Posts

Of Workers and Wealth

Pope Leo XIII: Whether we have wealth or lack it makes no difference. What matters is to justly use what we have, especially if we are rich.


The great mistake made in regard to the matter now under consideration is to take up with the notion that class is naturally hostile to class, and that the wealthy and the working men are intended by nature to live in mutual conflict. So irrational and so false is this view that the direct contrary is the truth.

Just as the symmetry of the human frame is the result of the suitable arrangement of the different parts of the body, so in a State is it ordained by nature that these two classes should dwell in harmony and agreement, so as to maintain the balance of the body politic. Each needs the other: capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital. Mutual agreement results in the beauty of good order, while perpetual conflict necessarily produces confusion and savage barbarity.

Now, in preventing such strife as this, and in uprooting it, the efficacy of Christian institutions is marvellous and manifold. First of all, there is no intermediary more powerful than religion (whereof the Church is the interpreter and guardian) in drawing the rich and the working class together, by reminding each of its duties to the other, and especially of the obligations of justice.

Of these duties, the following bind the proletarian and the worker: fully and faithfully to perform the work which has been freely and equitably agreed upon; never to injure the property, nor to outrage the person, of an employer; never to resort to violence in defending their own cause, nor to engage in riot or disorder; and to have nothing to do with men of evil principles, who work upon the people with artful promises of great results, and excite foolish hopes which usually end in useless regrets and grievous loss.

The following duties bind the wealthy owner and the employer: not to look upon their work people as their bondsmen, but to respect in every man his dignity as a person ennobled by Christian character. They are reminded that, according to natural reason and Christian philosophy, working for gain is creditable, not shameful, to a man, since it enables him to earn an honorable livelihood; but to misuse men as though they were things in the pursuit of gain, or to value them solely for their physical powers – that is truly shameful and inhuman.

Again justice demands that, in dealing with the working man, religion and the good of his soul must be kept in mind. Hence, the employer is bound to see that the worker has time for his religious duties; that he be not exposed to corrupting influences and dangerous occasions; and that he be not led away to neglect his home and family, or to squander his earnings.

Furthermore, the employer must never tax his work people beyond their strength, or employ them in work unsuited to their sex and age. His great and principal duty is to give every one what is just. Doubtless, before deciding whether wages are fair, many things have to be considered; but wealthy owners and all masters of labor should be mindful of this – that to exercise pressure upon the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain, and to gather one’s profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine.

To defraud any one of wages that are his due is a great crime which cries to the avenging anger of Heaven. “Behold, the hire of the laborers. . .which by fraud has been kept back by you, crieth; and the cry of them hath entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.”

Lastly, the rich must religiously refrain from cutting down the workmen’s earnings, whether by force, by fraud, or by usurious dealing; and with all the greater reason because the laboring man is, as a rule, weak and unprotected, and because his slender means should in proportion to their scantiness be accounted sacred. Were these precepts carefully obeyed and followed out, would they not be sufficient of themselves to keep under all strife and all its causes?

But the Church, with Jesus Christ as her Master and Guide, aims higher still. She lays down precepts yet more perfect, and tries to bind class to class in friendliness and good feeling. The things of earth cannot be understood or valued aright without taking into consideration the life to come, the life that will know no death.

Exclude the idea of futurity, and forthwith the very notion of what is good and right would perish; nay, the whole scheme of the universe would become a dark and unfathomable mystery.

The great truth which we learn from nature herself is also the grand Christian dogma on which religion rests as on its foundation – that, when we have given up this present life, then shall we really begin to live. God has not created us for the perishable and transitory things of earth, but for things heavenly and everlasting; He has given us this world as a place of exile, and not as our abiding place.

As for riches and the other things which men call good and desirable, whether we have them in abundance, or are lacking in them-so far as eternal happiness is concerned – it makes no difference; the only important thing is to use them aright. . . .

Therefore, those whom fortune favors are warned that riches do not bring freedom from sorrow and are of no avail for eternal happiness, but rather are obstacles; that the rich should tremble at the threatenings of Jesus Christ – threatenings so unwonted in the mouth of our Lord – and that a most strict account must be given to the Supreme Judge for all we possess.

– from Rerum Novarum (1891)

Liberals’ Holy War on Christian Orthodoxy

When Sen. Dianne Feinstein told Amy Coney Barrett, who is now confirmed as a judge for the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and is a potential Supreme Court nominee, that “dogma lives loudly within” her and “that’s of concern,” she wasn’t voicing concern over the nominee’s religious orthodoxy as much as she was revealing her own.

After all, Catholicism, unlike progressivism, has never inhibited anyone from faithfully executing her constitutional duties—which the judge has done with far more conviction than Feinstein. Maybe Barrett should have been asking the questions.

Recently, by unanimous consent, the Senate approved a Ben Sasse resolution that declares that it is unconstitutional to reject nominees because of their membership to the Knights of Columbus. This move was instigated by a similar incident, when Democratic Sens. Kamala Harris and Mazie Hirono criticized President Donald Trump’s nominee for the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, Brian Buescher, for being a bit too Catholic for their liking.

The Knights of Columbus, a benevolent society that still clings to antiquated notions about the dignity of human life—from the very beginning to the very end—doesn’t exactly adhere to the new progressive moral canon.

Unlike many friends on the right, I’m less offended by questions regarding dogma and belief. It’s true that the Constitution explicitly states that a federal government officeholder or employee can’t be required to adhere to or accept any particular religion or doctrine as a prerequisite to holding a federal office or job. But it’s also true that the clause directly preceding that clause requires every federal and state official to take an oath to support the Constitution.

Rejecting someone over his faith alone is unquestionably a religious test. Merely asking a nominee whether her beliefs might stop her from fulfilling her constitutional duties is a relevant question.

For many liberals, though, the problem is that the beliefs of many Catholics and other adherents of various Christian theologies—or, for that matter, Jewish ones, as well—are increasingly undermining progressive ideals, not constitutional ones.

As Beto O’Rourke might ask, do the principles of the Constitution “still work”? When it comes to religious freedom, they most certainly do not. It’s progressive dogma that led a Harvard-educated Washington Post editor to incredulously ask how traditional Christian schools can even “happen” in contemporary American society.

She was questioning not merely whether second lady Karen Pence is right or wrong to teach at a Christian school—after all, Americans are free to be critical of people’s faith—but how a school that adheres to the teachings of a church that counter progressive dogma can exist at all.

This is the same progressive moral dogma that justifies yearslong attacks on the livelihood of Christian bakers and florists. It’s the same dogma that justifies coercing nuns to pay for the rite of birth control. If one doesn’t adhere to these commandments, the state, the most powerful institution in the world, will sue them into submission.

In this regard, liberals also like to claim that those who do allow traditional faith to inform their political views are somehow undermining a tenet of American life. (Well, as long as that traditional faith can’t be utilized for left-wing agenda items, such as immigration and socialized health care.)

As it goes, some of us, even nonbelievers, prefer the teachings of Jesus to those of Marx—which, in the non-celestial world, means free will over coercion. Whatever the case, our backgrounds and beliefs always color our opinions.

