Wife of Former Democratic Senator Bill Nelson: Genocide Coming to America?

I had a conversation this morning with Dr. Ron Kelley, Minister of the Community Church of Sun-N-Fun. Dr. Kelly attended the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C. as a member of the Florida delegation.

Bill and Grace Calvert Nelson. Photo: Facebook.

Dr. Kelley told me about a conversation he had with Grace Calvert Nelson, wife of former Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), during a meeting of the Florida delegation.

Grace Calvert Nelson was speaking about the genocide that had taken place in Rwanda killing an estimated 1 million people. She was told, by the President of Rwanda, that there were three fundamental reasons why this horrible loss of life occurred:

  1. “Each person [in Rwanda] came to view themselves as [part of] this or that tribe.”
  2. “Their approach to governing was to divide the country and conquer the other side.”
  3. “They tolerated hate, which inflames the worst of passions. It leads to hypocrisy.”

Mrs. Nelson appeared to be concerned that this was happening in America. She asked, “Are we [in the U.S.] perpetuating our own genocide?”

President Trump said during the State of the Union address to Congress,

But we must reject the politics of revenge, resistance, and retribution, and embrace the boundless potential of cooperation, compromise, and the common good. 

Together, we can break decades of political stalemate.  We can bridge old divisions, heal old wounds, build new coalitions, forge new solutions, and unlock the extraordinary promise of America’s future.  The decision is ours to make.

We must choose between greatness or gridlock, results or resistance, vision or vengeance, incredible progress or pointless destruction.

Tonight, I ask you to choose greatness. 

It appears that Mrs. Nelson wanted to warn those with her about the politics of division, tribalism (intersectionality) and hate that leads to evil. Does Mrs. Nelson agree with President Trump? Can Republicans and Democrats alike “reject the politics of revenge, resistance, and retribution, and embrace the boundless potential of cooperation, compromise, and the common good?”

Dr. Kelley was inspired by Mrs. Nelson. Upon returning he gave a sermon that emphasized three key ideas,

  1. Coming together is a beginning.
  2. Keeping together is progress.
  3. Working together is success.

I hope all reading this will contemplate and reflect on greatness and reject pettiness.

It is time to come together, keep together and work together for the greatness of our families, communities and nation.

Muslim U.S. Air Force Intelligence Specialist tried to pass classified American information to Iran

But if anyone had questioned her loyalty, he or she would have been denounced as a racist, bigoted “Islamophobe.”


Monica Elfriede Witt (a.k.a.
Fatemah Zahra)

“Iran Conducted Cyber Hacks on U.S., Recruited U.S. Air Force Officer to Steal Classified Info,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, February 13, 2019:

WARSAW, Poland—The Trump administration announced a new package of sanctions on Iranian entities tied to the cyber backing of U.S. individuals, a move that comes on the heels of American authorities indicting a U.S. Air Force officer who allegedly tried to pass classified information to Tehran after defecting to the country.

The Department of Justice announced early Wednesday that it had indicted Monica Elfriede Witt, also known as Fatemah Zahra, a former active duty U.S. Air Force Intelligence Specialist and Special Agent, for attempting to pass classified American information to Iran.

Witt had access to secret and top-secret information, according to the indictment, unsealed early Wednesday.

Witt was deployed to several overseas location to conduct “classified missions collecting signals intelligence,” including those of adversaries.

Witt had access to “classified information, including details of ongoing counterintelligence operations, true names of sources, and the identities of U.S. agents involved in the recruitment of those sources,” according to the indictment.

“In or around January 2012 to in or around May 2015, in Iran, and elsewhere outside the jurisdiction of any particular State or district, defendant [Witt] did knowingly and unlawfully combine, confederate, and agree with other persons, both known and unknown to the grand jury, including officers of the IRGC, to knowingly and unlawfully communicate, deliver, and transmit to a foreign government, specifically Iran, and to that foreign government’s representatives, officers, and agents, directly and indirectly, documents and information relating to the national defense of the United States, with the intent and reason to believe that the same would be used to the injury of the United States and to the advantage of Iran, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 794(a),” the indictment alleges.

The disclosure of this information leak was timed to coincide with an announcement by the Treasury Department that it is sanctioning a handful of Iranian entities for their role in cyber hacks on Americans.

The sanctions hit an Iranian-based entity tied to the country’s Revolutionary Guards Corps, or IRGC. This includes “efforts to recruit and collect intelligence from foreign attendees [of various conferences], including U.S. persons, and four associated individuals,” according to the Treasury Department.

Sanctions also were leveled on “a separate Iran-based entity and six associated individuals involved in the targeting of current and former U.S. government and military personnel as part of a malicious cyber campaign to gain access to and implant malware on their computer systems.”…

RELATED ARTICLE: Health and Human Service’s Fugitives from Justice: all New Americans?

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column with images is republished with permission. The featured image by Prettysleepy2 on Pixabay.

Book Review: Freedom Fighter

Joanna Palani. Photo: Instagram.

As I write this book review, the United States sponsored International Conference on Peace in the Middle East has opened in Warsaw, Poland. This is fortuitous because America has been militarily involved in the Middle East, especially since 9/11/2001.

I have read many books about the Middle East but none have been as profound as that written by a 26-year old Kurdish woman named Joanna Palani titled “Freedom Fighter. My War Against ISIS on the Frontlines of Syria.” Joanna Palani’s perspective on peace in the Middle East is unique and based upon her personal experiences as a child, as a young girl and as a woman.

We must listen to what she has to say.

A Woman At War With Everyone

Joanna was (and in her heart still is) a soldier who served with the Women’s Protection Units (YPJ) in Iraq and Syria fighting against Daesh (ISIS). Joanna writes, “We [the YPJ] believe that women and men are equal, so we fight together for the freedom of the Kurdish people and the destruction of ISIS.”

Joanna was born in 1993 in a UN refugee camp outside of Ramadi, Iraq. At the age of 3-years old she and her Sunni Muslim family were relocated to Denmark. Joanna writes, “In Kurdish culture we celebrate the group – the family, the community, and the clan – instead of the individual, and the rules of the clan are the rules by which we live.” From 1996 to 2010 Joanna was raised and schooled in Denmark. It was in Denmark that she began her quest to become the equal of men.

Losing One’s Virginity

Joanna, as a Sunni Muslim girl, was raised to believe that the most important thing was her virginity. During her powerful story we learn how she lost her virginity in countless ways.

She lost her virginity because she rebelled against the strict Sunni Muslim beliefs of her father and her family. For this she was verbally abused, beaten, starved and eventually left her family to escape the oppressive culture in her home. Joanna writes, “Everything we do right, our father takes credit for. Everything we do wrong, our mother takes the blame.”

Joanna lost her virginity as a girl when she became a fighter (Peshmerga) in 2011. At the age of 18 Joanna went to Syria to join the Kurdish battalions that supported the Free Syrian Army volunteers fighting the regime of Bashar al-Assad.

Joanna writes, “In the Middle East, most people consider a girl able to have sex as an adult after her first period. A ‘woman’ is normally a married person who has had sex, whereas a ‘girl’ has not had sex.” Joanna lost her virginity to become a woman when she had an out-of-wedlock relationship with one of her commanders referred to as “R” in her book. “R” later abused her. She left “R.” For this she was later called a whore, prostitute and even shunned by some of the women in the YPJ. Women, and men, whom she had fought shoulder-to-shoulder with to free Syria from Daesh either rejected her or took sexual advantage of her.

Joanna lost her virginity when she was betrayed by her clan, friends, lawyer, the Danish police and Danish secret service (PET), and by thousands on her social media sites.

Finally, Joanna lost her virginity to Denmark, her beloved adopted country, which took her passport, tried her, found her guilty and put her in prison twice for going to Syria to fight for women’s rights and freedom. Something she knew was right to do but the current Danish laws find to be illegal.

Joanna’s Conclusion

When I finished reading Freedom Fighter. My War Against ISIS on the Frontlines of Syria the below quote came to mind:

Fate whispered to the warrior, “You cannot withstand the coming storm.” And the warrior whispered back, “I am the storm.”

Joanna ends her book with this:

I do think women should be armed, as part of a wider democratic and equality movement. I do believe women are entitled to defend and protect themselves with weapons from ideologies that seek their absolute destruction, because what other choice do we have?

It was not death that haunted me on the battlefield, it was my life. I don’t regret anything I’ve done: there is no longer an Islamic State, and there is no longer a caliphate, so we achieved our aims – we won. My prize is to be alive still: to see what age I will actually make it to, and to find out how else I can spend my life.

I strongly recommend reading “Freedom Fighter. My War Against ISIS on the Frontlines of Syria.”

As American Revolutionary Army General John Stark said, “Live Free or Die. Death is not the worst of evils.” Live free Joanna, live free! We need you to tell your story far and wide!

PODCAST: Rebels without a Clause

By FRC Director for Religious Advocacy, Alexandra McPhee

Imagine that one day you sit down for a job interview. You are prepared to answer your interviewer’s questions and demonstrate your qualifications for the position. Then imagine getting asked a question that has nothing to do with whether you are qualified for the job. In fact, the question has to do with something very personal — your faith.

