GOD BLESS PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP ON HIS TWO YEAR ANNIVERSARY IN OFFICE
THANK GOD FOR HIS MANY ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Sunday, January 20, 2019
"LES GILETS JAUNES", ACT 10, RENDER HOMAGE TO THE VICTIMS AS PARIS & OTHER CITIES PROTEST MACRON & GLOBALISM
"LES GILETS JAUNES", ACT 10,
RENDER HOMAGE TO THE VICTIMS
AS PARIS & OTHER CITIES PROTEST MACRON & GLOBALISM
Des milliers de Gilets Jaunes toujours très mobilisés se sont donné rendez-vous à l’esplanade des Invalides pour entamer une grande marche dans la capitale et revenir au point de départ. Un hommage aux victimes a été rendu.
A Paris, le samedi 19 janvier 2018.
"PALESTINIAN" AUTHORITY SPENDS SIX TIMES MORE ON JIHAD TERRORISTS THAN IT DOES ON ITS OWN NEEDY
"PALESTINIAN" AUTHORITY SPENDS SIX TIMES MORE ON JIHAD TERRORISTS THAN IT DOES
ON ITS OWN NEEDY
BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/01/palestinian-authority-spends-six-times-more-on-jihad-terrorists-than-it-does-on-its-own-needy; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
So if there really are any “Palestinians” who are starving, it isn’t Israel’s doing.
“PA spends 6 times more on terrorists than on its own needy,” by Maurice Hirsch, Palestinian Media Watch, January 17, 2019 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
In its 2017 budget, the Palestinian Authority allocated 550 million shekels to pay salaries to terrorist prisoners and released terrorist prisoners. The salaries paid to these recipients, among them murderers, ranged from 1,400 shekels/month to 12,000 shekels/month. The beneficiaries of these payments are no more than a few tens of thousands of Palestinians.In contrast, the PA spent only 605 million to provide financial assistance to needy Palestinian families. According to the PA budget, the 118,000 needy families received payments ranging between 750 to 1,800 shekels/quarter.Of the 605 million shekel expenditure, 515 million shekels was funded by the international community (165 million shekels by the European Union, and 350 million shekels by the World Bank). As such, the PA contributed only 90 million shekels of the 604 million shekel expenditure.In other words, while the PA spent 550 million shekels of its budget a year to incentivize and reward terrorists no more the a few tens of thousands of terrorists, it spends only 90 million shekels to support its needy population. In comparison, the amount it spent on the needy equals only 16% of the amount the PA prefers to spend on rewards for terror and murder!…
AMERICANS CALL UPON TEXAS GOVERNOR GREG ABBOTT TO PURSUE "COMPLETE OUTLAW OF ABORTION" AS PROMISED TO DYING TEEN
AMERICANS CALL UPON TEXAS GOVERNOR GREG ABBOTT TO PURSUE "COMPLETE OUTLAW OF ABORTION"
AS PROMISED TO DYING TEEN
BY HEATHER CLARK
SEE: https://christiannews.net/2019/01/19/americans-call-upon-texas-governor-greg-abbott-to-pursue-complete-outlaw-of-abortion-as-promised-to-dying-teen/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Americans nationwide are calling upon Texas governor Greg Abbott to keep his promise to a teenager who died of cancer in August, who asked Abbott as his dying wish to work to outlaw abortion in the Lone Star State.
“For my wish, I wanted to talk to you and discuss a bill of abolition,” 16-year-old Jeremiah Thomas, who was diagnosed with osteoblastic osteosarcoma, told Abbott on the phone last June from his hospital room at McLane Children’s Hospital. “[W]e want you to treat abortion like an act of murder that should be punished by law.”
“I know that it must be difficult standing against a whole federal beast that forces abortion on us, but I think that we … could end abortion here and now,” he said.
Abbott’s response made Thomas smile. He noted that the Texas Republican party platform expresses a desire to abolish abortion, and that lawmakers planned on putting forward a bill that would make abortion illegal in the state.
“Your wish is on the Republican party platform and it’s what we’re going to be pursuing this next legislative session—that’s to outlaw abortion altogether in the state of Texas,” he told Thomas, the recording of which was posted to social media. “And so, your wish has been granted.”
The legislation referenced by Abbott is that of Rep. Tony Tinderholt, R-Arlington, who similarly presented a bill in 2017 to abolish abortion, but it was stalled by the speaker of the House. Tinderholt has re-filed his bill for the 2019 legislative season.
Tinderholt told reporters upon first filing the measure that the bill is in response to language in the Texas Republican Party platform, which was passed in May 2016, calling for the complete abolition of abortion in the state.
“We call upon the Texas legislature to enact legislation stopping the murder of unborn children; and to ignore and refuse to enforce any and all federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, and court rulings, which would deprive an unborn child of the right to life,” the platform text reads.