The Democratic presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard, an apostate on this issue, recently argued in an op-ed that if the Knights of Columbus are a disqualifying group, “then President John F. Kennedy, and the ‘liberal lion of the Senate’ Ted Kennedy would have been ‘unqualified’ for the same reasons.”

Well, not exactly the same reason. The anti-Catholicism of the past was predicated on an aversion to new immigrants, conspiracies about the pope, and a general long-standing theological distrust among religious denominations.

In the political arena today, only the latter of those reasons is in play, and the denomination isn’t Protestant. The “liberal lion of the Senate” wouldn’t be disqualified by today’s standards, because in public life, at least, he was a doctrinal liberal.

“There are many people on the left who act like every political fight is going to bring about heaven or hell on earth—and so there are a lot of folks for whom politics is a religion,” Sasse said after his resolution passed.

Progressives are the most zealous moralists. And these lines of questioning from Democrats, increasingly prevalent in political discourse, are an attempt to create the impression that faithful Christians, whose beliefs are at odds with newly sanctified cultural mores, are incapable of doing their jobs.

Sasse is right. Political bellum sacrum is here. We’re just not looking at the right people.

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of David Harsanyi

David Harsanyi

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and the author of the forthcoming “First Freedom: A Ride through America’s Enduring History With the Gun, From the Revolution to Today.” Twitter: @davidharsanyi.

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

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with images is republished with permission. The featured image of Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) is her from Facebook page.

GAY IS ANTI-LIFE: They’ll even kill to commit sodomy.

TRANSCRIPT

Exactly 46 years ago today — to the day — the U.S. Supreme Court authorized the mass extinction of tens of millions of pre-born children — cloaking the genocide in a made up out of thin air, alleged right to privacy.

That right to privacy then went on to hatch even more destruction — against the family, natural law and so forth. One of the big issues it gave birth to was, again, a never before heard of right to sodomite marriage.

Well, those two issues linked arms and joined forces a few days ago in a “Catholic” setting as two homosexual men stood in front of a parish just before Sunday Mass with their little boy Cohen and presented a syrupy presentation about just how normal they are and how completely ordinary their situation is.

More to the point: They waxed on about how the parish was so welcoming and accepting and how wonderful all the people in it were. They were inspired to start going there regularly because on an earlier trip, they had seen a lesbian couple bringing up the gifts and being warmly accepted.

At the end of their seven-minute presentation — rife with heresy — they received a standing ovation from the warm, friendly, accepting parishioners who just ate it all up.

The normalization of not just homosexuality anymore in Catholic parishes, but now on top of it, the accompanying child abuse that occurs when a child is “born” of a sodomite pairing — yes, we said, “Born.” Because this child was not adopted. The little boy, Cohen, is a product of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and a woman whose womb the homosexuals rented because natural law prevents them from having sex, conceiving, bearing and giving birth.

So they used every technological ability at their disposal to simply skirt all Church teaching further and bring a new life into the world, willfully depriving that boy of his God-given right to a mommy.

And the pastor allowed this. And the crowd went wild. And the bishop, well, he did issue a statement expressing his displeasure and said he would be meeting to “discuss the situation” after he gets back from the March for Life events in D.C.

The diocese is the archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, the parish is St. Joan of Arc and the bishop is Archbishop Bernard Hebda.

The two clerical clowns who run the parish are the pastor, Fr. Jim DeBruycker, and the parochial vicar, Fr. James Cassidy — you wouldn’t even know they are priests.

These men allow this evil to take place — in fact, they encourage it. Every Sunday, whatever wild-eyed modernist who wants to ramble on about gay this or that, immigration, trans this or that, climate change is invited to get up and speak for a few minutes on just how Catholic their immorality is — how central to their faith.

For example, the gay lovers told the fawning audience — and at this point, that’s all this parish is: an audience — that it was good for Cohen to have to fathers.

They also simply passed right over the horror of IVF — again speaking of it in purely ordinary terms. And this is where the gay, anti-life crowd finds its footing.

Surely, these two sodomites posing as actual Catholics must know that the IVF method automatically results in the death of many other children as part of the process.

Various eggs (where did two men get female eggs?) are all fertilized, allowed to grow for a period and then the ones determined to be best suited to come to full term are then implanted — in this case in a rented womb.

The others — meaning the other humans — they are “discarded,” a short little euphemism for killed. If, as is pretty routine, more than one tiny human was implanted in the rent-a-womb surrogate, at some point, “selection” is made again and the “leftovers” are killed in utero.

This is malevolent. Are the two homo “dads” going to tell little Cohen that in order for him to come into existence, they had to kill off some brothers and sisters of him, because since all they can do is sodomize each other, they had to resort to science?

Are they going to tell him that they actively chose to deny him a mommy because, in the end, all they cared about was trying to make their sodomy look normal?

But perhaps most pressing: Is Archbishop Hebda going to move to laicize the clergy that promote this horror, and is he going to disband that parish — which doesn’t even call itself a parish — it’s a “community.”

Hebda did not necessarily cause this issue, at least not at this parish, but he is certainly responsible now for stopping it dead in its tracks.

If that parish is still around, if those priests are still around at the end of the month, that will tell you everything you need to know about Archbishop Hebda.

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

The Answer To Our Nation’s Ailments Is So Easy To See.

This week has witnessed the destructive and sinister actions of two deranged and evil men who sought to sow havoc and hatred upon others.  The first, of course, was the attempted (or feigned) mail bombings by an unstable individual in Miami targeting prominent Democrats.  The second is the vicious, senseless, and horrible mauling of Jews assembled within their own synagogue in Pittsburgh for the purposes of prayer, fellowship, and worship.  Obviously, neither of these events is in any way tolerable in a Republic or in American society.   And although there is, I expect, complete unanimity on this matter, the consensus breaks down with the attempt at identifying the root cause of our malady.

Many explanations can be posited for the deterioration in the interactions between Americans we have recently witnessed.  Some blame the faster-paced society in which we live.  Others discuss video games and television violence.  Still others suggest that the issue lies in the vitriol with which politicians and reporters alike engage the public and each other.  And of course, the deceitful opportunists will go further and place the blame squarely on the President of the United States.

In reality, the problem is much more elemental than this and vastly more ominous.  What we are witnessing is, quite simply, the latest manifestation of the eternal battle of good against evil where evil is winning.

The devastating consequences of a society’s abandonment of God have played out on numerous occasions.  God’s destruction of His creation in response to widespread corruption, the Jews’ struggles with their own moral frailties as they trekked across the desert in search of the Promised Land, the destruction of Sodom due to its wretchedness even before Lot’s escape, Israel’s suffering brought about by David’s moral indiscretion are but a few examples of the inverse relationship between destruction and famine and closeness to God.

But the association is not merely a physical one. Patrick Henry was correct when he wrote that religion “hath a natural tendency to correct the morals of men, restrain their vices, and preserve the peace of society.”  It was an insight shared by Congress in its creation of the Northwest Ordinance prompting it to include the words in Article 3 of its charter, “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

Unfortunately, the agenda-driven courts bent on sealing any porousness in the wall of separation between church and state described by Thomas Jefferson, abandoned those fundamental concepts.  And the results, similar to the countless examples painted for us in the Bible, have been nothing short of cataclysmic.  In the same time since the courts stripped our schools of prayer, the United States has seen the dissolution of its relationship to God, a deterioration in the collective faith of its citizens, and an acceleration in the hostility, hatred, and overall mayhem taking place within its borders.