You have just imagined the job interviews for 10 presidential nominees and their experience before the United States Senate. Not only were they questioned about their faith — they were questioned publicly and by senators who had every intention of casting them in a negative light based on their answers.

FRC’s new Issue Brief, Rebels Without a Clause: When Senators Run Roughshod Over the “No Religious Test” Clause of the U.S. Constitution, catalogs a disturbing trend by senators of interrogating nominees about the particulars of their beliefs or affiliations that demonstrate a hostility towards religion. The questions go beyond a reasonable inquiry into whether the nominee can remain impartial if faced with circumstances that conflict with her personal values. They aim to paint the nominee as discriminatory, partial, and incapable of faithfully carrying out her official duties.

Regardless of the political party of the senator, the nominee’s religious beliefs, or the particular office, these questions deter qualified candidates from pursuing public office at a time when we need them most. Faith and religion, after all, are often the foundation of integrity and character. The hostility and mistrust of religion that underlies these questions threaten to create a deficit of true leaders who are often such great role models because of their faith.

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), who’s been an outspoken opponent of this harassment, talked about that with Tony on Tuesday’s “Washington Watch.” “I think the two words you used to describe it are accurate: ‘disturbing’ and ‘dangerous.’ …I have never until the last few months seen, on any regular basis, questions like this come up… It’s much easier to castigate somebody or to make someone feel or look isolated if you focus on their religious belief about something being a sin. It’s one of the reasons I think [questions about sexual morality] are so wildly inappropriate.”

As people like Senator Lee continue to draw attention to this flagrant display of bias against certain religious beliefs, we hope more elected leaders will understand that voters will not tolerate attacks against qualified candidates in exchange for fleeting political gain.


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

Hillary Clinton: A Clear and One Percent Danger

On the Border, Deal or No Deal?

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column with images and podcast is republished with permission.

For What Robot Did Jesus Die?

Recently, amazing claims have been made about robots. One of them is that people will start to fall in love with robots. Another is that Artificial Intelligence (AI) will one day eclipse man. There is even the claim that AI will one day eclipse God.

Writing for zdnet.com, Greg Nichols (2/8/19) penned an article, “Robot Love: Why romance with machines is a foregone conclusion.” The subtitle is “Sex robots are sold for physical pleasure, but emotionally fulfilling relationships with machines is closer than you may think.”  It’s incredibly dehumanizing for creatures made in the image of God to engage in such mechanical acts.

Is that “love”? I reached out to Dr. Robert J. Marks for a comment on the idea of falling in love with robots. Marks is the Director of The Bradley Center for Natural & Artificial Intelligence at Baylor University.

Marks told me via email: “Those proclaiming that exclusive truth lives totally in naturalism are constrained to a sadly narrow view of the world. In their constrained silo, love and romance must have a materialistic explanation. But computers, including AI, are limited. They are all constrained to follow programmed instructions called algorithms. Things nonalgorithmic are not computable. Human creativity, sentience, consciousness and qualia are not computable. Can anyone write code to explain to a computer your true sensory experience of enjoying hot buttered sweet corn? Sex with a human-appearing robot can be simulated, but love and romance are not computable. Those married to the love of their lives for forty years like me know this.”

A few years ago, when stories were coming out along the lines that AI was a potential threat to humanity, I interviewed Dr. Marks on the radio.

For example, I asked him about this quote from Stephen Hawking about AI: “The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race.” Marks responded, “Well, I think it’s actually just hyperbole. And I think that people who say these sorts of things need to go back to the fundamentals and understand what computers can’t and can do.”

Marks observed, “A computer will never be creative. It will never have consciousness. It will never have understanding. It only does what you tell it to do….They will never have a soul. They will never have an understanding of what they do. They will never have a consciousness. Computers can only do something which is algorithmic….a fancy word for recipe. You have to give a computer step-by-step instructions on doing something, just like a recipe.”

But all of these claims get us back to a core issue: What is a human being and why do we have intrinsic value? For what robot did Jesus die?

In my opinion, over-glorifying man-made machines is just a symptom of a godless worldview—that sees humanity as a glorified animal or a chemical machine, as opposed to a special creation of God, who made us in His image.

In his book, The Death of Humanity (2016), history professor Dr. Richard Weikart writes: “As many intellectuals have abandoned the Judeo-Christian sanctity-of-life ethic in favor of secular philosophies, we have descended into a quagmire of inhumanity. Some today view humans as nothing more than sophisticated machines or just another type of animal. For them, humans are nothing special—just another random arrangement of particles in an impersonal cosmos.” This is the view of evolutionary materialists, who believe life is merely a chance product of time and material.

Going even further, AI will one day replace God, according to some. Dan Brown, author of the anti-Christian novel, The DaVinci Code, says:  “Humanity no longer needs God but may with the help of artificial intelligence develop a new form of collective consciousness that fulfils the role of religion. Are we naïve today to believe that the gods of the present will survive and be here in a hundred years?” But no robot has risen from the dead, so I predict that 100 years from now, Jesus Christ will still be worshiped all over the globe.

Robots may be great tools, but they are no substitute for humanity, no substitute for God, and no substitute for love.

Perhaps Allan Sherman, the singing humorist (“Hello, Muddah, Hello, Faddah”) had the best idea. In 1963, he did a song called “Automation”: “I thought automation was keen, / Till you were replaced by a ten ton machine….  / You’re a girl who’s soft, warm and sweet / But you’re only human, and that’s obsolete…./ How could I have known, when the 503 / Started to blink, it was winking at me, dear / I thought it was just some mishap, / When it sidled over and sat on my lap / But when it said ‘I love you’ and gave me a hug, dear,  / That’s when I pulled out its plug!”

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Pixabay.

Antisemitism Rears its Head in Congress

Congresswoman Omar accuses the Jews in America of paying Congress to support Israel. She particularly accuses AIPAC (American-Israel Affairs Committee) of paying Congressional members money.

Not only is this an attack on Jews but it is an attack on all Congressmen, Congresswomen and and Senators who support Israel America’s only ally and Democracy in the Middle East.

This accusation against AIPAC and Jews is untrue. AIPAC makes no payments to Congressmen, Congresswomen or Senators. It is ironic Omar accuses Jews of what amounts to un-American behavior even though recent polls indicate 76% of them have supported Democrats in the past. She might just as well accuse ‘Christians United for Israel’, some 35 million Evangelicals and 72% of Americans (based on a recent poll) who also support Israel of un- American behavior. This is just one more type of blood libel against the Jewish people.

What is so disturbing is neither House Speaker Pelosi  or Senator Schumer have criticized Omar publicly. (“Silence in the face of evil is evil”). What should send shivers down the spines of American Jews is Pelosi’s recent appointed of  Omar a confirmed  Anti-Semite and anti Israeli to the powerful House Foreign Affairs Committee. This powerful committee oversees foreign aid and national security issues. We can be sure Omar will attack Israel and Jews at every opportunity she gets. 

This is not the Democrat Party of my youth.

Ilhan Omar ignites new anti-Semitism controversy with comments on AIPAC

Freshman Minnesota Democrat Ilhan Omar ignited a new controversy on Sunday night when she suggested GOP support for Israel is driven by campaign donations from a prominent pro-Israel group.

Omar singled out AIPAC, one of the most influential lobbying groups in Washington, as the source of those donations.

Omar’s comments touched upon a long-running, and particularly ugly, thread of the anti-Semitic movement — that Jewish money fuels backing for Israel in the United States and elsewhere. A freshman Democrat, Max Rose of New York, said, “Congresswoman Omar’s statements are deeply hurtful to Jews, including myself.”

And the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee is a non-profit that doesn’t donate directly to candidates. AIPAC, however, does relentlessly push a pro-Israeli message on Capitol Hill and inside the executive branch, and its members donate to pro-Israel lawmakers and candidates while seeking to defeat those it considers a threat to U.S.-Israeli relations.

READ MORE.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is from Ilhan Omar’s Facebook page.

New York: Are “Vulnerable” Immigrants more Important to Catholic Charities than Vulnerable Babies?

I guess Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New York was too busy cozying up to Governor Andrew Cuomo for money for its Pro Bono legal services in defense of illegal aliens to bother pushing too hard to save late term aborted babies!

From the Albany Times-Union,

New website connects pro-bono lawyers with immigrants in need of help

After relating stories about several illegal aliens (oops! “undocumented”)….

immigrant New York
New York’s “vulnerables!”

These undocumented immigrants are all in need of pro-bono legal help and their cases are being advertised on a new web portal run by the state’s Liberty Defense Project and Catholic Charities to connect them with volunteer immigration attorneys.

The new website funded by the state brings attention to Catholic Charities, which has placed 105 pro bono cases with more than 230 volunteer attorneys throughout New York. Every volunteer receives expert legal training to file applications for asylum-seekers, crime victims, juveniles or individuals trying to reunite with family members.

[….]

pregnancy-week-38-eye-color_4x3
In New York, no “liberty defense” for this new American!

The new website is funded by Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s Liberty Defense Project, launched in 2017, which provides free legal help to immigrants across the state through Office for New Americans locations.

The program has provided more than 25,000 services to immigrants, according to a press release. A quarter of the immigrants in detention who received representation under the program have been released and reunited with their families.

