take the risk of being subject to such pressure themselves. If America moves its Embassy back, that will put an end to any talk from other countries about moving their own embassies to Jerusalem.
In Iowa, Bernie Sanders called Prime Minister Netanyahu a “racist.” He received some criticism for that absurd charge, but instead of dropping the epithet, he doubled down in South Carolina, where he described Netanyahu as a “reactionary racist.” His statement about how he would “consider” moving the Embassy back to Tel Aviv was unexpected. It has already gotten Palestinian hopes up and, among the Israelis, caused a furor, for what Israel’s Foreign Minister Yisrael Katz described as a “horrible” comment.
It would be highly desirable if Sanders would put in the effort to learn much more about the very great significance of Jerusalem to Jews, and the very different significance of that city to Muslims, before making his pronouncements. He needs to read more, study more, to be in a position to judge what his “progressive” supporters tell him. He needs to find out more about the history of Israel, the wars of survival that the Israelis have had to fight, the invention of the Palestinian people, and the way Jihad will, in one form or another, continue to be waged against Israel. There is no “solution” to this, for Jihad has no end until the whole world has succumbed to the rule of Islam, but there is a way to “manage” the situation – a very different way of looking at the matter. If Israel keeps the territories it needs in the West Bank in order to have strategic depth, which will be of critical help in slowing down an invasion from the east, buying time so that Israel’s reservists can be called up, it Indeed will, through deterrence, manage to keep the peace. And in fact, that’s the only sure way to keep the peace between Israel and the Arabs.
Why does the Catholic Church hate gay people? Perhaps you have asked that same question yourself. As a Catholic priest, I have certainly heard it. Now I would like to address it.
But first, permit me to change the question slightly. Since I emphatically do not think that the Catholic Church hates anybody, I think a better question is, “Why does the Catholic Church seem to hate gay people?” Why do many perceive a chasm wider than the Grand Canyon between Catholics and people who identify as gay?
My purpose is not to give a full presentation of the Catholic Church’s approach to homosexual attractions or behaviour. Instead, I have two, more modest, goals in mind. First, I would like to show that the Catholic Church does not hate anyone. And second, I would like to propose a reason why, to many, the Church seems to do just that.
Disagreement is not hate
First, a basic fact. The Catholic Church is a home for sinners, every one of us. Nobody is outside the orbit of her care and concern. Anyone who singles out people with same-sex attractions for scorn or unjust discrimination has by that same measure departed from the Catholic faith. The Church rejects hatred in all its forms. Every human being, we believe, is a sign and fruit of God’s love, someone worth the infinitely precious Blood of Christ. Every human being, without exception, is called to become holy, to become a saint, to dwell forever in heaven. It is literally impossible for the Church to hate anyone.
What I think people usually mean by saying the Catholic Church “hates” is that the Church disagrees with those who approve of homosexual behaviour. It is true that there is tremendous social pressure to normalize homosexual relationships today, and the Church has not yielded to that pressure. This is understandably upsetting to some. But it simply does not follow that Catholics hate those who identify as gay.
After all, everyone makes judgments about human behaviour. To take a strong example, unrelated to our present discussion, most would disapprove of a man who cheats on his wife and abandons his children. Those of us who object to this behaviour are not thereby haters; it means that we have convictions about human flourishing that we take seriously. It means that we care for the abandoned wife and children. It also means we care for the cheating husband; it means we want to see his heart changed.
This is a strong example to illustrate a point. But it is a point lost far too frequently in these discussions: namely, that we all have beliefs about human behaviour which, if we are seriously-minded and care for other people, will cause us to disapprove of some actions.
From the Catholic point of view, when we do not consent to the normalization of homosexuality, it is not hateful but actually loving – according to how we see the world. Whether or not someone agrees with that viewpoint, it is a teaching that is based in love. In fact, in the face of fierce pushback from the wider culture, it can even be heroically loving.
Two world views
Then why the bitter disagreement? Why does the Church’s teaching seem, to so many, as cruel and intolerant? Why does the Church care what people do with their own bodies in the privacy of their own homes? Why do we so often seem to talk past each other in these discussions?
It is a question, I believe, of two different ways of looking at the world. And while exploring these two world-views does not narrow the gap of disagreement, I do think that identifying them contributes to a greater mutual understanding. To grasp someone else’s perspective is not the same thing as embracing it. But I believe that it does lower the decibel level of these sorts of conversations. When we acknowledge, however grudgingly, that someone can approach a sensitive and personal issue from an entirely different angle and do so in good faith, we have inched closer to a more human and respectful dialogue.
