MEDIA COLLUSION: 100 PLUS NEWSPAPERS AGREE TO SIMULTANEOUSLY RUN ANTI-TRUMP EDITORIALS

MEDIA COLLUSION: 100 PLUS NEWSPAPERS AGREE TO SIMULTANEOUSLY RUN 

ANTI-TRUMP EDITORIALS 

BY SELWYN DUKE

SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/29781-media-collusion-100-plus-papers-agree-to-simultaneously-run-anti-trump-editorials?vsmaid=571&vcid=3987; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

“The dirty war on the free press must end,” writes CNN. Others would say that the freedom-driven war on the dirty press must continue. And this assertion may be buttressed by the media’s latest move: collusion in the form of a coordinated press attack on President Trump involving more than 100 newspapers. As CNN reported Saturday:

The Boston Globe has been contacting newspaper editorial boards and proposing a “coordinated response” to President Trump's escalating “enemy of the people” rhetoric.

“We propose to publish an editorial on August 16 on the dangers of the administration's assault on the press and ask others to commit to publishing their own editorials on the same date,” The Globe said in its pitch to fellow papers.

The effort began just a few days ago.

As of Saturday, “we have more than 100 publications signed up, and I expect that number to grow in the coming days,” Marjorie Pritchard, the Globe's deputy editorial page editor, told CNN.

The American Society of News Editors, the New England Newspaper and Press Association and other groups have helped her spread the word.

The irony here, unsurprising with the mainstream media’s world being one of both deception and delusion, is that they act as if — and generally believe that — Trump drew first blood. But who gave the president’s first 60 days in office only five percent positive coverage, when Obama’s figure was 42 percent and even G.W. Bush’s was 22 percent (according to Pew Research Center. Video below)?

By the way, the Left will justify this by saying Trump did more negative things; even if you believe this, however, how should you expect your target to react? Should Trump just bend over and say, “Thank you, sir, may I have another?”? It’s human nature to strike back when struck.

Yet the reality is that, love him or hate him, the issue isn’t Trump. It isn’t that he’s calling the media “the enemy of the people.” It’s that the media are acting as that enemy — something I’ve been saying for years.

The media are the people’s conduit of information, and how can Americans make correct decisions regarding what politicians and policies to support if they’re peddled misinformation? As with a computer, it’s garbage in, garbage out.

And how biased are these toxic-waste mind dumpers? As I reported in 2016, “In his 2011 book Left Turn, UCLA political science professor Tim Groseclose quotes ‘a well-known poll in which Washington correspondents declared that they vote Democratic 93 percent to 7 percent,’ writes U.S. News.”

The site continues:

As a result, he says, most reporters write with a liberal filter. “Using objective, social-scientific methods, the filtering prevents us from seeing the world as it actually is. Instead, we see only a distorted version of it. It is as if we see the world through a glass — a glass that magnifies the facts that liberals want us to see and shrinks the facts that conservatives want us to see.”

He adds: “That bias makes us more liberal, which makes us less able to detect the bias, which allows the media to get away with more bias, which makes us even more liberal.”

And this vicious circle sways elections. I continued, “As Groseclose also wrote, ‘Media bias aids Democratic candidates by about 8 to 10 percentage points in a typical election. I find, for instance, that if media bias didn't exist, John McCain would have defeated Barack Obama 56 percent to 42 percent [in 2008], instead of losing 53-46.’”

Examples of this bias are legion. I provided just a handful in 2016:

• In 2004, famed newsman Dan Rather’s career was ended when it was discovered that he had peddled forged documents purporting to show that President George W. Bush had shirked his Texas Air National Guard duties in the 1960s and 1970s. 

• In 2010, there was the JournoList Scandal, involving an online meeting place in which journalists would conspire to slant the news; this proved that not all media bias was unintentional.  

• The media happily reported the claim that WWII-era pontiff Pius XII was “Hitler’s Pope.” Yet they just as happily ignored an even bigger story: the 2007 revelation that the allegation was a malicious fabrication promoted by a Soviet disinformation campaign.