More here.

Again, that new website that seeks to link free lawyers to illegal aliens (aka New Americans) in need of help to stay in the country is being funded by New York state taxpayers!  See Liberty Defense Project!

What can you do?  If you live in New York and especially if you are Catholic, you must let Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New York know what you think!

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Truth About Border Walls’ Effectiveness

The ‘New Normal’: An Era of Bigger Migrant Caravans Has Begun

Minnesota again! Dangerous Mix: Drugs, Guns and New Americans

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column with images is republished with permission.

A Bridge Too Far*

It was brought to my attention that Westmount Temple Emanuel Beth Shalom in Montreal hosted a Muslim-Awareness Interfaith Shabbat Dinner on January 25, 2019, to pay homage to the six dead and nineteen wounded from a lone attack on a Montreal mosque two years previously.  Such well-meaning, but naïve, efforts were hijacked by Muslim apologists to promote their false victimhood status to garner sympathy from others.

One might wonder why there was no outreach from Jews or Muslims for the desecration attack in March 2018 on a synagogue in Thornhill, and no homage paid for the October, 2018 massacre of eleven congregants of the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, inasmuch as Canada and the US are connected in many ways.  Neither was there any form of condolence or apology offered when a small Canadian Arab newspaper, Al Saraha, published an antisemitic article that posited why Hitler killed the Jews, stated that the number of six million Jews killed during the Holocaust was severely inflated, and asserted that Jews are to blame for Germany’s economic collapse, sexuality and promiscuity. 

Inasmuch as the Jewish-Muslim Interfaith Dinner so closely preceded Holocaust Remembrance Day, a day designated to confront the hatred and crimes against the Jewish people, it begs the question as to why that was not incorporated into the outreach, except that Muslims do not grant victimhood status to others, and they continue to deny the Holocaust as the systematic murder of six million Jews.   Our FBI records show that Jews still experience the greatest number, by far, of attacks and assaults, yet nothing was done to honor those victims and awaken the attendees to the dire situation of antisemitism that is once again upon us.

It is pertinent to include herewith a few unpalatable facts.  Muslims have killed 669 million people over 1400 years, a number quite astounding, but correct.  Those who were not killed – the Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and others – were forced into captivity and conversion.  They became the ancestors of today’s 1.6 billion Muslims, including the masses who are now committing unspeakable crimes in Sweden, Germany, France, England – 29 countries worldwide.   

Arab-Islamic attacks on Jews began with the Battle of Khaybar in 628 AD, against Christians with raids into Byzantine land in 630, and rapidly engulfed the non-Arab people of North Africa, Spain, Persia, and beyond.  In 1801, the Barbary pirates attacked American shipping, and in 2000, the USS Cole. The World Trade Center was attacked twice, in 1973 and 2001, followed by group bombings, shootings, stabbings, and property damage – hate crimes.  However, in a country the size of America, the imams have informed their jihadis that eventual conquest must be achieved by other means – through civilizational or stealth jihad.  Hence, our government now has an inordinate number of Muslims in office.   Unashamedly antisemitic and anti-American, they are working to change our laws to be increasingly socialist and then sharia compliant. 

The January gathering at the Canadian temple was labelled an interfaith “dialogue,” a word that means exchange and discussion, yet only the Muslim perspective was presented.  There were two Muslim speakers, both practiced in taqiyyah for dealing with westerners, and not balanced by two western speakers experienced with this Islamic psychological technique.  This was, therefore, a one-sided presentation, a “monologue,” with no attempt at dialogue or mutuality.  The rabbis added that discussion was limited to make their guests “comfortable.”  They provided a comfort zone for the very people who invariably commit the crimes and unceasingly advocate hate and destruction for Israel.   

There were no questions about the Koranic directives to kill the infidel, and nothing about their practice of jihad – how they send their children to ignite precious Israeli land, scorching 9,000 acres of land and the wildlife over a six-month period; to stabbing citizens on the streets of Israel, Europe and America; to ramming cars into groups of pedestrians – or how they pay the families for martyring their own sons in the interest of killing Jewish people.  The speakers were permitted to lie and praise their religion without taking responsibility for the crimes they commit.  The talk of “bridge building” is never clarified for purpose or destination.  

One of the speakers was Egah Lotayef, known to be pro-Palestinian, pro-Hamas, anti-Israel, anti-Zionist – simply put, an antisemite, and one of many McGill professors who signed a petition for BDS against Israel and Israeli academic institutions.  He took part in the deceptively named “Freedom Flotilla to Gaza” that circumvented the established route only to create a “situation” for Israel.  The little humanitarian aid contained on the flotilla was camouflage for the armed activists who had come in the hope of gaining international sympathy by provoking the IDF into using excessive force.  The self-control of the IDF was to disappoint them.     

No bridge builder he, this proponent of boycott-divestment-sanctions against Israel.  BDS is designed to damage Israel socially, economically, religiously and intellectually, in order to create a Palestinian tie to the land none exists.  He belongs to a terrorist-affiliated group that speaks at such occasions, in an attempt to lure the audiences into accepting the Islamic narrative and convince them that Islam is benign and Israel the oppressor.  The group continually accuses Israel of crimes committed by the Palestinians, another psychological war technique known as “transference” or “projection.”  The aim is constant: to turn the world against the Jewish State and to promote her extinction.

The rabbis’ form letter issued to the public said they “disagreed passionately,” but they said nothing!  And with what did they disagree?  If it was with the speakers’ opinions about Israel and the Jews, they failed the Jewish community.  I would be interested in knowing the conclusions drawn when the evening was over, what the attending Jews think they learned from the one-sided engagement.  I have attended three such “interfaith meetings,” and have read of others, none of which seemed to be worthy of squandering one’s time.  They invariably take place in synagogues and churches that allow the Muslim voice to be heard, but inhibit the congregants from speaking – they sit like the bobblehead dolls, taking everything in.   Questions from the audience are usually submitted on slips of paper so that they may be pre-screened, and the probing or unnerving questions are disregarded and never read “due to time constraints.” 

Perhaps we might offer the benefit of doubt.  Perhaps these rabbis knew nothing of the speakers before honoring their request for the “program” (a word also defined as “manipulate”), but ignorance is also a betrayal of one’s own people, ancestors and progeny.  Regardless of intent, their congregation was duped into hearing the fabricated Islamic storyline without dispute or defense.  All Jews and Christians alike must be informed of Islam’s ongoing war against the west, to become actively involved in fighting the hatred against Jews, Christians, Israel and America, before we follow the paths of history.  It has long been time for an outreach to be done by informed Jews and Christians to their underinformed co-religionists.  We did not choose this war, but we have to acknowledge that it exists – and It is here.  

*A bridge too far:  that the goal or mission described will not happen, or will wind up being unsuccessful, perhaps with even a disproportionate amount of unwanted consequences.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Tom Butler on Unsplash.

The Radical Error of Our Time — “Equality”

Anthony Esolen on equality: If I am admitted into the kingdom of God, far be it from me to demand equality with Peter and Paul. 

Egalitarianism is the radical error of our time. If we do not attack it at the root, we will find we have nothing of cultural or spiritual value left to conserve.

The position of the conservative, whether liberal in his politics or otherwise, presumes inequality. A man ought to love his homeland more than he loves another, so he defends against its demise. Certain works of culture are better than others and command our special care.

When we love with a grateful heart, the image of God in us shines most clearly. By gratitude the creature resembles the Creator, who gives freely across an infinite abyss of being, who needs nothing, and who asks for nothing but love. Gratitude acknowledges the goodness of the giver and the gift, and delights in the excellence of both.

“Equality,” says C. S. Lewis in The Weight of Glory, “is a quantitative term and therefore love often knows nothing of it. Authority exercised with humility and obedience accepted with delight are the very lines along which our spirits live.” Equality “is medicine, not food.”

Political equality may be necessary because men are fallen, and there is also a sense, says Lewis, in which we are equal in the sight of God, whose love does not depend upon our social rank or intellectual acuity. Apart from Him, and by comparison with Him, our value is the same: nothing. In the Church, says Lewis, “we recover our real inequalities and are thereby refreshed and quickened.”

Where could Lewis have gotten such an idea? From all of Christian thought and art, and from a sane view of what all peoples have thought to be good and better and best. From Dante, for instance.

When Dante is in the lowest sphere of Paradise, that of the inconstant moon (allegory for those who did not fulfill their sacred vows), he asks his sister-in-law Piccarda whether she desires a higher place, to love more and see more and be held more dear. He is thinking in emulous terms: envy, not love, demands equality. Piccarda smiles, “like a girl in the gleaming of first love,” and replies:

“Brother, the virtue of charity
brings quiet to our wills, so we desire
but what we have, and thirst for nothing else.
If we should feel a yearning to be higher,
such a desire would strike disharmony
against His will who knows, and wills us here.
That cannot catch these wheels, as you shall see:
recall love’s nature, recall that Heaven is
to live in loving, necessarily.
For it is of the essence of this bliss
to hold one’s dwelling in the divine Will,
who makes our single wills the same, and His,
So that, although we dwell from sill to sill
throughout this kingdom, that is as we please,
as it delights the King in whose desire
We find our own. In His will is our peace.”


