APOSTATE GOSPEL COALITION CALLS ROMAN CATHOLICISM "FULL BLOODED VERSION OF CHRISTIANITY"

A POLITICALLY (IN)CORRECT APPROACH 

TO "CHRISTIANITY" USING A 

"BALM OF GILEAD" ON GAY CATHOLICS, CALLING THEM "CHRISTIANS"

RACHEL GILSON:

https://rachelgilson.com/

http://www.crunortheast.org/

Two Marvelous Truths Help Me Say No 

to Sexual Sin

"As a same-sex-attracted woman married to a man, I was struggling to ward off temptation on my own power. Then God showed me I didn’t have to."

"I have learned that this is common for women who experience same-sex attraction, that an emotionally strong connection creates context for sexual sin. That this hadn’t been my experience didn’t exempt me from experiencing it. This friendship was rich in the Lord and joyful, and nothing at the beginning warned me. As we grew closer, the enjoyment I took in her started ever so slightly to turn at the edges."

ABOVE QUOTES FROM:  http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2017/december-web-only/rachel-gilson-marvelous-truths-help-me-say-no-sexual-sin.html

 

GOSPEL COALITION CALLS ROMAN CATHOLICISM "FULL BLOODED VERSION OF CHRISTIANITY" 

SEE: http://pulpitandpen.org/2018/03/14/gospel-coalition-calls-roman-catholicism-full-blooded-version-christianity/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Frankly, I don’t know why The ‘Gospel’ Coalition lets women write for their blog who don’t seem qualified to operate from behind the curtain in a children church’s puppet ministry. I assume it has something to do with their bleeding-heart, kinder, gentler, limp-wristed form of “sophisticated” Christianity that probably insists on a gender inclusion quota. Nonetheless, it seems that when 

The ‘Gospel’ Coalition wants to show their soft underbelly toward the LGBTQXYZ community, they break out Cru theological development director, Rachel Gilson. She previously had written for TGC why and how the church could become a “safe space” for homosexuals (link) and how Same Sex Attraction and Christianity are perfectly compatible (link).

Traditional Christianity has – oh, I don’t know – from the beginning argued that sexual desire oriented away from the male-female marital union was sin in and of itself. Jesus clearly taught that sinful desires are still innately sinful – even if not acted upon – in his Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:27-30). Jesus was teaching nothing new. God gave the Tenth Commandment (Exodus 20:17) at Sinai, which prohibited sinful lusts, as much as sinful behavior. This is where The ‘Gospel’ Coalition has been departing from a Biblical sexual ethic (with no shortage of help from Russell Moore and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, which has gradually merged with TGC into a singular organization, practically speaking).

Conservative evangelicals – particularly those who fancy themselves Calvinists – simply cannot be seen by their constituency (that is, those who pay them and patronize their parachurch ministries) as “going soft” on homosexuality. They must maintain the pretense of not compromising on the subject of sexuality. Although groups like TGC and the ERLC are widely in the business of appealing to a broad stream of evangelicals and marginal Christians who share their articles, promote their material, and attend their conferences, their revenue streams come from a relatively narrow branch of extremely conservative believers (with a small trickle of funding from George Soros, which is not widely reported on). The mainstream, middle-of-the-road organizations like TGC and ERLC have to appease their fan base (which is strongly to the left) and their financial supporters (strongly to the right). Therefore, an interesting strategy has developed to appease both, which you can see frequently with your own eyes at The ‘Gospel’ Coalition blog. Their solution has been simple but deceptive; de-sin homosexual desire while remaining relatively quiet on homosexual behavior, celebrating those with homosexual desire but resisting homosexual behavior as spiritual role models and moral champions, and apologize repeatedly for not being inclusive enough to the LGBT “community.”

This strategy is a clear departure from two thousand years of Christian Orthodoxy, but the progressives at The ‘Gospel’ Coalition are savvy enough at cloaking it with religious language and making it sound “Gospel Centered” that it’s hard to pick up on at first. Their leftist-fruity articles come across as maybe a rogue “how did that slip by the editors?” article, which is accompanied by shrugged shoulders and rolled eyes. 

A clearer survey of TGC website, however, reveals a concerted strategy to not only de-sin Same Sex Attraction (SSA) but to celebrate those in the church who sin in this way.

In today’s article at TGC, Gilson writes a glowing review for Daniel Mattson’s book, “Why I Don’t Call Myself Gay.” Mattson’s book is standard fare for the last four or five years of this concealed-compromised position. Chiefly, he argues that he’s made peace with how God has made him, that he struggles with wanting to commit sodomy, but he refuses to identify himself as “gay,” not letting his sin define him. While the latter half of that is good – sin should never define us – it is not alright to make peace with sin. It is not alright to act as though SSA isn’t a sin. It is not alright to rip the Tenth Commandment and the Sermon on the Mount out of the Scripture. That’s not okay.

Of course, Gilson loves the book because it fits into the light-in-the-loafers approach to homosexuality of The Gospel Coalition and the progressive strategy. However, this isn’t my chiefest (or newest) concern with the article.

