Wednesday, July 17, 2019


“Omar’s oath of loyalty to the United States of America 
is in serious doubt”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
A new petition uploaded to the site is demanding an immediate Congressional investigation into Rep. Ilhan Omar.
President Trump is currently engaged in a war of rhetoric with Omar and three other Congresswomen after he asked, “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came?”
The petition is titled ‘Conduct an Immediate Congressional Investigation Into Rep. Ilhan Omar’ and reads as follows:
We ask the President to initiate a Congressional investigation into Rep. Ilhan Omar’s background to determine if she should face expulsion from Congress.
Rep. Omar’s oath of loyalty to the United States of America is in serious doubt.
Omar made light of the September 11 terror attack by referring to the atrocity as “some people did something”.
Omar was recorded laughing about and making light of Islamic terrorism and the Al-Qaeda threat.
Omar refused to condemn the terrorist attack by a self-described Antifa member, who tried to firebomb an ICE facility in Washington State.
Omar also defended jihadists in her state who chose to join ISIS, saying they should get lighter punishments.
There are also severe allegations concerning the question of whether Omar married her own brother.
Article I, Section 5 of the United States Constitution details the measures necessary to initiate an expulsion of a sitting member of Congress, which requires the concurrence of two-thirds of the members.
Earlier today it was revealed that the House will pass a resolution condemning Trump’s “racist” tweets.
Those Tweets were NOT Racist. I don’t have a Racist bone in my body! The so-called vote to be taken is a Democrat con game,” Trump responded.
“Republicans should not show “weakness” and fall into their trap. This should be a vote on the filthy language, statements and lies told by the Democrat Congresswomen, who I truly believe, based on their actions, hate our Country,” he added.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Iran (Mission Network News)  Pressure is building in Iran as yet another group of believers pay for claiming the name of Christ. According to Miles Windsor of Middle East Concern, seven believers are in solitary confinement with no access to lawyers.
In a separate incident, five men accused of “propaganda against the regime” began serving prison sentences on July 6. Their sentences range from four to 14 months.
“They have done nothing to undermine the state or spread propaganda against the state at all,” Windsor emphasizes. “They’re being imprisoned because of their faith in the Lord Jesus. That’s true of the many Christians who face these kinds of charges.”
“It’s really important to be praying for our brothers and sisters [in Iran] to be strong in what is a very, very difficult context.”


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
It looks like Birchers are on Big Tech’s wrongthink radar.
The John Birch Society had a post censored and monetization of its videos suspended by Facebook last week for alleged violation of “hate speech” standards after the organization encouraged its social media followers to obtain a copy of The New American (TNA) magazine’s “Immigration Invasion” edition.
Facebook removed the post from public visibility on the grounds that it “goes against our Community standards on hate speech.”
FB Policy Issues 3
In addition, the Facebook team notified JBS that its ad breaks have been placed on a 30-day restriction.
Ad breaks are advertisements that publishers can choose to activate on videos over 10 minutes in order to make money from their content. With ad and other monetization methods on hold, JBS will lose a revenue stream for a month — and Facebook warned the restriction will be extended to three months if JBS has another Community Standards violation within 90 days.
FB Policy Issues 2
FB Policy Issues
The JBS post that prompted the crackdown was an announcement of TNA’s July 8 print issue (JBS publishes TNA through its American Opinion Publishing subsidiary).
The issue’s cover story is entitled “Immigrant Invasion,” and provides the hard numbers and a deep analysis of the current border crisis.
Neither the article, the magazine cover, nor the promotional graphic posted to Facebook feature racial slurs or other demeaning language. The picture on TNA’s front cover is a real photograph of migrants climbing over the fence along America’s southern border.
Facebook’s Community Standards say the social network bans “hate speech” because “it creates an environment of intimidation and exclusion and in some cases may promote real-world violence.”
The platform defines “hate speech” as “a direct attack on people based on what [Facebook] call[s] protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability.”
“We also provide some protections for immigration status,” Facebook adds.
Per the terms, an “attack” is “violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation.”
In an article on Facebook’s newsroom, the company’s vice president for EMEA public policy, Richard Allen, accepted that “there is no universally accepted answer for when something crosses the line.”
“In Germany, for example, laws forbid incitement to hatred; you could find yourself the subject of a police raid if you post such content online,” Allen notes. “In the US, on the other hand, even the most vile kinds of speech are legally protected under the US Constitution.”
Allen describes immigration specifically as an issue that has become the subject of “hate speech.”
“Often a policy debate becomes a debate over hate speech, as two sides adopt inflammatory language. This is often the case with the immigration debate, whether it’s about the Rohingya in South East Asia … or immigration in the US. This presents a unique dilemma: on the one hand, we don’t want to stifle important policy conversations about how countries decide who can and can’t cross their borders. At the same time, we know that the discussion is often hurtful and insulting.”