Satan Starts from the Touch of Ithuriel’s Spear by Henry Fusseli, 1776 [Cleveland Museum of Art]

Why would you want it otherwise? I look upon the heavens and do not see a gridwork of stars, equidistant and of one magnitude. Such a thing every night would drive us mad. I see instead what Hopkins saw and loved when he looked upon God’s creation:

All things counter, original, spare, strange,
Whatever is fickle, freckled, who knows how?
With swift, slow, sweet, sour, adazzle, dim;
He fathers-forth whose beauty is without change:
Praise Him.

It is like the carnival of distinct persons in the Body of Christ. So Hopkins praises the lowly Jesuit saint Alphonso Rodriguez, whose mighty struggles against evil were interior and unseen:

Yet God (that hews mountain and continent,
Earth, all, out; who, with trickling increment,
Veins violets and tall trees makes more and more)
Could crowd career with conquest while there went
Those years and years by of world without event,
That in Majorca Alphonso kept the door.

The variety of offices within the Church implies inequality, as does the variety of members of the body. It is impossible to be a member without inequality and hierarchy; a body is only a body by virtue of the mutual love that binds the members, a love expressed by the virtues of selfless leadership and obedience. “I too am a man under authority,” says the centurion to Jesus, and so he knows both what it is to command and to obey.

He is like the Boatswain in The Tempest, who shows his prompt obedience to the commands of the ship’s Master by relaying them to the mariners and cheering them in their work. He is like Milton’s stripling cherubs, Ithuriel and Zephon, who obey their commander Gabriel and so are granted the privilege of discovering Satan, squat like a toad at the ear of the sleeping Eve.

Satan, playing the card of Pride, belittles them for not recognizing him right away. They must be low in the ranks of the angels. Ithuriel does not defend his rank. He replies that Satan, disobedient, no longer shines with his former glory. A man grows taller when he bows to one more honorable than he. Pride and envy shrivel. Satan knows it, despite himself:

So spake the cherub, and his grave rebuke,
Severe in youthful beauty, added grace
Invincible; abashed the devil stood
And felt how awful goodness was, and saw
Virtue in her shape how lovely, saw, and pined
His loss.

I suppose none of this would be controversial, except for the feminism peculiar to our time. It is peculiar; it has brought no health to the family or the Church; it has made our politics no more humane and no less bitter; it now makes Sodom equal to Jerusalem.

No body without hierarchy. Are all teachers? Are all prophets? No hierarchy without obedience: the virtue of heeding what your superior wishes, and taking it into yourself, making it a principle of your action. If I am admitted into the kingdom of God, far be it from me to demand equality with Peter and Paul. So would I lose half of my joy!

COLUMN BY

Anthony Esolen

Anthony Esolen

Anthony Esolen is a lecturer, translator, and writer. His latest books are Ten Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child and Out of the Ashes: Rebuilding American Culture. He directs the Center for the Restoration of Catholic Culture at Thomas More College of the Liberal Arts.

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

The Age of Religious Relativism

by George Neumayr  •  ChurchMilitant.com

Pope Francis is making his flirtations with religious relativism more and more explicit. During his trip to the United Arab Emirates this week, Pope Francis signed a joint declaration with his Islamic hosts on “human fraternity.” It contained a statement his predecessors would have found shocking: “The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings.”

His predecessors would have called that an endorsement of false religions, an endorsement made worse by enlisting God’s “wisdom” in such an endorsement. The multiplication of flawed religions is willed by God? That’s not what the Bible tells us. In the Gospel of John, Jesus Christ speaks of the will of the father, that all humans “may be one”: “As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.”

Many popes have condemned the “indifferentism” on display in the statement Pope Francis signed. In the 19th century, Pope Gregory XVI already saw the seed of religious relativism growing within the Church:

Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism” may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,” and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him.

Imagine what Pope Gregory XVI would say today. Pope Francis frequently implies during his interfaith meetings that morality, or what he calls “social justice,” is more important than “doctrine.” In his extreme ecumenism, the Pope is conforming perfectly to the lowest-common-denominator culture of a post-Christian age.


Pope Francis has great enthusiasm for “religion” in general while subjecting his own religion to dismissive critiques. He regularly caricatures the most fervent members of his religion as heartless “Pharisees” or dangerous “fundamentalists.” Meanwhile, while in the company of truly dangerous fundamentalists on his stops in Islamic countries, he flatters them with descriptions of their religion as one of “peace.”

As typical of the religious order from which he comes, the Jesuits, Pope Francis exudes enthusiasm for non-Western religions and the most liberal branches of Western ones. He is famous for telling a group of Protestant pastors: “I don’t want to convert you.” The left-leaning Religion News Service has been so impressed by the Pope’s lack of interest in Catholic evangelization that it once asked in a headline: “Is Francis the First Protestant Pope?”

Islamic leaders are eager to invite him to their countries because they see him as a propagandist for a non-threatening and hollow religiosity that makes it easier for those leaders to stay in power. They have also warmed to his embrace of Islamic immigrants in Europe and his complete lack of interest in reviving a Christian Europe. When he has been asked about the historical Christian roots of Europe, Pope Francis has struck a negative note.

“We need to speak of roots in the plural because there are so many,” he has commented. “In this sense, when I hear talk of the Christian roots of Europe, I sometimes dread the tone, which can seem triumphalist or even vengeful. It then takes on colonialist overtones.”

European liberals have applauded him for such comments. In 2016, a group of left-wing Europeans conferred upon him the misnamed “Charlemagne Prize,” misnamed insofar as it honors not Charlemagne’s influence on Christian Europe but the liberals who have diluted it. In his acceptance speech, Francis sounded less like a pope than John Lennon: “I dream of a Europe where being a migrant is not a crime but a summons to greater commitment on behalf of the dignity of every human being.”

The tribute to religious relativism he signed this week will only make the re-Christianizing of Europe harder and make the prospect of “Eurabia” more likely. Religious relativism has been good for Islam and bad for Christianity. The theme of many of the Pope’s globe-trotting visits is “hope,” but it is not a hope in the final revelation of Jesus Christ. It is a decidedly temporal and political hope, which is to say, an empty and delusional one.

The Western experiment of a “Christianity without Christ” has been a complete failure, engendering not “fraternity” but the deepest possible divisions amid an imploding culture of suicidal secularism.

COLUMN BY

George Neumayr

GEORGE NEUMAYR

George Neumayr is the author of The Political Pope: How Pope Francis Is Delighting The Liberal Left And Abandoning Conservatives, co-author with Phyllis Schlafly of No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom and a contributing editor for The American Spectator.

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

Suicidal Jews

When individuals kill themselves, we look for answers in their DNA, their environments, their personal reactions to feelings of impotent rage, rejection, disappointment, heartbreak.

But how to explain group suicide? Wikipedia lists numerous cases, starting in 206 B.C., and these relatively recent cases:

  • In 1943, in the final phase of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, many of the Jewish fighters besieged in the “bunker” at Miła 18 committed mass suicide by ingesting poison rather than surrender to the Nazis.
  • In 1945, about 1,000 residents of Demmin, Germany, committed mass suicide after the Red Army had sacked the town.
  • In 1978, 918 Americans––including 276 children––died of cyanide poisoning in the Peoples Temple led by Jim Jones in Jonestown, Guyana.
  • In 1997, 39 followers of the Heaven’s Gate cult in California died in a mass suicide, believing they would travel on a spaceship that followed comet Hale–Bopp.

Clearly, some groups took their lives en masse for ideological reasons, while others––particularly vulnerable people in dire need of a “leader”––simply followed orders.

In all the mass suicides in recorded history, dozens, hundreds, and up to one-thousand people took their own lives.

But today, when looking at suicidal Jews, the numbers could be in the millions!

LOOK AT THE NUMBERS

Currently, out of a worldwide population of eight-billion people, there are 14-million Jews: approximately six-and-a-half million in Israel, six-and-a-half million in the United States, and about one-million throughout the world––by any measure, a few grains of sand compared to the massive total population of the world.

According to U.S. voting patterns, Jews are overwhelmingly liberal…up to 80 percent, which means they vote in huge numbers for leftists like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton––whose staffs were comprised almost exclusively of career anti-Semites and who did everything in their power to effect anti-Israel policies like the Iran deal, knowing that the fanatical mission of the mullahs in Teheran was––and is––to wipe Israel off the map and exterminate every Jew.

As Karin McQuillan explains in “Lefist Jew Hatred Has Come to America”: “The Left began with blacklisting and boycotting conservatives. Now American Jews are in the crosshairs, no matter how liberal their politics.”

But they won’t jump off the bandwagon, she says, because that would mean “losing your friends, being shunned at synagogue, and stunting your career… changing party affiliation is a such a tall cliff, it feels suicidal, that is, the loss of their entire identity. The identity politics, blame-America crowd can’t stand the Jewish-American success story.”

McQuillan quotes the estimable Daniel Greenfield: “There is no future for Jews on the left except as collaborators in anti-Semitism.”