• While the media can’t let go of the Catholic Church sex scandal, they ignore the child sex abuse in government schools, a phenomenon a federally funded study found was 100 times the magnitude of the church scandal. In fact, the researchers evaluated a certain time period and discovered that California’s 61 biggest newspapers ran 2,000 stories about the church scandal but only four about the school scandal.

• The media gratuitously report stories of police shootings of black criminal suspects, despite these occurrences having declined 75 percent during the last few decades. Yet while the police not only shoot more whites but, according to studies, are actually more likely to do so, such events are never widely publicized. This lends the illusion that blacks are under assault, creates racial unrest, and has led to the “retaliatory” murder of cops.

• In 2012, NBC heavily doctored George Zimmerman’s 911 call in a manner many describe as malicious, as it did a cut-and-paste job that made him appear bigoted.

Three more examples: Complaining that journalists have dispensed with objectivity in their zeal to destroy Trump (though this presupposes they had objectivity to dispense with), the Los Angeles Times’ Justin Raimondo pointed out in 2016 that the “DNC emails, published by Wikileaks, reveal[ed] a stunning level of collaboration between important media outlets and the Democrats.”

Then, last year, Counterfeit News Network (CNN) figures were caught on hidden camera admitting that while they knew the Trump/Russia collusion story was nonsense, they were pushing it anywayfor ratings (and, no doubt, ideological reasons).

As for current events, the mainstream media are largely refusing to report that Antifa thugs not only became violent Sunday at their D.C. protest, but also carried a banner stating, “It takes a bullet to bash a fash.” At the same time, the media have provided disproportionate coverage for the D.C. “Alt-Right” rally that attracted fewer than 50 people.

In fact, this attempt to obscure the true threat is so serious that NBC refused to report on a Charlottesville attack by Antifa — on its own reporter and news crew.

The good news for President Trump, and America, is that the public increasingly views the Fourth Estate as what it is: a fifth column. A 2017 poll showed that only about 20 percent of the citizenry trusts the media — a figure that’s dwarfed by Trump’s approval rating of 48 percent.

THE EVOLUTION OF A POLICE STATE LOCKDOWN: FROM BOSTON TO FERGUSON TO CHARLOTTESVILLE

From Boston to Ferguson to Charlottesville: 

The Evolution of a Police State Lockdown

BY LEWROCKWELL.COM

SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/boston-ferguson-charlottesville-evolution-police-state-lockdown/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

“It takes a remarkable force to keep nearly a million people quietly indoors for an entire day, home from work and school, from neighborhood errands and out-of-town travel. It takes a remarkable force to keep businesses closed and cars off the road, to keep playgrounds empty and porches unused across a densely populated place 125 square miles in size. This happened … not because armed officers went door-to-door, or imposed a curfew, or threatened martial law. All around the region, for 13 hours, people locked up their businesses and ‘sheltered in place’ out of a kind of collective will. The force that kept them there wasn’t external – there was virtually no active enforcement across the city of the governor’s plea that people stay indoors. Rather, the pressure was an internal one – expressed as concern, or helpfulness, or in some cases, fear – felt in thousands of individual homes.”—Journalist Emily Badger, “The Psychology of a Citywide Lockdown”

It has become way too easy to lockdown this nation.

Five years ago, the city of Boston was locked down while police carried out a military-style manhunt for suspects in the 2013 Boston Marathon explosion.

Four years ago, the city of Ferguson, Missouri, was locked down, with government officials deploying a massive SWAT team, an armored personnel carrier, men in camouflage pointing heavy artillery at the crowd, smoke bombs and tear gas to quell citizen unrest over a police shooting of a young, unarmed black man.

Three years ago, the city of Baltimore was put under a military-enforced lockdown after civil unrest over police brutality erupted into rioting. More than 1,500 national guard troops were deployed while residents were ordered to stay inside their homes and put under a 10 pm curfew.

This year, it was my hometown of Charlottesville, Va., population 50,000, that was locked down while government officials declared a state of emergency and enacted heightened security measures tantamount to martial law, despite the absence of any publicized information about credible threats to public safety.