So what are these contrasting world-views?
Natures
Take, for instance, something as basic as what things are. In the traditional or “classical” world-view, things have natures that define what they are. A tree is not a tree because we’ve defined it so; it is a tree because that is what it is. It would be a tree even were there no human beings around to see it, study it, and label it.
In the secular world-view, by contrast, natures are rather fluid. Things are more changeable, malleable, and subject to our control. Technological advancement has added weight to this secular mindset. We can, for instance, put on a pair of goggles and enter into an “alternative reality”. Is a tree really just a tree when, in an alternative virtual reality, trees can walk and talk? Another example: scientists have actually created human-pig chimeras. What does that mean about the nature of humans and pigs? A third example: in a 1993 ruling US Supreme Court justices identify a “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life.”
Given this environment, it is not surprising that some observers have called ours a “liquid time”, an age of widespread fluidity.
The classical view of nature means that we Catholics see purpose in creation. We see natures as having an internal solidity. Let’s go back to human sexuality. From our perspective, sex has a nature, a finality, a fundamental reason for its existence which ought to be respected: generating children. Homosexual acts cannot be aligned to the inner rationality of sexual love. (Incidentally, this also explains why we should not engage in other sexual acts outside of marriage, such as adultery, pre-marital sex, and masturbation.)
Marriage, too, has a nature. It is the union of a man and a woman in an exclusive and faithful relationship ordered to generating and raising children. In our view, no government can change the definition of marriage any more than it could change the nature of a tree.
This approach to human nature, by the way, also explains why Catholics cannot accept the identification of a person with his or her sexual inclinations. To us, calling a person “gay” is too reductive. We are not defined by our sexual attractions but rather by our broader humanity. Catholics see the sexual tribalism so common today as not only harmful to the human community, but also too limiting for individual persons. A human being is something far deeper and richer and nobler than his or her sexual attractions alone.
The world-view embraced by the Catholic faith, I realize, puts us at odds with those who hold to a more fluid understanding of human beings, sexuality, and marriage. When we grasp this difference, it does not mean that our views of homosexuality change, but it can help us see the other side in a more respectful light.
Happiness
Another, even more revealing, distinction between these two world-views is in their contrasting view of human happiness.
In the classical world-view, happiness is found in fulfilling our nature through a life of virtue. For the Christian, this means loving God and loving our neighbour. The opposite of happiness, the greatest evil, is found in thwarting our nature – that is, by sin.
In the secular world-view, by contrast, happiness is a more immediate concept, usually identified with sensible and intellectual pleasure. Its opposite, the greatest evil, is therefore suffering. How many disagreements in moral judgments come from this single difference! If I believe the ultimate evil is sin, and you believe it is suffering, we will likely come to very different conclusions about everything ranging from fasting to physician-assisted suicide.
Happiness is where the two world-views diverge most clearly, at least in matters of sex. Sexual behaviour obviously generates a lot of pleasure. If pleasure is the gauge of happiness, then there will be few, if any, moral qualms about engaging in it. If, on the other hand, happiness is about fulfilling our nature, then sexual acts are charged with more moral weight. Emotions may be strong and it may simply “feel right” to engage in sexual behaviour outside of marriage – but from the Catholic point of view, it does not truly fulfil us, does not lead to our growth in virtue or holiness or happiness. Such is the case with homosexual acts.
Perhaps more than any other, this different outlook on the world explains the wide gap that separates Catholics from secular thinkers in matters of sexual morality.
Church teaching is a sign of love
It must be reiterated that understanding another’s perspective does not mean that we will embrace it. I do not expect any of this to convince someone who disagrees with the Catholic Church to change his or her mind. There is much more to be said on the matter. But it does, I hope, show that our intentions are not sinister.
In fact, in our highly secular age, today it would be much easier simply to conform to the widespread acceptance, even celebration, of the homosexual lifestyle. I would hope, however, that even our most vigorous opponents could acknowledge the fact that Catholics who refuse to do so, based on a different viewpoint, are not thereby guilty of hatred or bigotry. Our moral stance should in fact be recognized as originating in genuine (even if perceived as misguided) love. It is a question of judging Catholics by their own standards, not by secular standards.
