Appeals Court Overturns Jan. 6 Defendant’s Sentence, Impacting Dozens of Cases

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Even so, the Biden regime is jailing journalists and putting them in leg and belly Chains to face Jan. 6 ‘misdemeanors.’

The prosecutions are/were treason at the highest level.

That the 2020 election was stolen.

These criminal actions merely secure the coup.

Appeals Court Overturns Jan. 6 Defendant’s Sentence, Potentially Impacting Dozens of Cases

Dozens of Jan. 6 cases might be impacted after the court’s ruling on Friday.

By: Jack Phillips, Epoch Times, March 1, 2024;

An appeals court in Washington unanimously ruled that a Jan. 6 defendant’s sentence was improperly enhanced, a move that could impact numerous other Jan. 6 cases.

On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that Larry Brock, who was convicted for a range of crimes related to Jan. 6, improperly had additional charges of “interference with the administration of justice.” The judge who wrote the court’s opinion wrote that the charge doesn’t apply to a sentencing enhancement, however, and struck it down.

“Brock challenges both the district court’s interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2)’s elements and the sufficiency of the evidence to support that conviction,” wrote the judge, Patricia Millett.

The judge, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, concluded that any interference with Congress’ certification of the 2020 electoral votes isn’t tantamount to a sentencing enhancement.

“Because Section 2J1.2’s text, commentary, and context establish that the ‘administration of justice’ does not extend to Congress’s counting and certification of electoral college votes, the district court erred in applying Section 2J1.2(b)(2)’s three-level sentencing enhancement to Brock’s Section 1512(c)(2) conviction,” the judge wrote.

The judges, in siding with Mr. Brock, wrote that Congress’ function on Jan. 6 was not judicial but was only a part of the 2020 presidential election process.

“Taken as a whole, the multi-step process of certifying electoral college votes—as important to our democratic system of government as it is—bears little resemblance to the traditional understanding of the administration of justice as the judicial or quasi-judicial investigation or determination of individual rights,” the panel concluded.

Law enforcement officials who were there at the Capitol on that day, they added, were “to protect the lawmakers and their process, not to investigate individuals’ rights or to enforce Congress’s certification decision.”

“After all,” the judges wrote, “law enforcement is present for security purposes for a broad variety of governmental proceedings that do not involve the ‘administration of justice’—presidential inaugurations, for example, and the pardoning of the Thanksgiving Turkey.”

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Regime Arrests Investigative Journalist

There’s A Few Major Warning Signs For Biden After Latest Primary Contest

Here’s How One Anti-Israel Protest Group Plans To Throw Wrench In Biden’s Reelection Campaign

‘It’s Class Warfare’: Newsweek Editor Says Biden Is Hemorrhaging Blue Collar Votes

‘A Slow Motion Car Crash’: Dems’ ‘Freak Out’ Is Reaching A Fever Pitch After Yet Another Dismal Poll For Biden

‘Americans Hate That Sh*t’: Bill Maher Says ‘Nobody’s Buying’ That Biden Is Fit For Office

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Ten Percent Of 2020 Biden Voters Now Back Trump: POLL

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Ten percent of President Joe Biden’s 2020 voters now back former President Donald Trump, a new poll found.

While 97 percent of voters who cast their ballot for Trump in 2020 still plan to vote for him, Biden is only attracting 83 percent of his previous voters, according to a New York Times and Siena College poll. Trump has a five-point lead overall, ranking ahead of Biden 48% to 43%, the poll shows.

Just 36% of voters say they approve or strongly approve of how Biden is handling his job as president, with 43% of voters saying they think his policies have hurt them personally.

Trump has earned voters from blocs that traditionally vote Democrat, according to the NYT. Women are equally split between Trump and Biden, while Trump gained a lead among Latinos, according to the NYT.

The NYT/Siena College poll surveyed 980 voters nationwide between Feb. 25 to 28, 2024 with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points for registered voters.

Another recent Bloomberg News/Morning Consult survey found the majority of voters in seven key battleground states blame Biden and Democrats for the border crisis.

In the Michigan Democratic primary on Tuesday, Biden received just over 80% support, which some analysts and consultants said is a “warning” sign and indication there is “not a lot of enthusiasm” for Biden among Democrats.

Around 23% of Democratic primary voters surveyed in the NYT/Siena College poll said they were enthusiastic about Biden, while 48% of Republicans said they were enthusiastic about Trump being the nominee.

The Biden campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

AUTHOR

KATELYNN RICHARDSON

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

There’s A Few Major Warning Signs For Biden After Latest Primary Contest

Here’s How One Anti-Israel Protest Group Plans To Throw Wrench In Biden’s Reelection Campaign

‘It’s Class Warfare’: Newsweek Editor Says Biden Is Hemorrhaging Blue Collar Votes

‘A Slow Motion Car Crash’: Dems’ ‘Freak Out’ Is Reaching A Fever Pitch After Yet Another Dismal Poll For Biden

‘Americans Hate That Sh*t’: Bill Maher Says ‘Nobody’s Buying’ That Biden Is Fit For Office

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

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

CHAPTER 8: Constructivism Impedes Reality-Testing Space Is No Longer the Final Frontier—Reality Is

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Constructivism is a learning theory that has its beginnings in the educational philosophy of John Dewey (1859–1952) and the work of Swiss developmental psychologist Jean Piaget (1896–1980) and Soviet psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1896–1934).

Piaget believed that human beings pass through four stages of cognitive development based on our brain’s growing ability to think in new ways. His theory of cognitive development focuses on childhood and education. In Piaget’s view the learner is a unique individual, whose childhood interactions and explorations influence his development. Piaget believed that children act on their environment to learn, and that the function of social interaction is to move the child away from the self-absorption of early childhood. Piaget saw childhood development in universal human terms.

Lev Vygotsky, on the other hand, focused on learning as a social process and developed the sociocultural theory of development called Social Constructivism. Vygotsky considered the learner to be a social being, whose development is influenced by environmental factors. He saw childhood development in culturally determined terms, and believed that children interact socially with their environment in order to learn the cultural values of their specific society. Vygotsky believed that behavior cannot be understood outside its cultural setting, and that culture actually shapes cognition.

The divergent perspectives of Piaget and Vygotsky parallel the differences in educational philosophies and pedagogy that we see in traditional education versus today’s politicized education.

An article by educator Chris Drew, PhD, published May 13, 2023, “What Is Constructivism in Education? Piaget’s Pros & Cons,”[i] defines Constructivism, describes its key concepts, and compares traditional teachers with constructivist teachers:

Definition: The constructivist learning theory explains that we learn by “constructing” knowledge in our minds through interaction with our environments. Constructivism argues that learners have an active role in thinking things through, mulling them over, and coming to logical conclusions. We also build on our prior knowledge, like a builder constructing his skyscraper.

Key Concepts: Learning is a cognitive process; we learn through experiences; we learn through social interactions; we use prior knowledge to make sense of new information; learning occurs in linear stages; students should learn actively rather than passively….

Central to this theory is the idea that we learn by “mulling over” new ideas in our heads and come to our own conclusions through logic and reasoning. To achieve this sort of learning, students need to engage in active learning, learning by doing, and personal experiences.

Chris Drew’s bias toward Constructivism is evident in his description:

Constructivism in education is the dominant educational theory in the 21st Century. It helps students to develop 21st Century skills such as collaboration, cooperation and creativity.

It is also conspicuous in his comparison of teachers’ roles:

Traditional Teacher:

Monologue (teacher talks)

Tells the answers

Expects one “correct” answer

Believes they know everything

Teacher-centered classroom

Teaches theories

One size fits all lessons

Teacher as Facilitator:

Dialogue (teacher and students discuss)

Asks questions and guides

Lets students come up with their own answers

Sees themselves as a co-learner

Student-centered classroom

Links theories to practical experiences

Differentiated lessons to meet students’ cognitive needs

Educational reformer Bruce Deitrick Price offers a very different view of Constructivism and its catastrophic effects on education. In his Canada Free Press article published September 12, 2019, “K–12: How Constructivism constructs confusion,”[ii] Price writes:

Constructivism is not just another educational gimmick. It can be used in every class, for every subject, and with students of all ages. It is multifaceted, ubiquitous, and grandiose. In fact, the Education Establishment wants you to believe that Constructivism is the King Kong of instructional theories. The educrats want you to take it home for dinner, marry it, and live happily ever after.