Now that the Abolition of Abortion in Texas Act, House Bill 948, has again been put forward and the legislature is back in session, a campaign has been launched to hold Abbott to his promise.
Matt Trewhella, pastor of Mercy Seat Christian Church in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, leader of a ministry that serves to be a voice for preborn children and author of “The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates,” told Christian News Network that the time is right to press Abbott to take a stand for the preborn.
“This whole thing that the GOP politicians and pro-life, pro-family groups have been doing for years of trying to regulate the murder of the preborn needs to stop,” he stated. “Rather they need to say, ‘State magistrates, do your duty and stop this murder in our state.'”
“Gov. Abbott can use his influence behind the scenes regarding this bill of interposition and abolition of the murder of the preborn,” Trewhella explained. “We’re hoping that he will use his influence behind the scenes so that the bill does get a full hearing before the legislature, and we’re hopeful that it will pass and that he will sign it.”
Trewhella outlined that today’s civil leaders must return to the concept of interposition—that is, to stand in the gap whenever those of greater power issue decrees that are evil and conflict with the law of God.
“Western civilization has always stood upon the needed premise that divine law trumps human law [and] that unjust laws are no laws at all,” he stated, adding that the Supreme Court ruling of Roe v. Wade is “not even a law,” but an opinion.
Trewhella further pointed to the words of the words of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote a letter to William Jarvis in 1820 to express concern about the inordinate weight of authority and infallibility presumed to belong to the nation’s judges.
“You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an Oligarchy,” Jefferson wrote. “… The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party it’s members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
Trewhella explained that such is why the founders created multiple levels and branches of government, so that “if any one branch began to play the tyrant, even if it was the Supreme Court itself, all of the branches would interpose against the tyrant in order to reign in their tyranny.”
He lamented that no civil magistrates seem to be taking a stand in modern times.
“Do we think we can fill the nation with innocent blood and escape the righteous judgment of God?” Trewhella asked. “The interposition of the just magistrate or magistrates may possibly abate the just judgment of God, but none has come forth—not one governor, not one attorney general, not one legislature, not one mayor, not one city council.”
“46 years now of brutal bloodshed of the most helpless, and all these lesser magistrates have done is quibble and falsely lament how they must obey the Supreme Court. And such thinking as that stands in utter contradiction to Scripture and utter contradiction to the whole history of western civilization,” he added.
While it is not known where Gov. Abbott stands in regard to interposition and his view of the Supreme Court, other Republican governors who identify as pro-life have rejected challenges to Roe because they feel that the effort is futile.
As previously reported, in 2016, then-Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin, a Republican who identified herself as “the most pro-life governor in the nation,” vetoed a bill that would have outlawed abortion in the state, opining that the issue of abortion has to be dealt with in the nation’s highest court, and that the legislation would not “accomplish that re-examination.”
“In fact, the most direct path to a re-examination of the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade is the appointment of a conservative, pro-life justice to the United States Supreme Court,” she remarked in her veto message.
And while it would not have outlawed abortion altogether, Republican Ohio Gov. John Kasich has now twice vetoed a bill that would ban abortion whenever a heartbeat is detected, stating that such a law would not hold up in court and the state would end up paying thousands in legal fees to Planned Parenthood. He similarly expressed the mindset that he felt bound to the Supreme Court.
“As governor, I have worked hard to strengthen Ohio’s protections for the sanctity of human life, and I have a deep respect for my fellow members of the pro-life community and their ongoing efforts in defense of unborn life,” Kasich wrote in his veto explanation. “However, the central provision of H.B. 258, that an abortion cannot be performed if a heartbeat has been detected in the unborn child, is contrary to the Supreme Court rulings on abortion.”
“This is why we need to call upon [Gov. Abbott] to be different,” Trewhella said. “The GOP politicians and the pro-life, pro-family groups have been following the Roe paradigm for 46 years now. In other words, [they are] acting like they have to obey the Roe v. Wade issued by the court in 1973. And so everything they do goes back to the court, and the court is the tyrant that started this bloodshed.”
“What we’re saying here is, and what Rep. Tinderholt’s bill does—it says, we’re going to ignore the Roe v. Wade opinion, we are going to ignore the Supreme Court, we are not going to obey this evil that they have foisted upon the land,” he outlined. “And this is what our founders expected to happen, because our founders established a true federalism.”
When laws are challenged in court, it is the job of the state attorney general’s office to defend those statutes and the position of the governor. The office of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has already made statements that have raised concern.
As previously reported, in 2017, as the State of Texas had been sued surrounding a law that required aborted babies to either be buried or cremated—which could have shut down a number of abortion facilities that were not able to comply, whether financially or due to a lack of business cooperation—Assistant Attorney General John Langley surprisingly told U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks in court that “fetal tissue is not human remains” under Texas law.
“So it’s the official doctrine of the state that fetal tissue is not human remains?” Sparks inquired. “So you’re bringing dignity to non-human remains?”