As Tess Owen reports for Vice:

One year after white supremacists paraded through the streets, the face of downtown Charlottesville was transformed once again – this time with checkpoints, military-style camps for National Guard, and state police on every corner. When residents woke up Saturday, all entrances to the downtown mall were blocked off, apart from two checkpoints, where police looked through people’s bags for lighters, knives or any other weapons. Up above, standing atop a building site, two national guard members photographed the individuals coming in and out… A National Guard encampment was set up in McGuffey Park, between the children’s playground and the basketball court, where about 20 military police officers in camouflage were snoozing in the shade of some trees. A similar encampment was set up a few blocks away.

More details from journalist Ned Oliver:

Downtown Charlottesville felt like the green zone of a war-torn city Saturday. More than a thousand local and state police officers barricaded 10 blocks of the city’s popular pedestrian district, the Downtown Mall, to prepare for the one-year anniversary of the white supremacist rally last year that left dozens injured and one dead. To enter, people had to submit to bag checks and searches at one of two checkpoints… Preparations aside, unlike last year, no white supremacist groups had said they were going to visit the city, and, by week’s end, none had. Instead, it was a normal day on the mall except for the heavy security, a military helicopter constantly circling overhead, and hundreds of police officers milling around.

Make no mistake, this was a militarized exercise in intimidation, and it worked only too well.

For the most part, the residents of this city—once home to Thomas Jefferson, the nation’s third president, author of the Declaration of Independence, and champion of the Bill of Rights—welcomed the city-wide lockdown, the invasion of their privacy, and the dismantling of every constitutional right intended to serve as a bulwark against government abuses.

Yet for those like myself who have studied emerging police states, the sight of any American city placed under martial law—its citizens essentially under house arrest (officials used the Orwellian phrase “shelter in place” in Boston to describe the mandatory lockdown), military-style helicopters equipped with thermal imaging devices buzzing the skies, tanks and armored vehicles on the streets, and snipers perched on rooftops, while thousands of black-garbed police swarmed the streets and SWAT teams carried out house-to-house searches—leaves us in a growing state of unease.

Watching the events of the lockdown unfold, I couldn’t help but think of Nazi Field Marshal Hermann Goering’s remarks during the Nuremberg trials. As Goering noted:

It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.

As the events in Charlottesville have made clear, it does indeed work the same in every country.

Whatever the threat to so-called security—whether it’s civil unrest, school shootings, or alleged acts of terrorism—government officials will capitalize on the nation’s heightened emotions, confusion and fear as a means of extending the reach of the police state.

These troubling developments are the outward manifestations of an inner, philosophical shift underway in how the government views not only the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but “we the people,” as well.

What this reflects is a move away from a government bound by the rule of law to one that seeks total control through the imposition of its own self-serving laws on the populace.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t take much for the American people to march in lockstep with the government’s dictates, even if it means submitting to martial law, having their homes searched, and being stripped of one’s constitutional rights at a moment’s notice.

In Charlottesville, most of the community fell in line, except for one gun-toting, disabled, 71-year-old war veteran who was arrested for purchasing cans of Arizona iced tea, a can of bug spray and razor blades, all of which were on the City’s list of temporarily prohibited, potentially “dangerous” items. Incidentally, the veteran’s guns (not among the list of prohibited items) caused no alarm.

Talk about draconian.

This continual undermining of the rules that protect civil liberties will inevitably have far-reaching consequences on a populace that not only remains ignorant about their rights but is inclined to sacrifice their liberties for phantom promises of safety.

Be warned: these lockdowns are just a precursor to full-blown martial law.

The powers-that-be want us acclimated to the sights and sounds of a city-wide lockdown with tanks in the streets, military encampments in cities, Blackhawk helicopters and armed drones patrolling overhead.

They want us to accept the fact that in the American police state, we are all potentially guilty, all potential criminals, all suspects waiting to be accused of a crime.

They want us to be meek and submissive.

They want us to report on each other.

They want us to be grateful to the standing armies for their so-called protection.

They want us to self-censor our speech, self-limit our movements, and police ourselves.

As Glenn Greenwald notes in The Intercept:

“Americans are now so accustomed to seeing police officers decked in camouflage and Robocop-style costumes, riding in armored vehicles and carrying automatic weapons first introduced during the U.S. occupation of Baghdad, that it has become normalized… The dangers of domestic militarization are both numerous and manifest. To begin with… it degrades the mentality of police forces in virtually every negative way and subjects their targeted communities to rampant brutality and unaccountable abuse… Police militarization also poses grave and direct dangers to basic political liberties, including rights of free speech, press and assembly.”