Mattson is a Roman Catholic. Gilson admits as much earlier in the article. She writes:

As a Roman Catholic who experiences same-sex attraction, [the author, Mattson] adds to the growing discussion within the church about labels for people like Mattson and me, and more importantly, the identities those labels imply.

Here, Gilson courageously shamelessly outs herself as desirous of unnatural affection. In fact, she begins the article by writing, “I’m a Christian woman who experiences same-sex attraction. Should I call myself a lesbian?”

First, my answer is “No, you should not call yourself a lesbian.” My second answer is something along the lines of, “You also should not be directing the theological direction of Cru or writing columns for Christian publications until that aspect of your sin nature is completely and totally mortified.”

Consider this: If someone began an article for a Christian publication by writing, “I am deeply desirous to sleep with my neighbor’s wife” or “I struggle with sexual feelings for children,” would the article ever be published? If someone acknowledged unnatural affections for their dog would they be championed as a self-disciplined, albeit flawed, individual? Or would we call their pastors and have some serious spiritual meetings, putting them under deep watch-care and showering them with grace and ministry instead of making them into a teacher or minister to others?

For those who believe that this line of thinking is no real threat, consider that all of the mainstream denominations that now ordain practicing homosexuals started out 30 years ago by embracing celibate homosexuals. This is absolutely no different from what the “conservative evangelicals” at TGC and the SBC’s Ethics and Religous Liberty Commission are now doing.

To make a long article shorter, Gilson goes on to write of Mattson’s book:

This is a full-blooded vision of Christianity that takes seriously the call to die, and doesn’t for a moment consider chastity a gift that costs too much, though it can feel at times like it costs all one has. Here he becomes not aloof, but relatable, as he describes how he won this vision through years of pain.

No, lesbian Cru theological development coordinator. No, a Roman Catholic does not present a “full-blooded vision of Christianity.” No, we will not let you give the Gospel the shaft in order to say some nice words about a fellow sodomite and ooze your words with political correctness. No ma’am. We are Reformers. We are Protestants. Roman Catholicism is not Christianity, even if you’ve happened to find a rare homosexual Catholic who’s not molesting children. I don’t care. Catholicism is not Christianity, and who at TGC is responsible for editorial control? This is sacrilege.

In the paragraph preceding the one in which Gilson affirmed a Roman Catholic as presenting a “full-blooded vision of Christianity” (whatever that is), she described what very clearly is promoting an idealized form of gay monkery and a Romanist version of ascetism. And then she calls this full-blooded Christianity, as though she’s either a Romanist herself or has no idea what it is she’s reading. This brings to mind the question of exactly what it takes to write for TGC other than a commitment to progressive, leftist-Christianity.

It seems that being a homosexual-in-the-heart and being a lady campus ministry leader isn’t cutting it. Why is this woman writing for TGC at all? The answer is, she struggles with homosexuality. That’s what makes her an asset to TGC. That’s her one contribution; her sin. This is a case-in-point of the problem.

VATICAN SENDS PRO ABORTION, RABIDLY PRO LGBT LAW FIRM, BAKER & MCKENZIE, TO SHUT DOWN PRO LIFE ROMAN CATHOLIC WEBSITE~SAME FIRM PLANNED PARENTHOOD USES

SEE: https://infovaticana.com/
VATICAN SENDS PRO ABORTION, RABIDLY 

PRO LGBT LAW FIRM, 

TO SHUT DOWN PRO LIFE 

ROMAN CATHOLIC WEBSITE 

SEE: http://pulpitandpen.org/2018/03/12/vatican-sends-pro-abortion-law-firm-shut-pro-life-roman-catholic-website/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

A very small Romanist website called InfoVaticana in Madrid, Spain, recently received a notice from a rabidly pro-homosexual law firm, Baker and McKenzie, to transfer their domain directly to the Vatican or else. The Pope’s headquarters claimed that only they could use the word, “Vatican.” They claimed that the Vatican alone possesses exclusive property rights over the name and that the small website needed to transfer its domain to the Vatican Secretariat of State immediately or face punitive consequences. The website, InfoVaticana, was launched in 2013 and has happily and freely been offering journalistic reporting on all things Roman Catholic, without any previous interruption from the Papacy.

InfoVaticana’s goal was to be “a free and independent media that has the vocation to serve the Catholic Church and society.” They have done so, since 2013, without any interruption from the Vatican. The problem has arisen since InfoVaticana has published articles critical of the homosexual lobby’s influence on the Vatican, the infamous Amoris Laetitia (the Pope’s statement which was seen as “heresy” by many Roman Catholics, softening the church’s teaching on traditional marriage and divorce) and criticizing the Vatican’s handling of the scandals relating to the Order of Malta. It is then – and only then – that the Romanist Church claimed that their domain name was infringing upon what essentially amounts to a copyright on the term “Vatican.”