Penn Jillette, a noted magician, actor, and writer, once made a similar point. Though he is an atheist, he said that he doesn’t respect Christians who do not try to convert others to their faith.
“I don’t respect that at all,” he insists. “If you believe that there’s a heaven and a hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward…how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?”
Jillette is still, I think, an avowed atheist. But he is able to see things from another point of view, and his conclusion is as sane as it is surprising. He is able to see that Christians who seek to convert others are not being judgmental and intolerant, but in fact far more loving than their more timid coreligionists. It is that ability to see the world through the eyes of another that is so much needed today.
I believe that the classical world-view is not only true, by the way, but also a far more compelling and beautiful way to see the world. It ennobles the human person and fosters a deep respect for the human body and human sexuality. It promotes the profound dignity of every human being, from conception until natural death. It fosters a family environment that best advances the happiness and growth of children.
It offers a way out for persons with same-sex attraction who feel trapped into defining themselves by their attractions according to the relentless logic of our hypersexualized culture. It provides a coherent explanation for the profound sense of alienation, depression, and dislocation experienced by so many young (and not so young) people today, living in the devastating wake of the sexual revolution.
It is a joyful affirmation of reality and of happiness that is grounded deeply in our common human nature.
The Catholic position on homosexual behaviour is reasonable, coherent, and proposed in good faith. It is, in fact, coming from a place of deep love and compassion. The Church teaches that every human being possesses an incomparable and innate dignity. We are called to become sons and daughters of God and indeed saints. The Church’s teaching on homosexual behaviour, by her own standards, is aimed at nothing less than promoting that dignity.
And that is about as far from hatred as you can get.
Father Carter Griffin is a priest of the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. Raised Presbyterian, he converted to Catholicism while attending Princeton University. After graduating in 1994, he served for four years as a surface line officer in the United States Navy prior to entering the seminary.
He attended Mount St. Mary’s Seminary in Emmitsburg, MD, for two years of philosophy followed by the North American College in Rome for five years of theology. Later he returned for doctoral studies and published a dissertation on priestly celibacy in 2011.
Father Griffin is the Rector of St. John Paul II Seminary in Washington, DC and recently published a book entitled Why Celibacy? Reclaiming the Fatherhood of the Priest (Emmaus Road Publishing).
EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexitieshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexities2020-02-29 05:23:552020-02-29 05:23:55‘Why does the Catholic Church hate gay people?’ Or rather, why do so many people think that it does?
“Mr. Trump killed my brother Qassem Soleimani. Mrs. Clinton killed my other brother Muammar Qaddafi.”
“Let me tell you something brothers, the Quran asks a question – Do you wonder that a man born from among you has been selected by God, to be a messenger of His to the people, and a warner to the world and the nations? Yeah, that’s who I am. You may know me as Louis Farrakhan.”
Remember, this traitor has the ear of some of the most prominent people on the Left.
“Nation Of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan: ‘Mr. Trump Killed My Brother Soleimani, Mrs. Clinton Killed My Brother Qaddafi’; America ‘The Habitation Of Devils’ Will Be Destroyed By The Mahdi,” MEMRI, February 25, 2020:
Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan delivered a three-and-a-half-hour keynote speech at the Saviors’ Day conference in Detroit, Michigan on February 23, 2020. In his speech, Farrakhan spoke about the killing of IRGC Qods Force commander Qassem Soleimani by U.S. forces. Farrakhan said that he thinks he had met him during his visit to Iran. Farrakhan said that President Donald Trump killed his “brother Soleimani,” whom he called a “bad man” for killing Americans. Farrakhan questioned the U.S. presence in the Middle East, suggesting this was in order to protect its “little flunky nations” against Iran. He added that Soleimani was no terrorist, he was a “brother from Iran,” who was helping the people of Iraq rid themselves of an occupying army. Farrakhan added that former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had also killed his “brother,” Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, and this is the reason he did not support her or vote for her. Farrakhan recounted that he told Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei that he represents the Mahdi, who said that “America is number one on his list to be destroyed” and that it can be destroyed within 12 hours. In a “message for the Jewish people” he said that he is “not a hater” and that he has never given an order to “hurt a Jewish person” but he is going to “put a little truth on you, today.”