Make no mistake: these are the hallmarks of a military occupation.

Militarized police. Riot squads. Camouflage gear. Black uniforms. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Pepper spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Surveillance cameras. Kevlar vests. Drones. Lethal weapons. Less-than-lethal weapons unleashed with deadly force. Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Stun grenades. Arrests of journalists. Crowd control tactics. Intimidation tactics. Brutality.

We are already under martial law, held at gunpoint by a standing army.

Take a look at the pictures from Charlottesville, from Baltimore, from Ferguson and from Boston, and then try to persuade yourself that this is what freedom in America is supposed to look like.

A standing army—something that propelled the early colonists into revolution—strips the American people of any vestige of freedom.

It was for this reason that those who established America vested control of the military in a civilian government, with a civilian commander-in-chief. They did not want a military government, ruled by force. Rather, they opted for a republic bound by the rule of law: the U.S. Constitution.

Unfortunately, with the Constitution under constant attack, the military’s power, influence and authority have grown dramatically. Even the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which makes it a crime for the government to use the military to carry out arrests, searches, seizure of evidence and other activities normally handled by a civilian police force, was greatly weakened by both Barack Obama and George W. Bush, who ushered in exemptions allowing troops to deploy domestically and arrest civilians in the wake of alleged terrorist acts.

Now we find ourselves struggling to retain some semblance of freedom in the face of police and law enforcement agencies that look and act like the military and have just as little regard for the Fourth Amendment, laws such as the NDAA that allow the military to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens, and military drills that acclimate the American people to the sight of armored tanks in the streets, military encampments in cities, and combat aircraft patrolling overhead.

We’ve already gone too far down this road.

Add these lockdowns onto the list of other troubling developments that have taken place over the past 30 years or more, and the picture grows even more troubling: the expansion of the military industrial complex and its influence in Washington DC, the rampant surveillance, the corporate-funded elections and revolving door between lobbyists and elected officials, the militarized police, the loss of our freedoms, the injustice of the courts, the privatized prisons, the school lockdowns, the roadside strip searches, the military drills on domestic soil, the fusion centers and the simultaneous fusing of every branch of law enforcement (federal, state and local), the stockpiling of ammunition by various government agencies, the active shooter drills that are indistinguishable from actual crises, the economy flirting with near collapse, etc.

Suddenly, the overall picture seems that much more sinister.

The lesson for the rest of us is this: once a free people allows the government to make inroads into their freedoms or uses those same freedoms as bargaining chips for security, it quickly becomes a slippery slope to outright tyranny. And it doesn’t really matter whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican at the helm, because the bureaucratic mindset on both sides of the aisle now seems to embody the same philosophy of authoritarian government.

Remember, a police state does not come about overnight.

It starts small, perhaps with a revenue-generating red light camera at an intersection.

When that is implemented without opposition, perhaps next will be surveillance cameras on public streets. License plate readers on police cruisers. More police officers on the beat. Free military equipment from the federal government. Free speech zones and zero tolerance policies and curfews. SWAT team raids. Drones flying overhead. City-wide lockdowns.

No matter how it starts, however, it always ends the same.

Remember, it’s a slippery slope from a questionable infringement justified in the name of safety to all-out tyranny.

These are no longer warning signs of a steadily encroaching police state.

As I make clear in my book , the police state has arrived.

The Best of John W. Whitehead

CHELSEA CLINTON CLAIMS ROE V. WADE HELPED ADD TRILLIONS TO ECONOMY BY ALLOWING WOMEN TO ENTER WORKFORCE

ECONOMY BOOSTED 

BY KILLING BABIES?

CHELSEA CLINTON CLAIMS ROE V. WADE HELPED ADD TRILLIONS TO ECONOMY BY ALLOWING WOMEN TO ENTER WORKFORCE 

BY HEATHER CLARK

SEE: https://christiannews.net/2018/08/15/chelsea-clinton-claims-roe-v-wade-helped-add-trillions-to-economy-by-allowing-women-to-enter-workforce/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

NEW YORK — Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of former president Bill Clinton and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, claimed during a “Rise Up for Roe” abortion “rights” event on Saturday that Roe v. Wade has helped add over three trillion to the U.S. economy in that it has allowed women to enter the workforce and make a living instead of focusing on raising children.