In 2017, after the site began to criticize Francis’ leftist leanings, InfoVaticana requested to trademark their name, along with the seal of the Vatican. When they discovered that they couldn’t trademark the national seal (even though it was a part of their logo associated with their domain name), they instead settled on making their logo two keys, interlocked. However, the Vatican claimed that the two keys represented Christ giving the keys of Heaven and Hell to Peter, and because the Pope is the Bishop of Peter’s throne, only the Pope could use that imagery.

As the Lepanto Institute reports…

In August of 2017, InfoVaticana received a second letter from Baker & McKenzie, this time demanding that in addition to no longer using the crossed keys with the name InfoVaticana, InfoVaticana actually cease using the name “InfoVaticana” at all and turn the website domain over to the Secretary of State.  The letter argues that the crossed keys used in InfoVaticana’s application for its trademarked logo is a violation of the Vatican’s intellectual property in the form of “State Symbols.”  Such argumentation would imply that any portion of the formal symbols representing Vatican City (the Cross, the keys, a tassel, a gold and white flag) are prohibited from use by any entity without express permission from the Vatican.

Baker and McKenzie, the law firm retained by the Vatican to threaten the critical Romanist website, is also the counsel for Planned Parenthood.

CHICAGO: CARDINAL CUPICH SAYS IT'S A SIN TO CONVERT JEWS TO CHRISTIANITY

CHICAGO: CARDINAL CUPICH SAYS IT'S A SIN TO CONVERT JEWS TO CHRISTIANITY 

SEE: http://pulpitandpen.org/2018/03/14/roman-catholic-cardinal-cupich-says-sin-convert-jews-christianity/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The Romanist Church has always been deeply, deeply antisemitic. But perhaps the most unloving thing the Papacy has ever done to the Jewish people (yes, even worse than perpetuating several Jewish genocides) is their recent claim that Jews shouldn’t be converted to the Christian faith. While we are happy that the Romanists – with their false gospel – are not setting their sights on proselytizing the Jewish people to their false religion, it is hateful and bigoted to claim that Jews don’t need Christ. And yet, that’s precisely what Chicago Archdiocese Cardinal Cupich just did.

Cardinal Cupich, who is over the Archdiocese of Chicago, recently made the remark that it is “a sin” to try to convert Jews and those of other religions. He made the comments while at the progressive North Shore Congregation Synagogue. Paraphrasing Pope Francis to undergird his remarks, Cupich explained his dislike for Catholic policy not allowing the marriage between Roman Catholics and Jews or other faiths, calling it, “ridiculous.” He explained that the church no longer views the Jews as needing Christianity, and therefore forbidding inter-religious marriages is no longer a component of necessary proselytization.

Cupich told the Synagogue:

Sadly, mission efforts by Catholics and some other Christian communities have not always avoided these sins. There have been times when human and financial support have been tied to conversion. Other times, conversion was required through the force of state power or ecclesial power. Still others, and even in our day, deception is found in the presentation of Christianity to others. Often this means presenting only the positive elements of one’s religion in contrast to the weaknesses of the other. Again, we have to admit, frankly, that Catholics have not been free from such attitudes and actions.

In the year 2000, Pope John Paul II acknowledged the errors born of missionary zeal and a false sense of service to the truth. This is what he said: ‘Let us ask pardon for the violence some have used in the service of the truth and for the distressful and hostile attitude sometimes taken towards the followers of other religions. We humbly ask forgiveness for the part which each of us has had in these evils by our own actions, thus helping to disfigure the face of the Church.’ Tonight, if any of you have experienced anything of this nature from Catholics in your own life, I too ask your forgiveness.

Cupich claimed that Vatican II clarified that people don’t need to be converted to Christianity in order to be saved:

Some people today worry that the new stress on evangelization by the Catholic Church means that we are abandoning our commitments made in Vatican II about ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue and religious freedom. I want to be clear as possible tonight: we will not abandon these commitments, either here in Chicago or throughout the universal church. For abandoning them would mean abandoning who we are, who we claim to be.

According to LifeSite News, Cupich also quoted documents from the U.S. bishops and high-ranking Vatican prelates that essentially tell Catholics not to try to convert Jews to Catholicism. You can watch it all in the video here.

UK: CHURCH DISPLAYS STAR WARS "STORM TROOPER" ON THE CROSS

UK: CHURCH DISPLAYS STAR WARS 

"STORM TROOPER" ON THE CROSS 

SEE: http://pulpitandpen.org/2018/03/15/22927/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The “art display” at the church, featuring a crucified “Storm Trooper.”

A member church in the Church of England’s Archdiocese in London has placed a Storm Trooper – from the famous Star Wars movie franchise – onto the cross for public display. Saint Stephen Walbrook Church, so named after Saint Stephen of the Bible and Walbrook, a nearby stream, displayed the crucified Storm Trooper in order to “provoke thought from artists grappling with their response to the challenge and scandal of Christ’s Cross.” Or, so says the pastor who displayed it, the Reverend Jonathan Evens.

