THE CHURCH MILITANT
Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
California universities were caught removing and even
destroying library books after digitizing them, a process critics warn
leads to 1984-style censorship in which only “corrected” copies of books
remain. UC Berkeley in particular recently removed
135,000 books from its school library, claiming that by digitizing the
books, library space can be reused for meeting rooms and “nap pods.”
But
libraries have existed since the Middle Ages as vaults of knowledge
safe from tampering; in comparison, the way universities are
disappearing books after digitizing them allows anyone with a
“politically correct” agenda a way to alter books during digitization –
including important texts on history, science and humanities – without
anyone ever knowing.
“The removal of 60% of the physical collection at the science library
of the University of California, Santa Cruz, for instance, caused an
uproar after it was reported that many of the books removed had been
destroyed,” reported
the Christian Science Monitor. “A campus spokesman said that nothing
had been lost from the scholarly record, since duplicates were retained
in other libraries or available online.”
“Given the short
timeframe and seeming lack of consultation of the faculty, however, many
critics expressed doubts that this was actually the case.”
This,
of course, draws parallels to the novel 1984, in which the protagonist,
Winston, works at the Ministry of Truth altering books and important
texts while sequentially destroying the original sources to hide the
evidence of tampering.
In reality, it’s certainly plausible that
SJW student-workers digitizing books at a university could “correct for
history” by altering or downright removing passages from books that
don’t conform to their world view. Remember, these are the same
activists who demand restrictions on free speech if it “offends others”
and demand the removal of historical war memorials if they trigger
“micro-aggressions” – and college campuses are now breeding grounds for
this ideology.
“Suppose they do scan or digitize entire
libraries. What then? Will it not be far, far easier for systems of
authority to control or manipulate access to historical information?” Asked
attorney Quintus Curtius. “How can we be sure that the University of
California will not one day decide to prevent access to all works
written before 1950 as being ‘offensive’ or not in tune with political
correctness?”
“When it comes to our precious cultural heritage, we
cannot place our faith in the same institutions that have been
betraying that same heritage for the past 40 years.”
On a similar
note, Google’s Vint Cerf warned we are heading into a “digital dark age”
because digitalized documents will eventually be lost or lack
compatibility with new formats.
The latter is already more-or-less the case with eBooks which suffer problems converting between different formatting standards.
“Old
formats of documents that we’ve created or presentations may not be
readable by the latest version of the software because backwards
compatibility is not always guaranteed,” said
Cerf. “And so what can happen over time is that even if we accumulate
vast archives of digital content, we may not actually know what it is.”
In
a letter effective immediately, President Donald Trump has fired FBI
Director Comey. According to the letter, Trump consulted with his
Attorney General and Justice Department, and this is the course of
action that was decided upon. This is breaking news and more information
will be added as it becomes available.
Trump Fires Comey, Leftists Rage
Published on May 10, 2017
Even
though leftists demanded Obama fire Comey before he left the White
House, inexplicably, they are now screaming about his termination by
Trump.
Your leftist friends may try throwing around some
anti-government conspiracy theories about the firing, such as, "Comey's
FBI was investigating President Trump's alleged Russia collusion, so he
fired him!" but again, even Comey reasserted under oath there was no
evidence of such.
Why Trump Fired Comey
KELLYANNE CONWAY CONFIRMS ATTORNEY GENERAL & ESPECIALLY THE NEW DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE IMPETUS FOR TRUMP'S FIRING OF COMEY
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
On May 7 Texas governor Greg Abbott signed a bill banning sanctuary
cities. The law, Senate Bill 4, makes sheriffs, constables, police
chiefs, and other local law-enforcement officials subject to Class A
misdemeanor charges if they don’t cooperate with federal authorities and
honor “detainer” requests from immigration agents to hold non-citizen
inmates who are subject to deportation. It also provides civil penalties
for entities in violation of the provision that begins at $1,000 for a
first offense and climbs to as high as $25,500 for each subsequent
infraction. The bill also applies to police at public colleges.
Abbott caught Democratic legislators and others who had opposed the
measure off guard when he signed the bill four days after both chambers
of the legislature had approved it. The signing took place on Sunday
night during a Facebook Live event with no advance public warning.
The new law goes into effect September 1.