We are told that Constructivism adds immensely to the educational experience. On the other hand, students exposed to this thing—and virtually all American students have been exposed—seem to become dumber. In some mysterious way, Constructivism is intellectually befuddling. The acquisition of new knowledge is stymied. WNET, a TV station in Manhattan, prepared a long presentation extolling and explaining Constructivism. “Constructivism is basically a theory—based on observation and scientific study—about how people learn. It says that people construct their own understanding and knowledge of the world, through experiencing things and reflecting on those experiences.” That’s the key claim. You construct your own knowledge. It is not out there somewhere in the world. You construct it. Really. Consider an instance of learning. The teacher says, “The capital of France is Paris, a very beautiful city.” Does all that verbiage about people constructing their own understanding and experiencing things, and reflecting on those experiences, add anything to the commonsense understanding of what happens when a teacher tells students about Paris?

WNET continues: “The constructivist teacher provides tools such as problem-solving and inquiry-based learning activities with which students formulate and test their ideas, draw conclusions and inferences, and pool and convey their knowledge in a collaborative learning environment.” Let’s imagine a teacher telling students, “Most early settlers in North America came from England or Spain. Crossing the Atlantic Ocean in a small sailing ship is a dangerous adventure.” Now look at the WNET spiel. Why do students need to formulate and test ideas? Why do we have to convey the knowledge in a collaborative learning environment? More steps, more clutter. Imagine you’re a teacher who wants to teach about the American Revolution, why water freezes, or how the dinosaurs lived. Why do we need the clutter in any of those teaching scenarios? My suspicion is that this clutter is an obstacle, obviously so. We have started to see what may be Constructivism’s unavoidable negative. Constructivism adds distractions, like a hyperactive TV series when a child is trying to read his first book. In short, there’s too much going on. WNET continues: “Constructivism transforms the student from a passive recipient of information to an active participant in the learning process. Always guided by the teacher, students construct their knowledge actively rather than just mechanically ingesting knowledge from the teacher or the textbook.”

Apparently when somebody tells you something you are passive and that’s bad. You are mechanically ingesting. But if we label the classroom constructivist, everything changes for the better. Now you are actively constructing knowledge. Do you see any change? WNET wants us to know: “Students are not blank slates upon which knowledge is etched. They come to learning situations with already formulated knowledge, ideas, and understandings. This previous knowledge is the raw material for the new knowledge they will create.” Really? What does the child know about someone sailing from Spain? Nothing. That’s why it’s exciting. The conceit in Constructivism is that the speaker or teacher doesn’t add very much. You (a student) create the whole experience in your brain, i.e., you construct it. Is this a reasonable expectation? This next passage is so absurd, you might think I wrote it as satire. Not so. WNET explains: “An elementary school teacher presents a class problem to measure the length of the Mayflower. Rather than starting the problem by introducing the ruler, the teacher allows students to reflect and to construct their own methods of measurement. One student offers the knowledge that a doctor said he is four feet tall. Another says she knows horses are measured in ‘hands.’ The students discuss these and other methods they have heard about, and decide on one to apply to the problem.”

I think this is the paradigm of what is wrong. The obvious next step was to see a picture or a model of the ship, with people nearby for a sense of scale. You could go outside and walk off the basic design of the ship. Children learn about the Mayflower, not about measuring horses. There seems to be a lot of bait-and-switch in Constructivism. You can easily imagine that this elementary school teacher would never reach the heart of any subject. Every comment by every student would be a seductive avenue of distraction. WNET waxes ever more frenzied: “Students control their own learning process, and they lead the way by reflecting on their experiences. This process makes them experts of their own learning.” Lead the way? Experts of their own learning? Wouldn’t it be better if they became expert in the subjects being studied? WNET: “The teacher helps create situations where the students feel safe questioning and reflecting on their own processes, either privately or in group discussions. The teacher should also create activities that lead the student to reflect on his or her prior knowledge and experiences.” Reflecting on their own processes? Anything, you see, but the new knowledge we want them to learn. Ironically, Constructivism seems designed to insulate kids from new knowledge, to keep them busy with extraneous details and tangential activities. WNET says: “The main activity in a constructivist classroom is solving problems.” Maybe. But in a real classroom the main activity is learning today what you didn’t know yesterday.

Constructivism is an educational humanitarian hoax that presents its destructive methodology and relativist perspective as superior and scientific. The word Constructivism is as misleading as its source: John Dewey and his educational reform movement he called progressive education. Dewey, the “Father of American Education,” believed that “what” students were taught was not as important as “how” students were taught. His focus was on form, not content.

As discussed in Chapter 5, Dewey was a globalist, but he was also an elitist who did not believe in the value of teaching mathematics, geography, history, science, art, philosophy, archaeology, or any objective truths to the masses. His 1900 educational manifesto, The School and Society,[iii] was presented as a three-part lecture series. In Lecture 1, “The School and Social Progress,” Dewey begins:

We are apt to look at the school from an individualistic standpoint, as something between teacher and pupil, or between teacher and parent. That which interests us most is naturally the progress made by the individual child of our acquaintance, his normal physical development, his advance in ability to read, write, and figure, his growth in the knowledge of geography and history, improvement in manners, habits of promptness, order, and industry— it is from such standards as these that we judge the work of the school. And rightly so. Yet the range of the outlook needs to be enlarged. What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all of its children. Any other ideal for our schools is narrow and unlovely; acted upon, it destroys our democracy. All that society has accomplished for itself is put, through the agency of the school, at the disposal of its future members. All its better thoughts of itself it hopes to realize through the new possibilities thus opened to its future self. Here individualism and socialism are at one….

The mere absorption of facts and truths is so exclusively an individual affair that it tends very naturally to pass into selfishness. There is no obvious social motive for the acquirement of mere learning, there is no clear social gain in success thereat.

Words matter––and some words matter more than others. The United States of America was founded as a republic, not a democracy. The distinction is essential and often deliberately obfuscated by the enemies of individualism. The main difference between a republic and a democracy is the degree to which its citizens control the process of making laws. In a republic, the people elect representatives to make laws according to the constraints of a constitution. In a democracy, the majority has almost unlimited power to make laws, and minorities have few protections from the will of the majority. In a republic, the constitution protects the rights of all people from the will of the majority. In a democracy, individual rights can be overridden by the will of the majority. Individualism and socialism are never “at one.”

The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land that protects individualism and individual rights, the hallmarks of Americanism. We are a constitutional republic. It is a grave and consequential error to assume that a collectivist innocently uses the word democracy in its colloquial usage as a synonym for republic. The enemies of freedom—socialists, communists, and globalists—exploit the word in order to confuse the public, collapse our republic, and replace it with the mob rule of pure democracy that our Founding Fathers definitively and categorically rejected.

Collectivist John Dewey believed that experiential learning, social learning, and a basic Constructivist approach to pedagogy could achieve social reconstruction in America. He insisted that education and learning are social and interactive processes, and that schools are the appropriate institutions where social reform should take place. Dewey’s manifesto is the bible for the philosophical shift in American education from traditional, foundational learning to progressive education. What most Americans have not realized is that “progressive” education is not an advancement in knowledge and skills; to the contrary, it is a pivotal step in the incremental movement toward collectivism, socialism, globalism, and one-world government.

Perhaps the most disturbing of Constructivism’s deceitful claims is “The teacher helps create situations where the students feel safe questioning and reflecting on their own processes, either privately or in group discussions.” Once again, we see the emphasis on feelings, subjective reality.

Constructivism is a dangerous, crippling methodology designed to confuse children and deny them the foundational knowledge and skills required for critical thinking and life as a productive citizen in a constitutional republic. Constructivism denies objective reality by making everything a matter of opinion. The subjective reality it embraces intentionally impedes children’s developing ability to reality-test. Johnny’s feelings are not facts, and Johnny’s opinions are not equivalent to his teacher’s facts.