He goes on to say that Facebook investigated immigration discussion after refugees and migrants were allegedly being threatened.
“[We] decided to develop new guidelines to remove calls for violence against migrants or dehumanizing references to them — such as comparisons to animals, to filth or to trash. But we have left in place the ability for people to express their views on immigration itself. And we are deeply committed to making sure Facebook remains a place for legitimate debate.”
The Facebook VP states that Facebook is “committed to removing hate speech any time we become aware of it” and claims the platform deletes an average of 66,000 posts reported as hate speech per week.
The article also asserts Facebook is experimenting with ways to automatically filter “toxic” language and keep it from public eyes. However, the site still relies heavily on reporting by its users and enforcement by its team of 15,000 content reviewers.
“We then have our teams of reviewers, who have broad language expertise and work 24 hours a day across time zones, to apply our hate speech policies,” Allen writes.
JBS, like many publishers, was affected by changes to Facebook’s ad policies last year that now require users to verify their identities by providing photo identification in order to advertise content.
The social-media giant touted this update as a step toward combatting “fake news,” based on the belief that Russian agents used fake Facebook accounts to spread disinformation that contributed to the election of Donald Trump.
Facebook has also purged from its platform a number of personalities it considers “dangerous,” including right-wing commentators such as Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Laura Loomer, Paul Joseph Watson, and Paul Nehlen.
Facebook carried out these purges in consultation with left-wing groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the George Soros-funded Media Matters.
Ultimately, the censorship tactics are unsurprising to anyone acquainted with the techniques of totalitarians. Why debate dissenting opinion when it’s so much easier to silence it?


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The Trump administration has announced new asylum policies that would effectively end asylum entitlements for the vast majority of migrants reaching the southern border.
The “Third-Country Asylum Rule” issued in a bulletin by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) signals a major crackdown on asylum claims along the Mexican border.
The new rule to be published imminently in the Federal Register reads as follows:
“This IFR uses the authority delegated by Congress in section 208(b)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to enhance the integrity of the asylum process by placing further restrictions or limitations on eligibility for aliens who seek asylum in the United States. Specifically, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security are revising 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(c) and 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(c) to add a new bar to eligibility for asylum for an alien who enters or attempts to enter the United States across the southern border, but who did not apply for protection from persecution or torture where it was available in at least one third country outside the alien’s country of citizenship, nationality, or last lawful habitual residence through which he or she transited en route to the United States.”
Three key restrictions to the rule are explained as follows:
(1) an alien who demonstrates that he or she applied for protection from persecution or torture in at least one of the countries through which the alien transited en route to the United States, and the alien received a final judgment denying the alien protection in such country;
(2) an alien who demonstrates that he or she satisfies the definition of “victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons” provided in 8 C.F.R. § 214.11; or,
(3) an alien who has transited en route to the United States through only a country or countries that were not parties to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the 1967 Protocol, or the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Attorney General William Barr has acknowledged the full legality and necessity of the rule.
“This Rule is a lawful exercise of authority provided by Congress to restrict eligibility for asylum,” reads Barr’s statement in the bulletin. “The United States is a generous country but is being completely overwhelmed by the burdens associated with apprehending and processing hundreds of thousands of aliens along the southern border.”
“This Rule will decrease forum shopping by economic migrants and those who seek to exploit our asylum system to obtain entry to the United States—while ensuring that no one is removed from the United States who is more likely than not to be tortured or persecuted on account of a protected ground.”
The southern border continues to be inundated with hundreds of thousands of migrants from all over the world, including a surge from African countries such as the Congo, which is currently in the midst of a historic Ebola outbreak.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Here’s a suggestion. How about setting up some high school rifle clubs? Students would bring their own rifles to school, store them with the team coach and, after classes, collect them for practice. You say: “Williams, you must be crazy! To prevent gun violence, we must do all we can to keep guns out of the hands of kids.”
There’s a problem with this reasoning. Prior to the 1960s, many public high schools had shooting clubs. In New York City, shooting clubs were started at Boys, Curtis, Commercial, Manual Training and Stuyvesant high schools. Students carried their rifles to school on the subway and turned them over to their homeroom or gym teacher. Rifles were retrieved after school for target practice. In some rural areas across the nation, there was a long tradition of high school students hunting before classes and storing their rifles in the trunks of their cars, parked on school grounds, during the school day.
Today, any school principal permitting rifles clubs or allowing rifles on school grounds would be fired, possibly imprisoned. Here’s my question: Have .30-30 caliber Winchesters and .22 caliber rifles changed to become more violent? If indeed rifles have become more violent, what can be done to pacify them? Will rifle psychiatric counseling help to stop these weapons from committing gun violence? You say: “Williams, that’s lunacy! Guns are inanimate objects and as such cannot act.” You’re right. Only people can act. That means that we ought to abandon the phrase “gun violence” because guns cannot act and hence cannot be violent.