Farrakhan continued to say that America is falling because it has become “the habitation of devils, the hole for every foul person, a cage for every hateful bird.” He asked: “Have you become a nation of devils?” Farrakhan shouted at President Trump, quoting from the Ten Commandments: “You shall not commit murder,” referring to the killing of Soleimani. He added, “Murder is your modus operandi […] you want me dead and after today you might want to speed it up […].”
Several mayors of Michigan towns attended the event as well as the Chief of Staff of Detroit City Council President Brenda Jones, who read a message of support to the Nation of Islam on stage. Nation of Islam’s new mosque is a former Jewish synagogue that was called Congregation Beth Moses.[1] Farrakhan said in a June 23, 2019 speech[2] that the property was purchased by a supporter of Nation of Islam who “loved the teachings so much that he put up $300,000 of his money so that we could purchase this former Jewish synagogue.” For clips from the 2019 Nation of Islam Saviors’ Day convention see MEMRI TV clips #7025, #7024, and #7023.
To view the clip of Louis Farrakhan on MEMRI TV, click here or below.
“Qassem Soleimani, I Think We Met Him When We Were In Iran… Mr. Trump Killed My Brother Qassem Soleimani; Mrs. Clinton Killed My Other Brother Muammar Qaddafi”
Louis Farrakhan: “You know America is going to go to war. They killed Qassem Soleimani, and America is so powerful she has the right to define others. This Qassem Soleimani, I think we met him when we were in Iran.
[…]
“Mr. Trump killed my brother Qassem Soleimani. Mrs. Clinton killed my other brother Muammar Qaddafi. That’s why I couldn’t support Mrs. Clinton. And some of my little black friends [were] angry with me because I wasn’t going to vote for Mrs. Clinton.”
[…]
“Mr. Trump… You Said That My Brother [Qassem Soleimani] Is A Terrorist…You May Call Me A Terrorist Tomorrow To Justify What The Government Is Planning To Do To Me And The Nation Of Islam”
“See Mr. Trump, I respect you because you’re the president of the United States of America. And you said that my brother is a terrorist. And you got the power to define people. Well you may not like me, so you may call me a terrorist tomorrow to justify what the government is planning to do to me and the Nation of Islam. But I’m just inviting you, I’m inviting you to sit down and talk because I have a message for you from God. In fact, I’ll give it to you today. Let me tell you something brothers, the Quran asks a question – Do you wonder that a man born from among you has been selected by God, to be a messenger of His to the people, and a warner to the world and the nations? Yeah, that’s who I am. You may know me as Louis Farrakhan. I didn’t know what I was going to become as a student of Elijah Mohammed. But I’d like to tell you what my assignment is.
“See, Qassem, President Trump said, killed a lot of Americans – he’s a bad man, so I killed him, he’s bad – where was a man that he killed? Did he kill him in New York? Did he kill him in Philly? Did he kill him in Colorado, or California, or Florida? Where did he kill them!? He killed them in Iraq! What the hell were you doing in Iraq!?
[…]
“That man was no terrorist. He was killing members of an occupying army on the territory of Iraq. And he as the brother of them from Iran was trying to rid them of an occupying army. Now I’m naming you, and I got weight with God. An occupying army. What are you doing in the middle east? Soldiers everywhere, who sent for them? Protecting your little flunky nations? So now if I speak like I speak, and you know I’m telling the truth, this is not hyperbole, truthful hyperbole, this is the real actual fact. You went there, not to save the Iraqi people. You went there and spent [a] trillion dollars to make Iraq a bulwark against Iran.”
[…]
“When I Spoke To The Supreme Leader… I Told Him What The Mahdi Told Elijah – America Is Number One On His List, To Be Destroyed”
“So, when I spoke to the supreme leader, I said: ‘You’re looking for the mahdi.’ This whole nation of 90 million people is born, and are willing to die, serving the mahdi. I said: ‘You are looking for the mahdi, but the mahdi came to us. And I am here representing him.’ Did you hear what I said? I told him what the mahdi told Elijah – America is number one on his list, to be destroyed.
[…]
“He can take America out in 12 hours.”