Generations of teachers trained in these methods have become ideological soldiers for progressive education. Children are not the only ones who live what they learn; so do indoctrinated teachers. Constructivism is an educational Weapon of Mass Destruction in globalism’s attack on America.

[i] What Is Constructivism in Education? Piaget’s Pros & Cons; https://helpfulprofessor.com/constructivism/

[ii] K-12: How Constructivism constructs confusion; https://canadafreepress.com/article/k-12-how-constructivism-constructs-confusion

[iii] The School and Society, John Dewey, University of Chicago Press, 1915; https://archive.org/details/schoolsociety00dewerich/page/n7/mode/2up

©2024. Linda Goudsmit. All rights reserved.

Pundicity page: goudsmit.pundicity.com and website: lindagoudsmit.com

Who Would You Rather Have As The Republican Senate Minority Leader?

/in , , , , , , , /by

Senator John Cornyn is a former Texas Supreme Court judge and state attorney general.  He has been a close ally of Mitch McConnell.  Even with good credentials and a good background, he is mostly referred to in Texas as a RINO or an establishment Republican who needs to be removed from office.

Cornyn’s announcement to run for the leadership of the U.S. Senate, following Mitch McConnell’s decision to step down, is news, especially in Texas.  The spin is that as the first senator to declare his intention to run for Senate Republican leader, Cornyn’s candidacy is notable for his “experience and leadership background” and “how his aim is to restore the Senate to its essential role in the constitutional republic” and a lot more about his “electoral strategy and external support.”

However, as of today, Cornyn is unsuitable for leadership for two main reasons.  For one, he did not back Attorney General Ken Paxton during his impeachment by the Texas state House.  He is also anti-Trump and anti-gun, as A.G. Paxton has already pointed out.

It is worth noting that after the fake impeachment by the “Deep State” Republicans in the Texas House (known as the UniParty) and his final acquittal in the state Senate, Paxton has become an icon, the only man left blocking Biden and his cronies from making Texas as blue and lawless as California.  His popularity has soared.

Cornyn played a significant role in negotiating the first major anti-gun bill in decades following the Robb Elementary shooting in Uvalde.  The Second Amendment is clear.  Anyone going against the spirit of the Second Amendment doesn’t have the commitment to understanding its historical context and purpose.

Cornyn has also been involved in efforts to support the migrant influx at the U.S.-Mexico border, and he has introduced bills aimed at making this influx easy, including measures to rapidly process migrant invasion and speed up the processing of asylum-seekers.  His approach has exposed him, and it reeks of an agenda-driven policy detrimental to the well-being of the state of Texas.  For one, rapidly processing illegal aliens raises concerns about sacrificing thorough vetting procedures, potentially undermining national security, and also resulting in overlooking legitimate asylum claims.

Cornyn’s current abilities as a leader are under a cloud, as it is clear that his involvement in supporting measures to ease the illegal alien flood is driven more by political expediency and the New World Order (NWO) agenda.

On the other hand, we have Senator Ted Cruz.  Cruz has consistently advocated against gun regulation, arguing that such policies are ineffective and do not prevent crime. This stance reflects a commitment to uphold the Second Amendment and the belief that the focus should be on enhancing law enforcement and security measures rather than on restricting gun ownership.  For those who prioritize individual rights and the belief in the efficacy of law enforcement over gun control, Cruz’s position is to be seen as more aligned with their values.

In fact, Cruz was chiefly instrumental in introducing a rival bill that would increase school security funding, showcasing his willingness to propose alternative solutions to the issue of gun violence.  This action exemplifies Cruz’s abilities as a leader, as he offers a comprehensive approach to safety beyond just gun control, which is more in keeping with broader strategies to prevent violence.  “Cruz says $8B in economic aid to Ukraine is ‘crap’: “A lot of that is almost certain to go to waste.”

Moreover, Ted Cruz’s support for Paxton during the impeachment effort highlights his commitment to the principles of due process and conservative governance.  Cruz openly supports Paxton for his efforts to combat the abuses of the Biden administration, emphasizing his effectiveness in battling these issues.

In short, Texas has two Republican senators.  One is pro-Texas, and one is in tune with the Washington “Deep State.”  Cornyn’s overall approval rating hovers around 24 percent, a dramatic reversal from previous years, when a majority of Texans were not even aware of Cornyn’s daily activities.

Cruz emerges as a more suitable choice for Texas and the nation as a whole.  Cornyn’s past actions, including his stance on key issues such as gun confiscation and illegal immigration, raise concerns about his commitment to upholding fundamental principles and addressing complex challenges effectively.  In contrast, Cruz has consistently advocated for preserving individual rights, upholding due process, and comprehensive solutions to issues like gun violence.  His support for Ken Paxton during the impeachment effort demonstrates a commitment to conservative governance and principles.

Moreover, Cruz’s approach resonates with a broader base of Texans, as evidenced by his higher approval ratings and continued support.  In a political landscape where leadership and integrity are paramount, Ted Cruz stands out over John Cornyn for representing the values and interests of Texas.

©2024. Amil Imani. All rights reserved.

President Donald J. Trump Is On Fire On The Campaign Trail WATCH!

/in , , , , , , , /by

President Donald J. Trump is winning for the American people. He is driven to drain the Democrat swamp and restore our God given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

President Trump is focused on our faith, our families and our freedoms.

Watch the following video and posts on X to understand that he is serious about taking back our nation from those who are determined to destroy it.

There is a new slogan for the people’s president that is flooding social media sites, “To Big To Rig.”

President Trump in Richmond, Virginia

President Donald J. Trump on X

©2024. All rights reserved.

FL Rep. Chase Tramont: ‘There is no objection to the teaching of facts and truth of history. In fact, we demand it!’

/in , , , , , , , /by

Republican Florida Representative Chase Tramont of Port Orange, Florida took to the floor of the House this week to defend our history and refute the “big lie” that Republicans are somehow trying to censor the teaching of history in a new bill that outlaws the use of ideology to interpret hard fast facts.

Chase is a cosponsor of a bill that requires an honest rendition of our past, warts and all.

The bill prohibits teacher preparation programs, EPIs, and Level I and Level II school leader preparation programs from distorting significant historical events or including a curriculum or instruction that teaches identity politics, violates the Florida Educational Equity Act, or is based on theories that systemic racism, sexism, oppression, and privilege are inherent in the institutions of the United States and were created to maintain social, political, and economic inequities.

The bill requires all teacher preparation programs and EPIs to afford candidates the opportunity to think critically, achieve mastery of academic program content, learn instructional strategies, and demonstrate competence

The bill requires Level I and Level II school leader preparation programs to afford candidates the opportunity to demonstrate mastery of program content, including instructional leadership strategies, coaching development, school safety, and continuous improvement efforts.

Representative Chase Tramont, “…[A]nd for the future education of my son who will be introduced to the world on Wednesday, I am proud to stand on the right side of protecting our history today.’“

WATCH: Representative Chase Tramont Defends History

©2024. Volusia GOP. All rights reserved.

Hamas on October 7th: The Teachings of Islam on Display Part 2

/in , , , , , , , /by

Please click here to read Part 1 of Hamas on October 7th: The Teachings of Islam on Display.

In this part we will look at Killing Non-Combatants/Disbelievers, Mutilation, and Burning People Alive.

Killing Non-Combatants/Disbelievers

It is important to note that the distinction between non-combatants and combatants is not found in the doctrines of Islam.  Instead, the fundamental distinction is between Muslims (believers) and non-Muslims (disbelievers).

This distinction has been in place since the early days of Islam.  According to the commands of Allah in the Koran and teachings of Muhammad, as long as a Muslim remained a Believer and did not violate any of the doctrines of Islam, he was not to be harmed by another Muslim.  However, there were three conditions that allowed a Muslim to intentionally kill another Muslim: adultery, apostasy from Islam, and killing another Muslim without legal authority.