Look no further than the full-bodied ideological and financial support that liberal––suicidal––Jews lend to virulently anti-Israel organizations, many of them founded and financed by leftist Jews, such as the Woman’s March, Black Lives Matter, the fascistic Antifa, J Street,  If Not Now, Americans for Peace Now,  B’Tselem, Bend the Arc, Breaking the Silence, New Israel FundJews for Racial and Economic Justice, The  Forward newspaper (recently defunct), Michael Lerner’s Tikkun magazine; Reform Action Center, T’ruah  (formerly Rabbis for Human Rights), Jewish Voice for Peace, and Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, et al.

Impossible, you may say. To the contrary, it’s not only possible but a hard, cold reality that these unJews, as political commentator Dan Friedman calls them, support the very people identical to those who annihilated the entire population of Europe’s Jews during Hitler’s reign of terror during the 1930s and ‘40s. 

Why? Because it’s hard to be a Jew, and liberal Jews are simply not up to the task. The desperate need to be liked, accepted, admired and embraced are the historical downfalls of weak Jews.

That is why so many Jews adored President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who stacked his administration with Court Jews and then stabbed every Jew in the world in the back…. refusing refuge to the few who escaped Hitler’s murderous onslaught by turning away thousands from our shores and sending them back to their grisly deaths. And he counted on––who else?––weak liberal Jews and a complicit leftist media––to cover for his mortal sins!

Even if only 50-percent––and not the actual 80 percent––of liberal Jews support candidates who hate Jews and hate Israel, that means that seven-million of the 14-million Jews on earth are paving the way to another Holocaust.

HERE IS WHY

Liberal-turned-conservative icon Norman Podhoretz, author and longtime editor of Commentary magazine, further explains this aberration in his latest article, “Why Are Jews Liberal?”

“Most American Jews sincerely believe that their liberalism, together with their commitment to the Democratic Party…stems from the teachings of Judaism and…the heritage of ‘Jewish values.’ But if this theory were valid, the Orthodox would be the most liberal sector of the Jewish community. [Yet] on every single cultural issue, the Orthodox oppose the politically correct liberal positions taken by most other American Jews precisely because these positions conflict with Jewish law.”

Podhoretz continues: “Liberalism has become more than a political outlook. It has for all practical purposes superseded Judaism and become a religion in its own right….indeed, many such secular Jews, when asked how they would define ‘a good Jew,’ reply that it is equivalent to being a good liberal.”

Precisely! And, I would add, a good Democrat!

Another reason why Jews in our country are liberals is because, unlike those who lived for thousands of years before them––and were forced into a cruel diaspora, ejected from every country they tried to call home––American Jews grew up in the freest, most bountiful, most law-and-order country in world history, where none of them suffered the indignities and life-threatening specters of annihilation from pogroms or Crusades or an Inquisition or forced conversions or a Holocaust––and few of their parents or teachers taught them about these historical obscenities!

Yes, there was prejudice from the likes of Hitler admirers Henry Ford, Joseph P. Kennedy Sr., and Charles Lindbergh, Yes, there were quotas for Jews in American universities and medical schools, so Jews built the most prominent medical centers in the U.S. Yes, it was hard to get jobs in the entertainment business, so Jews invented Hollywood. Yes, it may have been difficult for some nerdy guys to get dates or get noticed, so Jews created Facebook and Google and Twitter, among other leftist enterprises.

By the way, that’s why there is and always has been so much antisemitism––pure green-eyed jealousy! How did a tiny people who were slaves in ancient Egypt for over 200 years and then marginalized for thousands more years wherever they went manage to survive and thrive and flourish so spectacularly?

Instead of emulating the seemingly superhuman power of Jews to survive millennia of oppression, ostracism, and outright murder, the antisemites among us would rather kill them off!

That’s what the strongest human emotion––jealousy––does to the human psyche. When they see that the Bloomberg Innovation Index for 2019 lists the fledgling state of Israel––only 70 years old––as the 5th most innovative country in the world––ahead of Singapore, Japan, the U.S., France, Norway and China––it drives those pathetic envious Jew haters stark raving mad!

CONVERSION

In this bastion of American liberty, the freedom of religion Jews had never experienced led many to abandon what they considered the oppressive strict observances they were accustomed to. At the same time, an awareness of their painful history inspired tremendous empathy for the underdog, the oppressed, the maligned––the victims of society. Hence, the liberal Jews converted from Judaism to a religion called Social Justice.

But according to Noah Rothman, author of Unjust: Social Justice and The Unmaking of America, so-called social justice “has become the antithesis of blind, objective justice…its essential nature compels its believers to treat individuals unequally in the name of equality.”

For leftist American Jews, going the “social justice” route allows them to bask in self-congratulatory narcissism, while distorting the Bible’s teachings and replacing them with a universalist theology they call “tikkun olam” or what they delude themselves into believing is “repairing the world.” These are the same people who applaud the new NY State law to engage in the premeditated murder of in utero babies of nine-months gestation the day before––actually the minute before––they’re born.  Some repair!

And in the midterm elections of November 2018, the American electorate––including those leftist suicidal Jews––voted for not one, not two, but three in-your-face Jew haters and Israel haters! Here is a relatively short list of the Jew haters that liberal/leftist/progressive American Jews continue to support.

WHO HATES THE SUICIDAL LIBERAL JEWS?
  • Black leftists. According to historian Rafael Medoff, “American Jews played a significant role in assisting the African-American community throughout the past century––having a central role in creating the NAACP, building more than 5,000 schools for rural African Americans from 1914 to 1932, and participating actively in the black civil-rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.” But when the Black Power movement arose in the mid-‘60s, the first people blacks irrationally turned against were the Jews.
  • The World Council of Churches, which represents 350 member churches in 110 countries, and half a billion Christians throughout the world…fully embraces the vicious Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) campaign to destroy Israel.
  • Amnesty International, which just issued a report that isn’t just anti-Israel, it obliterates Jewish history. The organization, as you can read here, has gone full-blown antisemitic.
  • Doctors Without Borders prides itself on its neutrality, but consistently launches venomous anti-Israel political campaigns.
  • AirBNB, an American company offering short-term lodging services to lease or rent internationally, removed all listings of Jewish homes in of Judea and Samaria (aka the West Bank) although not in other disputed territories owned by Turks in Cyprus, Moroccans in Sahara, Chinese in Tibet, or Russians in the Crimea, et al.
  • The American Friends (Quakers), which “boasts,”says writer Tabitha Korol, “of their history of non-violent activism, yet work to ultimately destroy the Jewish people and their ancient homeland, Israel, by inciting others to strive for Israel’s annihilation, often through violence.”
  • The unhallowed halls of academia are a hotbed of virulent antisemitism throughout the country, with  Columbia University leading the pack. Here is an example of how J Street U and Students for Justice in [so-called] Palestine torture Jewish students at the University of Vermont.
  • The Anti-Defamation League under the leadership of Jonathan Greenblatt, a former Obama official. As Daniel Greenfield expresses: “Once upon a time, the ADL was a Jewish civil rights organization. Now it’s just another generic lefty group that pretends to care about Jewish causes only long enough to fleece some of its donors. As the Left goes antisemitic, the ADL is becoming a threat to Jews.”
  • The United Nations, a cesspool of tin-pot dictators and anti-Semites on 2nd Avenue in NY City, has a virtual fetish with the “Palestinian” issue. From 2012 to 2015, the U.N. General Assembly criticized individual nations 97 times, of which 83 were against Israel! Here, prolific author, former Harvard Law Professor, and longtime liberal Alan Dershowitz explains that, “The suffering of the Palestinians, which does not compare to the suffering of other groups, has been largely self-inflicted. They could have had a state, with no occupation, if they had accepted the Peel Commission Report of 1937, the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947, the Clinton-Barak offer of 2000-2001, the Ehud Olmert offer of 2008. They rejected all these offers––responding with violence and terrorism––because they would have required them to accept Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people––something they are unwilling to do even today.”
  • The heads of the Women’s March: Linda Sarsour (“nothing creepier than Zionism”), Tamika Mallory (“white Jews, as white people, uphold white supremacy”), and Carmen Perez––all ardent admirers of hate preacher and head of the Nation of Islam Louis Farrakhan (Jews “are termites”). All of them share Ms. Mallory’s sentiment that Israel doesn’t have the right to exist.
  • Newly-elected Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), the vulgarian who thought it appropriate to announce to the entire world (and worse, her nine-year-old son) her intentions re President Trump: “We’re gonna go in there and impeach the motherf—er.'” Rep. Tlaib is a Muslim and daughter of people who call themselves Palestinians. She took her oath of office on Thomas Jefferson’s Koran, which the third U.S. president obtained in order to understand the Muslim Barbary Pirates against whom he went to war, wrapped herself in a “Palestinian” flag (but accuses Jews  of dual loyalty), aggressively supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement––which is a front for terrorist groups––designed to destroy Israel, and opposes aid to Israel.
  • Newly-elected Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN), who also supports the antisemitic BDS movement, and has wished: “may Allah awaken the people and see the evil doings of Israel”––a country she has said should not exist and has accused of apartheid. And she has also appealed to a federal judge to get lighter sentences for 33 Islamic State jihadists. Amazingly––talk about a crooked media––PJ Media  documented that “105 articles covered Ilhan Omar’s win but zero covered her antisemitism.”
  • Newly-elected Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) also fully supports the BDS movement, speaks constantly of “the occupation of Palestine” (which is nowhere on any map or Atlas in existence), and says that she descends from Sephardic Jews who fled the Spanish Inquisition to Puerto Rico but disclaimed this lineage by saying: “culture isn’t DNA.” And now she’s having an oh-so-simpatico lovefest on Twitter with one of the world’s most virulent antisemites, Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the British Labor Party, who says that Jews, not Islam, are the source of global terrorism.