Make no mistake about it, what we are witnessing is no less a complete destruction of a society than the evaporation of Sodom.  Only this time the destruction is much more foundational than a physical one.  We are witnessing the destruction of a nation’s soul, and those pointing to Donald Trump, or the Republicans, or social media, or anything short of our devolving devotion to God is losing sight of the real culprit.  The culprit is evil itself, and the only path to salvation lies in following the mandates of a Judeo-Christian God.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. It is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Edward Cisneros on Unsplash.

Breaking News from Harvard: Faith is Good for You

The Bible tells us that there is nothing new under the sun (Ecc. 1:9). So often what passes for “news” is really nothing more than a refresher. A case in point is a new study from published this month in the American Journal of Epidemiology about the link between religious upbringing and subsequent health and well-being.

One not-so-surprising finding of the study, which was done by Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, is that, “Compared with no attendance, at least weekly attendance of religious services was associated with greater life satisfaction and positive affect, a number of character strengths, lower probabilities of marijuana use and early sexual initiation, and fewer lifetime sexual partners.” Additionally, among the studies’ participants:

“Compared with never praying or meditating, at least daily practice was associated with greater positive affect, emotional processing, and emotional expression; greater volunteering, greater sense of mission, and more forgiveness; lower likelihoods of drug use, early sexual initiation, STIs, and abnormal Pap test results; and fewer lifetime sexual partners.”

These findings aren’t a surprise to us here at FRC. For years, we’ve seen this in practice, and in data like those published by our friend Pat Fagan at the Marriage and Religion Research Institute. It is a demonstrable fact that when faith is allowed to flourish, good outcomes are in store for society at large.

The study’s author observes,

“These findings are important for both our understanding of health and our understanding of parenting practices. Many children are raised religiously, and our study shows that this can powerfully affect their health behaviors, mental health, and overall happiness and well-being.”

Of course, we know that “faith” in a generic sense doesn’t always guarantee a comfortable outcome, but an abiding faith in Jesus Christ can anchor a person’s soul for whatever he or she may face in life. A study like this won’t necessarily cause people to embrace faith, but it does show that a society in which religious liberty thrives will be a healthier society. And any government that wants to promote the well-being of its people should give ample space for people to have the freedom to believe and to live out those beliefs.


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

Deplorables, Irredeemables, and the Dregs of Society

Kavanaugh Allegations: Aimed at Justice or at a Justice?

FRC in the Media

Muslims at the Hajj are worried about Donald Trump and his policies

…..but, not a word about the responsibility of Muslims to rein-in their terrorist element.

Screenshot (808)

These Hajj Muslims seem to think our concern about Muslim migration is completely lacking in any rational calculation. Don’t miss Raheem Kassam’s good report on Islamic terrorism attacks in ‘welcoming’ Europe and how more Americans need to wake up.  …And, here they are in Saudi Arabia which will never let them stay and become citizens of that Muslim country!

Victims, always victims!

Reuters:

MECCA/RIYADH (Reuters) – Even at Islam’s holiest sites and during the most sacred time of year for Muslims, some people cannot stop talking about Donald Trump.

Among one group of American, Canadian and British pilgrims in Mecca this week for the annual haj, the U.S. president and policies they say target Muslims and immigrants are a regular conversation topic.

“People are irritated, angry, somber, a little bit worried,” said Yasir Qadhi, an Islamic scholar who traveled from Tennessee for his fourteenth pilgrimage.

Haj

“No one that I know is happy at the current circumstances or the current administration. No one, not a single person in this entire gathering.”

As a candidate, Trump proposed barring Muslims from entering the United States. In office, he ordered temporary bans on people from several Muslim-majority countries, which have been blocked by courts that ruled they were discriminatory.

His administration has denied any intention of religious discrimination in the travel ban, saying it is intended purely as a national security measure.

But sharp rhetoric about the threat posed by “radical Islam” which was a central part of his campaign has also drawn accusations he risks alienating more than three million Americans who practise Islam peacefully. [So where are the peaceful Muslims standing up at the Haj to to speak against and discourage the violent ones?—ed]

Many American Muslims say his stance has fueled an atmosphere in which some may feel they can voice prejudices or attack Muslims without fear of retribution.

‘STOP ATTACKING ISLAM’

Reuters apparently didn’t find anyone to speak up against their own terrorist element, but they found this guy!

Baha al-Deen, a pilgrim from ex-Soviet Georgia, said any labeling of Muslims as terrorists should stop.

“God gave us minds and tongues so we can understand each other and talk about our problems,” he said. “Otherwise we will fight like animals.”

Oh, that is going to inspire communication—NOT!

More here.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Trump Administration has kept refugee flow relatively low, but real test coming

Here is what the ‘Refugee Act of 1980’ says the President and Congress must do right now…

New Charleston, WV refugee resettlement office will not open

What about America’s own refugees!

Wailing Wall of the West

Temple Mount psychodrama

Act 1 July 14th: three Arab Israelis pick up weapons previously stored by an accomplice in the al Aqsa mosque on the Temple Mount and gun down two Israeli Druze policemen. Being courageous jihadis, they shoot the policemen in the back. Israeli authorities step in where the Waqf, guardians of the mosques, had failed to exercise due diligence. They bar entry to the Temple Mount, gather evidence, install metal detectors to prevent further killing-this type of crime often comes in waves-and  then reopen the Temple Mount. This normal exercise of Israeli sovereignty provokes violence in Jerusalem and recriminations from Western media onlookers that echo the war cry: Israel is not respecting the status quo. Prime Minister Netanyahu remarks that stashing weapons in the mosque is a violation of the status quo, but chronology loses its bearing whenever Islam is concerned. Steps taken to restore that status quo are presented by Western media and commentators as provocative measures that led naturally to rioting, murderous attacks, and diplomatic aggression.

Thousands of Muslims prostrate themselves outside the gates, defiantly refusing to pass through the metal detectors. In between prayer sessions they unleash their fury on law enforcement, throwing firebombs, firecrackers, allahu akhbars, and threats of extermination. The genocidal war cry khaybar khaybar ya yahud, jaish muhammad sawfa ya’ud! ricochets in the steep narrow lanes of Jerusalem’s old city. We know that tune. It was on the hit parade in the summer of 2014 when our local jihadis stomped through the streets of Paris bellowing khaybar khaybar (“Remember Khaybar [dirty] Jews, Mohamed’s army is coming [to exterminate you] again.”) [cf Poller, The Black Flag of Jihad Stalks la République]

Act 2: our French media, undoubtedly guided and fed by Agence France Presse, report fulminatingly on the distress caused to Muslim worshippers by the installation of metal detectors at entries to l’esplanade des mosquées [mosque compound]. Commentators, never at a loss for words, lock into default position: The problem is the colonies. The problem is far and further right wing Netanyahu, gobbling up Palestinian land, making peace impossible. The problem is, he won’t make a 2-state solution.

N.B. factual mistakes, careless mistakes, incomplete information and sloppy reporting of every sort are the hallmark of news makers. However, honest mistakes are random. Deliberately failing to mention that the two Israeli policemen were shot with weapons smuggled into the al Aqsa mosque on the Temple Mount is not sloppy reporting. It’s a lie.