[…]
“America Has Become A Habitation Of Devils, And A Hole For Every Unclean Spirit In A Cage, For Every Hateful Bird”
“I have a message for the Jewish people. I’m not a hater. You can’t find one word in the millions of words that I’ve spoken that I’ve ordered somebody to hurt a Jewish person. No, that’s not me. But to tell the truth, I’m going to put a little truth on you today, and then I’m going to close it out – you’ve been such a beautiful attentive audience. Now, look at the scripture: ‘Babylon is fallen, is fallen…’ [Revelation 14:8]. Substitute America for Babylon. She [America] is unraveling. America is falling, is falling. Why are you falling America? Because you have become the habitation of devils. A hole, for every foul person. A cage for every hateful bird. Have you become a nation of devils?
[…]
“Mr. Trump, this nation has become a habitation of devils. Everybody rebelling against God.
[…]
“Oh Mr. Trump, you shall not commit murder. You took credit – ah yeah, I had the boys kill Qassem… Sent the drone after him – how many have you killed? How many are you planning to kill? See, murder is your modus operandi. See here I am now. You want me dead. And after today you might want to speed it up. I don’t know. But Mr. Trump, America has become a habitation of devils, and a hole for every unclean spirit in a cage, for every hateful bird. Hateful birds mean those that are in foreign countries. You’re in Wuhan province, I didn’t know you were there. Now you have a little something that you want to bring home to America. You’re everywhere.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2020-02-28 05:44:232020-02-28 05:47:29VIDEO: Farrakhan says, ‘Trump killed my brother Qassem Soleimani,’ claims to be messenger promised in Qur’an
Whenever this kind of thing comes up, there is no discussion of what the Qur’an actually says. It calls for warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers, second-class status for women, hatred of Jews, and more. So a case can be made that this was not the best course of action for Paterson officials to take. At very least, a public discussion should take place. The idea that one cannot even raise questions about the wisdom of oath-taking on the Qur’an is in line with the Left’s sinister and increasingly open authoritarianism, but it is not in line with the American principle of free inquiry.
“First Muslim Police Chief in US City Sworn in with Hand on Quran,” by Safaa Kasraoui, Morocco World News, February 16, 2020 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
Rabat – US has appointed a Muslim police chief for the city of Paterson, New Jersey, earlier this month.
Ibrahim “Mike” Baycora is the city of Paterson’s first Turkish-American and Muslim police chief, Anadolu Agency reported.
A video shows the security personnel putting his left hand on Quran to swear in during a ceremony at city hall has gone viral.
The 60-year old chief has been serving at Paterson’s police department for over three decades.
Proud of the promotion, Baycora said he considers Paterson as his home “for the better part of a half a century.”
“Paterson has been in my blood my whole life, and now to be its police chief after a 32-year career — what an honor!”
He said he does not think that his religio [sic] will make a difference….
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2020-02-28 05:15:472020-02-28 05:15:47Paterson, NJ: First Muslim Police Chief in US is Sworn in on the Qur’an
You don’t go to AIPAC when your campaign manager, surrogates and volunteers violently hate Israel. But Bernie did initially say he might go, and then the people actually running his campaign, pulled him into a closet, and explained to him why he can’t go.
Then they gave him his pills.
And here’s Bernie!
“The Israeli people have the right to live in peace and security. So do the Palestinian people. I remain concerned about the platform AIPAC provides for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights. For that reason I will not attend their conference,” he wrote.
Basic Palestinian rights being the right to kill Jews.
But Bernie did go to ISNA where there are plenty of supporters of killing Jews, Americans, and other people Bernie hates.
Muzammil Siddiqi, ISNA’s former president who chairs its Fiqh Council, which dispenses Islamic sharia law, has assented to the death penalty for homosexuality.
At the 2019 ISNA convention, Siddiqi spoke on “Strengthening Our Connection with Allah.”
Imam Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the World Trade Center bombing, was there at an Imam Round Table. Wahhaj has repeatedly endorsed violence against non-Muslims. That wouldn’t bother Democrats, but Wahhaj has also declared that “masculine women” are “cursed”, claimed that the “feminist movement” is headed by “lesbians” and then offered a reminder of Islam’s LGBT position.
“And you know, brothers and sisters, you know what the punishment is, if a man is found with another man? The Prophet Mohammad said the one who does it and the one to whom it is done to, kill them both,” Imam Wahhaj said.
The ISNA presidential forum was moderated by Salam Al-Marayati, the head of MPAC, who had defended Hamas and Hezbollah, and justified Hezbollah’s mass murder of Marines in Lebanon.