Wannabe president Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) called these Jew haters “the suffragists of our time.”

And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi––she with the Jewish grandchildren––appointed these Jew-and-Israel haters to prestigious positions: Rep. Tlaib to the Financial Services Committee; Rep. Omar to the powerful House Foreign Affairs Committee, which give her a platform to push her pro-Muslim, anti-Israel, anti-American agenda; Rep. Ocasio-Cortez to the influential House Oversight Committee.

It’s relevant to mention here that Rep. Pelosi secretly hosted a fundraising event in 2012 with Hamas-tied CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) with a price tag of $5,000 per person and $30,000 per couple. CAIR was named “unindicted co-conspirator” in the largest terrorist-funding trial in American history, but the indictment never happened because Barack Obama––who 80 percent of liberal, suicidal Jews voted for––shut it down.

And––surprise, surprise––the woman who ran the country from 2009 to 2016, Valerie Jarrett, told these antisemites she’s backing them up!

WHY ARE LIBERAL JEWS SUICIDAL?

Because, as I’ve documented, all the people and organizations they embrace, vote for, give money to, and teach their children to support HATE THEM and WISH THEM DEAD!

Proof? Where are the voices in the Democrat Party of protest or outrage at the blatant antisemitism spewing every minute of every day from Democrat office holders and the huge crowd of Democrat presidential wannabes?

Where is there a single word about the beauty of diversity and multiculturalism when it comes to Jews?

Where is there even a whisper of support for Israel, our longtime ally and the only democratic nation in the entire Middle East?

From Democrats: NOT A SINGLE WORD!

Where, asks longtime Israeli columnist Isi Liebler, are “American Jewish leaders?” The Jew hatred today in the U.S., he says, goes “back to the Obama administration,” when Mr. Obama “began to treat Israel as a rogue state, grovel to the Iranians, describe Israeli defenders and Arab terrorists as moral equivalents, and finally declined to veto the most biased and despicable resolution ever passed against Israel by the UN Security Council. The response by the majority of the American Jewish establishment, who were previously never reticent about raising their voices, was a deafening silence.”

And the past decade, Liebler continues, “has been one of unprecedented passivity and cowardice by the Jewish establishment––including the ADL, J Street, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the National Council of Jewish Women, progressive rabbis….[and] the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, comprising 51 affiliates…”

“If the Jewish leaders do not reverse the tide,” Liebler concludes, “most American Jews will be betraying Israel and, in the process, obliterating what little is left of Jewish identity.” 

TOO LATE!

It’s too late to reignite the love and pride and passion American Jews once had for Israel and the miraculous rebirth of their ancestral home in 1948, thanks to the heroic courage of President Harry Truman.

Because of assimilation and intermarriage and the massive influx––actually invasion––of millions of Muslims into Europe (including the Scandinavian countries) and America, and the capitulation of the multiculturalist and diversity crowd to their money, as well as acceptance of Sharia law ––including the barbaric female genital mutilation and sadistic  honor killings that exist in great numbers in the United States––there is once again a pandemic of antisemitism, only this time with the passive acquiescence of liberal Jews.

We Jews are taught by our sages to accept and embrace all Jews, no matter their flaws or shortcomings. We are a tiny people and only by understanding the imperative for unity will we survive. Look for the good in even the most egregious behavior of our fellow Jew––does he or she help the poor, take in the widow and orphan, donate generously to charity, et al? Then accept that Jew, embrace him, love her.

In Genesis 12.3, God tells Abram (before he became Abraham): “I will make you into a great nation…I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you.”

Personally, I don’t embrace the quisling Jews and other antisemites who opt for the toxic American liberalism that vilifies Jews and Israel. I curse them. And I promise them that their determination to destroy the Jewish state––because of their rancid hatred and obsessive jealousy––will fail as thunderously as all attempts over the past 5,000 years have failed.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured images is by Pixabay.

National Day of Mourning & Repentance — February 23rd, 2019

IMG_7016.JPG
Poster for Business and Supporters to Display.

President Donald J. Trump at the State of the Union said the following:

To defend the dignity of every person, I am asking the Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother’s womb.

 Let us work together to build a culture that cherishes innocent life.  And let us reaffirm a fundamental truth:  all children — born and unborn — are made in the holy image of God.

There will be a National Day of Mourning in silent protest of the state of New York’s infanticide law.

Saturday, February 23, 2019
1:00 PM – 4:00 PM
Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12210

According to the National Day of Mourning website:

The state of New York just voted to expand abortion access right up to the birth of the baby! To celebrate this unbelieveable depravity they lit the One World Trade Center in pink! Women used to celebrate motherhood and find joy in their children. Today, in places like New York City, they are taking joy in destroying their children. N.Y. State has crossed a line of inhumanity that should drive us to our knees. 46 years of the state sanctioned killing of our most helpless and defenseless children should cause us to weep, to mourn, and to take action. What is to be thought of a society that kills her own children? What will the future be of such a hearltess society that celebrates such barbaric inhumanity?

“If the foundations be destroyed what shall the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3) We are calling for a National Day of Mourning and repentance. We are in desperate need for God to move upon the hearts of young and old in our nation. If our hearts do not break over the killing of these little image bearers of God in the womb, then how can we expect those growing up in this lost, confused and decadent culture to take our message seriously? Join us February 23rd for “A National Day of Mourning.”

WEAR BLACK

DON’T SHOP

CLOSE BUSINESSES

REPENT FOR ABORTION

Please CLICK HERE to sign the National Day of Morning petition.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Short Is the Road That Leads From Abortion to Infanticide, Euthanasia

House Democrats Block Request to Vote on Bill to Stop Infanticide For a Third Time

Attacker Kills Woman 5 Months Pregnant, New York’s New Abortion Law Says Her Baby Isn’t a Human Being

One Democrat Stood When Trump Called for Banning Late-Term Abortions: Because They’re “Horrific”

EDITORS NOTE: All images and information for this column is from the National Day of Mourning website.

Killer Party: Dems Stand Alone on Infanticide

Years from now, when history looks back on the Democratic Party, one date will almost certainly stand out: July 25, 2016. That was the Tuesday, in the capital of the Revolution, when everything changed. For the first time in America’s 240 years, a major political party threw its full support behind one of the most savage and violent practices of the modern age: full-term, no-apologies abortion.

It’s just a party platform, some said. It doesn’t mean anything. Try telling that to Americans today, who watched in stunned silence last night as a leader of the U.S. Senate walked to the same floor where giants of freedom have stood and defended the killing of a perfect, fully-born child. It was not just a party platform when another senator, Ben Sasse (R-Nebr.), looked at the other side of the aisle and saw a group of men and women willing to “betray the universal truth of human dignity and [turn] the stomachs of civilized people… in every country on earth.” And it wasn’t just a party platform when, the only other time this issue came up for a vote, every Senate Democrat agreed: infanticide is wrong.

The moment Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) rose to her feet and objected to protecting the survivors of abortion will be a defining one for Democrats. It should have signified to everyone that the radicalization of the party that started in 2016 is now complete. And like so many others, Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) could only look on in horror. “This is the world’s greatest deliberative body,” she said. But “there is nothing great, there is nothing moral or even humane, about the discussion that we have before us today.”

New Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) stood in disbelief. “Is this really the extremism of the Democratic party?” After decades of proving that there was still some scrap of moderation in their abortion agenda, liberals have thrown off any pretense of solemnity or restraint. And just like the Brett Kavanaugh debate, they’ve significantly overplayed their hand. “I can’t imagine a vision less just or less consistent with the goodness and compassion of the American people,” Hawley argued.

He’s right. “Gallup polling from 2018 found that only 13 percent of Americans favor making third-trimester abortions ‘generally’ legal, and only 18 percent of Democrats shared that position,” Alexandra Desanctis warns. Less than a quarter of their own party is willing to follow them into the most radical terrain on abortion ever broached. “Women reject late-term abortion at an even higher rate than men. A Marist survey from earlier this year found that 75 percent of Americans would limit abortion to, at most, the first three months of pregnancy, and majorities of Democrats and those who describe themselves as pro-choice agreed.”

With almost an eerie detachment to the issue at hand, Murray tried to frame the bill as unnecessary. “We have laws against infanticide in this country,” she claimed in her brief justification for stopping its passage. But, as so many have pointed out, only 26 states have “affirmative protections” for born-alive babies. Even if all 50 did, what’s the harm in reaffirming the Senate’s commitment to protecting these innocent survivors? Surely a party that can eat up hours of the legislative clock with a passionate plea to save the Delta Smelt can spare some sympathy for endangered children.