“[Texas cremation law] deals with human bodies—bodies that have been born, lived and died. Fetal remains are categorized as pathological waste. It’s not a human body. It hasn’t been born,” Langley later stated. “It’s the state’s best effort to try to make the best of this situation.”
Paxton, who reportedly attends Stonebriar Community Church in Frisco, also said in a statement in September following an adverse court ruling, “We established during a weeklong trial in July that the law is constitutional and does not impact the abortion procedure or the availability of abortion in Texas.”
It is remarks like these, Trewhella said, that heighten the need to call upon Abbott and his administration to stand unwaveringly this time around. He noted that it is the duty of the people to encourage Abbott to do what is right, and then to support him when he does so.
“The role of the people regarding the Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate is to prod their magistrates to do right when evil is trying to be done by the superior civil authority, and then to rally around their magistrate—to give them everything personally, publicly, of their prayers—to stand with them in their interposition,” Trewhella stated.
When asked how he could provide insight into why Christians need to get involved in issues such as these, he explained that the Body of Christ must live in sync with the heart of God, and must be motivated to act out of a burden for those things that hurt and offend a holy God, rather than coasting along with the rest of cultural Christianity.
“When you read history and you read the prophets of the Holy Scripture, you see that luxury is often an enemy of the souls of men. Luxury and ease tends of un-man them and destroy nations. And we, as Christian people, are not immune to the luxury and ease of this nation,” Trewhella said. “And so, we have to spend time in God’s Word and with each other talking about the things of Him in order to be built up in the faith, in order to stay on the straight and narrow path, and to do those things that are dear to His heart.”
“When it comes to the helpless and the shedding of innocent blood, we need to speak out so that bloodshed is brought to an end in our nation,” he exhorted.
A website has been launched surrounding the effort, called JeremiahsWish.org, where visitors may also sign a petition to Gov. Abbott. Supporters nationwide are additionally uploading videos to social media that kindly call for Abbott to keep his promise to Thomas.
“I join Jeremiah’s wish to see abortion ended in Texas,” the petition reads. “Please keep your promise to pursue the complete outlaw of abortion this legislative session by making it an emergency item. I promise to stand with you to protect the preborn children of Texas.”
Feminists Get Pop Quiz:
Learn Abortion is Leading Cause of Death in US
WHAT THE IRS CAN & SHOULD DO TO REIN IN PRO-JIHAD & "PALESTINIAN" PROPAGANDA AT UNIVERSITIES
WHAT THE IRS CAN & SHOULD DO TO REIN IN
PRO-JIHAD & "PALESTINIAN" PROPAGANDA
AT UNIVERSITIES
BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/01/what-the-irs-can-and-should-do-to-rein-in-islamic-and-palestinian-propaganda-at-universities; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Universities today are not institutions of higher learning, but indoctrination centers for far-Left propaganda. Leonard Getz, a retired IRS official, here explains how the IRS can and should put a stop to this.
“How the IRS Can Rein In Radical Islam and Anti-Israel Propaganda Courses at Universities,” by Leonard Getz and Cliff Rieders, PJ Media, January 18, 2019:
In its Fall 2018 catalogue, Tufts University’s Colonialism Studies and Women’s Gender and Sexuality Studies departments offered the course “Colonizing Palestine” which “will address crucial questions relating to this embattled nation, the Israeli state which illegally occupies Palestine, and the broader global forces that impinge on Palestinians and Israelis.” Several Jewish organizations, news outlets, and students quickly reacted to the course’s stated premise, characterizing it as “political propaganda masquerading as an academic class.”One student wrote: “This language is not merely inflammatory — it positions a one-sided narrative as truth from the outset of the semester.” A student group pointed out that the course violates the school’s presidential guidelines. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) responded, demanding that Tufts University “must ensure that classes examining the complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict are not one sided platforms for propaganda that demonize Israel & empower anti-Israel activists.”The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) noted: “In addition to the title of the course suggesting a distorted account of the Palestinian-Israel conflict, the course professor, Thomas Abowd is an outspoken activist against Israel. He is on the advisory board for the Boston branch of Jewish Voice for Peace — an extremist pro-BDS [Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions] organization that has hosted and honored the terrorist Rasmea Odeah.”The Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET) painted a broader picture: “[T]his class is a paramount example of what has been occurring in the field of Middle East Studies over the last quarter of a century, where the truth — and a good solid education — is being sacrificed on the altar of mere political propaganda.”The concerns expressed had no impact on the school’s policy. Indeed, the Tufts administration merely responded: “We will not let these spurious attacks derail inquiry at our university.”No one mentioned, and the university does not seem concerned, that this course and many courses like it put the university’s tax-exempt status in jeopardy.Educational facilities such as Tufts and all other universities are required to adhere to specific tax-exempt status clauses embedded in the Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3) and Treasury Regulations 1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(3). Under the regulation, an organization may be educational even if it advocates a particular position or viewpoint, so long as it presents a sufficiently full and fair exposition of the pertinent facts as to permit an individual or the public to form an independent opinion or conclusion.In 1986, the IRS developed the “methodology test” to supplement the regulation’s “full and fair exposition” standard — Revenue Procedure 86-43. The test assists in determining whether the method used by an educational organization to communicate a particular viewpoint or position is educational. Under the test, a method is not educational if it fails to provide a “factual foundation” for the position or viewpoint or “a development from the relevant facts that would materially aid a listener or reader in a learning process.”The IRS identified four factors that would lead to the conclusion the method of instruction is not educational:
- a significant portion of the group’s communications consists of the presentation of viewpoints or positions that are unsupported by facts;
- facts that purport to support the viewpoints or positions are distorted;
- the group’s presentations make substantial use of inflammatory and disparaging terms and express conclusions based more on strong emotional feelings rather than objective evaluation; and
- the presentation’s approach is not aimed at developing the audience’s understanding of the subject matter because it does not consider their background or training.