“Texas has now banned sanctuary cities in the Lone Star State,”
Abbott said in a video posted on Facebook. The governor signed the bill
during a five-minute live broadcast on Facebook, thereby avoiding the
protests that a public signing ceremony inevitably would have invited.
“Let’s face it, the reason why so many people come to America is
because we are a nation of laws and Texas is doing its part to keep it
that way,” Abbott said.
Democratic state Representative Cesar Blanco asserted that it looked
as if Abbott “wanted to get ahead” of any protests surrounding the bill
signing. However, Abbott spokesman John Wittman explained that the
governor chose to sign the bill on a Facebook livestream because that’s
“where most people are getting their news nowadays.”
Texas Senator Ted Cruz posted the following message on Facebook after the signing:
Governor Greg Abbott yesterday sent a clear message that defiance of our laws in Texas will no longer be tolerated.
I commend the Governor for signing into
law this ban on sanctuary cities and the members of the Texas
Legislature — especially Reps. Charlie Geren and Paul Workman and
Senator Charles Perry — for their leadership in sponsoring this measure.
The Texas Tribune reported back on April 27 that when S.B. 4
was passed by the Texas House of Representatives, it had its original
language restored to bring it into conformity with the Senate-passed
version. Representatives had added back a previously deleted provision
that allows local peace officers to question the immigration status of
people they legally detain. The original House version of the bill had
allowed officers to inquire about status only during a lawful arrest.
Abbott defended the constitutionality of the law after signing it, reported the Tribune, saying key parts of it have “already been tested at the United States Supreme Court and approved there.”
The Dallas Morning News reported that opponents of the law
were quick to condemn the signing and quoted Thomas Saenz, president of
the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), who
charged that the law was a “colossal blunder” and that the lawmakers who
championed it were “small-hearted.”
“MALDEF will do its level best, in court and out, to restore Texas,
the state where MALDEF was founded, to its greater glory, and to help
Texas to overcome ‘Abbott's Folly,’” Saenz said in a written statement.
Saenz asserted that the law would alienate “nearly half the state
population” and make people subject to widespread racial profiling. He
claimed the law would undermine voters’ rights to choose elected
officials who set local policy, make the job of local law enforcement
more difficult by straining relationships with immigrant
communities, and would cost Texas in trade and tourism, as well as legal
challenges.
The News also quoted Terri Burke, executive director of the
ACLU of Texas, who said in a prepared statement: “This racist and
wrongheaded piece of legislation ignores our values, imperils our
communities and sullies our reputation as a free and welcoming state. We
will fight this assault in the courts, at the ballot box, and in the
streets if we have to.”
Neither Saenz nor Burke explained exactly which races would be
profiled by the new law, since aliens entering our country illegally —
even those coming from Latin America — can belong to one of several
races. For example, an article in the Christian Science Monitor on
April 6, 2010, written by Raul Reyes, who identifies himself as a
third-generation Mexican-American, noted that a questionnaire
accompanying the 2010 Census asked whether a person is of Hispanic,
Latino, or Spanish origin, and then lists possible answers ranging from
Mexican-American to Cuban to Spaniard. He wrote:
According to the Pew Center, 54 percent
of Hispanics identify as white, while only 1.5 percent identify as
black. A full 40 percent do not identify with any race. So perhaps the
Census Bureau might want to reconsider their categories for “race” in
the future.
With “race” being such a subjective factor, it is difficult to make a
case that a law attempting to identify illegal aliens is “racist.”
A CBS News report on May 7 observed that the term “sanctuary cities”
has no legal definition, but Republicans want local police to help
federal immigration agents crack down on criminal suspects who are in
the United States illegally.
That report noted:
Sally Hernandez, the sheriff of Travis
County, which includes liberal Austin, enraged conservatives by refusing
to honor federal detainer requests if the suspects weren't arrested for
immigration offenses or serious crimes such as murder. Hernandez
softened her policy after Abbott cut funding to the county, saying
decisions would be made on a case-by-case basis. She has said she will
conform to the state's ban if it becomes law.
While there may not be a legal definition of a sanctuary city, one of
the main supporters of SB 4, Senator Charles Perry (R-Lubbock),
provided this description in a statement quoted by KVUE TV in Austin
last February:
When they have policy, implied or
implicit, formal or informal, or, if you will, just kind of soft
throughout their system that says you cannot enforce the ICE detainers
or you cannot enforce the inquiry provisions that have been held
constitutional, you can’t enforce these laws, then you have a sanctuary
city.