Even after yesterday’s disgrace, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has no intentions of walking away from survivors like Melissa Ohden and Gianna Jessen, who wouldn’t be alive today if Democrats got their way. Before the vote, McConnell cautioned that if the other side stopped the bill, it “would make quite a disturbing statement.” If they do, he vowed, “I can assure them that this will not be the last time we try to ensure that all newborns are afforded this fundamental legal protection.”

To almost every American, “health care” does not include the killing of innocent newborns. “But in defending bills that expand the right to abort [living children], Democrats are giving away the game,” Desanctis predicts. “Most people, even those who favor some abortion access, instinctively recoil from what they see. These late-term abortion bills do more than reveal Democratic radicalism. They draw back the veil of euphemism to expose abortion for what it is: At every stage of pregnancy, it is the taking of a human life. For the anti-abortion movement, it is a pivotal moment to insist upon that truth.”

That’s where you come in. If you haven’t contacted your senators about the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act, make sure you do today. Let them know that extremists like Patty Murray stand alone!


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

Cory Booker Defends Voting for Infanticide: Bill to Care for Babies Born Alive Just “Creates Schisms”

WATCH: Bernie Sanders Supports Abortions Up to Birth, Okay to Kill Babies Up to Birth Because “It’s Rare”

Slaughter of Innocents Shows Our Culture’s Moral Rot

The Rediscovery of the Born-Alive Act

SOTU 2019: What to Watch For

Pope and Change

Manhood and Biblical Christianity are Poisoned by “The Handmaid’s Tale”

In the wake of the 2016 election which justifiably trashed the hopes of Hillary Clinton and radical feminists, the progressive Democrat juggernaut is firing up an even bigger hate machine for 2020.  In desperation, they went all the way back to 1985 to get the parts for this machine.

The HULU Network, with a reported 23 million subscribers, has produced a TV series named “The Handmaid’s Tale,” depicting a male-dominated fundamentalist version of Christianity which subjugates women.  Based upon the 1985 novel by the wealthy Canadian feminist Margaret Atwood, which sold 8 million copies in English, the series premiered in 2017, and is now in the third season.  YouTube features countless clips of the episodes.

Biblical Christianity is grossly perverted in the narrative, and is deceptively associated with the same kind of barbaric tactics used to control women in Islamic countries.  Men are portrayed as using women for surrogate sexual slavery in a misogynistic repressive patriarchy, with painful and violent penalties for non-compliance.

“The Handmaid’s Tale” is disguised as a story about women being victimized by brutal men practicing a Puritanical hierarchical model of Old Testament-inspired social and religious fanaticism, supposedly based on the biblical story of Rachel and her handmaid Bilhah.  In reality, the entire production is a satanically-crafted dialectic of nightmarish visceral propaganda aimed at undermining men and discrediting religion.  A dialectic is the portrayal of two opposing forces or ideas.  Dialectics is concerned with or acting through conflict.  Thus a dialectician is one skilled at pitting two groups against each other in order in order to act through them to bring about “change” or “progress.”  This is how Marxist class warfare operates, and it is clearly and abundantly evident in this deeply troubling TV series.

Set in the near-term future, this fictional narrative depicts a feminist dystopian America in which a Christian fundamentalist theocratic dictatorship rules America after a nuclear civil war which kills the President and most of Congress.  The new regime, a militant groupnamed “The Sons of Jacob,” reorganizes America into a fascist form of police-state government known as the Republic of Gilead, and institutes a caste system for women with color-coded dress, based upon whether they are fertile to bear children.  In the series, the birthrate has collapsed due to infertility caused by pollution and disease.  The fertile women are subjugated as “handmaids” for child-bearing servitude by government officials, and forced to wear blood-red capes and white bonnets.   Infertile women are enslaved to perform menial tasks and hazardous work.  The “handmaids” are also forced to commit ritualized group murder of certain individuals which the government considers undesirable.  Lesbians, homosexuals, and transgender individuals are brutally executed.  Dead bodies are left to rot, hanging in public as a stark warning to anyone daring to oppose The Sons of Jacob and the Republic of Gilead.

The highly graphic scenes (WARNING: not for viewing by children) portray women being beaten, burned, raped, or hanged and drowned for insubordination or disobedience.  A single message permeates the series: men are superior and women are to be subservient, or face violent consequences.  The film-making style is diabolically designed to evoke dialectic emotions of hate between men and women.  The target audience is women, with the subliminal intent of compelling them to revile men and religion.

The timing of this TV series, and remarks made by author Margaret Atwood confirm that the “Handmaid’s Tale” is intended to get women to rise up to reverse the results of the 2016 election in 2020.  The author, Margaret Atwood, speaks of the TV series as a form ofpushing back against Donald Trump and conservatives.  She claims that America under Donald Trump is trending toward the fictional Republic of Gilead portrayed in the story, so this is a rallying call for women to rise up in 2020.  The fake news network CNN says that the “Handmaid’s Tale” is Trump’s America.  The TV series even cleverly attempts to convince conservative women that by prioritizing religious faith and homemaking over feminist equality, they are denying themselves any stake in their own future.

Recently the blood-red capes and white bonnets inspired by “The Handmaid’s Tale,” have become the defacto uniform of feminists who protest everything from conservative Supreme Court nominees, limitations on abortion, and in support of Planned Parenthood.  Washington DC has been inundated with them.  The Women’s March has become the poster event for this symbolic feminist protest uniform.

Various conservative sources are exposing the blatant deceit of “The Handmaid’s Tale.”  A few links are cited here:

The Handmaid’s Tale: A Leftist Blueprint in Disguise

The ‘Handmaid’s Tale’ liberal feminists created

‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ is ugly and anti-Christian

Hating Men in a Real Life Handmaid’s Tale

A careful analysis of “The Handmaid’s Tale” requires us to reflect very purposefully on the malevolent agenda behind this narrative.  The program content and subliminal message is of course, total propaganda, but nonetheless expertly crafted.  Women are not truly abused by Biblical Christianity nor generally subjugated by men in our society.  But our mortal adversaries, the Cultural Marxists, are experts at crafting effective propaganda to achieve their agenda.  That’s how we got feminism in the first place, and with it contraception and abortion on demand.  Likewise, homosexual marriage and transgenderism have been imposed on America using the same tactics of misinformation driven home by the media and Hollywood.  

The ultimate Progressive goal is to lay the foundation for a so-called “utopian” future when the Marxists (not the Christians) will be the authoritarians in positions of power, and everyone else will be subjugated and deprived of liberty.  One means to this end is the propaganda trick of Dialectics, as employed in “The Handmaid’s Tale,” if we remain sufficiently comatose to fall for the clever deception.

TAKE-AWAY LESSON: 

If we underestimate our adversaries, we are destined to be dominated and enslaved by them.  In a most ironic twist, the dystopian message of “The Handmaid’s Tale” applies to all Americans today, but not in the sense depicted by author Margaret Atwood.  This fictional narrative is a grim warning to anyone wanting to preserve liberty and our way of life, not from fictional threats by Christians, but from the real and relentless Cultural Marxists whose tactic has always been “the end justifies the means.”

EDITORS NOTE: This Restore American Liberty column with images is republished with permission.

Two on Abortion: Roe’s Immanent Demise & So Cardinal Dolan, What’s the Plan?

Note: There’s so much happening in the Church and the nation on abortion that we thought it right to run two columns today. Michael Pakaluk argues that the brazenness of the New York State law may actually make overturning Roe v. Wade more likely as people come to see how extreme abortion supporters have become. Anthony Francois, who has worked on related issues on the state and national level, explains that Cardinal Dolan’s refusal to excommunicate Andrew Cuomo may make sense – IF it’s part of a larger strategy (so far not in sight) that will actually build up Catholic resistance. There’s much food for thought here on the key human rights issue of our time. – Robert Royal

Roe’s Imminent Demise

By Michael Pakaluk

When I teach about abortion, I start with a poll. “How many of you believe that abortion is legal only for the first three months of pregnancy?” All the students raise their hands – naturally enough, because this is what the media has repeatedly told them.

I then go to my computer, connected to an overhead projector, and search on “late-term abortion near me.” The search comes up with clinics in one’s own neighborhood offering abortions up to 24 or even 36 weeks.

For example, in Washington, DC, Capital Women’s Services explains under its pull-down tab for Late Term Abortions that it “offers late-term abortion care up to 36 weeks under certain circumstances, such as for fetal or maternal indications.”

That’s a devilishly obscure phrase, “Maternal indications.” The clinic explains, “The U.S. Supreme Court, in its classic Roe v. Wade Decision, ruled that abortions are legal at any gestation to preserve the life or the health of the woman.” (Note the finesse of language: “at any gestation,” not “at any gestational age,” as the latter raises the awkward question, whose age?)

Well, they at least get Roe v. Wade. And “health” as defined in Roe’s companion decision, Doe v. Bolton, brought in psychological and socioeconomic considerations as included under “health.”

The website goes on: “Maternal health problems can be very distressing in themselves, and doubly upsetting because they can sometimes mean that a pregnancy cannot be continued. These are tragic situations, and we will always respect the right of a woman to make her own medical decisions regarding her own life, her own body, and her own family.”