The display was a part of an art presentation associated with Art Below, entitled “Stations of the Cross,” and showcasing pop-culture themed religious art. A number of parishioners objected to the display, but a deacon was given permission to display it by the aforementioned Reverend Evens.

In a bizarre attempt of philosophical intrigue and deep-thoughtedness, Evens invoked the name of the 20th Century author and Christian thinker, C.S. Lewis:

For me this image raises similar questions to those CS Lewis raised in his science fiction trilogy, ie that were other artists to exist on other planets, would Christ be incarnated among those races in order to die for their salvation? Lewis’s view, which he sets out in the story, is that Christ would do so.

Of course, Lewis created pop-culture icons of his own – like the Chronicles of Narnia’s famous Aslan – but he never displayed something as perverse as a crucified soldier of the Dark Side. It also makes one question exactly who out there is wondering about the efficacy of Christ’s atonement for extraterrestrial life and how pertinent that is to the Church of England.

The “art” was created by artist, Ryan Callanan, who then displayed it at the very front of the 500-year-old church. After complaints, it was moved to the back of the church.

One church attendee told the London Telegraph, “It’s a bit silly really – why use our church? It’s plainly offensive to Christians, to be honest.”

As a Reformed Baptist holding to the 1689 London Baptist Confession and embracing Sola Scriptura while affirming the general counsel of the Historic Christian Church as important – albeit not infallible – witness, I would like to introduce people to historic Christian iconoclasm that teaches this image is no less offensive than a display of Christ upon the cross. Not only are images of God prohibited (and Christ Jesus is God), but it is displaying Him in his humiliation, and falls far short of Christ’s current glorified state in Heaven, having been risen from the dead.

4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.”(Exodus 20:4-6)

Images of Christ were strictly forbidden in the first 400 years or so of church history, under direct Apostolic direction in the earliest of church history in the New Testament, and only became common place by the paganization of Christianity in Rome. And even then, the acceptance of such imagery was slow and reluctant.

Read more at http://pulpitandpen.org/2018/03/15/22927/#3FQ4pSIMWcrzLXei.99

"CLOUD ACT" COMPROMISES YOUR PRIVACY~GOP SENATORS TRY TO SNEAK MASSIVE SURVEILLANCE EXPANSION INTO SPENDING BILL~FOURTH AMENDMENT SERIOUSLY AT RISK OF BEING NULLIFIED

"CLOUD ACT" COMPROMISES YOUR PRIVACY

GOP SENATORS TRY TO SNEAK 

MASSIVE SURVEILLANCE EXPANSION 

INTO SPENDING BILL 

BY Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/28529-gop-senators-try-to-sneak-massive-surveillance-expansion-into-spending-bill; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The unconstitutional surveillance of American citizens by agents of their own government could soon expand exponentially, should a controversial act be included in the forthcoming spending bill.

The legislation, called the “Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act,” or CLOUD Act, is sponsored by Senators Hatch, Coons, Graham, and Whitehouse, and they are trying to get the measure attached to the forthcoming spending bill. 

Specifically, the CLOUD Act would increase unconstitutionally the authority of the executive branch of the federal government, granting it power to decide when and how data collected by law enforcement should be shared with foreign governments.

An article published by Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) summarizes the way that the bill breaks down the wall placed by the Fourth Amendment around the liberty of Americans. EFF reports:

The CLOUD Act has two major components. First, it empowers U.S. law enforcement to grab data stored anywhere in the world, without following foreign data privacy rules. Second, it empowers the president to unilaterally enter executive agreements with any nation on earth, even known human rights abusers. Under such executive agreements, foreign law enforcement officials could grab data stored in the United States, directly from U.S. companies, without following U.S. privacy rules like the Fourth Amendment, so long as the foreign police are not targeting a U.S. person or a person in the United States.

When foreign police use their power under CLOUD Act executive agreements to collect a foreign target’s data from a U.S. company, they might also collect data belonging to a non-target U.S. person who happens to be communicating with the foreign target. Within the numerous, combined foreign investigations allowed under the CLOUD Act, it is highly likely that related seizures will include American communications, including email, online chat, video calls, and internet voice calls.

As one might imagine, given their habit of trying to prevent the surveillance state from growing and ignoring the Constitution, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) issued a joint statement calling on Senate leadership to exclude the CLOUD Act from the spending bill and to require a separate debate and vote on the proposal.

After explaining that the act would remove the requirement that government agencies receive a warrant from a federal judge before conducting such surveillance sharing, the pair expressed their opposition to such overreach.

The CLOUD Act places far too much power in the President’s hands and denies Congress its critical oversight role. Specifically, the CLOUD Act permits the executive branch to enter into agreements with foreign governments and gives the House and Senate just 90 days to pass a resolution of disapproval to block it from going into effect. Instead of supplying a blanket pre-approval of these agreements, Congress should examine each agreement and determine — on an individual basis — whether the prohibitions on warrantless surveillance of stored and real-time communications should be waived with respect to each country.