With regard to non-Muslims, Muhammad taught that their “blood and property” were not protected from the Muslims unless they converted to Islam:

It has been narrated on the authority of ‘Abdullah b. ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, they establish the prayer, and pay the Zakat.  If they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.[1]

That non-Muslims were to be fought against and were not protected unless they converted to Islam is openly proclaimed by Allah in Chapter 9, Verse 5 of the Koran; this is the verse referred to by some Muslim scholars as the Verse of the Sword:

Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the Mushrikun [non-Muslims] wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every ambush.  But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salat (the prayers), and give Zakat (obligatory charity), then leave their way free.  Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

This command of Allah to kill the Mushrikun was followed during the time of Muhammad as Muslim warriors attacked unsuspecting, non-Muslim communities late at night or early in the morning to the undiscriminating battle cries of Kill! Kill![2] and O victorious one, slay, slay!.[3]

Muhammad even stated that there was to be no penalty for a Muslim who killed a non-Muslim (disbeliever), with no distinction being made between a combatant and a non-combatant:

It was narrated from ‘Amr bin Shu’aib, from his father, from his grandfather that the Messenger of Allah said: “A Muslim should not be killed in retaliation for the murder of a disbeliever.”[4]

And it is significant to note that the Muslim scholar Ibn Kathir said this about that statement by Muhammad:

No opinion that opposes this ruling could stand correct, nor is there an authentic Hadith to contradict it.[5]

During the time of Muhammad there were numerous incidents in which non-Muslims were killed by Muslims, whether they had surrendered after battle or were simply non-combatants.

For example, after the Muslims had emigrated from Mecca to Medina, the first major battle between the Muslims and their Meccan adversaries occurred in March 624 AD: the Battle of Badr.  The Meccans were defeated.  Among the Meccan captives were a man named Umayya bin Khalaf, and his son.  As they were being led away, unarmed, and to be held for future ransom, some of the Muslims recognized Umayya and his son and they killed them both with swords.  When Muhammad found out about these killings, he made no objection.[6]

As Muhammad gained power he personally ordered the killing of a number of non-Muslim poets and others who had criticized him and/or Islam (e.g. Ka’b b. al-Ashraf, Abu Rafi’, ‘Asma’ bint Marwan, Abu ‘Afak, and a singing girl named Quraybah).

Muhammad’s attitude and actions were best summed up in a letter written shortly after the Muslim conquest of Mecca in 630 AD.  It was sent to a non-Muslim poet who used to satirize Muhammad, from the poet’s brother; here is a portion of that letter:

Allah’s Messenger killed some men in Makkah who used to satirize and harm him, and the poets who survived fled in all directions for their lives.  So, if you want to save your skin, hasten to Allah’s Messenger.  He never kills those who come to him repenting.  If you refuse to do as I say, it is up to you to try to save your skin by any means.[7]

So to save their lives from Muhammad, poets had to flee Mecca.

At one time Muhammad even gave a general order to kill any of the Jews that fell into a Muslim’s hands:

The Messenger of God said, “Whoever of the Jews falls into your hands, kill him.”  So Muhayyisah b. Mas’ud [a Muslim warrior] fell upon Ibn Sunaynah, one of the Jewish merchants who was on close terms with them and used to trade with them, and killed him.[8]

And there were examples of individual Muslims taking the initiative to kill non-Muslims for criticizing Muhammad and/or Islam. When Muhammad was told of these, he gave his approval.[9]

And after the defeat of the Jewish Bani Qurayzah tribe, Muhammad supervised the beheading of 600-900 captured males of the tribe.  He ordered that all of the males who had reached puberty were to be killed; whether or not they were combatants was irrelevant.[10]  Muhammad sent for them and struck off their heads…as they were brought out to him in batches…This went on until the apostle [Muhammad] made an end of them.[11]

Muhammad even specifically ordered that elderly non-Muslims were to be killed:

It was reported from Al-Hasan, from Samurah bin Jundab who said: “The Messenger of Allah said: ‘Kill the old polytheist men, but spare their children.’”[12]

So we can see that Muhammad not only condoned the killing of non-combatant, non-Muslims, he even ordered it at times.  The Hamas jihadists were following those orders.

Mutilation

There were multiple reports that the Hamas jihadists mutilated men, women and children.  Much of the evidence of this was seen on dead bodies.  But for our purposes the issue is, did this mutilation occur while the person was still alive or did it occur after they died?  We know of two reports that victims were being mutilated while they were alive:

  1. “ZAKA personnel reported finding naked, injured women with mutilated sexual organs.”[13]
  2. “Sapir, a survivor of the Nova festival, describes a rape incident where the terrorists cut off the victim’s breasts followed by cutting her face.  With the disfigurement of her face, she collapsed and fell out of Sapir’s sight.”[14]

This is important, because support for the mutilation of the living can be found in the teachings and example of Muhammad.

According to Muhammad, Muslims were not to mutilate dead bodies. Before he sent Muslim forces against non-Muslims, it was reported that he would issue the following order:

… Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah.  Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah.  Make a holy war…do not mutilate (the dead) bodies…[15]

And on another occasion:

Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Yazid Al-Ansari: The Prophet forbade robbery (taking away what belongs to others by force without their permission), and also forbade the mutilation (or maiming) of bodies.[16]

So when Muhammad talked about forbidding mutilation, he was talking about how dead bodies were to be treated.  This understanding that mutilation applied to dead bodies was reiterated by Ibn Hajar, a noted 15th century Islamic scholar, when he explained the meaning of mutilation:

Mutilation means disfigurement of the appearance of a corpse; for example, chopping off limbs for it to be remembered (by the opposition), and the likes.[17]

It should be noted that in Sunan An-Nasa’i we find a hadith stating that:

…The Messenger of Allah used to stress charity in his sermons, and prohibit mutilation.[18]

The modern commentary for this hadith explained:

Mutilation means cutting or tearing off the limbs of the person slain (ear, nose, private parts, etc.) so that the corpse is debased or desecrated.[19]

So Muhammad’s command against mutilation was directed toward how dead bodies were to be treated.

It was another matter for those who were alive.

In Koran 8:12, Allah stated:

(Remember) when your Lord revealed to the angels, “Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed.  I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved…smite over all their fingers and toes.”

“Smite over” their fingers and toes means to cut them off.  Although this verse states what Allah had commanded the angels to do when they reportedly helped the Muslims during the Battle of Badr, it was also a command for what the Muslims (believers) were to do to their enemies:

Ibn Jarir commented that this Ayah [verse] commands, “O believers!  Strike every limb and finger on the hands and feet of your (disbelieving) enemies.”[20]

Why cut off fingers and toes?  In the commentary about this verse of the Koran, the modern Tafsir Ahsanul-Bayan explained:

If the fingers of the hands are cut off, they will become unable to move their swords.  Similarly, when the toes are cut off, they will be unable to run away.[21]

And for many years Muhammad had a standing order for the mutilation and then killing of a particular non-Muslim:

I have not seen the Messenger of God send an expedition ever, except he said:  If you defeat Habbar cut off his hands and legs and then his head.[22]

However, after the conquest of Mecca in January 630, Habbar converted to Islam and was spared by Muhammad.

The mutilation of living people was continued by Abu Bakr, who, after Muhammad died, became the first of the four “Rightly Guided” Caliphs (these first four caliphs were so named because they are believed to have held the most firmly to the teachings of Muhammad):

It is reported that certain women at an-Nujair having rejoiced at the death of the Prophet, abu-Bakr wrote ordering that their hands and feet be cut off.  Among these women were ath-Thabja’ al-Hadramiyah, and Hind, daughter of Yamin, the Jewess.[23]

And soon after Muhammad’s death two singing women appeared before Al-Muhajir, the Muslim governor of the Yemen.  One of them sang a song reviling Muhammad, and Al-Muhajir had her hand cut off and a front tooth pulled out.  Abu Bakr wrote to Al-Muhajir:

Now then: I have learned that you cut off the hand of a woman because she sang satirizing the Muslims, and that you pulled her front tooth.  If she was among those who claim (to have embraced) Islam, then (it is) good discipline and a reprimand, and not mutilation.[24]

So we can see that the command of Allah, the teachings and example of Muhammad, and the examples of the first “Rightly Guided” Caliph, make it permissible for Muslims to mutilate those who are still alive.  And the HAMAS jihadists did so.

Burning People Alive

There were many reports about finding burned bodies of civilians, some inside burned-down structures.  Were they intentionally burned to death?

According to the teachings and example of Muhammad, burning people alive is allowed.