It will be interesting to see if this new legislation is the end of
the matter, or (as has often been the case with similar laws and orders)
it faces legal challenges in lawsuits from activist organizations such
as MALDEF or rulings by liberal judges.
Texas governor signs bill banning ‘sanctuary cities’
Published on May 9, 2017
Gov.
Greg Abbott made an unannounced appearance on Facebook live on May 7 to
sign a bill banning “sanctuary cities” in the state.BREAKING! Governor Greg Abbott signs TOUGHEST Anti-Sanctuary City Bill
In The U.S.
Texas Senators Praise Gov Abbott's Ban
on Sanctuary Cities
TEXAS SAYS "HELL NO" TO SANCTUARY SHERIFFS!
Published on May 9, 2017
Texas
Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill Sunday prohibiting the state’s cities
and counties from enacting so-called “sanctuary” laws that prevent local
law enforcement officers from inquiring about the immigration status of
anyone they detain. https://www.infowars.com/texas-govern... https://www.infowars.com/illegal-immi...
Criminals Masquerading As Mayors In Sanctuary Cities
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
“Wherever law ends, tyranny begins.” -John Locke
It was reported
by Aamer Madhani, a White House reporter under Barack Hussein Obama’s
criminal administration, that big city mayors have vowed to defy the law
and President Donald Trump regarding sanctuary cities harboring illegal
aliens.
Aamer
reported, “As you may know, back in Jan 26, 2017 several big city
mayors across the U.S. vowed to defy President Trump’s executive order
that threatens to cut off federal funding to cities that offer some sort
of protection to illegal immigrants in their communities.”
The question is, how did they approve the funding in the first place?
Furthermore, the Law does not protect illegal aliens. It prosecutes them.
Aamer continued, “The pushback came from these mayors came as Trump
signed a long-anticipated executive order that directs the government to
identify federal money it can withhold to punish so-called ‘sanctuary cities.’”
Since when did the federal government receive delegated authority
from the American people to take their tax money and reallocate it to
cities that are harboring illegal aliens?
Aamer added, “If you remember, Trump had pledged to take action against sanctuary cities on the campaign trail.”
“But as Trump announced the order
— as well as action to build a wall along the U.S-Mexico border and
hire thousands of new border patrol agents and immigration officers —
leaders of some of the nation’s biggest cities flatly stated they would
not cooperate with the president,” Aamer wrote.
And you need to ask why. This is not Trump against the mayors. This
is the mayors working against American Law! And the law exposes the
criminal (Romans 3:20).
Aamer reported “In New York, Mayor Bill de Blasio vowed that the action ‘won’t change how we enforce the law in New York City.’”
“De Blasio said that the city has been able to dramatically reduce
the crime rate in the nation’s largest city, in part, because
relationships the police department has managed to build in immigrant
communities,” the report continued. “He added that if Trump follows
through with the plan it would mean he’s effectively cutting funding
from the New York Police Department.”
In other words, through totalitarian methods, Mayor de Blasio is
attempting to use the law against the law. Here, you have the criminal
blaming the law for his crimes (1 John 3:12).
“Here in New York City and in cities across the nation, this
executive order could in fact undermine public safety and make our
neighborhoods less safe,” de Blasio said.
What De Blasio said was that the enforcement of law could undermine
public safety. He is the one personally responsible for the undermining
of the public’s safety. Was America told that they were under an Islamic
threat after September 11, 2001? How does his statement line up with
the facts?
• Denmark: 450% more crimes committed by Muslims then non-Muslims. • Germany: Muslim migrants committed 142, 500 crimes in 6 months. This is 780 every day. • Sweden: 480,000 sexual assaults in one year. 77% of all rapes by less than 2% Muslim. • England and Wales: Over 56% of Syrian refugee’s committed severe crimes in less than 1 year etc. • Belgium: 35% of Prison population is Muslim who make up only 6% of the population. • UK: Muslims fill 44%of high security prisons, out of a 5% population. • USA: 91.4 % Muslim refugees are on food stamps, 68.3 % on cash welfare.
