Tuesday, May 22, 2018


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
“Outreach to the community.” Yeah, that’ll work. Hasn’t it worked beautifully since 9/11? Meanwhile, hampering these investigations is the fact that even now, the clueless and compromised FBI includes no study of the motivating ideology of jihad terrorists in its counterterror training. It is working in the dark, and the consequences will inevitably be…explosive.
“FBI Director: 1,000 Homegrown Terror Investigations Active, Not Counting ‘Traditional’ ISIS, al-Qaeda Suspects,” by Bridget Johnson, PJ Media, May 17, 2018 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
WASHINGTON — FBI Director Christopher Wray told a Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Wednesday that the bureau is tracking several hundred homegrown terror suspects, not counting those linked to a terror group or domestic extremist groups such as white supremacists.
“In every state in the nation who have been inspired by ISIS or al-Qaeda or similar groups, and radicalize, no longer by traveling to training camps, but via the internet through videos, or private chat rooms, or other means. How is the FBI countering that threat?” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) asked at the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee hearing to examine the FBI’s annual budget request. “It seems to be very difficult to identify these individuals.”
Wray told the senator she put her finger “on what I would call sort of our highest counterterrorism priority at the moment.”
“We have about 1,000 investigations into exactly the kind of people you’re describing, covering all 50 states as I’m sitting here right now. And that’s not even counting, you know, the al-Qaeda investigations, the traditional ISIS investigations, the domestic terrorism investigations, but just the group you’re talking about,” he said.
“And what makes it so hard is that there are not many dots to connect with some of these people. They pick soft targets, they use easy to use weapons, you know, IEDs, cars, knives, guns. And they can make decisions on the spur of the moment. We’re trying to get better at looking for red flags, as to when people who are getting radicalized sort of make that switch into potentially mobilizing.”
Wray said trying to stop homegrown extremists includes a lot of “outreach to the community, partnership with our state and local law enforcement who know those communities better, but it’s hard.”…


It Begins: Seattle Cops Conduct Nazi-Style Gun ...
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Anti-gun Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.)
Anti-gun Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.)(center) 
with Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Fairfax, VA – -( The headline of the USA Today op-ed said it all. Anti-gun Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) last week advocated for legislation to ban an as-yet undetermined class of semi-automatic firearms and to “go after resisters” who refuse to relinquish their lawfully-acquired firearms.
Lest anyone mistake his intentions, Swalwell followed up with a lengthy NBC News interview this week in which he made clear that his own proposal is a departure from prior gun bans that allowed those who obtained the firearms when they were lawful to keep them.
Swalwell said that after thinking “about the different ways to address it … I concluded the only way to do this is to get those weapons out of our communities.”
According to the NBC piece, Swalwell is modeling his own proposal on laws passed during the 1990s in Australia.
The article then inaccurately states, “But while Australia comes up often in gun debates, almost no prominent figures have proposed national laws that would demand that gun owners turn in existing weapons en masse.”
The truth is that anyone who suggests the United States should adopt Australian-style gun control – a club that includes such infamous gun ban advocates as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton – is by definition advocating for the forcible disarming of “resisters.” That, in fact, was the signature feature of the Australian approach.
The widespread disarming of Australian citizens occurred through a comprehensive scheme that proceeded as follows.
  • First, the various political subdivisions within Australia unanimously agreed to a uniform ban on large categories of popular firearms. The ban was both retroactive and prospective.
  • Second, the government instituted “amnesty” periods, which allowed those who had previously acquired the newly-banned firearms lawfully to surrender them to the government for a fixed and nonnegotiable rate of compensation.
  • Third, and most importantly, anyone who refused to relinquish their formerly lawful property was to be treated as an armed criminal, with all the physical jeopardy and legal consequences that entails.
The Australian government also uses a “may-issue” licensing scheme for firearm acquisition, which among other things requires an applicant to show a “genuine reason” for needing the gun. Self-defense – which the U.S. Supreme Court considers the “central component” of America’s right to keep and bear arms – is not recognized under Australian law as a permissible reason for the acquisition, ownership, or use of a firearm.
Australian-style gun control, in other words, is completely foreign to and incompatible with America’s history, tradition, and rights of firearm ownership. Simply put, there is no reconciling Australian-style gun control with America’s Second Amendment, a fact which even some gun control advocates in their more candid moments are willing to admit.

If Swalwell has distinguished himself at all from other American advocates of the Australian approach, it’s because he is willing to be more forthcoming about the fact that it would turn millions of formerly law-abiding Americans into armed “criminals” with the stroke of a pen.