The presence of any one of these factors indicates the organization’s method of communicating its views does not meet the criteria to be “educational” and therefore subject to having their tax-exempt status revoked.So far, two cases applying the methodology test have gone to court. In Nationalist Movement v. Comm’r, 102 T.C. 558, *4 (April 11, 1994) the Tax Court held for the government, finding that this group did not qualify as educational when its newsletters were filled with inflammatory language and unsupported conclusions. The court also rejected the argument that the methodology test was overly vague. Further, the court did not find the test’s purpose or effect to be the suppression of “disfavored ideas.”In National Association for the Legal Support of Alternative Schools v. Comm’r, 71 T.C. 118 (1978) the court held that a group that advocated for the use of alternative schools met the “full and fair exposition” test when it (1) made publicly available copies of all the briefs, including those of the opposing parties in relevant legal actions; (2) encouraged those with different viewpoints to submit articles to its newsletter; and (3) provided information on a subject that was useful and beneficial to the public.A review of several universities’ approach to Israel and Middle East studies indicate a failure to meet the IRS criteria of being an educational facility.In Commentary’s July/August 2018 issue, Boston College’s Sociology Course 3367, “Human Rights and Social Justice in Israel & Palestine” is extensively discussed in the Ardie Goldman article “My Time Among the Propagandists”. Like Tufts’ Professor Abowd, this class is taught by Associate Professor Eve Spangler, who also promotes the BDS movement and is a speaker for the campus’ Students for Justice in Palestine. Goldman observed the students’ hostility and “presumed to have been the product of a combination of sources: the bias of their classroom lectures, the partisan readings they had been assigned, and the politically skewed experiences of their tour up to that point.” Like Tufts, the course description raises serious issues as to whether the university is promoting a prohibited political agenda. While it purports to “prepare students to better understand the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in a “human rights framework” it invokes terms as “apartheid,” “genocide,” and “ethnic cleansing,” attributing these negative precepts to the state of Israel; “ … students will be “bearing witness’ … to the sufferings and resilience of occupied communities and the courage and wisdom of dissidents,” a barely veiled reference to Palestinians Arabs living under Israeli authority.Is the charged and partisan language educational, or does it fail the IRS criteria for use of inflammatory and disparaging terms, and express conclusions based on strong emotional feelings rather than objective evaluation?The course description also indicates an unacceptable bias. “[N]arratives often trump facts … For this class, we will not be interested in the often described and seemingly contradictory land claims found in the Old Testament and the Quran.” In fact, there are no contradictory land claims between the Old Testament and the Quran. The Old Testament — the Bible/Torah — claims the land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people, while the Quran never claims the land of Israel belongs to Muslims.Goldman observes: “Conflicting facts were dismissed, even ridiculed. Anecdotes that described coexistence between local Jews and Arabs were ignored because they didn’t fit the recognized paradigm. Such tours target the heart, not the mind.” A strong case could be made that Sanger’s class and the tour violate criteria 1, 2, and 3 of Rev Proc 86-43, putting Boston College in the crosshairs of the IRS.Let us review the Ethnic Studies Department at the University of California, Berkeley. In September 2015 that department sponsored a talk by Omar Barghouti, a co-founder of the anti-Israel BDS campaign. According to U of C Student Adah Forer: “A double standard is evident, as multiple departments refused to host Professor Alan Dershowitz but have hosted anti-Israel speakers in the past, thus taking away from the academic integrity they supposedly stand for.” It is also in violation of its tax-exempt status as an educational institution.Like many universities in this country, UC Berkeley’s Middle East Studies program is subsidized by Saudi Arabia. According to an article by Giulio Meotti, “Islam Buys Out Western Academia (June 2011)”: “Riyadh spent one hundred billion dollars to spread Wahhabism, the most anti-Semitic and extremist version of Islam … 5 million dollars were donated to the Center for Middle East Studies at Berkeley, 20 million dollars were donated to the Middle East Studies Center at the University of Arkansas.”On April 14, 2017, Prof. Phyllis Chesler, the world’s foremost expert on honor killings, was disinvited from an honor killings conference at the University of Arkansas by three professors from The King Fahd Center of Middle East Studies because she wrote for “right wing publications.” Disinviting Ms. Chesler was a violation of Revenue Procedure 86-43. (To its credit, University of Arkansas suspended the director of the Center for disinviting her.)The Alavi Foundation, a private, Iranian-American not-for profit organization, has provided since 1973 over $50 million to clinics and universities including Harvard, Columbia, Princeton, Rutgers University, Bard College, the University of Virginia, Brandeis University, Catholic University of America, and Sacred Heart University to promote the study of Persian culture and civilization. Hamid Azimi, communications director for the Iranian-American Community of Northern California, said the Alavi Foundation is just one part of Iran’s “propaganda machine” in the United States. In June 2017, a Manhattan jury found that the Alavi Foundation was controlled by the Tehran regime, a violation of U.S. sanctions against Iran.