Muhammad considered burning Muslims’ houses down around them to compel their attendance at congregational prayers:

It was narrated that Abu Hurairah said: “The Messenger of Allah said: ‘I was thinking of commanding that the call to prayer be given, then I would tell a man to lead the people in prayer, then I would go out with some other men carrying bundles of wood, and go to people who do not attend the prayer, and burn their houses down around them.’”[25]

In December 627 Muhammad…launched a raid against the tribe of al-Mustalaq and they fought back.  So he commanded to set fire to their fortifications all night long with the widespread knowledge that women and children were in there.[26]

In October 630, there was some resistance among the Muslims toward a military expedition Muhammad was planning against the Byzantines at Tabuk.  So Muhammad…heard that the hypocrites were assembling in the house of Suwaylim the Jew (his house was by Jasum) keeping men back from the apostle in the raid on Tabuk.  So the prophet sent Talha b. ‘Ubaydullah with a number of his friends to them with orders to burn Suwaylim’s house down on them.  Talha did so, and al-Dahhak b. Khalifa threw himself from the top of the house and broke his leg, and his friends rushed out and escaped.[27]

Muhammad’s example of being willing to burn people alive continued.  After Muhammad died, there were many Arab tribes that left Islam.  This resulted in the Wars of Apostasy (Riddah Wars) under Abu Bakr, the first of the four “Rightly Guided” Caliphs.  The commander of each army that Abu Bakr sent out had a letter to be read to the tribe before it was attacked.  The letter explained that if the tribe did not return to Islam, the army commander…will not spare any one of them he can gain mastery over, [but may] burn them with fire, slaughter them by any means…[28]

The commander of one of the Muslim armies was Khalid bin al-Walid. Here is a command that Abu Bakr gave to Khalid:

…kill them by every means, by fire or whatever else.[29]

And Abu Bakr gave Khalid a specific command when he sent him against the Bani Hanifah in Al-Yamamah:

Kill their wounded, seek out those of them who flee, put the captives among them to the sword and strike terror among them by killing and burn them by fire.  And I warn you against contradicting my orders. Peace (be upon you).[30]

Khalid took Abu Bakr’s admonitions to heart and was known for burning many captives alive.  Abu Bakr’s response to this was:

I shall not sheathe a sword that Allah had unsheathed against the ‘unbelievers.’[31]

Abu Bakr had even set the example when a captive who had fought against the Muslims was brought to him.  Abu Bakr…ordered a fire to be kindled with much firewood in the prayer yard (musalla) of Medina and threw him, with arms and legs bound, into it.[32]

The burning continued as ‘Ali, the fourth “Rightly Guided” Caliph, ordered some people to be burned alive for being hypocrites. A modern commentary explained this decision:

The people, who were burnt alive, were the followers of a Jew named ‘Abdullah bin Sabah.  They were hypocrites and they were involved in a heinous crime of preaching ‘Ali’s divinity, so ‘Ali giving a lesson for others, gave them such a severe punishment.[33]

And it is interesting to note that in 2015, the jihadist group ISIS burned alive a captured Jordanian Air Force pilot. Soon afterwards an article appeared in their online magazine Dabiq that included Koran verses, teachings of Muhammad, and examples of Muhammad’s companions to provide the Islamic doctrinal support for the burning alive of “the Jordanian crusader pilot.”[34]

Burning people alive is allowed by Islamic doctrine, and the Hamas jihadists were following that doctrine.

AUTHOR

STEPHEN M. KIRBY

Dr. Stephen M. Kirby is the author of six books about Islam. His latest book is Islamic Doctrine versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials.

On to Part 3

In Part 3 we will examine the remaining atrocities.

[1]           Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, No. 22, pp. 21-22.

[2]           E.g.,; The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi’s Kitab al-Maghazi, p. 355; Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 3, No. 2638, pp. 275-276; Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, Vol. VIII, trans. and annotated Michael Fishbein (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1997), p. 142;      and Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad ibn Sa’d ibn Mani’ al-Zuhri al-Basri, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, 2 Volumes, trans. S. Moinul Haq (New Delhi, India: Kitab Bhavan, 2009), Vol. 2, p. 146.

[3]           E.g., The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), n. 738, p. 768, and n. 760, p. 770; The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi’s Kitab al-Maghazi, p. 549; and Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 237.

[4]           Sunan Ibn Majah, Vol. 3, No. 2659, p. 528.

[5]           Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 1, p. 485.  The significance of Ibn Kathir’s statement lies in the fact that his commentaries are still considered authoritative today.  In the publisher’s comments in 2000 for the ten volume English translation of Ibn Kathir’s commentaries, it was pointed out that this collection is the most popular interpretation of the Qur’an in the Arabic language, and the majority of the Muslims consider it to be the best source based on Qur’an and Sunnah.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 1, p. 5.

[6]           Essay Regarding the Basic Rule of the Blood, Wealth and Honour of the Disbelievers, At-Tibyan Publications, August 22, 2004, p. 24.

[7]           Safiur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, The Sealed Nectar (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2008), p. 521.

[8]           Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari: The Foundation of the Community, Vol. VII, trans. M. V. McDonald and annotated W. Montgomery Watt (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1987), p. 97.

[9]           1) A Muslim stabbed to death his pregnant female slave: Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 5, No. 4361, pp. 20-21; and Abu ‘Abdur-Rahman Ahmad bin Shu’aib bin ‘Ali bin Sinan bin Bahr An-Nasa’i, Sunan An-Nasa’i, trans. Nasiruddin al-Khattab (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2007), Vol. 5, No. 4075, pp. 66-67.  2) A Muslim strangled a Jewish woman: Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 5, No. 4362, p. 21.  3) A Muslim killed a man who said he did not believe in Islam and would never become a Muslim: The History of al-Tabari: The Foundation of the Community, pp. 149-150.

[10]         The History of al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, p. 38.

[11]         The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), p. 464.

[12]         Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 3, No. 2670, p. 296.  A variation of this, specifying pre-pubescent boys instead of children in general, was reported in Jami’ At-Tirmidhi:

Samurah bin Jundab narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: “Kill the elder men among the idolaters and spare the Sharkh among them.”

Jami’ At-Tirmidhi, Vol. 3, No. 1583, p. 353.  The commentary for this hadith noted that “the Sharkh are the boys who did not begin to grow public hair.”

[13]         “Silent Cry, Sexual Crimes in the October 7 War,” The Association of Rape Crisis Centers in Israel, February 2024, p. 27, https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:f3c818f3-d9c2-4175-8459-4076c0714374.

[14]         Ibid., p. 30.

[15]         Sahih Muslim, Vol. 5, No. 1731R1, p. 163.  A second version of this hadith reported that Muhammad said, “…do not mutilate (the dead enemy)…”; see Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 3, No. 2613, p. 264.

[16]         Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 3, Book 46, No. 2474, p. 380.

[17]         The Clarification Regarding Intentionally Targetting Women and Children, p. 52.

[18]         Sunan An-Nasa’i, Vol. 5, No. 4052, p. 56.

[19]         Ibid.

[20]         Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 4, p. 274.

[21]         Tafsir Ahsanul-Bayan, Vol. 2, Commentary No. 2, p. 276.

[22]         The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi’s Kitab al-Maghazi, p. 422.

[23]         Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Jabir al-Baladhuri, The Origins of the Islamic State, Being a Translation from the Arabic, Accompanied with Annotations, Geographic and Historic Notes of the Kitab Fituh Al-Buldan of Al-Imam Abu-L Abbas Ahmad Ibn-Jabir Al-Baladhuri, trans. Philip Khuri Hitti (1916; rpt. Lexington, Kentucky: Ulan Press, 2014), p. 155.

[24]         Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari: The Conquest of Arabia, Vol. X, trans. and annotated Fred M. Donner (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1993), pp. 191-192.

[25]         Sunan Ibn Majah, Vol. 1, No. 791, pp. 513-514.

[26]         The Al Qaeda Reader, trans. and ed. Raymond Ibrahim, (New York: Broadway Books, 2007), p. 167.

[27]         The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), n. 858, p. 782.

[28]         The History of al-Tabari: The Conquest of Arabia,  p. 57.

[29]         Ibid., p. 100.