Sure, humanity dictates that women will not usually abort their babies at eight months because of a runny nose. And there are undeniably tragic cases, not to be minimized. But suppose the mother wants an abortion at 32-weeks “gestation” because her boyfriend has just abandoned her, and getting up three times a night to go to the bathroom now seems completely unbearable?

“We will always respect your decision,” the clinic says flatly. They will insist on a consultation, of course, and charge extra money, but the abortion will be available.

After that, I show my class pictures of unborn children at 32 or 36 weeks. Then I go to a website which gives the description, from an abortion textbook, of a D&X abortion (“dilation and extraction”), or a “partial birth” abortion. Invariably the response from my students is the same: shock and utter disbelief. “How can they allow that?” “ How can this be legal?”


Cheers for New York’s abortion bill

The correct answer is not so much that it is legal as that it is not illegal. It once was illegal, but the Supreme Court held that no authority of law could deem it illegal.

My students naturally elide “allowed” to “legal.” The old legal philosophers said that there were three acts of law: to forbid, to require, or to permit. Anything under law had to be deemed one of these three. We are “one nation, under law,” after all. So, in the face of the grisly reality of late-term abortion – my students implicitly infer – some authority must have decided that these acts belonged in the “permitted” category, not the “forbidden” category. But, strictly, no: what Roe did was declare null the laws which made such things forbidden. It did not replace these laws with a new law, which said what was permitted and on what grounds. Strictly, it created zones of lawlessness.

This is why I am actually heartened by the recent law in New York and the prospect of similar laws in Vermont and Virginia. I believe such laws make it more likely that Roe will be overturned, and they will hasten the passage of laws that will outlaw abortion.

There was something safely popular about Roe’s merely striking down a hindrance. Roe had always shared the appeal of the nonsensical mantra, “it is forbidden to forbid.” No one likes saying no per se; saying nos imply to no, then, looks like an easy win. And one could also always feign a surprise at the consequences, a lack of responsibility for what followed. (“I do not read the Court’s holdings today as having the sweeping consequences attributed to them by the dissenting Justices. . . . Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand,” as Chief Justice Burger put it with astounding simplicity in his concurring opinion to Roe.)

But saying yes, in contrast, is unsafe. It reveals plainly what you love, and what you fail to love. Now you have actually declared abortion to be in the category of the permitted under law – and therefore you have been shown additionally to have a twisted concept of lawfulness. What you call law we call power employed to protect your interests. We know that type.

Abortion rights rhetoric has shifted back-and-forth over the years, between an apologetic approach, claiming weakness, and a brazen approach, boasting strength, though these are not found in equal proportion: it is as if after a hundred of the apologetic pieces (“no one likes abortion, it is a regrettable necessity”), someone has to come along with a brazen piece to clear the air (“every woman who gets an abortion knows it is killing, but sometimes one must kill to get by”).

These attitudes exist uncomfortably together. But legislation like New York’s resolves the tension in favor of the brazen, from which many will recoil in horror: Do we really think this? Do we hold this?

Likewise, by creating jurisdictions where Roe is now affirmed in state law, it will look as though, politically, Roe can be overturned by the Supreme Court. It can be overturned without being overturned, fully. (And who cares about flyover states clinging to their guns, religion, and heartbeat bills?)

The abortion debate has, fatiguingly, raged long enough that its resolution into separate settlements will seem long overdue – a peace of Westphalia, indeed, but still something like a peace.

Michael Pakaluk, an Aristotle scholar and Ordinarius of the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas, is acting dean of the Busch School of Business at the Catholic University of America. He lives in Hyattsville, MD with his wife Catherine, also a professor at the Busch School, and their eight children. His latest book, on the Gospel of Mark, The Memoirs of St Peter, is coming out from Regnery Gateway in March 2019.

So Cardinal Dolan, What’s the Plan?

By Anthony Francois

Enough of whether New York Archbishop Timothy Cardinal Dolan should excommunicate Governor Andrew Cuomo, and what the media or Cuomo’s political supporters or Planned Parenthood or anyone else of ill will would make of such a move. I have no particular quarrel with those calling for it, other than to observe that it is, in fact, the province of the bishop to decide. It just isn’t really the most important point.

Excommunication, the Cardinal says, would be politically counterproductive. That is not an ecclesiastical judgment but a secular one. In that order of things, Cardinal Dolan is by definition – and Church teaching – no more an authority than any member of his flock.

So, how can we assess the wisdom of Dolan’s call on the politics of the matter?

We would need to know what “productive” would mean in order to assess whether excommunicating the Governor aids or hinders it. We would need to know what strategy is being implemented to know whether any particular act was within or without the plan. But nothing remotely like a Catholic political strategy to change the trajectory of New York state’s final descent into child killing madness is on offer.

One strategy might be: build up the moral formation of New York’s Roman Catholics to the point that Andrew Cuomo and his ilk will someday have to give a damn about what they think on this matter.

What is Cardinal Dolan’s strategy for catechizing (or perhaps evangelizing is the right word) New York City’s Catholics to the point where they, as voters, won’t stand for this sort of thing anymore? Is there one?

Dolan’s diocese has almost 3 million Catholics, a third of all residents. New York City is said to be one of America’s most Catholic cities, and New York is one of the nation’s most Catholic states by population. Roman Catholicism is the Empire State’s largest religious grouping.

But if you look at those claims by how many New York Catholics will vote to re-elect Cuomo, or any legislator who voted for this monstrosity, the number that currently matters to any Catholic pro-life political strategy is very, very much smaller.

Governor Cuomo just won re-election with 59 percent of the statewide vote. Dolan’s archdiocese provided Cuomo with over a third of his total votes, and voted for him at roughly the same rate as the rest of the state. Looking at Dolan’s counties that Cuomo won, the effect is more dramatic: just under a third of Cuomo’s total statewide vote came from these counties, which he carried by 66 percent. Zooming in on New York City alone, Cuomo won the heart of Dolan’s archdiocese by 86 percent in Manhattan and 90 percent in the Bronx.

These facts demonstrate two things. First: making a rapid and significant difference in New York’s political landscape on abortion is probably an unrealistic short-term goal for the Cardinal. So why should anyone care about excommunicating Cuomo, which is marginal to such a goal? You might as well ask what effect canceling a Netflix subscription has on colonizing Mars.


This is an actual screenshot from an online story about New York’s recent abortion law with the unplanned, serendipitous juxtaposition of an ad.

Second: Cardinal Dolan urgently needs to do something more effective to evangelize his whole flock on whether they should ever vote for zealous legal enablers of child killing. As it stands now, in any one-on-one contest between Cuomo and Dolan, almost all of the Cardinal’s people are rooting for the Governor. He needs to change that.

Reasonable minds will differ on what would be productive to that effort. But who in the chancery cares what the Church’s enemies think about a bishop’s effort to help Catholics understand that you shouldn’t vote for those who make a top priority of liquidating the unborn?

Catechetical, liturgical, and disciplinary reform are not easy. But these are the only “resources” that the Archbishop of New York has to form his flock to the point that they will rally as Catholic voters to stand athwart barbarism. None of Cardinal Dolan’s other responsibilities contribute anything significant to that effort. They may have ancillary value to some of the Church’s enterprises, but they aren’t making Big Apple Catholics more pro-life.

Whatever other good they do, none of the Archdiocese of New York’s public contracts or philanthropic collections to provide social services provide substantial moral formation or courage to broad swaths of voting Catholics on this issue. None of Cardinal Dolan’s otherwise appropriate and arguably useful relationships with politicians, as such, teaches the faithful how to deal with those pols at the ballot box on this issue.

Grand Marshalling the St. Patrick’s Day Parade isn’t, without more, giving Catholic New Yorkers the zeal of the Patron of Ireland, or anything more conducive than a pub crawl to virtue or spiritual wellbeing. The Al Smith Dinner may raise a pile for the Church, but it doesn’t form consciences, no matter how many viewers C-SPAN reaches with it.

If the Cardinal wants to face down Andrew Cuomo over abortion with a crowd at his back, he is going to need to do something “productive” to get his people back.

None of which is to say that Cardinal Dolan doesn’t care about the most important of his responsibilities, or put an honest or capable effort into them. But it is to say that if he thinks that political considerations dictate that “those who oppose the Church” are a more important audience at this time than “those who adhere to the Church,” he doesn’t understand what are and are not his political opportunities.

The only way he is going to improve his political opportunities is by prioritizing the formation of his flock over trying to manage optics or manipulate what the enemies of the Church will say about him.

So fine, if excommunicating Cuomo will undermine some plan to make the faithful of New York a more effective bulwark in defense of the unborn, then by all means, forget it.

But please, if not, enough about how not disciplining him is good politics.

Tony Francois is a Senior Attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation, where he specializes in constitutional and environmental law. He and his family reside in Sacramento, California. The views expressed are solely his own.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pro-Abortion Senate Democrats Block Vote on Legislation to Stop Infanticide

Slaughter of the Innocents Reaches New Depths 

‘Choice’ Words for Infanticide

RELATED VIDEO: “It’s barbaric” – Watch their minds change on abortion.

EDITORS NOTE: These Catholic Thing columns with images is republished with permission. © 2019 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. The featured image is by Pixabay.