“Did this foundation attempt to subvert American academic institutions?” asked Congressman Dan Donovan (R-NY), on August 1, 2017. “We need to investigate this, and universities have to do a better job of vetting their donors.” “This is all about Iran laundering their policies through academe,” said Michael Rubin, an Iran expert at the American Enterprise Institute think tank.Consider the teachings of the following university professorsRutgers Professor Hooshang Amirahmadi: “Unfortunately, a large part of the problems between Iran and the US are not based in reality, but are based on myths. The problem of terrorism is a true myth. Iran has not been involved in any terrorist organization. Neither Hezbollah nor Hamas are terrorist organizations.” If this viewpoint is not based on facts it is a violation of Rev. Proc 86-43, subjecting Rutgers to losing its tax-exempt status.Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi admonished Washington, D.C. for its “hysteria about suicide bombers,” “worries that Jews will ‘Infest’ the Trump Administration,” and insists that “Jerusalem is and has to be seen as the capital of Palestine, of a Palestinian-Arab state.” During 2015 and 2016, 93% of Israel-related events sponsored by the Center for Palestine Studies at Columbia University, directed by Khalidi, included anti-Israel, pro-BDS speakers” — more than double any other U.S. school. These teaching are violations of Rev. Proc 86-43, i.e., viewpoints unsupported by facts and which are inflammatory and disparaging.Georgetown University’s H.R.H. Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding received $20M from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal (recently arrested for financial corruption). The past director of this program, John Esposito, taught that “Islamist violence is beyond the bounds of approved research … Islamist movements are movements of democratic reform.” The Investigative Project on Terrorism found Esposito allied with a series of people directly involved in terrorist and extremist movements, including convicted terrorist Sami Al-Arian, an acknowledged member of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The late Muslim American Society Imam W. Deen Mohammed did not mince words when he said, referring to the bin Talal Center, “these donations are not intended to fund objective scholarship, they’re meant to forward the Wahabi School of thought.”Georgetown’s violations are not restricted to the classroom. It is open to the world via its online “The Bridge Initiative” dedicated to the exposing and disposing of “Islamophobia.” On the surface this sounds like a worthwhile endeavor. It sets out to “examine attitudes and behaviors towards Muslims; dissect public discourses on Islam; and uncover the operational mechanisms of engineered Islamophobia in an effort to raise public awareness and enrich public discourse on this pernicious form of prejudice.” The Bridge Initiative sets the stage for the view that any criticism of anything Islam is Islamophobic. Its premise is that, “in recent decades, anti-Islam and anti-Muslim bigotry and discrimination has increased exponentially in the United States and Europe, with national and global consequences. Pseudo-scholars and polemicists peddle their writing online, are viewed by many as credible and reliable voices, and therefore strongly impact popular culture. … As a result, Americans — the majority of whom look to the Internet for information and answers on pressing questions — miss credible empirical information and are bombarded with pseudo-scholarship that fosters prejudice and fear.”Consider the article on the Bridge Initiative website written by Brooklyn College, “Prof Moustafa Bayoumi on Being Muslim and American During the War on Terror” posted on May 8, 2017, written by Bridge Initiative Team. He explains that Islamophobia existed long before 9/11, but that afterward the government started using it for political purposes. This is stated without any examples or proof of how the government is using Islamophobia for political purposes. Thus, it is a violation of Rev Proc 86-43.The piece “As Islamophobia Surges, Anti-Muslim Speakers Exploit Fears”, posted on June 29, 2016, and also written by Bridge Initiative Team, states: “In the decade-and-a-half since 9/11, anti-Muslim speakers, bloggers and activists like Robert Spencer and Brigitte Gabriel have become a dime a dozen. “Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and has led seminars on Islam and jihad for the United States Central Command, the United States Army Command, and the Joint Terrorism Task Force. He is the author of numerous books, including Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America Without Guns or Bombs.Brigitte Gabriel is founder and chairman of ACT for America, a large national security grassroots organization in the United States. She has addressed the United Nations, the Australian