“Whether you kind of fundamentally care about reproductive rights and access, because again, these are not the same thing—if you care about social justice or economic justice, agency—you have to care about this,” she said, according to video footage of the New York event, shared by the Media Research Center. “It is not a disconnected fact … that American women entering the labor force from 1970 to 2009 added three and a half trillion dollars to our economy.”

“The net, new entrance of women—that is not disconnected from the fact that Roe became the law of the land in January of 1973,” Clinton continued. “So, I think, whatever it is that people say they care about, I think that you can connect to this issue. Of course, I would hope that they would care about our equal rights and dignity to make our own choices, but if that is not sufficiently persuasive, hopefully some of these other arguments that you’re hearing expressed so beautifully will be.”

View Clinton’s remarks here.

She reiterated her point on Twitter on Wednesday after receiving backlash for her comments, while also asserting that she wasn’t saying that aborting children boost the economy.

“To repeat: reproductive rights have always been economic rights. A recent study found denying women—often already mothers—a wanted abortion results in years of less employment & more family poverty,” Clinton stated.

As previously reported, Clinton’s mother has made similar remarks, speaking at a Planned Parenthood event in 2016.

“Roe v. Wade guaranteed the right to safe, legal abortion, so young women were no longer dying in emergency rooms and back alleys from botched abortions,” she said. “America’s maternal mortality rate dropped dramatically, and it turns out being able to plan their families not only saved women’s lives, it also transformed them because it meant that women were able to get education, build careers, enter new fields and rise as far as their talent and hard work would take them.”

She praised “[a]ll the opportunities that follow when women are able to stay healthy and choose whether and when to become mothers,” adding that birth control has likewise helped the economy because more women can work if they are not raising children.

“Today, the percentage of women who finish college is six times what it was before birth control was legal,” Clinton stated. “Women represent half of all college graduates in America and nearly half our labor force, and our whole economy then is better off.”

“The movement of women into the workforce, a paid workforce, over the past 40 years was responsible for more than $3.5 trillion in growth in our economy,” she said.

The argument is not new, however, as Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a Reagan appointee, made similar statements about how abortion has kept women in the workforce in the 1992 ruling of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

“For two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail,” O’Connor wrote on behalf of the court.

“The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives,” she said.

However, in his article “The Calling of the Young Women to Marry and to Bear Children,”Den Hartog notes that the feminist mindset is far from the biblical exhortation in 1 Timothy 5:14 that young women are to “marry, bear children [and] guide the house.”

“[T]he role of mother in the home is greatly despised in our society. The career woman is glamorized. She is the liberated woman. She is the one who has insisted on her rights which, according to the spirit of our age, all women must by all means do. She has made a name for herself in the world,” he wrote.

“On the other hand, [according to the world,] the mother who stays home to give birth to and raise a family is an ignoramus. She is counted as a nothing. Her life is boring. She is wasting her time. She has submitted herself to some form of evil bondage that hopefully our world is now finally ridding itself of,” Hartog lamented.

He said that women who selflessly give of themselves to invest their lives in their children, to lovingly train them in the ways of the Lord, should be encouraged and applauded.

“With all these ideas bombarding the Christian woman today, she needs to know very clearly what her calling is before the Lord. She needs to be encouraged in our day. The godly woman who stays home to bear children and to sacrifice herself to raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord needs to be praised,” Hartog outlined. “She needs to be told over and over of the great honor of her position and the great significance of her calling in the Church. ‘Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain; but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised.'”