It is a sobering fact that we have arrived as a country so far removed from our Constitution that senators would have to nearly beg the body’s leadership to uphold the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

To refresh your memory, the Fourth Amendment — the part of the Bill of Rights that would be legislatively repealed should the CLOUD Act be included in the spending bill — reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

While it seems unlikely that the Republican leaders in the Senate, particularly the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, will uphold their oaths office and “preserve, protect, and defend” this fundamental component of the Constitution, there is historical precedent for such a surveillance plan, a combination of powerful legislators that promote it, and courageous citizens standing up in defense of their liberty.

Given the role that rebellion against the unreasonable, unwarranted searches and seizures by government played in igniting the spark that lit the fires of armed resistance in America and the War for Independence that raged for eight years, it is remarkable that that liberty now is once again under attack from a powerful central government.

James Otis is a name that is almost completely forgotten by contemporary Americans, but he was once the most famous lawyer in the colonies, and it was his renowned recrimination of unreasonable searches in Boston that earned him fame and influenced his countrymen to resist the tyranny of these deprivations.

At a trial challenging the constitutionality of the General Writs of Assistance, Otis spoke eloquently and persuasively in favor of freedom from the unreasonable searches being carried out by 18th-century government agents:

Now, one of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one’s house. A man’s house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient.

This wanton exercise of this power is not a chimerical suggestion of a heated brain. I will mention some facts. Mr. Pew had one of these writs, and, when Mr. Ware succeeded him, he endorsed this writ over to Mr. Ware; so that these writs are negotiable from one officer to another; and so your Honors have no opportunity of judging the persons to whom this vast power is delegated. Another instance is this: Mr. Justice Walley had called this same Mr. Ware before him, by a constable, to answer for a breach of the Sabbath-day Acts, or that of profane swearing. As soon as he had finished, Mr. Ware asked him if he had done. He replied, “Yes.” “Well then,” said Mr. Ware, “I will show you a little of my power. I command you to permit me to search your house for uncustomed goods” — and went on to search the house from the garret to the cellar; and then served the constable in the same manner.

In 1788, nearly three decades after the speech of Otis in defense of the right to be free from unwarranted searches and seizures, his equally eminent sister, Mercy Otis Warren, echoed her brother’s bold attack on despotism. Writing under the pseudonym “Columbian Patriot,” Warren said:

There is no provision by a bill of rights to guard against the dangerous encroachments of power in too many instances to be named: but I cannot pass over in silence the insecurity in which we are left with regard to warrants unsupported by evidence — the daring experiment of granting writs of assistance in a former arbitrary administration is not yet forgotten in Massachusetts; nor can we be so ungrateful to the memory of the patriots who counteracted their operation, as so soon after their manly exertions to save us from such a detestable instrument of arbitrary power, to subject ourselves to the insolence of any petty revenue officer to enter our houses, search, insult, and seize at pleasure. 

These are not the days of our Founders, though, and we have proven ourselves to be very cowardly posterity of that remarkable generation.

Today we live in the post-9/11 era where we meekly “subject ourselves” to the insolence of having our data forcibly seized from us.

It is for this reason that Senators Wyden and Paul felt compelled to unite in defense of these fundamental liberties — liberties once the common inheritance of all Americans.

For the efforts of these lawmakers, Americans should remember the wise words of Mercy Otis Warren and be grateful to “the patriots who counteracted” the government’s assault on this most precious prerogative.

The spending bill must be passed by March 23 at midnight or the federal government will shut down for the third time this year.

______________________________________________________________

US government “Fusion Centers” harassing patriots concerned about Islam

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/03/us-government-fusion-centers-harassing-patriots-concerned-about-islam; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

This is ominous: a free citizen being harassed by the West Virginia State Police over her concerns about a mosque with ties to the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). This shows how successfully such groups have manipulated government and law enforcement officials with their spurious claims of being victims of “racism” and “Islamophobia.” These Fusion Centers are extremely insidious. The Trump Administration needs to act to protect patriotic American citizens, and close them.

“Deep state attacks: Gov’t ‘Fusion Centers’ spying on patriots concerned about Islam,” by Leo Hohmann, March 6, 2018 (thanks to M.S.):

Brenda Arthur received an unexpected visit on March 8 that, one week later, leaves her feeling more than a little uneasy.

At her door that day was an officer with the West Virginia State Police. He wanted to know about her involvement in a Freedom of Information request regarding a local mosque.

Arthur, who will turn 67 this summer, serves as leader of the West Virginia chapter of ACT For America, whose mission is to educate Americans about the advancement of Islamic principles in Western societies.

As a Jewish American, she was concerned about a major expansion of the Islamic Association of West Virginia in her hometown of South Charleston. This mosque has hosted an openly anti-Semitic preacher in the past, and so she went to city hall in late January to have a look at its construction permits and site plans, something that is within the right of every American citizen under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act and state open-records laws.

She had no idea that this perfectly legal activity, performed every day by citizen watchdogs across the U.S., would prompt a visit from the state police.