In his NBC interview, however, he tried to have it both ways.
First, he insisted:
I'm not proposing a roundup or confiscation. It would be like anything else that's banned: If you're caught with it there would be a steep penalty. Any fear of ATF agents going door to door to collect assault weapons is unfounded and not what is proposed here. They don't go collecting drugs that are banned or any other substance or weapon that's banned and I’m not proposing that here.
That, of course, is a lie. Law enforcement agents with enough probable cause that someone possesses drugs or other contraband to get a warrant absolutely do go after the contraband. Some might even say they are duty-bound to do so. A quick Internet search will show you what that looks like in the real world.
Anybody who illegally possesses a contraband firearm potentially risks the same treatment. Swalwell, who touts his credentials as a former prosecutor, surely knows that.
But when asked to elaborate about the “stiff penalties” that would supposedly ensure compliance with his scheme, Swalwell seemingly contradicted his no-confiscation stance, stating, “I'd want to first get the gun.”
To their credit, NBC asked Swalwell directly whether he was “prepared for some of the confrontations that might erupt from this,” adding, “You’re surely familiar with the slogan, ‘I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands.’” Swalwell brushed aside the question, indicating that Parkland survivors who have been advocating for gun control have given him “courage” for resolute action.
The actions he is calling for, however, carry inherent risks of further unnecessary loss of innocent life.
But that is what the gun “debate” has come to in America, with at least one gun control advocate so emboldened that he’s openly willing to put violent confrontations on the table to advance the agenda.
Whether Rep. Swalwell is serious or whether he is just hoping to move the Overton Window on what is considered legitimate rhetoric in the realm of gun control policy is perhaps debatable.

What is no longer debatable, however, is the true agenda and ideology that lies behind the gun control project in America. It is the abolition of the right to gun ownership in America as we know it … “resisters” be damned. 

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)
About: Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit:

Eric Swalwell Calls For Gun Buy-Back That Turns Law Abiding Citizens Into Felons 

Criminals OVERNIGHT!

Eric Swalwell goes on Tucker Carlson Tonight to call for a gun buy-back of assault weapons that if you don't turn in your weapon you WILL BE PROSECUTED. He uses children and cops deaths to argue his point instead of logic. Tucker doesn't let up.

Prosecute Those Who Fail to Surrender Their Firearms

Democrat calls for gun ban, prison for holdouts

Political strategist, Emily Miller, sounds off about Swalwell's remarks about guns.


To Divert From Pedo-Priests, 

Pope Virtue Signals LGBT

Will the Pope accept the resignations of all 34 Chilean Bishops offered over the massive pedophile church scandal? Will the Pope accept responsibility himself?


Statement sheds light on liberation theology

BY Ben Warren & Kit Daniels
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
It’s worth pointing out that Pope Francis was talking to a victim of Catholic sexual abuse when he reportedly told him it was “okay to be gay.”
Why it matters:
The context of the Pope’s alleged statement is being overshadowed by the statement itself. The context, however, is important because it sheds light on the decades-long molestation accusations against Catholic priests, many of which turned out to be true. It also sheds light on why the Pontiff is motivated to drift away from traditional Catholic teachings.
The victim, Juan Carlos Cruz, was sexually abused by the Rev. Fernando Karadima, who was found guilty by a Vatican investigation in 2011.
The Pope’s statement isn’t just about “homosexuality vs. the church”:
Pope Francis is an adherent of liberation theology promoted by Latin American socialists for decades with the end goal of destroying the church from within.
During the 20th century, communist revolutionaries found that, despite their best efforts to overthrow Latin American nations and install puppet regimes, they could never gain control of hearts and minds of populations due to the steady bulwark of the Catholic Church.
That’s why communists decided to subvert the Catholic Church from within by “legitimizing” Marxist teachings in the church through liberation theology, which merged Catholicism with Marxism.
Given that context, it isn’t surprising why Pope Francis, a Latin American pope who’s friendly to liberation theology, seems to go against the grain of Catholic teachings at every chance he gets.