prime minister, members of British Parliament/House of Commons, members of the United States Congress, the Pentagon, the Joint Forces Staff College, the U.S. Special Operations Command, The U.S. Asymmetric Warfare group, and the FBI. In 2016, she was knighted by the Knights of Malta in Europe for her international work on fighting terrorism and standing up for Western Judeo-Christian values. Others knighted include Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Nelson Mandela, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. She has said: “Moderate Muslims must organize and engage those enlightened, educated and westernized Muslims in the community to begin a dialogue to discuss the possibility of reform in Islam.”Is it a fact that Robert Spencer and Brigitte Gabriel are anti-Muslim, or are they being unfairly labeled by the Bridge Initiative because they speak out against radical Islam? Is it presenting a sufficiently full and fair exposition of the pertinent facts to permit an individual or the public to form an independent opinion or conclusion about Robert Spencer and Brigitte Gabriel? Or is the Bridge Initiative espousing a disparaging opinion and trying to spin it as a fact, rendering Georgetown University in violation of its tax-exempt status?While the Bridge Initiative does acknowledge that “rational criticism of Islam or Muslims based on factual evidence is not intrinsically Islamophobia,” a browser would be hard-pressed to find any examples of this on its website. Nor would one find any consideration of the view that Americans are not Islamophobic, but concerned and wary of the lack of Muslim recognition and condemnation of radical elements in Islam responsible for worldwide terrorism.In the Bridge Initiative world, any criticism of Islam is Islamophobic — including, and especially, of the Muslim Brotherhood. It heaps praise on this organization, touting it as a “force for democratization and stability in the Middle East.” It criticizes “Ted Cruz’s Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Bill” (posted on January 18, 2017, and written by Bridge Initiative Team), declaring: “The basis for Cruz’s bill is one solitary document: a memo from the early 1990s supposedly written by a leading figure of the Muslim Brotherhood, which details a plan to subvert Western civilization. Cruz’s guide on this matter, Frank Gaffney, is the leader of the Center for Security Policy — a recognized anti-Muslim hate group. Their claims about the memo have been debunked.”What does the Bridge Initiative mean by “recognized?” It means recognized only by the left-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center. The article omits that important fact. And how was it “debunked?” It was “debunked” in an earlier article by the Bridge Initiative Team themselves, and no one else.…
COURT RULES UNDERCOVER VIDEOS OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD SELLING BABY BODY PARTS ARE AUTHENTIC
COURT RULES UNDERCOVER VIDEOS OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD SELLING BABY BODY PARTS
ARE AUTHENTIC
SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/court-rules-undercover-videos-planned-parenthood-selling-baby-body-parts-authentic/; republished below in full unedited
for informational, educational and research purposes:
The court ruling refutes Planned Parenthood’s own talking points about how
the CMP videos were “highly edited.”
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the state of Texas can strip taxpayer
subsidies from Planned Parenthood, primarily based on evidence found in undercover
videos of the abortion provider’s involvement in harvesting and selling aborted baby
body parts for profit. The undercover videos in question were first released in 2015 by
David Daleiden, founder and project lead at the Center for Medical Progress (CMP),
and scrutinized by Planned Parenthood and members of the media as “deceptively
edited.” “Planned Parenthood for years has been smearing us trying to say the videos
were not accurate or somehow misleading,” Daleiden said in an interview with Federalist
contributor DC McAllister. “The Fifth Circuit explicitly found in their ruling last night that
the Center for Medical Progress’ videos are authentic…and could be relied upon by Texas
and by others as the regulatory and other enforcement proceedings.”
The court ruling directly refutes Planned Parenthood’s own talking points about how the
CMP videos were “highly edited,” and “falsely portray[ing] Planned Parenthood’s
participation in tissue donation programs.”
“The video camera doesn’t lie: CMP’s undercover video series caught Planned
Parenthood’s top leaders openly admitting to selling baby body parts for profit in
violation of federal law,” said the Center for Medical Progress in a statement. “Now it
is time for the Department of Justice to do its job and hold Planned Parenthood
accountable to the law.”
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Feminists Get Pop Quiz: Learn Abortion
is Leading Cause of Death in US
LINDA SARSOUR IS A BAD OMEN FOR AMERICA
Brooklyn Girl with Hateful, Islamist Views
EXCERPTS:
"Despite having a wife in the spotlight, Sarsour’s husband, Maher Judeh (a.k.a., Maher Abo Tamer) believes that Muslim women should censor themselves on social media, saying “they can socialize on Facebook with friends but to an extent [sic].” Judeh works as a cashier at a deli/convenience store in Brooklyn. The deli is known for selling alcohol to minors."