Arthur was not available to answer the door when Sgt. R.C. Workman came knocking, but Workman left his business card with a hand-written note on the back:

“Brenda, please contact me at: 304-573-6190.”

Workman’s unit is part of the West Virginia Intelligence Exchange, a secretive outfit that works closely with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s “intelligence fusion center” in West Virginia.

All 50 states have at least one DHS fusion center, and the story of Brenda Arthur lends credence to the views of civil libertarians that these centers, whatever their stated purpose, have been weaponized against law-abiding American citizens.

Fusion centers were established a few years after the 9/11 terror attacks by the George W. Bush administration and expanded under Barack Obama.

The West Virginia Fusion Center website says its mission is to “Embrace proactive intelligence efforts. Those efforts are key to inhibiting criminal networks, whether those groups are terrorists, drug-related groups, organized crime, or other criminal enterprises.”

Fusion centers work with “non-traditional sources,” including corporate America, to build threat assessments on people.

But what is it about Brenda Arthur that could garner the attention of this specialized police unit? She seems like an unlikely candidate to be involved in terrorism or organized crime.

Arthur is a senior citizen who’s never broken a law in her life. She is a professional insurance broker, a great-aunt to six children, one of whom she helps with financial support for a private education at a Montessori school.

But fusion centers know no boundaries, including the U.S. Constitution, says constitutional attorney and civil liberties advocate John Whitehead.

“The word mosque, it’s key words like that. If you don’t like mosques, they’re gonna be after you, they’re watching you, because everything is determined by algorithms,” said Whitehead, founder of the Charlottesville, Va.-based Rutherford Institute.

Being an “activist” also draws the attention of the fusion centers, he said.

‘Do not talk to them’

Whitehead has strict advice for any law-abiding citizen who is approached by law enforcement asking questions about their personal activities.

“If they come to your door, do not talk to them. If they call you on the phone, do not talk to them.”

Whitehead said the intimidation tactics used by fusion centers are similar to the East German Stasi and other secret-police agencies.

“They’re copying the tactics of former totalitarian regimes and the slightest mistake can get you in trouble,” he said. “That’s why you shouldn’t talk to them. The threat assessments are very dangerous. Don’t talk to them. Call someone like us, let us issue one of our letters and that usually shuts them up, and also puts them on record.”

“Once you’re in their system,” Whitehead added, “you cannot get out.”

Blindsided

Arthur was typical in that she was caught off guard by the visit.

“So I called him at the number he gave me and asked ‘what’s this about?’”

Sgt. Workman did not beat around the bush.

“We came by your house and wanted to talk to you.”

“Yes sir, what about?” Arthur asked.

“It’s about that FOIA request you made about the building plans for the mosque,” he told her.

It did not immediately dawn on her that she was actually not the one whose name was on the Freedom of Information Act request.

“I hadn’t filed it, a friend of mine did. Within seconds it occurred to me, but I didn’t want the other lady to be brought into it so I just acknowledged it and said ‘you know I file a lot of FIOAs, I filed one with the Health and Human Resources, with the auditor’s office, with Bureau for Medical Services, and more.”

“Yes, but those FOIAs are within the normal course of things,” said the stern voice on the other end of the phone line.

Why is it that this particular request, for information on a mosque project, was considered abnormal? And who decides what is NORMAL in a search of public-record documents?

She explained that she is an upstanding citizen activist and member ACT For America.

“I explained we are an organization with 750,000 members, we support the Constitution, American liberty, American values, and we fight terrorism and the concepts of Sharia law, which are antithetical to the U.S. Constitution.”

In the course of the 10-minute phone conversation, Arthur did a lot of explaining.

She explained that she was perusing the website of the local mosque when she came across a photo that caught her attention. It was of a man standing in the middle of the mosque speaking to the congregation. That man was Nihad Awad, executive director of Council on American-Islamic Relations or CAIR.

“He’s a terrorist supporter, he finances terror, and is part of a terrorist-tied organization,” Arthur told the sergeant.

That prompted Sgt. Workman to hint at the real reason for his inquiry.

“Well, we have a good relationship with that mosque and when he came here they notified us he was coming,” he told Arthur.

That sparked something in Arthur’s memory.

When she and a friend had gone to city hall on Jan. 31 to inspect the documents, the city manager and another city official stood over their shoulders the entire time. They made a point of telling the two women, “We have a good relationship with the mosque.”

Who’s the snitch?

The West Virginia Fusion Center’s website encourages Americans to report “suspicious activity” by filing a SAR or Suspicious Activity Report on a fellow resident.

A SAR is defined as “the sharing of information concerning activity, incident, or behavior that the reporting individual considers to be outside of normal parameters,” the website states.

Inquiring about a mosque was not NORMAL activity. Arthur had been flagged for suspicious activity, probably by a city official who has a good relationship with the mosque, or someone at the mosque itself.

In West Virginia, the fusion center operates under the supervision of the West Virginia Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety [DMAPS].