RELIGIOUS STUDIES PROFESSOR CLAIMS OPPOSING ABORTION CONFLICTS WITH JESUS' TEACHING ON "ABUNDANT LIFE"

SEE: https://rebeccatoddpeters.com/2018/07/30/trusting-women-to-make-abortion-decisions-is-a-christian-norm/

RELIGIOUS STUDIES PROFESSOR CLAIMS OPPOSING ABORTION CONFLICTS WITH JESUS' TEACHING ON "ABUNDANT LIFE"

BY HEATHER CLARK

SEE: https://christiannews.net/2018/08/14/religious-studies-professor-claims-opposing-abortion-conflicts-with-jesus-teaching-on-abundant-life/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

ELON, N.C. — A religious studies professor at Elon University in North Carolina has published a column in which she claims that opposing abortion in cases where the woman does not wish to be a mother at the time “flies in the face of Jesus’ teaching that He came to bring abundant life” as the child might not have a good family or home life, and that women should be trusted in their decision whether or not they can commit themselves to be a parent.

In her article “Trusting Women to Make Abortion Decisions Is a Christian Norm,”Rebecca Todd Peters asserts that many Christians aren’t against abortion altogether as they believe in the exceptions of prenatal health, rape, incest, and the health of the mother (PRIM).

She says that in doing so, by showing acceptance for abortion in some cases but not all, Christians have now forced women to justify their purpose for obtaining an abortion.

“Women who have PRIM abortions are portrayed as tragic, not only deserving of access to abortion services but also equally deserving of public sympathy. Women who have abortions for other reasons are stigmatized as morally unfit and labeled as selfish, cruel, and irresponsible. In short, they are the damned,” Todd Peters writes.

She notes that as very few abortions are due to rape, incest, and the life of the mother, and that the overwhelming majority of abortions are simply because the woman does not wish to be a mother at the time. Todd Peters then contends that it is wrong for Christians to reject those abortions as it sends the message that “when women get pregnant, we expect them to have babies.”

“As my deeply Christian mother taught me, ‘You shouldn’t have a baby because you are pregnant. You should have a baby because you want to be a mother, because you want to have a family,'” she writes.

Todd Peters contends that choosing to raise a child is a moral commitment, and that women should have healthy families, not just give birth. It is for this reason that she claims that rejecting abortion in cases where the mother simply doesn’t want the baby contradicts Christ’s purpose to give men abundant life.

In other words, Todd Peters believes that the child might not have a good life as his or her family and home situation will not be the best, and healthy families should be the goal.

“Limiting our cultural approval of women’s reproductive decisions about the size, shape, and timing of their families to a narrow list of PRIM reasons flies in the face of Jesus’ teaching that he came to bring abundant life. A Christian vision of abundant life requires that we recognize and support the development of healthy and robust families,” she writes.

“It requires that we respect women and the moral decisions that they make about their families. A Christian approach to supporting healthy families recognizes that only individual women and their partners are able to determine their ability to parent a child,” Todd Peters argues.

She claims that it is not Christian to require a woman to have a baby against her will, and argues that mothers should be trusted in their decision to obtain an abortion.

“If we truly value women and healthy families, we must accept that ‘I do not want to have a baby’ is an imminently appropriate reason to end a pregnancy. And we must trust that pregnant women are the only ones who are capable of making these decisions,” Todd Peters writes.

Commenting to OneNewsNow, Tami Fitzgerald of the North Carolina Family Values Coalition said that Todd Peters is twisting Christ’s words.

“As a parent, I would be very cautious about Elon University if they have professors like Todd Peters, who are willing to write articles that would attempt to justify abortion on moral grounds and actually use the words of Jesus out of context,” she said.

Psalm 127:3-5 reads, “Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord, and the fruit of the womb is His reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man, so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them …”

In Proverbs 6, the Scriptures also state that the Lord hates “hands that shed innocent blood.”

Jeremiah 17:9 says, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. Who can know it?”

DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST, MUSLIM CANDIDATE FOR MICHIGAN GOVERNOR OPENLY DECLARES HIS SUPPORT FOR MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD; DENIES SHARIA COMPLIANCE~HAS SUPPORT FROM LINDA SARSOUR OF NEW YORK

MUSLIM CANDIDATE FOR MICHIGAN GOVERNOR OPENLY DECLARES HIS SUPPORT FOR MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD 

Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed, a Muslim candidate for Governor in Michigan declared his open support for the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a designated terrorist organization. Investigative journalist Laura Loomer traveled to Michigan with The United West to investigate Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed who is running as a Democrat Socialist. El-Sayed is a Sharia compliant Muslim who openly supports Islamic terrorists. Will the mainstream media ignore the fact that a supporter of Islamic terrorism is running for office?