If guns haven’t changed, it must be that people, and what’s considered acceptable behavior, have changed. Violence with guns is just a tiny example. What explains a lot of what we see today is growing cultural deviancy. Twenty-nine percent of white children, 53% of Hispanic children and 73% of black children are born to unmarried women. The absence of a husband and father in the home is a strong contributing factor to poverty, school failure, crime, drug abuse, emotional disturbance and a host of other social problems. By the way, the low marriage rate among blacks is relatively new. Census data shows that a slightly higher percentage of black adults had married than white adults from 1890 to 1940. According to the 1938 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, that year only 11% of black children and 3% of white children were born to unwed mothers.
In 1954, I graduated from Philadelphia’s Benjamin Franklin High School, the city’s poorest school. During those days, there were no school policemen. Today, close to 400 police patrol Philadelphia schools. According to federal education data, in the 2015-16 school year, 5.8% of the nation’s 3.8 million teachers were physically attacked by a student. Almost 10% were threatened with injury.
Other forms of cultural deviancy are found in the music accepted today that advocates murder, rape and other vile acts. In previous generations, people were held responsible for their behavior. Today, society at large pays for irresponsible behavior. Years ago, there was little tolerance for the crude behavior and language that are accepted today. To see men sitting while a woman was standing on a public conveyance was once unthinkable. Children addressing adults by their first name, and their use of foul language in the presence of, and often to, teachers and other adults was unacceptable.
A society’s first line of defense is not the law or the criminal justice system but customs, traditions and moral values. These behavioral norms, mostly imparted by example, word-of-mouth and religious teachings, represent a body of wisdom distilled over the ages through experience and trial and error. Police and laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Today’s true tragedy is that most people think what we see today has always been so. As such, today’s Americans accept behavior that our parents and grandparents never would have accepted.



How Islam's history with Europe 

continues to color modern perceptions

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Raymond Ibrahim is a Freedom Center Shillman Fellow and the author of Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West.
“Austria acts against Muslims almost every day because of their subconscious fear of Turks,” writes Turkish historian Erhan Afyoncu.  “Austrians have not forgotten the fear and their emperor’s escape in the Battle of Vienna in 1683. When Turks were defeated in the Battle of Vienna, Europeans were so happy…”
This is true.  As such, a brief refresher on the Siege of Vienna—the anniversary of which is today—is in order:
The largest Islamic army ever to invade European territory—which is saying much considering that countless invasions preceded it since the eighth century—came and surrounded Vienna, then the heart of the Holy Roman Empire and longtime nemesis of Islam, on July 15, 1683.
Some 200,000 Muslim combatants, under the leadership of the Ottomans—the one state in nearly fourteen centuries of Islamic history most dedicated to and founded on the principles of jihad—invaded under the same rationale that so-called “radical” groups, such as the Islamic State, cite to justify their jihad on “infidels.”  Or, to quote the leader of the Muslim expedition, Grand Vizier Kara Mustafa, because Vienna was perceived as the head of the infidel snake, it needed to be laid low so that “all the Christians would obey the Ottomans.”
This was no idle boast; sources describe this Mustafa as “fanatically anti-Christian.” After capturing a Polish town in 1674 he ordered all the Christian prisoners to be skinned alive and their stuffed hides sent as trophies to Ottoman Sultan Muhammad IV. 
Such supremacist hate was standard and on display during the elaborate pre-jihad ceremony presaging the siege of Vienna.  Then, the sultan, “desiring him [Mustafa] to fight generously for the Mahometan faith,” to quote a contemporary European source, placed “the standard of the Prophet…into his hands for the extirpation of infidels, and the increase of Muslemen.”
Once the massive Muslim army reached and surrounded the walls of Vienna, Mustafa followed protocol. In 628, his prophet Muhammad had sent an ultimatum to Emperor Heraclius: aslam taslam, “submit [to Islam] and have peace.”  Heraclius rejected the summons, jihad was declared against Christendom (as enshrined in Koran 9:29), and in a few decades, two-thirds of the then Christian world—including Spain, all of North Africa, Egypt, and Greater Syria—were conquered.
Now, over a thousand years later, the same ultimatum of submission to Islam or death had reached the heart of Europe.  Although the Viennese commander did not bother to respond to the summons, graffiti inside the city—including “Muhammad, you dog, go home!”—seems to capture its mood.
So it would be war.  On the next day, Mustafa unleashed all hell against the city’s walls; and for two months, the holed-up and vastly outnumbered Viennese suffered plague, dysentery, starvation, and many casualties—including women and children—in the name of jihad.