[30]         Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab at-Tamimi, Abridged Biography of Prophet Muhammad, ed. ‘Abdur-Rahman bin Nasir Al-Barrak, ‘Abdul ‘Azeez bin ‘Abdullah Ar-Rajihi, and Muhammad Al-‘Ali Al-Barrak (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2003), p. 345.

[31]         The Origins of the Islamic State, p. 148.

[32]         The History of al-Tabari: The Conquest of Arabia, p. 80.

[33]         Jami’ At-Tirmidhi, Vol. 3, Comments to Hadith No. 1458, p. 244.

[34]         See “The Burning of the Murtadd Pilot,” Dabiq, Issue 7, February 2015, p. 5, https://islamseries.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/dabiq-issue-7-february-2015.pdf.

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

VIDEO: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis Speaks About Release of Jeffrey Epstein’s Secret Grand Jury Testimony

/in , , , , , , , , /by

In a Business Insider column titled “DeSantis signs law to release records that could explain why Jeffrey Epstein got minimal charges in Florida” Brent D. Griffiths and Jacob Shamsian report,

  • Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bipartisan bill into law that unearth more Jeffrey Epstein records.
  • The law will allow for the release of records from a 2006 Florida grand jury.
  • Prosecutors allowed Epstein to plead guilty to only a single prostitution solicitation charge.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Thursday signed a bipartisan bill into law that could finally answer the lingering questions about 2006 grand jury probe that charged Jeffrey Epstein with just one criminal count.

“This is long overdue, but, again, we feel that we just can’t turn a blind eye,” DeSantis said shortly before signing HB 117 into law at a ceremony in Palm Beach. The law goes into effect July 1.

A Palm Beach grand jury investigation, which resulted in just one criminal count, of prostitution solicitation, has long been at the center of controversy for allowing Epstein to escape accountability for raping and sexually abusing girls.

Prosecutors decided to bring just a single victim before the grand jury even though law enforcement had concluded that Epstein sexually abused more than 30 girls, according to Miami Herald reporter Julie K. Brown’s book “Perversion of Justice.” A compensation program established following Epstein’s death identified 136 of his victims. More recent litigation, against banks that were alleged to facilitate Epstein’s sex-trafficking, put the figure at closer to 200 victims.

Continue reading.

WATCH: Ron DeSantis speaks out on new law that will release Jeffrey Epstein grand jury testimony

©2024. Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Jeffrey Epstein Brought EIGHT Young Girls With Him To See Bill Clinton At The White House

Epstein Accuser Virginia Giuffre ‘Never Saw’ Trump ‘Participate’ In Anything Involving Jeffrey Epstein, Docs Show

Second Tranche Of Jeffrey Epstein Court Documents Unsealed

Biden Campaign Co-Chair Suggests Deporting Illegal Immigrants Would Hurt The Economy

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Democratic Texas Rep. Veronica Escobar on Friday suggested that deporting illegal immigrants would have adverse economic consequences.

President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump both visited the border and delivered remarks on Thursday. Escobar, co-chair of Biden’s 2024 reelection campaign, criticized Trump’s rhetoric and underscored the economic importance of immigrants in the workforce, advocating against deporting them on “CNN Newsroom With Jim Acosta.”

“Democrats have been willing over the decades to not just address border security as a whole, but also to address our workforce needs and to make sure that we remain a country of immigrants. Immigration is good for us economically,” Escobar asserted. “Republicans have created the current situation and we need solutions. But what Trump is signaling is horrific. He really does want to take us back to an era where people feared being in their own country simply because they belong to a minority group.”

WATCH:

Illegal immigration has massively increased under Biden as millions of migrants from around the world cross the southern border. One of Biden’s first actions in office was to issue executive actions revoking Trump-era border policies, including the Muslim travel ban and the border wall project.

“He‘s willing to violate the Constitution, violate our civil rights, violate constitutional rights,” Escobar told Acosta. “And let me tell you, it is impossible to deport every undocumented person in this country. There simply are not the resources nor is it advantageous to us. I mean, I’m sure you’ve seen the reports, Jim, that it has been immigrant labor, the immigrant workforce that has actually propped up our economy. The challenge we face is that Congress has not created legal pathways for them.”

AUTHOR

JASON COHEN

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Majority Of Americans Support Building Border Wall For First Time In Poll’s History

Illegal Immigrants Continue to Commit Violent Crimes as Sanctuary Cities Reassess Policies

Federal Judge Blocks New Texas Law to Arrest Illegal Immigrants

POSTS ON X:

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

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Jewish Students Tell House Committee: ‘It’s Open Season on Jews on Our Campus’

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Jews are fair game now. This is exactly what Jewish students and academics experienced in Nazi Germany.

For years, the growing Jew hatred on college campuses was ignored or excused. Before my colleagues and I were banned, we experienced vicious, violent hatred.

No one stood with us. Or took action.

What did they think was going. to happen?

‘I didn’t come to study in a living laboratory of antisemitism’

In DC, Jewish students tell House committee: ‘It’s open season on Jews on our campus’

Months after the Education and Workforce Committee hearing that contributed to the resignation of top school presidents, Jewish students say the hatred continues unchecked

By: Jordana Horn, Times of Israel, March 1, 2024:

NEW YORK — The House of Representatives’ Education and the Workforce Committee held a bipartisan roundtable Thursday with Jewish students from nine American universities to hear testimony about their experiences with antisemitism on campus.

Testimony given before the Education and Workforce Committee’s last hearing in December led to the resignations of Harvard University president Claudine Gay and University of Pennsylvania president Liz Magill.

“These students are dealing with antisemitism at their respective universities on a daily basis. Their courage to speak out and share their stories will give the American people a new look at what is truly happening on college campuses around the country,” Education and the Workforce Committee Chairwoman Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) said before the roundtable in a statement. “This roundtable will help inform the committee’s next steps in the antisemitism investigation as it continues to hold postsecondary education accountable for rampant antisemitism.”

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

IT BEGINS: Muslim Guns Down Jewish Dentist in San Diego, Shoots Receptionist

UK Descending Into Mob Rule: Female MPs Given Bodyguards As Safety Fears Grow Over Islamic Threats

Anti-Israel Biden Regime Reverses U.S. Policy to Turn Up the Heat on Israel

Hamas Claims Seven Hostages Dead

MSNBC: Great Threat to Democracy is White Rural Voters

RELATED VIDEO: America Is Still the Land of Equal Opportunity (for Criminals, at Least) | TIPPING POINT

POSTS ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Democrat Senator Calls Pedophiles ‘Minor Attracted Persons’ Advocates for CHILD SEX DOLLS

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

The Democrat party is evil.

Good decent people should not be forced to live under their rule.

The election system has been hijacked by the Democrat party of treason.

Where is our George Washington?

Kentucky Democrat Proposes Child Sex Dolls for Pedophiles

By James Bickerton • US News Reporter

A Democratic state senator from Kentucky has suggested providing “child sex dolls” to pedophiles in a bid to reduce the chance of them abusing children.

Speaking at the Kentucky General Assembly on Thursday, Senator Karen Berg said there was research suggesting the dolls “actually decrease their proclivity to go out and attack children.” The remarks sparked an angry backlash on social media with one prominent commentator accusing Berg of “sexualizing kids and defending pedophiles.”

The Context

There is an ongoing debate involving academics and politicians over whether child sex dolls could help prevent assaults on children or whether they act as a gateway for potential abusers. Republican Representative Dan Donovan has twice introduced legislation in the House that would make the “importation or transportation of child sex dolls” illegal, while others have called for an outright ban.

What We Know

During her address in the Kentucky General Assembly, Berg said: “I was completely unfamiliar with child sex dolls, so I had of course to Google it last night…

“But there are what they call ‘MAPS,’ Minor Attracted Persons and the limited amount of research that’s done on these dolls suggests that they actually, for people who are attracted to minors, that these dolls actually decrease their proclivity to go out and attack children.

“That it actually gives them a release that makes them less likely to go outside of their home and what was interesting is the research did not support the same conclusions for people who were adult attracted using dolls.”

Footage of Berg’s remarks was shared on X, formerly Twitter, by Robby Starbuck, a conservative-leaning activist who produced the Elon Musk-endorsed documentary The War on Children. The clip has so far received more than 595,000 views and 3,100 reposts from other X users.