I called DMAPS Tuesday and asked what could possibly be suspicious about a 66-year-old insurance broker with no criminal record going to city hall and inspecting public-record documents.

Lawrence Messina, director of communications for West Virginia DMAPS, said he would ask that question of his superiors and get back with me.

He sent the following email at 2:09 p.m. on March 13:

“I have consulted with my colleagues here at the Office of the Secretary as well as with the W.Va. Intelligence Fusion Center and the W.Va. State Police (the latter is also part of this department). We decline to comment on this matter.”

Arthur, as a Jewish American, has every reason to be concerned that an anti-Semite like Awad would be invited to speak in her community. He is a supporter of Hamas, which is on the U.S. State Department’s list of designated foreign terrorist organizations, and he rejects the right of Israel to exist. [See Discover the Networks for documentation of Awad’s long history of radical statements, activities and affiliations.]….

_____________________________________________________________

Sen. Rand Paul:

ILLINOIS & MARYLAND FORGING AHEAD WITH DRACONIAN GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION

ILLINOIS & MARYLAND FORGING AHEAD WITH DRACONIAN GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION

Illinois: Expanded Waiting Period Bill Heads to Governor, Gun Ban Heads Back to House

BY NRAHQ

SEE:https://www.ammoland.com/2018/03/illinois-expanded-waiting-period-bill-heads-to-governor-gun-ban-heads-back-to-house/#axzz5A6b7MoIt; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Fairfax, VA – -(Ammoland.com)- On Wednesday, March 14th 2018, the Illinois state Senate voted to pass a number of extreme gun control bills that would expand waiting periods, ban the purchase or possession of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms by law abiding adults aged 18-20, and repeal the preemption law.  House Bill 1468, the bill to expand waiting periods, is now heading to Governor Bruce Rauner’s desk.  Please contact Gov. Rauner (217-782-0244) and urge him to VETO HB 1468.  

In addition House Bills 1465 and 1467 are now heading back to the state House of Representatives for concurrence.  Please contact your state Representative to OPPOSE concurrence on HBs 1465 and 1467.

Click the “Take Action” button below to contact Gov. Rauner and your state Representative.

House Bill 1468, sponsored by Representative Jonathan Carroll (D-57), passed by a vote of 43-15.  It would require a 72 hour waiting period for certain commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms and .50 BMG caliber rifles.  Current Illinois law requires a 72 hour waiting period for handguns and a 24 hour waiting period for long guns.  The arbitrary distinction in this bill will cause confusion among firearm sellers about which long guns require a 72 hour waiting period.  In addition, it would also ban the sale of these firearms to non-residents.  HB 1468 will now head to the Governor’s desk.

House Bill 1465, as amended by Representative Michelle Mussman (D-56), passed by a vote of 33-22.  It would deny law-abiding young adults under the age of 21 their Second Amendment rights by prohibiting them from possessing or purchasing commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, standard capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and .50 BMG caliber rifles.  The bill would require adults under the age of 21 to dispose of such firearms within 90 days and to dispose of standard capacity magazines over ten rounds in capacity immediately.  In addition, language in the bill would prohibit out-of-state visitors from being present in Illinois for longer than 24 hours with such firearms or standard capacity magazines.  HB 1465 will now return to the state House for concurrence.

House Bill 1467, sponsored by Representative Martin Moylan (D-55), passed by a vote of 37-16.   As amended by Senator Kwame Raoul (D-13), it would repeal the firearm preemption law in Illinois.  Firearm preemption laws ensure that fundamental Second Amendment rights are not diluted or distorted through controversial local policies and help prevent a confusing patchwork of gun control laws which make it difficult for gun owners to ensure that they are following the law.  Furthermore, Second Amendment rights are guaranteed to all citizens, regardless of where they live.

In addition, it includes broad and vague language could be interpreted to ban components used on competition grade firearms.  It would ban various antique and historical reproduction firearms such as Gatling guns, which are owned by collectors and historical reenactors and require owners of “bump stocks” and “trigger cranks” to dispose of them within 90 days.  HB 1467 will now return to the state House for concurrence.

Again, please use the “Take Action” button above to ask Gov. Rauner (217-782-0244) to VETO HB 1468 and your state Representative to OPPOSE concurrence on HBs 1465 and 1467

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: www.nra.org

________________________________________________________________

Maryland General Assembly Fast Tracking Attack on 2nd Amendment Civil Rights

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2018/03/maryland-general-assembly-fast-tracking-attack-2nd-amendment-civil-rights/#axzz5A6b7MoIt; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association urges all of our members to reach out to their Delegates to oppose House Bills 432 / 819 / 888 / 1302 and Senate Bill 707.

We Need Your Calls Today – These Bills Are Being Fast Tracked For Quick Approval With Minimal Debate.