Then, on September 12, when the city had reached its final extremity, and the Muslims were about to burst through, Vienna’s prayers were answered.  As an anonymous Englishman explained:
After a siege of sixty days, accompanied with a thousand difficulties, sicknesses, want of provisions, and great effusion of blood, after a million of cannon and musquet shot, bombs, granadoes, and all sorts of fireworks, which has changed the face of the fairest and most flourishing city in the world, disfigured and ruined [it] . . . heaven favorably heard the prayers and tears of a cast down and mournful people.
The formidable king of Poland, John Sobieski, had finally come at the head of 65,000 heavily-armored Poles, Austrians, and Germans—all hot to avenge the beleaguered city.  Arguing that “It is not a city alone that we have to save, but the whole of Christianity, of which the city of Vienna is the bulwark,” Sobieski led a thunderous cavalry charge—history’s largest—against and totally routed the Muslim besiegers.
Although a spectacular victory, the aftermath was gory: before fleeing, the Muslims ritually slaughtered some 30,000 Christian captives collected during their march to Vienna—raping the women beforehand.  On entering the relieved city, the liberators encountered piles of corpses, sewage, and rubble everywhere.
It is this history of Islamic aggression—beginning in the fourteenth century when Muslims first established a foothold in Eastern Europe (Thrace), and into the twentieth century when the Ottoman sultanate finally collapsed—that informs Eastern European views on Islam.  As one modern Pole, echoing the words of Sobieski, said, “A religious war between Christianity and Islam is once again underway in Europe, just like in the past.”
Whereas Western nations cite lack of integration, economic disparities, and grievances to explain away the exponential growth of terrorism, violence, and sexual assaults that come with living alongside large, resistant-to-assimilation Muslim populations, Eastern nations tend to see only a continuity of hostility.
Note: The above account is excerpted from Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West — a book that CAIR and its Islamist allies did everything they could to prevent the U.S. Army War College from learning about.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
AUSTIN, Texas — A small interfaith “blessing” ceremony was conducted at a Texas abortion facility on Tuesday to ask for “safety, healing and peace” for women who have abortions there, as well as the staff members who help provide them.
According to reports, the ceremony at Whole Woman’s Health in Austin involved 10 clergy members who walked through the facility, presenting prayers, rituals, poetry and music. The event was the effort of the Texas Freedom Network and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.
“As people of faith, it’s not that we think we’re bringing God to this place; we believe God is already present in that space,” Amelia Fulbright of Labyrinth Progressive Student Ministry told the Huffington Post. “But it’s to ask for prayers of safety, healing and peace, to infuse the space with an energy that is life-giving for women, a lot of whom are in an anxious time.”
Katey Zeh, the interim director of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice and an ordained Baptist minister, wrote about the ceremony for Religion News Service, asserting that “[r]eligious people can be pro-choice, not in spite of their faith but because of it.”
She noted that members of Presbyterian (USA), Episcopalian, Unitarian, United Church of Christ and Disciples of Christ assemblies are among those who “affirm [those] considering all options,” including abortion.
“Because our prophetic teachings emphasize caring for our neighbors, progressive faith communities are called to respond to pregnant people with compassion and affirmation. We know that making reproductive decisions can be hard work spiritually and emotionally, yet we believe God accepts the decisions of conscience each person makes,” Zeh claimed.
Zeh also opined that for those who have left “organized religion in part because of harsh teachings about sex and sexuality,” the ceremony “reflects that spirituality and reproductive freedom can coexist.”
As previously reported, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice has held “blessing” ceremonies at abortion facilities for years, including in 2015 when it sought to “bless” PreTerm in Cleveland, Ohio. The outlet Thinkprogress reported that the group hoped its efforts would protect the facility from “preachy protesters, as well as encourage the strength and bravery of those providing and relying on its services.”
Whole Woman’s Health, which has locations in Austin, Fort Worth, San Antonio and McAllen, had offered free abortions to those affected by Hurricane Harvey in 2017.
The Austin site had been fined $17,430 in 2011 for mislabeling boxes containing the remains of aborted babies, which were then collected by the medical waste company Stericycle and autoclaved before being dumped in a municipal solid waste landfill with household and commercial trash.
While the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice represent those religious entities who support abortion “rights,” throughout America’s history, abortion has been strongly condemned in the pulpit.
In his 1869 sermon entitled “Ante-Natal Infanticide,” E. Frank Howe, the pastor of the Congregational Church of Terre Haute, Indiana, said, “[I]t makes no matter that the victim cannot stretch out its hands in defense … It matters not that it … can utter no cry of pain or reproach. The sacred gift of human life is taken — is deliberately taken, and this constitutes the crime, and that crime is murder.”
He lamented that “men and women place their own ease and pleasure above God’s law” and that “public opinion is so corrupted there is no voice of reproach,” forthrightly declaring, “Put what face upon it the community will, disguise it under whatever name you please, you can make no more or less of it than simple murder.”