• There were 68.57
illegal aliens imprisoned for every 100,000 illegals in Arizona,
compared to 54.06 citizens and legal noncitizens imprisoned for every
100,000 citizens and legal noncitizens. • There were 97.2 illegals imprisoned for every 100,000
illegals in California, compared to 74.1 citizens and legal noncitizens
imprisoned per 100,000 citizen and legal noncitizens. • There were 54.85 illegals imprisoned for every
100,000 illegals in Florida, compared to 67.8 legal immigrants
imprisoned for every 100,000 legal immigrants. • There were 168.75 illegals imprisoned for every
100,000 illegals in New York, compared to 48.12 legal immigrants
imprisoned for every 100,000 legal immigrants. • There were 54.54 illegals imprisoned for every 100,000 illegals in Texas, compared to 65.43 legal immigrants.
“After President Donald Trump signed an executive order exploring
cutting off funding to so-called sanctuary cities, mayors on both coasts
of the U.S. say their cities will not be bullied,” Aamer reported.
These mayors are the ones that are bullying anyone who does not go
along with their lawless objectives. These are Saul Alinsky tactics at
their best. They play the victim while perpetuating the crime.
In Boston, Mayor Marty Walsh called the executive order an attack on “Boston’s people, Boston’s strength and Boston’s values.”
“If people want to live here, they’ll live here,” Walsh told
reporters at a news conference. “They can use my office. They can use
any office in this building.”
Americans should put these criminal actors that masquerade as mayors
in jail where they belong, and remind each and every one of them that
these buildings belong to “We the people.”
Furthermore no one has the right to desecrate the blood of those who
fought, bled and died enforcing the very laws that they are violating.
Seattle Mayor Ed Murray, who has been accused and investigated for
sexually molesting minors, said, “We believe we have the rule of law and
the courts on our side.”
The opposite is true as I am about to show you.
Mayor of Chicago Rham Emanuel said, “I want to be clear. We’re gonna
stay a sanctuary city. There is no stranger among us. We welcome people,
whether you’re from Poland or Pakistan, whether you’re from Ireland or
India or Israel and whether you’re from Mexico or Moldova, where my
grandfather came from, you are welcome in Chicago as you pursue the
American Dream.”
San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee told reporters nothing has changed for his city following Trump’s executive order.
“I am here today to say we are still a sanctuary city,” Lee said. “We
stand by our sanctuary city because we want everybody to feel safe and
utilize the services they deserve, including education and health care.”
Ed wants you to do your best to forget about Kate Steinle and her family. Kate
was shot randomly by Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, who is an illegal
immigrant and a repeat felon who was deported back to Mexico 5 times.
Have Americans been inundated by the media’s narrative that there are
threats constantly against “We the people”? Who has attacked the rights
of Americans more than those who call themselves representatives? No
one has.
Here, we have mayors that are committing treason (Article 3, Section 3
of the US Constitution) by opening the doors to those who are sworn
enemies to America (Jeremiah 11:9).
A top aide to Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan questioned whether the city even qualified as a sanctuary city.
The U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Major Cities Chiefs Association
expressed concern that the executive order is overly vague.
“That order does not provide a clear definition of what constitutes a
sanctuary jurisdiction,” the organizations said in a joint statement.
“Instead, it gives undefined discretion to the Secretary of Homeland
Security to designate sanctuary jurisdictions and the Attorney General
to take action against them.” (Homeland
security was found to be illegally transporting criminal aliens into
the United States under the criminal Barack Hussein Obama’s
administration.)
“We call upon the Secretary of Homeland Security to document and
promulgate a lawful definition before further actions are taken, so the
cities across the Nation may determine how to proceed,” the organization
added.
You cannot make this stuff up. What the law
states concerning these criminals masquerading as “mayors” in
“sanctuary cities” is very clear and simple to understand.
(a)Criminal penalties
(1)
(A) Any person who—
(i)
knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to
the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other
than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the
Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior
official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States
and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with
respect to such alien;
(ii)
knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come
to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law,
transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within
the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in
furtherance of such violation of law;
(iii)
knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come
to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law,
conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal,
harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any
building or any means of transportation;
(iv)
encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the
United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such
coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
(v)
(I)
engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
(II)
aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
(B)A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—
(i)
in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the
case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which
the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private
financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10
years, or both;
(ii)
in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or
(v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or
both;
(iii)
in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv),
or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily
injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
(iv)
in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv),
or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or
imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or
both.