Pope Says God Makes People Gay, and That’s Okay

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Juan Carlos Cruz is a sex-abuse victim of the Roman Catholic church. He is the chief whistleblower in the Chilean Romanist sex abuse scandal and spent days with Pope Francis last month at the Vatican. During the three days with the Pontiff, Cruz discussed his sexual orientation (the Chilean man is a homosexual) and explained to Francis what it was like to have been victimized by Romanist priests. Cruz’ time at the Vatican occurred after Pope Francis made some highly controversial remarks, dismissing the severity of the sexual assaults and tacitly defending some of those who helped to cover up the crimes. According to news reports, Pope Francis told the man that God gave him his sexual orientation and that his sodomy did not matter because God loved him.
“You know Juan Carlos, that does not matter. God made you like this. God loves you like this. The Pope loves you like this and you should love yourself and not worry about what people say.”
The words were recorded by Carlos and repeated to the press, according to CNN.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to homosexuality as an “inclination that is objectively disordered” (Paragraph 2398, 1997 edition). The Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (1985) cites The Vatican Council II in Dei Verbum 10, which refers to the “supremely wise arrangement of God” in heterosexual relationship, and relationship, and asserts that homosexual relationships are a deviation of God’s wise arrangement (chapter 5). The Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics (December 29, 1975) called homosexuality “intrinsically disordered.”
Francis seems to be repeatedly at odds with Rome’s official teachings on human sexuality. It’s for this reason that more than 40 Romanist leaders have officially accused the Pontiff of multiple heresies.
There has, however, been a gradual and growing progressivism in the Romanist church on the topic of homosexuality. In 1973, the first Romanist priest came out publicly as gay, Robert Carter, and he was not removed as a priest. He went on to form Dignity USA, a pro-LGBTQ organization advocating for homosexual Romanists. Beginning in the 1980s with Cardinal Cooke of New York City, Papists began to teach that it wasn’t a sin to be homosexual, so long as you practiced abstinence, the very same position now being taught by Southern Baptist Convention leaders like Russell Moore. By mid-2017, the same diocese hosted a “pilgrimage” of LGBTQ Romanists to the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart for hundreds of married homosexuals who profess Catholicism. Today, Romanists all around the world publicly call for same-sex marriage and the normalizing of sodomy-based unions, with no punitive consequences from the Romanist church.
Greg Burke, the Pope’s spokesman, was asked about the Pope’s words of affirmation regarding homosexuality and he responded, “We do not normally comment on the Pope’s private conversations.”
In the meantime, the Scripture does speak to the issue of homosexuality, and it is not in agreement with the Pope of Rome. The Bible tells us that homosexuality is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13Leviticus 18:2220:13Romans 1:26-271 Corinthians 6:9). Furthermore,  Romans 1:26-27 teaches specifically that homosexuality is a demonstration of human depravity and that God has given them over to this wickedness. While the Pope says that it doesn’t matter, the Bible, in 1 Corinthians 6:9, proclaims that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God.
In reality, studies demonstrate that childhood sexual abuse is more likely – exponentially – to correlate with adult homosexuality, at least among men. If anyone made Carlos gay it wasn’t God, it was the Roman Catholic church.