The metal detectors become an arbitrary gesture of humiliation and, far worse, they’re one step away from the total destruction of the al Aqsa mosque. Yes, our ladies and gentlemen of respectable media automatically identify with the most bloodthirsty of the ranting raging rioters. They integrate the rage and the rationale. It’s so natural they don’t miss a step. Metal detectors, they’re tearing down the mosque, the Israelis have turned this into a religious war,au secours, help! What about the hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Israel and the disputed territories that are not chanting khaybar khaybar kill the Jews? Enlightened Muslims publish op-eds denouncing the counterproductive uprising fueled by Islamic extremists. Our opinion makers don’t seem to be aware of their existence. Seventeen years since the al Dura blood libel triggered an unending wave of atrocities, the sky is still falling, the mosque is in danger, and kill the Jews seems like a reasonable response to a few metal detectors.

Muhammad’s army strikes Halamish

Act 3: another brave warrior girds for battle. Dressed like an Orthodox Jew, white shirt, black trousers, kippa…and a butcher knife, he deftly climbs over the barrier (we don’t know exactly how), enters the Jewish neighborhood of Halamish, and knocks on the door of the first house he comes to. The Salomon family, gathered around the shabat table, is celebrating the birth of a grandchild hat very morning. They open the door, thinking the young man is the first of many guests that will come to share their joy of fruitfully multiplying, of new life and renewed generations. He pulls out the knife and slaughters the grandfather, his adult daughter and adult son. The grandmother is stabbed but survives. The daughter-in-law runs upstairs, takes refuge in a bedroom with her five children and, holding the door closed with all her might, calls for help. An off duty soldier next door comes out, sees what is happening, shoots the killer, ending his spree but not his life.

We learn subsequently that the soldier did not shoot twice because the wounded murderer fell next to   Yosef Salamon whose wife Tova had been the soldier’s kindergarten teacher.

Slash tag interlude: in nearby Amman, in the kingdom of Jordan, holy seat of the negligent Waqf, a young man delivering furniture to a residence in the Israeli embassy compound deliberately (or mistakenly…taking him for a piece of wood) stabs the security guard in the back with a screwdriver. The security guard shoots him dead. The owner of the building who had accompanied the delivery boy-reportedly the son of the furniture store owner-is apparently stuck dead by a stray bullet. So, of course, the royal Jordanian kingdom refuses to allow the security guard and other embassy personnel to leave his realm. Sticklers for international law, ready to set the world on fire if the status quo on their third holiest site is not respected, the Jordanians don’t only insist on the right to let Muslims store weapons in the mosque, they also trample diplomatic protocol like it was an Israeli flag at the feet of raging allahu akhbars. And of course they are raging all around the Israeli embassy.

The voice of reason strikes again

Act 4: A closed door emergency session of the UNSC is convened at the request of France, Sweden, and Egypt-three nations internationally known for their expertise in preventing jihad attacks and other subversive actions. The voices of reason prevail. What do they say? From this day forward, visitors to the Temple Mount will wear electronic bracelets, as do pilgrims to Mecca? Or perhaps, ceasefire first, negotiations afterward? Pull back your mob from the gates, apologize for allowing killers to store weapons in the Al Aqsa mosque, and then we can talk. The president of the United States brings the full force of his power to bear? True, the American embassy has not made one step off the Tel Aviv beachfront on its way to Jerusalem but never mind. The time has come to apply the directives outlined in President Trump’s May 22nd speech to sheiks, princes, kings and prime ministers assembled in Riyadh. What was the theme again? Oh yes, to fight terrorism.

Hah! The voices of reason prevailed. Israeli police under cover of the night dismantled the offensive metal detectors. An international sigh of relief and a friendly pat on the back to the Israelis for these tension- reducing measures. The liberated embassy staff comes home from Jordan. Smiles and thanks to the American president’s men, Greenblatt, Freeman, and Kushner without whom, it is publicly said, the metal detectors would not have come down and the embassy staff would not have come home and the tensions would not have been reduced.

Which is why the Temple Mount temper tantrum kept going strong. The high tech surveillance cameras had to come down too, but that didn’t prevent the war drums of street prayers interlaced with wild mob action to persist and grow with promises of another day of rage on Friday the 28th. The ummah was beside itself. Worldwide. An imam in Davis California, caught by MEMRI giving a classical exterminate-the-Jews sermon complete with the rock & tree surah protests his innocence: he was only referring to the Jews that prevent Muslims from praying at the al Aqsa mosque.

A day of rage is circled on the calendar when the mufti, the imam, Mahmoud Abbas, and King Abdullah suddenly tell worshippers they can go back to pray in their mosque on the Temple Mount that they now call al Aqsa. Not just the mosque, the whole Temple Mount, jihadistically expropriated, with the help of the willing executioners of UNESCO. Rage mixes with joy as Muhmmad’s army celebrates its victory and our media headline Israel’s surrender. Conveniently forgetting that Muhammad’s army has already taken stabs at Notre Dame!

Compensating for the removal of every sort of low and high tech surveillance gadget, Jerusalem police chief Yoram Halevi stood upright and reaffirmed Israeli sovereignty in advance of Friday prayers. All will go well if everyone cooperates. Suspicious people will be searched as always. Worshippers will be admitted as usual. But anyone that tries to create trouble will be met with iron fisted force. There will be injuries there will be arrests. We are strong and we know what to do.

Commemoration of execution of a priest in a Normandy church

July 26, 2017, St. Etienne du Rouvray. People gathered from near and far to commemorate the slaughter of Père Hamel, a Catholic priest celebrating mass in a small, nearly empty church in Normandy. Two young men born in France of North African origin put together a shahid video, walked into the church, solemnly pronounced allegiance to Daesh, forced an elderly parishioner to film the exploit as they slit the throat of the 86 year-old priest, and then stabbed their videographer-slave, who survived. The jihad attack was the third in a morbid series that summer: 13 June, a young couple, both members of the police force, were savagely assassinated in front of their 3 year-old child at their home in Magnanville. 14 July, 84 civilians were killed and more than a hundred maimed by a jihadi at the wheel of a truck on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice. Not to mention 130 murdered by ambitious shahids in 2015, and scattered incidents before and since…

Here too the voices of reason speak out. At the high point in a moving tribute to the slaughtered priest, President Macron thanks Catholics for not giving in to hatred after this heinous crime. He thanks them, as if they had been two steps away from going on the rampage, stomping through the streets screaming annihilate the Muslims, torching mosques, beheading imams, raping women in hijab and ripping open pregnant Muslim bellies. We’ve been hearing this nonsense for 17 years. Our bewildered citizens are doing candle and flower ceremonies and hugging the nearest Muslim, anything to prove how much we love each other.