"In the past, Judeh has expresses a fondness for Fatah. He praised Palestinian Authority police officer Amjad Sukkari “Abu Omar” as a hero. Sukkari carried out a shooting attack at a checkpoint in Israel. He mourned the death of the brothers (and Hamas “master terrorists”) Adel and Imad Awadallah. Judeh has also spoken of the founder of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), George Habash, in glowing terms. Habash has been describes by some as the “godfather of Middle East terrorism.” Judeh at one point in time was allegedly facing deportation."
"Sarsour is seen as a rising star in the Democratic Party. However, when she’s not busy with narcissistic self-promotion, she spews hatred."
ALSO SEE: https://articlebio.com/linda-sarsour
LINDA SARSOUR IS A BAD OMEN FOR AMERICA
BY RAMI DABBAS
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Every day more secrets are revealed about the Muslim Brotherhood and the State of Qatar, which stands behind the Muslim Brotherhood and supports it financially and morally through several tools and institutions, both inside Arab countries and in the West, especially in the United States of America, under the cover of the charities and NGO organizations located in those countries.Linda Sarsour is an Arab American of Palestinian origin and executive director of the New York-based Arab American Society, an association that is administratively linked to the Qatar Foundation International and ideologically follows the Muslim Brotherhood and Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi – a terror promoter — who strongly supports the terrorist Hamas movement and the Qatari government, which is allied with adherents of political Islam. The Qatar Foundation International is closely linked to the Qatari government. Former US Treasury Department analyst Jonathan Schanzer describes the institution as “an ATM for the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliated groups, the spiritual father of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, as well as funding Hamas and terror groups in Syria.” Schanzer stressed that Qatar’s neighbors from Arab countries were “nauseated” by Qatar’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood.The Qatar Foundation and the Emir of Qatar established the Al-Qaradawi Research Center in honor of Qaradawi. The purpose of the Center was to promote Al-Qaradawi’s ideas on the basis that he was a pioneer of moderate Islamic thought for Muslims today. In January 2012, the Qatar Foundation (QF) opened a center for Islamic legislation and advocacy. Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of the Brotherhood’s founder Hassan al-Banna and the son of Brotherhood leader Saeed Ramadan, was appointed as the director of research of the center.At the same time, the Qatar Foundation has strong ties to the International Institute of Islamic Thought, an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States that was investigated on terror finance issues after the 9/11 attacks. The deputy director of the Qatar Foundation for Islamic Legislation and Advocacy was Jasser Odeh. At the same time, he taught and lectured at the International Institute of Islamic Thought, as he mentioned in his own profile. The Muslim Brotherhood in the United States described the International Institute of Islamic Thought as one of “our organizations and institutions owned by our friends” in a secret memo issued in 1991. The memo states that the purpose of its network in the United States is “a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destructing Western civilization from within.”Now we come back to Linda Sarsour, who also has suspicious personal relationships. In 2004, Sarsour told the press that the US authorities questioned her and her Palestinian husband Maher Judeh, who was threatened with deportation after living in the United States for seven years. In the same interview, Sarsour mentioned that one of her cousins spent 25 years in prison in Israel, and that a family friend was sentenced to 99 years in prison. She added that her unmarried brother was also serving a 12-month sentence for being a member of Hamas.The New York Police Department opened an investigation into the relationships of the Arab-American Association, headed by Linda Sarsour, and tried to obtain information about its board members. It found that its chairman was Dr. Ahmed Jaber, head of the Dawood mosque, known as the Islamic Mission in America. Sarsour is constantly trying to portray law enforcement officials and the government as unfair to Muslims, and her claims and fears of terrorist plots are in fact government conspiracies, according to Sarsour.For example, Sarsour said that New York police detectives fabricated terror cases so they could get funding for the New York Police Department. The government stopped an al-Qaeda plot to destroy an aircraft using an explosive device hidden in a person’s underwear: Sarsour claimed the attacker was actually a CIA agent. In an interview, Sarsour said that “fear of Islam” is merely a manifestation of American persecution of minorities, and the United States remains a democratic state with an authoritarian element. Sarsour is known to launch fierce attacks on Muslim Brotherhood opponents, including Muslim dissidents themselves, so the Qatar-affiliated Brotherhood put its money in the right place when it decided to invest in her organization.Sarsour was honored as one of the “Extraordinary Brooklyn Women,” and has sparked controversy because of her closeness to Bill de Blasio, the mayor of New York. The newspapers added that in the past, if you wanted to become mayor of New York, you had to campaign to get closer to the Jews and get their votes, but now in a clear shift, you need to race not only to get the support of Muslims, but the voices of those with ties to Hamas, as is the case Linda Sarsour. Sarsour has also been charged with anti-Semitism because of her public pride that she has relatives who have been convicted of belonging to the terrorist Hamas movement.Linda’s brother, Jameel Sarsour, is accused of belonging to the terrorist group Hamas and being on the terrorist list of the United States government, under the category of a “specialized international terrorist” by the US Treasury Department. It is strange that Jamil Sarsour lives freely in the U.S. although the government has given him this terrorist label. The FBI agents who investigated him, including FBI agent Robert Wright and retired FBI agent John Vincent, are very angry about it.Despite this, Sarsour was a familiar face in the Obama White House. The Obama administration opened the White House to adherents of political Islam; they attended hundreds of meetings at the White House. Court documents and other records have confirmed that many of these visitors belong to groups that act as fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and other Islamic organizations. These investigations were based on a comprehensive analysis of records of visitors to the White House. These meetings were conducted with groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other groups linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2013, White House officials received a delegation from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which is now banned in Egypt and many Arab states as a terror group. It seeks to impose Sharia by force. They visited the White House. And Sarsour confirmed that she was invited to at least seven White House meetings between 2010 and 2014.Obama is gone from the White House, but Sarsour’s continuing influence on the Left is a bad omen for America, a sign of what will happen in the future.