Naim Stifan Ateek, (born in the Palestinian village of Beisan in 1937) is a Palestinian priest in the Anglican Communion and founder of the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center in Jerusalem. He has been an active leader in the shaping of the Palestinian liberation theology. He was the first to articulate a Palestinian theology of liberation in his book, Justice, and only Justice, a Palestinian Theology of Liberation, published by Orbis in 1989, and based on his dissertation for his degree in theology. The book laid the foundation of a theology that addresses the conflict over Palestine and explores the political as well as the religious, biblical, and theological dimensions. A former Canon of St. George's Cathedral, Jerusalem, he lectures widely both at home and abroad. His book, A Palestinian Christian Cry for Reconciliation, was published by Orbis in 2008, followed by A Palestinian Theology of Liberation, 2017.
Sari Ateek
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Fresh off an anti-Israel film series, Washington, DC-area Episcopalians at St. John’s Norwood in upscale Bethesda, Maryland and elsewhere have once again taken the lead in demonizing Israel by hosting Reverend Naim Ateek. This Palestinian Anglican known for his anti-Semitic outbursts against Israel addressed St. John’s on May 16, before participating in more vitriol the next day at Washington, DC’s anti-Israel Jerusalem Fund.
St. John’s rector, Sari Ateek, introduced the church’s evening lecture by noting that Naim Ateek, often called the “Desmond Tutu of Palestine,” is the “father of Palestinian liberation theology. He is also the father of me.” Before the overwhelmingly white and older audience of about 90 in the church nave who came to hear the founder of the anti-Israel Sabeel Palestinian Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center, Sari noted that most were St. John’s members. The audience also included Sari’s fellow Friends of Sabeel North America (FOSNA) member Steve France, who sits on the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, DC’s Companion Diocese Committee—Jerusalem (CDCJ). France’s associate from the film series, the Palestinian-American Zeina Azzam, also attended.
In his lecture, the Israeli citizen Naim Ateek suggested a neo-Marcionite approach to the Old Testament, in which Christians could cherry-pick the Jewish scriptures and thereby supersede any imputed Jewish theological chauvinism. In the Hebrew Bible, “some of it is palatable and beneficial for Christians,” he stated, while criticizing the scripture passages of Numbers 33:50-56 and Deuteronomy 7:1-7 displayed in his Powerpoint presentation. “Do these two texts reflect the God that we have come to know in Jesus Christ” and the “love of God?,” Ateek rhetorically asked, to which he answered that they reflect a “tribal God understanding.”
Ateek’s warped theology that denied any particular Jewish national claim to the Holy Land complemented his fabricated history that condemned Zionism as immoral imperialism. In order to “tell the story of Palestine,” one of his Powerpoint slides on the “Palestinian Loss of Land” used a thoroughly discredited map series, while another deceptively distorted an 1895 diary entry from Zionist founding father Theodor Herzl. Another slide cited the “arc of the moral universe” quotationoft-attributed to civil rights icon Martin Luther King, yet contrary to the St. John’s audience, the Zionist King condemned anti-Zionism as antisemitism.
In Ateek’s false utopian vision, universal humanistic values would transcend Jewish atavistic particularism with the abolition of Israel’s Jewish state within an Arab-Jewish binational, unitary Palestine. “One state” is the “ideal solution: Equal democracy for all citizens, Israelis and Palestinians,” stated the slides, while the “pro-Israel lobby is powerful” with “blind support to Israel.” The slides’ listed “Reasons for hope” included that Ateek’s oft-touted political partner, the radical Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), “is very active,” and “Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions [BDS] are working” to destroy Israel with political warfare.
Accordingly, Ateek condemned President Donald Trump’s recent decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s historic capital. Ateek stated that Muslims have “governed Jerusalem hundreds of years more than the Jews.” Yet only Jews, not Muslims or anyone else who conquered Jerusalem in the past, have ever had a capital in this city often neglected by Muslims throughout history.
Nonetheless, “many of us are weeping, are sad, for what has happened to Jerusalem,” Ateek stated. Trump’s “blunder…just gave Jerusalem on a silver platter to one religion, to one group, and totally disregarded the specialness, the holiness of the city of Jerusalem to the Muslims and to the Christians.” Ateek did not explain how Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, the city’s historically most tolerant governance, far more liberal than any Jordanian or Palestinian administration of the Holy Land, infringed upon Christian and Muslim holy sites.
Before a small audience of about 20 the next day, Jerusalem Fund director Mohamed Mohamed continued Ateek’s theme while introducing his panel. Mohamed stated that Trump’s Jerusalem decision will “erase the rights of Palestinian Muslims and Christians” and referenced Jerusalem’s international corpus separatum status under the 1947 United Nations Palestine partition plan. He ignored the fact that this temporary status was to precede Jerusalem’s (and its Bethlehem district’s) ultimate disposition in a referendum among Jerusalem’s Jewish-majority population, who presumably favored Israel.
Ateek’s views on Jerusalem coalesced with his fanciful claims to his sympathetic listeners that Arabs such as he consistently opposed Israel nonviolently. At St. John’s, he stated that recent Gaza riots incited by Hamas as cover for terrorism against Israel appeared to him to be peaceful protests, in which “thousands of Palestinians have been killed and wounded because they were defending their right for Jerusalem.” “We don’t believe that we can champion in any way violent revolutions or violent resistance,” he said the next day. This is rich coming from an author of the 2009 Kairos Palestine Declaration, with its praise for Palestinian terrorists who “have given their life for our nation.”