We don’t make bloodthirsty calls for revenge! The ones that go on the rampage are there in front of our eyes. They are verbally photoshopped into defenseless victims. And the voice of reason orders the targets of their genocidal hatred to stand down. Jihadis are fulfilling their sacred duty to punish, annihilate, convert. They clearly state their inspiration and objectives. But our political leaders and confused opinion-makers keep prettying it up with lace embroidery. They [the killers] want to turn us against each other, preaches the president, but we won’t do it, we’re stronger than ever in our vivre ensemble. The blood of the innocent flows through the byways of our societies and the smooth talkers warble in harmony-Muslims and Christians closer than ever after the horrifying murder of the beloved priest. Here’s the July 2016 photo of Salafists in front of the mosque that is actually connected by a door to the [other] St. Etienne du Rouvray church. The sign says “mosque in mourning.”2

Dhimmitude

This wailing wall of the West is dhimmitude. This deliberate concealment of Islamic acts and methods, this insane identification with the bloodthirsty, this constant exhortation to tie our own hands behind our backs, this vicious condemnation of Israel’s self-defense is dhimmitude  And it’s not just in France, not only European submission. I heard it wherever I went on a recent visit to the US. In North Carolina, in NY, in Boston, at a conference at Brandeis, always the same song, we should be better kinder more tolerant more aware of our faults and shortcomings more inclusive less judgmental… it’s dhimmitude. Bash me and I’ll weep for my sins. It’s not the media, the left, the stupid these and those, it’s jihad conquest. We’re being conquered and we don’t know it. It’s not just naked genocidal violence, it’s crass ignorance and dulled conscience. It’s cute conquest, an article bubbling with Muslim American patriotic appreciation of the American Eagle denim hijab, “as American as apple pie.”3 It’s the Islamic Center of Davis explaining that the imam only called for the annihilation of Jews that keep worshippers out of al Aqsa. And the Center has not been closed and shuttered.

It’s jihad conquest, dhimmitude, and vacancies at the highest levels of our democracies. At a joint press conference with Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, President Trump awkwardly read out a prepared text praising the Lebanese army that is “on the front lines in the combat against Daesh, Al Qaida, and Hezbollah.”  The statement included several lines about the evils of Hezbollah. Ha’aretz reports that Hariri respectfully corrected him: we’re fighting Daesh and A Qaida, yes, but not Hezbollah. They’re in the government. We have an understanding.” This rectification does not figure in the video posted by the U.S. government.4 Was it edited out? Or hidden in the untranslated questions and answers in Arabic?

Blood spattered wall

In the few short days since I started this text, a 26 year-old Palestinian born in the UAE stabbed a man to death in a Hamburg supermarket and wounded five. Like Kobili Traoré who savagely murdered Sarah Halimi, he is said to be psychologically fragile, and his motivations are not clear. At this stage of the investigation the flagged security risk doesn’t seem to “belong” to any terrorist “organization.” Like the Tunisian that crushed twelve people under his truck at a Christmas market in Berlin, this killer was awaiting deportation after rejection of his demand for asylum. The third European victim of a recent stabbing attack at an Egyptian resort died of her wounds. Two father-son couples suspected of preparing to bring down a plane have just been arrested in Australia. And Jordanian sources screaming for blood published the photo of the Israeli security guard that killed his assailant.

Metal detectors there, hamstrung bureaucracies here, and mentally disturbed allahu akhbars everywhere. But the Great Big International Al Aqsa Intifada did not occur. All things considered, who surrenders, and who stands his ground?

RELATED ARTICLE: “Palestinian” Muslim Who Slaughtered Israeli Family to Receive $3,120 Per Month Reward From Palestinian Authority

REFERENCES:

1. http://www.timesofisrael.com/jerusalem-police-chief-threatens-casualties-if-protests-continue/

2. The running account, originally published by ruthfully yours, is collated here:  http://www.newenglishreview.org/Nidra_Poller/Jihad_Attack_on_a_Little_French_Church/

3. http://nypost.com/2017/07/20/american-eagle-introduces-the-denim-hijab/

4.https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=trump+hariri+joint+declaration+to+press&view=detail&mid=C9F32D40CB9B26348C09C9F32D40CB9B26348C09&FORM=VIRE

Marquette University pays for faculty to attend ‘Overcoming Islamophobia’ workshop

It also “will offer a graduate credit for attendees that also submit a written assignment.”

When will Marquette pay faculty to attend a workshop about the ideological and theological roots of jihad terrorism? Why, that would be inconceivable. And so would any honest discussion of the jihad terror threat at Marquette or most, if not all, other universities in the U.S. today, especially Catholic universities. They are radioactive centers of hard-Left indoctrination, not institutions of higher learning in any genuine sense.

The real “Islamophobia” industry, the one dedicated to fooling people into thinking that “Islamophobia” is a genuine problem, operates by deliberately conflating two quite distinct phenomena: vigilante attacks against innocent Muslims, which are rare but never justified under any circumstances, and honest examination of the motivating ideology of jihad terrorists. By lumping the two together, “Islamophobia” victimhood propagandists hope to inhibit all examination of the jihad doctrine, and to demonize and marginalize all those who engage in such examination.

“University Offers To Pay For Faculty Attending ‘Overcoming Islamophobia’ Workshop,” by Rob Shimshock, Daily Caller, July 17, 2017 (thanks to Tom):

A Wisconsin university announced Monday that it will cover costs for its faculty to attend an anti-Islamophobia workshop, and will offer a graduate credit for attendees that also submit a written assignment.

Marquette University will pay the $30 registration fee for faculty that choose to attend “Overcoming Islamophobia: Creating a Positive Classroom Culture,” hosted at Alverno College in August. The fee will also cover lunch at the Islamic Society of Milwaukee.

The event is co-sponsored by the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Alverno College, the Milwaukee Muslim Women’s Coalition and the Islamic Society of Milwaukee. Marquette University will grant attendees that submit a written assignment pertaining to Islamophobia an Alverno graduate credit….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim cop tells friends, not investigators, he was “startled” by unarmed woman he killed

Boston to hang 50 posters addressing public harassment, “Islamophobia” around city

Judicial Secularists Attack Religious Freedom

On June 7, the U.S. District Court of the Middle District of Florida dealt the latest blow to religious freedom in our country.

The case arose from a request by Cambridge Christian High School, which had earned the opportunity to compete in the 2A division playoffs finals, to use the stadium’s public announcement system in prayer prior to the beginning of the game. The team’s opponent was another Christian school equally devoted to serving God and to conducting itself in His image with every activity it undertakes.

Citing issues of potential coercion and fearing that such prayer might be offensive to others, Dr. Roger Dearing, the executive director of the Florida High School Athletic Association (FHSAA), declined the request.

Of course, in so doing, Dr. Dearing dismissed the fact that the same FHSAA had approved such a request in 2012. He also dismissed the national tradition of engaging in prayer prior to the start of a football game. And most astoundingly he ignored that both teams, meaning all parties involved, wished to engage in a unified prayer as one community under Christ.

Following the denial, Cambridge Christian brought the case to the judiciary for consideration. After all, they weren’t asking for the announcer to lead everyone in prayer. They weren’t asking for the FHSAA to buy new equipment. They weren’t even asking for the game to be delayed for one moment because, in point of fact, the two teams were going to pray on the field and in front of the fans anyway.

No. The only question they were asking was, “Hey, man, can I borrow your microphone?”

Court predictably quashed religious freedom

But almost predictably, the court ruled against religious freedom citing issues of perceived endorsement of religion by government and of the infringement praying might have on the rights of others (yes, this is not a misprint).