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Deep State’s #1 Priority is to Legalize Anal and Vaginal Sex with Underaged Boys and Girls

Did You Know That Charles Darwin’s 10 Children Were The Products of An Incestuous Relationship?

Nancy Pelosi’s Husband Paul Charged with Possession of Child Pornography and Crack Cocaine

The ‘Transgender Revolution’: Sexual Anarchy in the Catholic Church, Boy Scouts of America and Public Schools

RELATED VIDEO: Marjorie Taylor Greene Says “Democrats Are Pedophiles” on 60 Minutes

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Shameful Silencing of Foes of Jihad Violence and Sharia Oppression of Women

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

Brendan O’Neill is right: “The intention is as clear as it is repellent: to send the message that it isn’t Islamism that’s the problem – it’s ‘Islamophobia.’” But this endeavor has been going on far longer than the brouhaha over Lee Anderson.

It goes back to incidents such as the British government’s persecution of Tommy Robinson and the banning of foreign foes of jihad violence and Sharia oppression from entering the country.

Many, if not most, of the “respectable” critics of “radical Islam” had little or nothing to say about those incidents, and now they, and Britain at large, are reaping the rewards of their cowardice and pusillanimity.

The shameful silencing of radical Islam’s critics

by Brendan O’Neill, Spiked, February 25, 2024:

What Tory MP Lee Anderson said this week was dumb. But what the cultural elites are doing on the back of Anderson’s comments is outright sinister.

They are using his outburst about ‘the Islamists’ having ‘control’ over London mayor Sadiq Khan to distract attention from the very real threat Islamists pose in 21st-century Britain. They are holding him up as oafish proof that the ‘real threat’ is the ‘far right’ and ‘Islamophobes’ – gruff gammon like him – not those mystical ‘Islamists’ people keep banging on about. They are exploiting the Anderson scandal to achieve something they’ve wanted to achieve since the 7 October pogrom and the orgy of bigotry it licensed in Britain and other Western nations – that is, shift the public’s attention away from Islamism and back to ‘Islamophobia’. It is one of the most cynical political manoeuvres of modern times….

And yet, for all their daftness, the reaction to Anderson’s comments has felt wildly overblown. Not to mention transparently self-serving. Political influencers have not contented themselves with criticising him, or branding him a raging Islamophobe, if that’s what they want to do. No, they’ve made him into the archetype of ‘Islamophobic Britain’. They’ve crowned him King Gammon, who merely gives voice to a phobic derangement that is all-pervasive. The irony is too much – they damn the conspiracist mindset that sees Islamists as the puppeteers of public life while promoting their own unhinged theory that actually it’s Islamophobes who haunt every corridor of power.

Khan says Anderson’s blather is symptomatic of a ‘massive increase in Islamophobia’. The Scottish first minister, Humza Yousaf, says Anderson’s comments are proof of ‘how acceptable and pervasive Islamophobia has become in our society’. We now know that ‘Islamophobia is rampant in the Tories’, says the Guardian’s Owen Jones.

This giddy extrapolation from one loudmouth’s musings on a TV show to the end of tarring the entire nation as ‘Islamophobic’ is not only cynical – it’s ominous. The intention is as clear as it is repellent: to send the message that it isn’t Islamism that’s the problem – it’s ‘Islamophobia’. Worse, Anderson-bashers are implying, if not outright stating, that critics of Islamism pose a larger threat to the nation than Islamism itself. Especially its right-wing critics, those ‘far right’ goons like Anderson and Braverman, as they crazily view those outspoken Tories. We are witnessing nothing less than a top-down cultural assault on truth – the truth here being that radical Islam is indeed a major threat to life, limb and democracy….

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

ROBERT SPENCER

RELATED ARTICLES:

Greece: Muslim migrant stabs Greek woman on central Athens street

California: ‘Disgruntled’ Muslim patient shoots and kills Orthodox Jewish dentist

William Dalrymple Is Out Far and In Deep

Hamas on October 7th: The Teachings of Islam on Display (Part 1)

Media Blackout: 67+ ‘Prominent’ Muslims in Minnesota Arrested in Biggest U.S. Pandemic-Era Fraud Scheme

Hamas Staged a Food Aid Riot to Blame Israel and Retain Control Over Aid

New Zealand designates Hamas a terror group and imposes sanctions on ‘extremist Israeli settlers’

Hamas’ Claim That IDF Killed 100 Civilians In Attack On Aid Trucks Doesn’t Hold Up to Scrutiny

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

Dr. Strangelove Returns From The Dead

/in , , , , , , , /by

Vladimir Putin on Thursday threatened global nuclear war if the West followed through on hints by French president Macron that NATO was contemplating sending troops to Ukraine.

Putin made those comments in his annual “state of the nation” address. Less than 24-hours later, he followed up by test-firing a solid-fuel Yars ICBM, which NATO dubs the SS-29.

The Yars, like its newer cousin, the liquid-fueled Sarmat (Satan-2), can carry nuclear-armed hypersonic glide vehicles that fly at speeds up to Mach 25 and that can defeat any missile defense systems currently deployed or under development. Both missiles, and a variety of hypersonic re-entry vehicles, are part of a $650 billion upgrade to Russia’s nuclear arsenal Putin announced more a decade ago.

As for Macron (or Little Cookie, as I call him in my latest book, Raising Olives in Provence), made his careless comments at a NATO summit in Paris on Monday.

But the one who really let the cat out of the bag was German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who told the group that Germany was not going to send its Taurus long range cruise missiles to Ukraine because it would require German military personnel on the ground.

Taurus “is a very long-range weapon,” he said, “and what was done on the part of the British and French in terms of target-control and target-control assistance can’t be done in Germany.” That prompted British lawmaker Tobias Elwood to tell London’s Daily Telegraph that Scholz had committed “a flagrant abuse of intelligence.”

That is undoubtedly true. Both comments were picked up by the online service of Russia Today (or RT, as it’s now called), Putin’s megaphone to the West.

The deployment to Ukraine of NATO weaponry that can reach deep into Russia has long been a red line for Putin. “They should eventually realize that we also have weapons that can hit targets on their territory,” he said on Thursday. “Everything that the West comes up with creates the real threat of a conflict with the use of nuclear weapons, and thus the destruction of civilization,” he added.

And if the threat of global nuclear war from Russia wasn’t enough, also on Thursday the commander of U.S. Space Force, General Stephen Whiting, told Congress that China has expanded its military capabilities in space at a “breathtaking pace,” with some 359 satellites currently in orbit, three times the number aloft in 2018.

Whiting testified that some of China’s satellites “could function as weapons that can disrupt” U.S. satellites. Like Russia, China was developing hypersonic glide vehicles capable of defeating U.S. missile defenses.

You could call this week’s events a throwback to the era of Dr. Strangelove, except that they involved real leaders, not Hollywood fictions.

©2024. Kenneth R. Timmerman. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Western Islamists Work to Build the Taliban’s Afghanistan into a Global Caliphate

I discuss this and developments in Iran and Israel on this week’s Prophecy Today Weekend. As always, you can listen live on Saturday at 1 PM on 104.9 FM or 550 AM, or by using the Jacksonville Way Radio app. And if you miss it, you can download the podcast here.

He Or She Who Is Given Power Will Use It

/in , , , , , , /by

Is this the week that the First Amendment died? 

Blaze Journalist, Steve Baker, reporting the truth backed up with photos was arrested for reporting on J6.  Soon we will find out that their was no insurrection and the regime had a hand in sponsoring J6. We regime has too much power and now they control MSM.  Do not believe anything they say. They are looking to make an example of J6.  They want us to know that if we report the truth, we could wind up in Jail. I will not comply. I will not be silent. I will not go quietly.

As the election cycle rolls around it is up to us to decide who we will give power to.

According to “Rothbard’s Law,” namely that he who is given power will use it.

Once you give power it is difficult – not impossible to change that decision.   I wonder if the people in NY have learned that lesson yet.  It sees as though their “GET TRUMP,” Affirmative Action Graduate, Soros funded AG, Letitia James is going to make sure that every business in NY leaves. As Kevin O’Leary said, “No Business in NY is safe any more.”