 Exposé - Abdul El-Sayed - Marxist Jihad in Michigan – MUST WATCH!

Democrat candidate for Governor of Michigan, Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed has a proven history and background with Muslim Brotherhood alignment and associations. His Marxist Jihad interactions in support of Mohamed Morsi during the Arab Spring, the supporters of his campaign – Linda Sarsour, Bernie Sanders, ISNA, and CAIR, and his Sharia compliant Islamic practices all relate the real plan he has for Michigan. WATCH THIS AND LEARN WHO THE REAL ABDUL EL-SAYED IS, HOW HE WILL GOVERN MICHIGAN, AND WHAT EVERY CITIZEN OF MICHIGAN SHOULD KNOW AS THEY VOTE ON AUGUST 7TH!

Abdul EL-Sayed Signed Support of Jihadist MB leader Mohamed Morsi 

Michigan Gubernatorial Candidate Abdul El Sayed CONFRONTED Over His Practice of Sharia Law

Investigative journalist Laura Loomer traveled to Michigan with The United West to investigate Abdul El-Sayed, a Muslim candidate running for Governor in Michigan as a Democrat Socialist. El-Sayed is a Sharia compliant Muslim, but his political platform and talking points directly contradict Islamic law. When Loomer attended one of Abdul's campaign events in Michigan, she asked him about his practice of Sharia Law and if he recognizes the conflict of being a devout Muslim while also campaigning on a Marxist political platform. The Democrats claim to be pro-women, pro-LGBTQ, and pro-equality, but each of those things are prohibited under Islamic law, which Abdul himself has said he practices. When confronted with hard questions from Loomer, Abdul ran away.

Sharia Crime Stoppers Warns: Will Michigan Stand for US Constitution or Sharia In 2018 Mid-Term? 

Investigative journalist Laura Loomer traveled to Michigan with The United West to investigate Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed, a Muslim candidate running for Governor in Michigan as a Democrat Socialist. El-Sayed is a Sharia compliant Muslim, but his political platform and talking points directly contradict Islamic law. Dick Manasseri, Co-founder of Sharia Crime Stoppers, an organization focused on getting local law enforcement trained to understand the criminal behavior sanctioned under Sharia and what Officers could encounter on the streets of America. Loomer sat down with Mr. Manasseri and asked him about why it’s important to know about Sharia and what people need to know about El-Sayed. Is El-Sayed practicing Taqiyya in order to become the next Governor of Michigan and advance Islam in the United States? Michigan voters will decide!

Linda Sarsour Asks World Trade Center Terrorist To Support Muslim Candidate for Michigan Governor 

Investigative journalist Laura Loomer traveled to Michigan with The United West to investigate Abdul El-Sayed, a Muslim candidate running for Governor in Michigan as a Democrat Socialist. El-Sayed is a Sharia compliant Muslim, but his political platform and talking points directly contradict Islamic law. When Loomer attended one of Abdul's campaign events in Michigan, she asked him about his practice of Sharia Law and if he recognizes the conflict of being a devout Muslim while also campaigning on a Marxist political platform. The Democrats claim to be pro-women, pro-LGBTQ, and pro-equality, but each of those things are prohibited under Islamic law, which Abdul himself has said he practices. While speaking to a group of Muslims at the 54th Annual ISNA Convention, Pro-Hamas activist and Democrat mouthpiece Linda Sarsour, who has been campaigning for Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, expressed how much she admires her "mentor" Siraj Wahhaj, and asked him to financially support Abdul's campaign. Siraj Wahhaj is a co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing.

Former Muslim Explains Abdul El-Sayed's Politics

Investigative journalist Laura Loomer traveled to Michigan with The United West to investigate Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed, a Muslim candidate running for Governor in Michigan as a Democrat Socialist. El-Sayed is a Sharia compliant Muslim, but his political platform and talking points directly contradict Islamic law. Laura interviewed someone who has seen Sharia's impact and knows the Islamic tenets first hand. Because of that, she has asked to be disguised, including her voice for security reasons. She talks about how Islam promotes lying as a means to reach an end goal when it is required to convince non-muslims to follow a set target. Lying in Islam is called taqiya and every Muslim is required to use it to promote world domination, and it is clearly used in the 2018 campaign race for Michigan's Governor by Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed. Example of that is Abdul's platform and the use of the LBGTQ community when Islam has clear mandates for what should happen to that community.