Every time I learn of a case like this, I am baffled at the extent to which the state squashes the public’s ability to pray in an open forum merely because of government’s presence. This catastrophic road upon which the Supreme Court of the United States has placed us suppresses our right to worship and to pay reverence to God — in direct violation of the original intent First Amendment.  It ignores the spiritual aspects of human existence, and most importantly, casts aside the foundational roles of religion and religious worship in our nation’s birth.

Repeatedly, I am told that the reason for following this road is the wall of separation between church and state espoused by Thomas Jefferson in his letter written on the first day of 1802 to the members of the Danbury Baptist Church.

But there is so much that runs counter to this assertion.

First, President Jefferson’s comment was completely extrajudicial in nature.

Second, the concept of a wall of separation between church and state has been tainted by the agenda-driven nature of the Supreme Court’s 20th-century opinions. Following the 19th-century Court’s introduction of Jefferson’s wall into the legal corpus, the first two 20th-century cases invoking it did so in an effort to keep the government from interfering with state-based, religious-supporting programs.

But in 1947, the Court changed direction to one that would inhibit, rather than support, religious worship. With its McCollum decision, the court prohibited Bible verses from being recited in public schools, and later, it struck down prayer in schools as well as the observance of even a bland and neutral moment of silence.

The subsequent deterioration in the nation’s moral posture and the breakdown in the family as a central societal unit are the predictable consequences of these actions.

An alternative route ensuring freedoms

But lost in these recitations is the overt bias the Court displayed in selecting Jefferson’s wall of separation in its interpretation of the First Amendment.

Let’s consider a few similarly applicable observations made by some of the nation’s foundational greats in equally extrajudicial fashion.  George Mason, in writing the Virginia Bill of Rights, wrote, “all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and. . . it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.” His proposed amendment was subsequently approved by the Virginia legislature, the same legislature Madison and Jefferson inhabited — a far greater weight of influence than one man’s personal letter.

Based on Mason’s language, would it not have been more appropriate for a 20th century court to hold that in interpreting the First Amendment we should recognize that our nation was created with the purpose of guaranteeing that all men be able to engage in Christian forbearance? If so, wouldn’t using a public microphone for spontaneously requested prayer be not only allowed, but encouraged?

Or how about using John Marshall, the most prolific justice in the history of the Supreme Court? When asked about the nexus of Christianity and the nation’s government, he wrote in a letter, just like Jefferson did, that, “The American population. . . is entirely Christian, and with us, Christianity and religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institution did not presuppose Christianity.”

Consequently, wouldn’t a more appropriate truism for the Supreme Court to follow in its interpretation of the First Amendment be that the United States of America, through its foundation and its culture, presupposes Christianity?

Or consider the observation made by Justice Joseph Story, one of the early members of the Supreme Court, who extra-judicially wrote, “My own private judgment has long been (and every day’s experience more and more confirms me in it) that government cannot long exist without an alliance with religion to some extent; and that Christianity is indispensable to the true interests and solid foundations of free government.”

From this, wouldn’t a more appropriate guide for the interpretation of the First Amendment be that Christianity is indispensable to the true interests, foundations, and existence of these United States of America?

Back the need for a legislative override

If any of these guides had been adopted instead of, or perhaps in addition to, Jefferson’s wall of separation, imagine how different American jurisprudence would be as it relates to religious liberty and our freedom to worship! Sharia law would be an impossible legal threat, and the concepts of love for one’s neighbor and respect for the dignity of man would be freely taught in our schools under the direct supervision of the community’s parents.

From this analysis a few conclusions may be reached.

First, there is no inherent reason for Jefferson’s wall of separation, at least as the courts apply it today, to be the only compass in interpreting the First Amendment of the Constitution. So long as all religious views are respected, the government can peacefully cohabitate with worshipers be they Christian, Jewish, or any peace-loving faith.

Second, neither the people of this great nation nor its elected representatives selected the road our nation has traversed regarding religious liberty. Instead, it was embraced by an oligarchy of legalists unaccountable to the will of the people.

Consequently, if it is true that the Courts have interpreted the Constitution in a manner inconsistent with the will of the people, then isn’t it up to We The People, as the true purveyors of the Constitution, to override an opinion of such a Court and reverse an ill-conceived opinion? We know, through their writings, that at least Jefferson and Madison would think so.

Truly, the road we are following regarding our religious freedom is nothing short of harrowing. It has diminished our sense of morality and has curtailed our abilities to teach our children that there are things bigger than themselves.

It is time for our country to navigate back to the road built upon Christian forbearance; the same road that would lead us to the shining city on the hill.

RELATED ARTICLE: 2 Cases Threaten to Shut Down Public Prayer. Why the Supreme Court May Need to Act.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Revolutionary Act.

Religious Protection Gone Wild

The First Amendment guarantees Americans the freedom of religion in the “establishment” clause:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Words matter, so the first question that must be answered is a matter of definition. What is religion?

The dictionary defines religion as:

  1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
  2. A particular system of faith and worship.
  3. A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes superhuman importance.

Dictionaries have been used for centuries to help codify the meaning of words in an attempt to make language useful. Without accepted specific meanings for words it is impossible to communicate through language effectively. Language is the common denominator of speech. Even biblical stories express the importance of the meaning of words as they are understood or misunderstood in any language. The most famous example is the biblical story of The Tower of Babel that begins with everyone on Earth speaking the same language and able to understand each other. Whether the scattering of people around the world was a punishment for hubris or not, the consequence was that people began speaking different languages and could no longer understand each other.

But what happens when people speaking the same language no longer understand each other because they interpret the meaning of the same words differently? That is the situation we are facing in contemporary American society today.

The second question that must be answered is a matter of interpretation. What does religion mean to you?

Thomas Jefferson wrote eloquently on the subject in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists who worried about their minority status in Connecticut. Jefferson was reassuring the Baptists that being a minority religion would not be a problem in a Protestant majority state as far as the federal government was concerned.

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”(Wikipedia)

Jefferson’s letter clearly indicates that for Jefferson, religion was a matter of Man and God. Jefferson’s interpretation was the widely accepted and understood view of religion in the early 18th century. By the 20th century the U.S. Supreme Court “incorporated” the Establishment Clause and expanded its application from the federal government to the state governments as well.

The practical application of the freedom of religion also requires a uniform understanding of the meaning and interpretation of the word religion. The Exercise Clause clarifies the supremacy of Constitutional laws and freedoms over religious laws and freedoms. This is particularly important in contemporary America because we are facing “religious” practices of Islam that threaten our Constitutional freedoms.

The Free Exercise Clause distinguishes between religions beliefs and religious practices. It is the equivalence of distinguishing between thinking and doing. In America an individual is free to think murderous thoughts but he is not free to murder. Islam is a religion governed by religious Sharia Law that endorses honor killings, female genital mutilation, murder of apostates, murder of homosexuals, wife beatings, child marriage and pedophilia. American jurisaprudence does not have the will or authority to change people’s beliefs whether they are citizens of the United States, guests in this country, here illegally, or citizens of other countries, but we most certainly have the right and legal obligation to disallow any and all practices in conflict with the U.S. Constitution and our cultural norms. Free Exercise Clause (Wikipedia)

“Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order.”[28] In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Supreme Court found that while laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions, laws can be made to regulate some religious practices (e.g., human sacrifices, and the Hindu practice of suttee). The Court stated that to rule otherwise, “would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government would exist only in name under such circumstances.”[29] In Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), the Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied the Free Exercise Clause to the states. While the right to have religious beliefs is absolute, the freedom to act on such beliefs is not absolute.