“I believe in the concept of solidarity,” Senator Bernie Sanders began his speech to an unindicted co-conspirator in funding the murder of Jews. He vowed that he would “forcefully combat this virulent ideology of racism and hatred” at a convention with speakers who had endorsed the murder of gays.
This is what Bernie is okay with.
Jews defending themselves against Hamas? Those are “basic Palestinian rights”. And Bernie’s not okay with that.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2020-02-26 06:21:112020-02-26 07:56:08Bernie Sanders Went to ISNA Convention with Supporters of Killing Gays, Won’t Go To AIPAC by Daniel Greenfield
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, renaming it the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance Policy (PLGHA), which blocks funding for international organizations that participate in abortion.
On February 22, the Department of Education rescinded President Barack Obama’s guidance that had 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 Executive Order 13798, emphasizing the need to protect religious liberty and requiring the Department of Justice (DOJ) to issue new guidance on religious liberty.
On August 25, President Trump announced changes to the Obama administration’s Department of Defense (DOD) policy which had allowed military personnel to openly serve even if they self-identified as transgender (a DOD study found the Obama administration policy to be detrimental to military readiness, lethality, and unit cohesion).
On September 7, the Trump administration’s 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 action is reflective of other actions defending religious freedom taking place throughout the Trump administration DOJ.
On October 6, the Trump administration DOJ issued guidance (as instructed by the May 4 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 guidelines for each federal agency on how to protect 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.” These new regulations exempt organizations with moral or religious objections from purchasing insurance that includes coverage of contraceptives and abortifacient-type drugs and devices.
2018
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-life healthcare entities against discrimination by federal agencies – or state or local governments receiving federal funds – due to their objections to participating in abortion.
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 deeply cares about religious liberty and would 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. This resulted in security forces being committed to deal with the problem.
On May 22, HHS issued a new proposed regulation reversing the Title X family planning regulations implemented by President Bill Clinton. The new regulation would restore the separation of abortion services from the federal Title X family planning program, which President Ronald Reagan first implemented. The new 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 this federal program.
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 was issued at the Ministerial. It 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, the Trump administration DOJ announced a Religious Liberty Task Force to fully implement religious liberty guidance and policy across all components in 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, marking the second constitutional originalist the president saw confirmed to the court.
On November 7, HHS issued two final regulations to deal with the Obamacare “HHS contraceptive mandate.” These two regulations exempt organizations with either a moral or religious objection from purchasing insurance with coverage of contraceptives and abortifacient-type drugs and devices. The regulations took effect on January 14, 2019.
Also on November 7, HHS released a new funding opportunity for the Title X Family Planning Services Grant that will fund organizations beginning April 1, 2019. This new funding opportunity clarified the intended purpose of the Title X Family Planning program and made successful grant applications available so that pregnancy resource centers and other pro-life organizations could be competitive in the selection process.
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 payments.
On December 26, the Trump administration DOJ filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court defending a 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. This approach results in legal analysis that interprets the law rather than injecting policy preferences into it.
2019
On March 4, HHS finalized 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 gave a speech in Hong Kong during which he criticized China’s poor religious freedom record.
On April 12, the Trump administration policy regarding military service by those with gender dysphoria went into effect.
On May 21, HHS finalized a rule to expand the structure in which federal conscience laws are enforced. In 2011, President Obama issued a rule to enforce only three federal conscience provisions. This new regulation expands this number to cover 25 existing statutes. These statutes will be enforced under the new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division, part of the HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR). The effective date of this regulation is November 22, 2019. Even though this new regulation enforcing conscience protections is not yet in effect, it has not stopped the administration from protecting conscience under the old regulations. On August 28, HHS announced that they sent a violation notice to the University of Vermont Medical Center for forcing a nurse to participate in an abortion despite her conscience objection. This marks the third time that the Religious Freedom Division under President Trump has investigated a conscience complaint related to participating in or promoting 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, and therefore does not include “gender identity” or “termination of pregnancy” as set forth by a 2016 Obama administration regulation. Under President Trump, the HHS regulation will continue to enforce existing civil rights protections; however, it makes clear that the federal government will not use discrimination on the basis of sex to 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 or 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, and the United States was among 14 signatory countries on a statement of concern about technology and religious freedom. The United States was also one of the 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 government officials to condemn attacks on places of worship and to work with religious communities to protect these places. 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, HHS Secretary Alex Azar and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered a joint letter to the international community. It defended the ability of nations to formulate pro-life policies and invited other nations to join the U.S. in this effort.