DOCUMENTARY FILM "KILLING FREE SPEECH": LEFTISTS UN-IRONICALLY TRY TO SHUT IT DOWN
In a Time of Universal Deceit,
Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act
DOCUMENTARY FILM "KILLING FREE SPEECH":
LEFTISTS UN-IRONICALLY TRY TO SHUT IT DOWN
TRAILER:
BY MICHAEL HANSEN
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Liberty is dying in America, and I (the director of Killing Europe) expose in the new movie Killing Free Speech how the U.S. is going down the same self-destructive road as Europe. The film exposes the radical left’s actions to silence free speech and the mainstream media’s efforts to shut down any point of view impeding an open-border agenda. From Antifa violence in the streets to CAIR-imposed censorship, to hijab-wearing teachers teaching Islamic values in our schools. The film features embattled Border Patrol agents and shocking undercover footage of the far-left extremist groups operating in America. Killing Free Speech reveals their tactics and lays bare the open-borders agenda on the radical left.“NBPC 1613 wants the public to know the truth about what is going on at the border so that they can make informed decisions as to what is truly needed to secure the borders effectively, humanely and safely. Killing Free Speech gave us a voice and an opportunity to speak the truth and it is a powerful testament to the men and women of the Border Patrol who risk their lives every day.”Terence L. Shigg National Border Patrol Council Local 1613 PresidentMonday, October 15, 2018 was the date of the first screening of Killing Free Speech. It was previewed at the National Border Patrol Council Local 1613. The film was such a hit with the border patrol agents that they planned to have the Texas Border Patrol set up a screening as well. However, when select media outlets learned of the screenings, they wrote scorching articles accusing the border patrol union of “endorsing extremist video featuring white nationalists.”This was, of course, fake news. Must conservatives featured in the documentary are in fact members of minority communities in this country. Terence Shigg, National Border Patrol Council Local 1613 President, is himself African American, and as Terence points out, “Nowhere in the article do the journalists actually identify what white nationalist appear in the movie.”Ironically, the articles proves the film right about the mainstream media, but sadly, the articles worked to their intention. Border Patrol National was put under so much pressure that any additional screenings were off the table, and for the time being, the media was able to silence the Border Patrol.This brings us to the government shutdown and the border wall. Why is the mainstream media misrepresenting what is going on at the border? Why do journalists discredit the Border Patrol for endorsing films that give them a voice? And is the Democratic Party against the border wall so much so that they are willing to shut down the government?“The reality is that border patrol agents are saying ‘We want this wall, we need this wall, it will work.’ I don’t think that the mainstream media want to accept the fact that a border wall will advance security, because, quite frankly, I don’t think they believe in border security”Joshua Border Patrol Agent, San Diego BorderIn light of the media smear campaign of his movie and the government shutdown, I put out the following statement: “I have decided put my movie out for free viewing to the public until the Border Patrol get what they need to secure our border and we get the wall.”Full Statement From National Border Patrol CouncilThe National Border Patrol Council Local 1613 got involved with this project because we are concerned that the current narrative being pushed by the majority of media outlets is biased and negative in regards to Border Patrol Agents. NBPC 1613 has worked tirelessly to get the truth out about what our agents do into the public forum but it is a daunting task when our message does not fit the agenda for most media outlets. Free speech is a movie that falls in line with what we as a council, as Border Patrol Agents and as Law Enforcement Officers have seen as the slow decay of the right and the ability to speak truth to power. NBPC 1613 wants the public to know the truth about what is going on at the border so that they can make informed decisions as to what is truly needed to secure the borders effectively, humanely and safely.Killing Free Speech gave us a voice and an opportunity to speak the truth and it is a powerful testament to the men and women of the Border Patrol who risk their lives every day.Terence L. Shigg National Border Patrol Council Local 1613 President
____________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
A LESSON ON FREE SPEECH AND SHARIA IN KNOXVILLE
A stunning defeat for CAIR in an unlikely place.
AND:VIDEO:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)