In Jefferson’s time as in Truman’s time the meaning of the word religion was understood as items 1 and 2:

  1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
  2. A particular system of faith and worship.

Seventy years later in 2017 we must reconsider the meaning of the word religion and ask the question What is Islam?

Islam is not a religion like Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, or Judaism. Islam is a unified supremacist socio-political system with a military wing and a religious wing. Islam is governed by religious sharia law. The goal of Islam since the 7th century is to make the world Islamic and impose sharia law worldwide.

Islam is tyrannical in its demand for conformity to its barbaric sharia laws. Islam is intolerant. Islam is a political force seeking world dominion and cannot be allowed religious protections like the Baptists in Connecticut during Jefferson’s times.

Islam is far more like the Nazis during Hitler’s time. Consider this question. What if Hitler declared Nazism to be a religion. It certainly qualifies as a religion according to Item 3. A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes superhuman importance.

If Adolph Hitler declared his Nazism a religion would the left-wing liberal apologists for Islam defend Nazism and its determination to rule the world and rid the Earth of every Jew? Would the lefty-wing liberals declare murder of Jews protected by religious freedom? How is this different from allowing Muslims to perpetrate honor killings, female genital mutilation, murder of apostates, murder of homosexuals, wife beatings, child marriage, and pedophilia.

There is no difference.

If, as apologists for Islamic barbarity claim, Islamists have perverted their religion – then it is also true that they have perverted our concept of religious freedom. Islam is not a religion like any other and its savage practices do not deserve protection under our religious freedom laws and the free exercise clause.

Major policy shift: Trump administration declares Jerusalem part of Israel

Major, and most welcome. Jerusalem belongs to Israel by the record of history, international law, and the right of conquest that is recognized for every other state in the world, but not for Israel. This is an extremely encouraging development; we can only hope there will be more to come.

“Trump Admin Declares Jerusalem Part of Israel in Major Policy Shift,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, May 22, 2017:

The Trump administration declared the president is in “Jerusalem, Israel,” on Monday for a series of meetings with Israeli officials, a proclamation that breaks with years of American policy refraining from stating that the city of Jerusalem is part of Israel.

Senior Trump administration officials had ignited a wave of controversy over the past several weeks when discussing Jerusalem, with some top officials refusing to say that the ancient city is part of Israel.

Decades of U.S. policy has refrained from formally labeling Jerusalem as part of Israel due to concerns this could negatively impact the Middle East peace process, in which Palestinian leaders have staked a claim to the city as their future capital.

Ahead of a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the White House, on its official website, provided a live stream of the event. Prior to its start, the White House included a frame stating, “President Trump gives remarks with Prime Minister Netanyahu.” The location provided was “Jerusalem, Israel.”

The statement appears to be part of an effort to normalize this language, which is widely backed by U.S. lawmakers and senior officials in the administration, sources said.

The State Department, which is disposed to address the issue with more caution, declined to comment on the latest declaration, instead referring a reporter to the White House. The White House did not provide comment on the matter by press time. Pro-Israel observers on Twitter and other social media immediately praised the declaration.

The Obama administration also faced its own controversies when dealing with the city. The former administration was caught altering official photographs to remove “Israel” as the location for several meetings. The effort roiled the pro-Israel community, but was in line with standing U.S. policy.

The Trump administration has faced its own struggles on the issue.

Candidate Trump vowed in multiple speeches on the campaign trail that he would move the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the country’s capital.

While U.S. law states that the embassy should be moved, consecutive presidents have waived the requirement, claiming that it interferes with efforts to advance Middle East peace.

Trump’s administration has taken heat from the pro-Israel community for failing thus far to take concrete action on moving the embassy. While White House officials maintain that the plan is still being examined, the slow roll of the move has angered Trump’s biggest pro-Israel supporters.

Trump administration officials also have issued a range of answers when pressed to explain whether they believe Jerusalem is part of Israel.

White House National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster last week would not tell reporters whether Israel’s holiest site, the Western Wall, is located in Israel proper.

The latest declaration on the issue by the Trump administration appears to show that the president is committed to affirming Israel’s sovereignty over the city and turning the page from years of chilly relations between the Israeli government and the United States under former President Barack Obama.

In joint remarks with Netanyahu, Trump emphasized his opposition to the landmark Iran nuclear deal, blaming the previous administration for inking a deal that has only emboldened the Islamic Republic….

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Abbas and Palestinian Authority Honor Terrorists Amid Trump Visit by IPT News

Trump Signals a Reset Between Israel and US

The Unapologetic American — Donald Trump brings a new message to the Middle East

UK: Several killed, many injured after two explosions in arena at Ariana Grande gig

Robert Spencer in PJ Media: Trump Moves U.S. Towards a Realistic Approach to Jihad Threat

Manchester Explosion: UK Has Been Targeted By Terrorists ‘Time and Time Again’

Why Should We Care?

When I broach the subject of Islam in a critical way most people are disinterested, or perhaps afraid to discuss it lest they be labeled as intolerant, or what is worse – an Islamaphobe. In spite of all the contrary historical evidence – past and present – we are repeatedly told that Islam is a peaceful religion. Muslim imams reach out to Christian clergy and seek “dialogue” and “understanding.” People commonly say that they know a Muslim family and they are nice people, courteous, good neighbors.

So, why should we care that America has 3,000 mosques and a rapidly growing Muslim population? Why rock the boat of ecumenical harmony and perhaps offend somebody?

With Ezekiel 33:1-6 as our reference point, let me explain why we should care. Islam divides the world into two groups: the House of Islam (ostensibly peaceful) and the House of War. The House of War comprises all societies not dominated by Islam. Islamic theology (sharia law) obligates every Muslim to use persuasion, legal means, emigration (called hijara by Muhammad) and frequently violent jihad to change a society to Islam.

European society is being changed today by means of sharia courts, no-go zones (non-Muslims not allowed), rapes, immigration and violence – all of which are foreshadowed in the bloody history of the political-religious ideology called Islam. By extrapolating current history and the high birth rate of Muslim families many scholars believe that Europe will be under Islamic control by 2050.

Fortunately most of the Muslims in our country are westernized, unorthodox Muslims who do not faithfully follow the more violent dictates of the Koran and the hadith (traditions of Muhammad).

Why should we care?

Of course we don’t want our country to experience what is happening in Europe, but the main reason we should care is that God cares and “desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4). At 1.6 billion Muslims are the largest unreached people group on earth. They walk in darkness, deceit, and destruction with no knowledge of a gracious, forgiving God who seeks to have a personal relationship with them.

Their god, Allah, is a slave master who hates sinners and all non-Muslims. Our God is a personal friend, brother, Father who loves the sinner and calls him into an eternal friendship culminating in heaven.

We should not fear Muslims or avoid the challenge of sharing God’s love. Most Muslims do not practice orthodox Islam and are not terrorists. But they are blind to the grace and love of the true God.