Maryland General Assembly Fast Tracking Attack on 2nd Amendment-Protected Civil Rights

Maryland –-(Ammoland.com)- 2018 has turned into an all-out assault on the Second Amendment-protected rights of all law-abiding Marylanders. Instead of trying to focus on the actual issues that plague our state, some in the General Assembly have decided to do make a frontal attack on our rights, conflating our rights into being THE cause of all violence issues in Maryland. Instead of focusing their energy on meaningful reform, they have decided to make an already prohibitive landscape even more difficult to navigate.

We need all of our members to reach out and contact their Delegates (for House Bills) and Senators (for Senate Bills) to express their ardent objections to further encroachments on our protected civil rights.

House Bill 432 – Public Safety and Violence Prevention Act

A $10M boondoggle that is quite transparent in its machinations to provide money to anti-gun think tanks with the supposed aim of preventing violence. However, Delegate Lierman focused the bill on euphamistic mechanisms to look at firearms, with no mention of other forms of violence. Maryland does not have a “gun violence” problem. A gun is absolutely useless without a thinking mind and body to pull the trigger. Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association can think of many reasons, as we are certain our members and the public can also, to use $10M for the betterment of Maryland.

House Bill 819 – Handgun Permit Review Board Repeal

A partisan-motivated dismantling of a citizen review board that has been in operation for 45 years. T he House of Delegates vehemently endorsed citizen oversight of the Baltimore Police Department when they modified the BPD Citizen Review Board in 2016 . Now, some highly-partisan members have flipped to the opposite side and want to completely remove citizen participation and transparency in the monitoring of government officials when it comes to the Handgun Permit Review Board . This flip flop is due solely to the fact that Governor Hogan appointed ALL of the current members after those appointed by Govern o r O'Malley resigned .

House Bill 888 / Senate Bill 707 – Rapid Fire Trigger Activators

These poorly worded bills attack firearms accessories and criminalizes the mere possession of these items. MSRPA feels these bills are unconstitutional takings under both the Federal and Maryland Constitutions and the leadership of the legislature could care less. These bills are on the fast track and we need voices, direct and succinct, to contact ALL members of the General Assembly to oppose these useless bills. As I mentioned before, these bills will lead to the creation of instant criminals on October 1 of this year for the mere ownership/possession of pieces of non-serialized plastic and metal based on the nebulous phrase of “standard rate of fire”. This bill will do absolutely NOTHING to prevent a tragedy similar to the illegal activity in Las Vegas last year and only seeks to penalize and criminalize law-abiding persons on Maryland soil. These devices have not been proven to be used in ANY criminal activity in Maryland. The Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association does not agree that any bans on firearms or firearms accessories are good public policy and testified in opposition to these bills when they were heard in committee.

House Bill 1302 – Extreme Risk Prevention Orders

This bill allows “Any other interested person” (along with others more clearly defined) to make a sworn statement, that is presumed to be with good intentions, that will lead to the confiscation of firearms on an “ex parte” basis. This means that a law-abiding Maryland citizen can be forcefully disarmed by law enforcement officers and have their property confiscated PRIOR to having a hearing a court of law and being able to face their accuser in an adversarial court proceeding based on the simplist of legal standards (“preponderance of evidence”). MSRPA feels this bill is a clear violation of due process.

We urge all of our members, and subscribers to this email list, to contact their Delegates and express their significant opposition to these bills. If you need information on how to contact your legislators, please enter your residential address at https://mdelect.net to generate a report showing contact information. Make your voices heard with phone calls, faxes, emails, and letters!

Warmest regards,

Mike Doherty
2nd Vice President – Legislative Affairs

About Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association:

The Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association (MSRPA) is the flagship Gun Rights organization in and for the State of Maryland. The Association offers both individual and club memberships. Support of the shooting disciplines and legislative activities is primarily through a systems of committees. All participants are volunteers.

In the face of a near tidal wave of citizen disarmament occurring in Maryland, the MSRPA has played a critical part in drawing the line and standing firm for Gun Rights. Without this resistance, things would have been much worse and been so much sooner. Now the objective is to continue to develop new activists with numerous individual skills who will help us bring Maryland into line with the rest of the states which have made strong gains in protecting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Visit: www.msrpa.org

VACCINE EFFECTS ON TRIPLETS

VACCINE EFFECTS ON TRIPLETS

https://www.michiganvaccinechoice.org/

Well, we have beautiful triplets. We had two boys and a girl in September of 2006, and we were completely normal development… I carried them for 36 weeks. They were about five pounds each, I was huge. And we decided really to postpone our vaccines, and even considered doing one at a time. Our doctor was fine with that. So we were going in June 25th, 2007… they were nine months and four days to get one pneumococcal vaccine. We went in for a 10 am appointment. They did Claire first and she got a really big red mark almost immediately on her leg, started screaming, but that screaming kind of never went away but we went ahead not knowing… oh, they cry, it’s a shot. And we did the boys. That was 10 am. By noon we watched Claire… uh, the only way we could describe it was as if her soul was sucked out of her body. She was literally the shell of a little person we used to know. Her personality… gone. All her reflexes were gone. She stopped blinking. She stopped coughing, sneezing. Her suck reflexes… everything was gone.