Ateek’s fellow speaker, FOSNA Executive Director Tarek Abuata, outdid Ateek by whitewashing a century of Arab terror against Zionism with analogies to the American civil rights movement and Mahatma Gandhi. At St. John’s, Abuata referenced the landmark 1965 civil rights march over Selma, Alabama’s Edmund Pettus Bridge, and said that “Gaza and justice in Palestine is the Edmund Pettus Bridge of our day.” Seemingly wanting to sing “We Shall Overcome” with Hamas jihadists recently killed by Israeli forces, he decried that in the “past two days of the Gaza murders, the appalling silence of a lot of our churches has been deafening.” Given that the Episcopal Church has rejected BDS, despite the wishes of many at St. John’s, he stated that “sadly the Episcopalian Church is behind on divesting.”
The next day at the Jerusalem Fund, Abuata ludicrously claimed that nonviolence “has been practiced for the past 100 years by Palestinians,” as if Muslim Arab collaboration with the Nazis against Jews never existed. He recalled that Congressman Steny Hoyer once asked Abuata about the Palestinians, “Where are your Gandhis? Well, 60 of them were shot in the past two days.” “If you are not with Palestinian justice and prophetic action now, you would not have stood with Martin Luther King” during the civil rights movement, Abuata scandalously claimed. Like Ateek, Abuata slandered Zionism as opposing an “anti-racist God that is inclusive of all.”
In contrast to a supposedly peaceful Muslim-majority Palestinian population, Christian Zionists were characterized by Ateek and his fellow Jerusalem Fund speakers as “extremist Christians.” The speakers highlighted the outlandish beliefs of various Christian Zionist individuals in order to create a strawman caricature of Zionist thinking, which actually has a respectable and broad-based tradition in Christian history. Mohamed stated that “powerful Christian Zionists work to foster Armageddon and the destruction of both rival religions” of Judaism and Islam. Meanwhile, Ateek continued his de-Judaizing of the Bible by discussing how the Judean Jew Jesus, who lived long before the name Palestine existed, was a “Palestinian living under foreign occupation.”
Joining Abuata and Ateek at the Jerusalem Fund, the David Duke-endorsed crank Max Blumenthalsimilarly defamed Zionism as simply an accessory to antisemitism. Zionism, he stated, is a collaboration between anti-Semites in the West, who would like a West free of Jews, and traditional Zionists who believe that antisemitism is actually a force that can help propel Jews into making Aliyah or emigrating to the Holy Land and helping drive this project of colonization.
For Blumenthal, such Zionist perfidy continued today, as the “Jewish world is in a moral freefall because of Zionism” and its role in “Western empire.” In particular, the “weapons industry in the U.S. relies on this special relationship with Israel,” in which Israeli Jewish soldiers “are being incentivized to kill in order to increase profits.” The audience laughed when he noted his libelous comparison of genocidal jihadists in the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) with Israel, the “Jewish State of Israel in the Levant” (JSIL).
Blumenthal preached to the choir, including not only France, but also his CDCJ and FOSNA colleagues Thomas Getman and Paul Verduin, as well as the CATO Institute’s “libertarian for sharia” Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad. One regular Jerusalem Fund attendee, an older Arab Christian man from Nazareth, Israel, reiterated his usual refusal to say the name Israel. “Our country was occupied and we called it something else. I don’t want to even talk about that. So Palestine is now occupied Palestine,” and “that’s the only way we should pass the word to everyone,” he stated.
Ateek’s Washington, DC, speaking tour makes perfectly clear why, as he noted at St. John’s, synagogues consistently refuse to host him as a speaker, despite his myopic protestations that “I am not ant-Semitic.” Nevertheless, he deserves scrutiny from critics who enter his partisan rallies of the anti-Israel faithful, no matter how displeasing his allied zealots find such increasingly identifiable ideological interlopers. One woman at St. John’s purposely sat in a crowded pew next to this author as he was typing notes on his laptop, and suspiciously asked, “Is this going to go on Jihad Watch?” Yes.



🆘‼🧐🔥 UK: At last someone asked Theresa May the right questions on freedom of speech in the British Parliament.
Challenged in Parliament about why criticism of Christianity is taken for granted while criticism of Islam embroils one in societal (and legal) difficulties, British Prime Minister Theresa May answered:
"We value freedom of expression and freedom of speech in this country. That is absolutely essential in underpinning our democracy. But we also value tolerance to others. We also value tolerance in relation to religions. This is one of the issues that we’ve looked at in the counter-extremism strategy that the government has produced. I think we need to ensure that, yes, it is right that people can have that freedom of expression. But in doing so, that right has a responsibility, too. And that is a responsibility to recognize the importance of tolerance to others."
This heralds the end of the freedom of speech in Britain, for May’s statement is flatly self-contradictory. Who will decide whether one’s criticism of Islam has shaded over into becoming “intolerant”? Presumably the police or some governing authorities. But the freedom of speech is designed precisely to protect people from being prosecuted or persecuted by the governing authorities because their speech dissents from the accepted line. It was developed as a safeguard against tyranny.
By introducing this massive exception, May is turning the freedom of speech on its head and emptying it of all meaning. She is also implying that the British government will now be bringing the full force of the law against those who are deemed intolerant, and indeed, that has already begun.