Surely you would help a blind person cross a busy intersection. Speak and show the grace of Jesus to your Muslim friend. Establish a relationship and when an opportunity presents itself share your faith.

That is our mission as a chosen people “that you may declare the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light” (1 Peter 2:9).

RELATED ARTICLE: Europe’s Childless Leaders Sleepwalking Us to Disaster

EDITORS NOTE: Reverend Bruce Lieske, Chairman, Florida-Georgia District Task Force on Muslim Evangelism, is available to speak if you would like to sponsor a seminar on this topic we have presenters available. You may contact Reverend Lieske at blieske7@bellsouth.net.

VIDEO: Special Gun Rights for Muslims?!

Faith Goldy reports:

When I applied for my Canadian firearms licence after passing my federally mandated PAL and RPAL courses, the RCMP got all of my information. They asked for everything from medical history, relationship history, familial structures, and a photograph.

However, when I recently logged online to renew my license, I noticed something peculiar:

An exception to the usual regulation requiring a photograph, citing religious exemption!

So, I contacted the RCMP, and you won’t believe what happens next.

While I’m no fan of tighter gun control measures, shouldn’t all law-abiding gun-owners be treated equally in Canada?

Why are special rights being granted to members of certain religious sects while other Canadians are held to a different standard?

Israelis file multiple lawsuits against Facebook for providing radical Islamists a platform

While Facebook is being sued for providing a platform for jihadists “involved in the ‘stabbing intifada’” against innocent Israelis, the social media giant has apparently been all too busy playing thought police by cranking down on harmless conservatives. According to “former Facebook workers,” they “routinely suppressed conservative news,” including stories that were trending on major news sites. The “news curators” were ordered to “artificially inject selected stories into the trending news mode,” even if they were unpopular.

Media and social media collusion has become the norm, to the detriment of the people, whose thoughts are being manipulated via lies by omission.

Facebook even reportedly banned a Trump supporter last May for complaining that the social media site was censoring “right wing activists,” thereby proving his point.

“Terrorism Cases Against Facebook Reach climax”, by Yonah Jeremy Bob, Jerusalem Post, March 2, 2017:

American-Israeli Richard Lakin, [sic] told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday that he is “outraged” at Facebook for pretending that it has zero tolerance for terrorism.

He spoke minutes after a climactic hearing in a terrorism lawsuit against the social media giant.

Lakin was one of the original plaintiffs in a 2015 lawsuit filed by a group of 20,000 Israelis against Facebook for providing a platform for terrorists involved in the “stabbing intifada,” and demanding an injunction ordering the firm to act more forcefully against terrorist incitement on its pages.

Wednesday’s hearing was the final one in a US federal court in Brooklyn before the judge decides whether Shurat Hadin – Israel Law Center, representing the plaintiffs, has found the first-ever legal silver bullet for breaking what has been an impenetrable barrier protecting Facebook from terrorism lawsuits.

Lakin was wounded and later died from his wounds in an attack by two Palestinians armed with a knife and a gun on a Jerusalem bus in fall 2015.

The 20,000 plaintiffs’ case is combined with a $1 billion damages case on behalf of the families of five victims, including US Army veteran Taylor Force, of the terrorist group Hamas.

Facebook had filed a motion to dismiss both cases arguing that, like all prior similar terrorism cases against it, the US Communications Decency Act (1996) bars all legal claims against it for posts by third parties using its platform – a defense that has proved unbeatable to date.

Shurat Hadin has argued that Facebook was not the intended target of the Communications Decency Act, which was focused on publishing, and that the social media platform has powerful algorithms it could use to catch and take down incitement and terrorist communications.

One relatively novel issue is the NGO’s attempt to use the US Anti-Terrorism Act against Facebook and to define the company as providing material support for terrorism by letting terrorists use its platform, instead of merely accusing Facebook of failing to control incitement, a less serious charge.

Shurat Hadin has admitted that the only court decision to date on this issue, earlier in 2016, went in favor of Facebook, but has claimed that case was “plainly wrongly decided and an outlier,” since a terrorism claim, unlike an incitement claim, relates not to publishing content, but to providing services.

The argument is that even if Facebook is not actively publishing third parties’ content, it is actively providing them the service of its platform.

Avni also told the Post that he “continued to be outraged by Facebook’s behavior… While this is a lawsuit about a specific issue of law, that they shouldn’t provide services to terror organizations, there is a basic ethical question that they shouldn’t help terrorists and allow them to operate freely on their platform.”

He added, “Facebook’s lawyer started his speech saying it has zero tolerance for terror. But the big dirty secret is that they make a ton of money from it. Facebook is getting lots of traffic and selling ads – the quantity of jihadists’ traffic is big and they get a lot of money out of it.”

Shurat Hadin’s New York counsel Robert Tolchin said, “Our case transcends” the Communications Decency Act, since “we are not talking about who published a post – we are talking about who provided services to a terror organization. Most of the judge’s questions [at the hearing] focused on that tension.”

Tolchin said he thought the judge came away with a view that the issue was more complicated than being able to just simply dismiss it because of the standard Communications Decency Act argument.

Shurat Hadin Director Nitsana Darshan- Leitner said, “The terrorist stabbing attacks throughout Israel and the murder of these innocent American and Israeli victims would never have occurred without the massive wave of incitement over social media.

“Facebook believes it is entitled to make billions of dollars annually while having no obligations to police its web pages and filter out calls to murder innocent Jews worldwide,” she added….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Saudi police pack two transgender Pakistanis into a sack and beat them to death with sticks

Islamic State on killing spree of Christians in Sinai

Students for Justice in Palestine caught in a lie

sjp logoArlington, TX – Leadership of Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Arlington, Texas (SJP UTA), which has been embroiled in an anti-Semitism scandal, are claiming that they don’t know former friend and colleague Nancy Salem. They are also denying that any of their members have made anti-Semitics comments.

Canary Mission’s evidence concludes that both of these claims are flagrant lies.

Following the release of a report by campus watchdog Canary Mission, SJP UTA have sought to distance themselves from Salem. The former pre-school teacher who called to “kill some Jews” on Twitter, was fired yesterday from her job at Children’s Courtyard amidst calls for the school to shut down.

In response, SJP UTA yesterday posted a statement on their primary Facebook page making two absurd denials. The first is that Salem has “never been associated with SJP” and second that “Sjp has never had any members make any anti-semitic [sic] statements.”

SJP UTA latest hires.png

Canary Mission’s investigation of the activists Twitter interactions revealed that at least half a dozen SJP UTA members implicated in Canary Mission’s expose, including their Vice President, are closely acquainted with her.

Here is Salem wishing their Vice President a happy birthday last year:

Though never a student at UTA, a point made clear in Canary Mission’s profile on her, Salem was clearly affiliated with the SJP UTA chapter. SJP UTA have a second Facebook account, which can still be viewed now, even though since our expose the names of those individuals implicated in their anti-Semitism scandal have since been removed and there is virtually no content. Nancy Salem was one of those individuals whose name was removed.

Nancy_Salem_FB.jpg

Below are examples of interactions between Salem and the above mentioned SJP UTA activists clearly showing that they know her:

Lastly, here are just two examples conclusively showing just three SJP UTA members together with their anti-Semitic statements. The rest can be found on the Canary Mission UTA page.