Also 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 theUnited Nations.
On August 15, the 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 September 10, the State Department placed targeted sanctions on Russian officials for their religious freedom violations and torture of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
On September 11, President Trump saw his 150th federal judge confirmed – a number which includes 105 district court judges, 43 appeals court judges, and 2 Supreme Court justices. 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 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 U.N.
On September 24, President Trump discussed the need to protect religious freedom during his U.N. 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 U.N. General Assembly stating that there is no international right to an abortion, and that the U.S. does not support ambiguous terms like sexual and reproductive health in U.N. documents.
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, HHS issued a rule removing burdensome requirements that all grantees, including those that are faith-based, must accept as valid same-sex marriages and professed gender identity 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 December 27, HHS finalized regulations that require Obamacare health providers to collect two separate premium payments, one for abortion coverage and one for all other health care coverage. This final rule brings federal regulations into alignment with section 1303 of the Affordable Care Act ensuring that consumers know their health care plan covers abortion, and 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 in a way that does not include abortion. 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 sent a memo to the heads of executive departments and agencies to provide guidance on applying Executive Order (EO) 13798 “Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty.” This memo required the agencies to review the EO and publish policies on how they will comply, in order to protect the ability of religious organizations to operate in the public square.
On January 17, nine federal agencies 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 (CMS) 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.
On January 24, HHS Secretary Alex Azar announced live at FRC’s ProLifeCon event that the Trump administration 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 Conscience and Religious Freedom Division of the Office of Civil Rights at HHS.
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 on ways in which they can promote religious freedom and protect religious minorities around the world.
As of February 12, 2020, the Trump administration has overseen the confirmation of 192 federal judges, including 2 Supreme Court justices and 51 federal appeals court judges.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2020-02-26 06:04:162020-02-26 06:05:30Trump Administration Accomplishments on Life, Family and Religious Freedom
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that the Trump administration can continue stripping federal funding from clinics that offer abortions.
The court upheld the Trump administration’s June 2019 declaration that taxpayer-funded clinics must stop referring women for abortions or be stripped of their Title X funding.
Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote Monday’s majority opinion, stating that “there is no ‘gag’ on [nondirective] abortion counseling.”
The Department of Health and Human Services followed the decision in June by alerting clinics that it would enforce the administration’s ban. Planned Parenthoodwithdrew from the Title X federal family planning program, thereby forgoing about $60 million a year, in August 2019 rather than comply with this decision.
This is devastating news. While we are incredibly concerned the panel did not recognize the harm of the Trump-Pence administration’s gag rule, we will not stop fighting for the millions across the country in need for care.
The rules, which advance President Donald Trump’s promise to stop funding businesses that perform abortions, require that organizations that perform abortions and make abortion referrals will have to do so in separate buildings from those that receive Title X federal funds.
“Today’s ruling is a vindication of President Trump’s pro-life policies and a victory for the American people,” Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement, adding that abortion is not family planning and that “a strong majority of Americans” oppose taxpayer-funded abortions.
“President Trump’s Protect Life Rule honors their will and the plain language of the Title X statute by stopping the funneling of Title X taxpayer dollars to the abortion industry, without reducing family planning funding by a dime,” Dannenfelser added. “We thank President Trump and HHS Secretary [Alex] Azar for their strong pro-life leadership and look forward to the end of further frivolous litigation by the abortion lobby.”
Americans United for Life President and CEO Catherine Glenn Foster said in a statement that AUL is “grateful that the court of appeals has seen through the false cries of the abortion industry and upheld a rule that protects women’s health as well as taxpayer’s consciences.”
“We look forward to the implementation of the rule in a way that ensures that no public funding is ever used for elective abortions,” Foster said.
Other organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, protested the ruling.
“The rule prohibits family planning clinics—which previously served as the source of health care for more than four million low-income people every year—from providing Title X patients with referrals for abortion care and imposes other onerous requirements that have resulted in the widespread loss of critical Title X providers,” the ACLU said in a press release.
ACLU senior staff attorney Ruth Harlow noted that the ACLU is “deeply disappointed” at the decision.
“We are looking at any further options to rescue the Title X program and to restore the critical care it has provided to marginalized patients for almost five decades,” Harlow said in a statement.