Does James know that she is throwing out the goose and once gone there will be no more golden eggs or does she even care? Soros-Funded New York AG Targets World’s Top Beef Producer Over “Environmental Impact”:

New York Attorney General Letitia James on February 28th, 2024 filed a lawsuit against JBS USA Food Company and JBS USA Food Company Holdings (JBS USA), the American subsidiary of the world’s largest producer of beef products, for misleading the public about its environmental impact. JBS USA has claimed that it will achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, despite documented plans to increase production, and therefore increase its carbon footprint.

Personally, I believe that they are so drunk with power that consequences don’t matter. After all there is always Uncle Sam or Uncle George to bail them out. Of course both DA Fani Willis and James think they are above the law. There are no consequences for their actions.  While Fani was using taxpayer funds, Letitia was using campaign funds to support their lavish lifestyle.   James misuses campaign funds.

They both thought no one could touch them and for too long they were right. Driven like they are after listening to them talk about Trump I could see the evil streak of envy and jealousy ooze out of their every word. This is what Affirmative Action and CRT teaches.  I do believe however, that the truth will prevail and these scam trials will be seen for what they are and Corrupt Fani, Corrupt Letitia  eventually will fail.

I just said that they are Affirmative Action and CRT graduates but what does that mean? Affirmative Action and CRT are rooted in Globalism which is just the latest variation of socialism where the state (government) is all powerful. The people will own nothing. Everything will be given to you by the state. You must behave and spew the latest narrative to survive or if you speak in opposition, you lose.

Everything is connected. Nothing is random, Everything is run by the same people. Everything has a plan. All plans are lies. All Globalists want is MONEY, POWER, CONTROL They will never stop taking your stuff.

We must protect our local communities. Make sure your sheriff understands the constitution. Check all grants for loopholes.  Check and monitor legislation and rules that demand:

  1. The state has ultimate power over all local events
  2. The employees are DIE compliant not the best and brightest, You don’t need those that click a box in order to fill the position. As you can see corrupt Willis and James just clicked the right DIE box.  They are obedient and just follow orders.
  3. Prohibit you from getting on your planning and zoning boards. You don’t need to hire a “central planner ‘ or a “sustainability planner” from out of town to become your town planner. Remember they were trained to eliminate private property.
  4. Laws that inhibit “free speech”.  Your town does not need hate speech enforcers or censors.
  5. Eliminate or limit your time public meetings.  Always be courteous, never lose your temper but demand your time and issue be heard.

Remember, they lie about everything so it is important for you to always reference the facts. Always ask how much this will cost and who is paying for it? Conduct oversight where ever and whenever possible. Then contact your 5. Share the information.

I just gave you 2 examples of how Affirmative Action has destroyed the legal system. Our guests today will tell you how Affirmative Action has destroyed the medical and educational profession. Just because your state might have a law against Affirmative Action does not mean that the law is being followed. That part is up to us.

Remember: 

All Globalists want is Money Control and Power. They can only get Power if we give it to them. Don’t give them yours.

Challenge them with the truth.

Doing Nothing is affirmation.

Please say a prayer for all those families were ruined at the hands of this globalist regime.

©2024. Karen Schoen, All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: FBI Orders Blaze Reporter Steve Baker to Turn Himself In with Breanna Morello – OAN

POST ON X:

Prism of America’s Education Show Link: https://www.americaoutloud.news/the-prism-of-americas-education/

More Money for a Woke Pentagon? ‘No Sir, Not This Time. We’re Not Falling for That’: Senator

/in , , , , , , , /by

Hill leaders may have escaped another shutdown showdown, but there’ll be plenty of heavy-lifting when Congress comes back into session next week. It hasn’t been easy, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said, “trying to turn the aircraft carrier back to real budgeting and spending reform.” His analogy for getting back to real appropriations work was an interesting one, since Republicans seem to swing an ax at every budget but one: Defense. And maybe, one senator says, it’s time to rethink that.

The party of frugality has always had one big exception. No matter how deep America’s debt, Republicans have never minded funneling money to the military — and, in most cases, argued for more. With Gaza in flames, Russia on the move, and China ready to take over the world, beefing up our national security seems reasonable. But is that what this money is actually doing? Or are Republicans making billions of dollars sacrosanct without proof that our military is actually becoming stronger and more prepared because of it?

Right now, the U.S. Army is at its smallest size since 1940 — and getting smaller. Just this week, leaders announced a 24,000-person cut, because too many jobs remain empty. They’ve tried dropping standards — letting soldiers enlist without a high school degree in some branches, allowing retired officers to return, even telling men and women they can show up to boot camp with marijuana in their system. And still, the military is 41,000 recruits short — with no end to the struggles in sight.

Worse, the Pentagon we do have is falling woefully short of expectations. In last month’s edition of the Index of U.S. Military Strength, The Heritage Foundation rated America’s military as “weak” and “at significant risk of not being able to meet the demands of a single major regional conflict.” It was the second year in a row they’d earned such a dismal ranking. More specifically, they categorized the branches this way: Army: marginal; Navy: weak; Air Force: very weak; Marine Corps: strong; Space Force: marginal; and nuclear capabilities: marginal.

We’re spending more, but not smarter, Heritage’s Wilson Beaver warns. China, on the other hand, has become such a sophisticated force that their “increased capabilities” have put the U.S. on notice, raising questions about whether we could even counter a challenge from the communist regime.

Now, in this race to pass appropriations bills (one of which is Defense), Republicans have been fighting to protect their golden calf from cuts, which is a scenario Congress faces if it doesn’t pass all of its bills by April 30. But as Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) pointed out, would slashing part of the Pentagon’s budget be such a horrible thing? We’re throwing billions of dollars at the military, he pointed out, “and how’s that working out for us?” We can’t recruit, our readiness is negligible, and our leadership is more focused on pronouns than warfare.

Republicans have been “saluting the military industrial complex at every turn and saying year after year, ‘Well, I don’t want to spend this much, and we ought to be able to have some sort of policy win here. We’re not getting that. But, gosh, the troops and the Pentagon demand it. They’ve got more weapons to buy. We’ve got to give them whatever they want.’ And they rope-a-dope us into giving them whatever we want,” Lee vented to Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on “Washington Watch” Wednesday. “That is why we’re $34 trillion in debt.”

“That,” Lee went on, “is giving money to a Pentagon that is woke. It’s more focused on being politically correct than it is on actually protecting American national security. That, Tony, is giving hard-earned American taxpayer dollars to America’s enemies or those determined to assist America’s enemies,” he said with intensity. “We shouldn’t be facilitating any of that. Not with this administration, not with this Department of Defense, not with Secretary Lloyd Austin, who has betrayed the American people in so many ways. No, sir. Not this time. We’re not following. We’re not falling for that, and neither should any Republican.”

This is a problem, Lt. Colonel (Ret.) Robert Maginnis reminds people, that didn’t happen overnight. This “radical social engineering tainting the Pentagon,” he told The Washington Stand, “arguably began with Bill Clinton, continued under Barack Obama, and now is accelerated under Joe Biden.” Ultimately, the FRC senior fellow for National Defense, said, “This robs our ranks of readiness, wastes funding, and creates a recruiting shortfall by stiff-arming the traditional conservatives that would otherwise fill our ranks.”

Lee is right about the waste, fraud, and abuse, Maginnis agrees. The DOD “doesn’t know how it spends the taxpayer dollars.” And unfortunately, “the problem is … complicated because we face a phalanx of real adversaries equipped with very sophisticated weapons and platforms. We are trying to keep pace, which is incredibly expensive: space race, hypersonics, quantum computer, AI, drones and much, much more.”

The only way to fix this “is to divorce our Defense establishment from the radical political agendas and then focus like a laser on true national security.” That will be expensive, he conceded, “however, it can be done more efficiently, and we ought to cut out the nonsense like DEI training, wasteful investments, and much more.”

Until the president and his team gets “serious enough about our challenges and finding savings for the taxpayer,” Maginnis said, nothing will change. This spending debate is the Republican Party’s opportunity, Perkins insisted. “This is the moment to force them to choose between their woke DEI policies and actually doing what their mission calls for.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.