Ex-Muslim Woman Warns: "Abdul El-Sayed Is Practicing Taqiya To Become Michigan Governor."

Investigative journalist Laura Loomer traveled to Michigan with The United West to investigate Abdul El-Sayed, a Muslim candidate running for Governor in Michigan as a Democrat Socialist. El-Sayed is a Sharia compliant Muslim, but his political platform and talking points directly contradict Islamic law. Farrah Prudence is an ex-Muslim. Loomer sat down with her and asked her about El-Sayed. According to Farrah, El-Sayed is practicing Taqiya in order to become the next Governor of Michigan and advance Islam in the United States.

Ex-Muslim Woman Warns: "Do not vote for Abdul El-Sayed For Michigan Governor."
Investigative journalist Laura Loomer traveled to Michigan with The United West to investigate Abdul El-Sayed, a Muslim candidate running for Governor in Michigan as a Democrat Socialist. El-Sayed is a Sharia compliant Muslim, but his political platform and talking points directly contradict Islamic law. Farrah Prudence is an ex-Muslim. Loomer sat down with her and asked her about El-Sayed. According to Farrah, El-Sayed is Sharia compliant and his policies pose a direct threat to women in America given his devout practice of Islamic law, which is inherently misogynistic.

BORIS JOHNSON BOTH MOCKS & FEARS THE BURQA~MRS. MAY & 40% OF BRITS LABEL HIS REMARKS OFFENSIVE; 60% APPLAUD~MR. BEAN SUPPLIES SOME COMIC RELIEF

BREAKING Boris Johnson - FULL FACE BURKA - 

'They look like letter boxes; bank robbers"

Boris Johnson, the Burka, Tea and Rowan Atkinson....

This story regarding Boris Johnson has been hysterical. First he equates the burka to letter boxes and bank robbers. He then refuses to apologise and goes on holiday. Then he gets backed up by Rowan Atkinson of Blackadder fame. And then the crowning tea moment! All while the mainstream media and outrage merchants are losing their minds!

BORIS JOHNSON BOTH MOCKS & 

FEARS THE BURQA~

MRS. MAY & BRITS LABEL HIS REMARKS OFFENSIVE;

MR. BEAN SUPPLIES SOME COMIC RELIEF

BY HUGH FITZGERALD

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/08/boris-johnson-both-mocks-and-fears-the-burqa; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

As everyone knows by now, Boris Johnson, no longer the British Foreign Secretary, but still a prominent MP and force in the Tory Party as well as, again, a journalist for The Telegraph, recently delivered himself of his views on the burqa/niqab. Here is some of what he wrote:

If you say that it is weird and bullying to expect women to cover their faces, then I totally agree.

I would go further and say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes.

And he added that “a female student turned up at school or at a university lecture looking like a bank robber” he would ask her to remove it to speak to her.

Mr Johnson, who quit as Foreign Secretary last month over Brexit, said it was “sensible” to be able to read each others facial expressions and humans “must be able to see each other’s faces.”

“He said that individual businesses or branches of Government should be free to enforce a dress code that enables their workers to best interact with customers – which could involve removing the veils.

The Tory grandees made the expected tut-tutting about his language. Tory chair Brandon Lewis asked Johnson to apologize; others merely asked him to watch his language. Apparently Theresa May has gone along with an investigation to be conducted of Johnson’s remarks, the announcement of which has caused “a civil war” in Tory ranks. So far, Boris Johnson has shown no signs of apologizing; he knows that a great many of the Tory rank-and-file share his views on the niqab, and in a showdown over this issue, he will win.

Meanwhile, Lady Warsi, the Muslimah who now sits as a peer in the House of Lords, was enraged:

Johnson’s words send out a message that Muslim women are fair game…As a feminist what really disgusts me in this whole episode is that Muslim women are simply political fodder, their lives a convenient battleground on which to stake out a leadership bid,” she wrote. “Well, this approach is not just offensive, it’s dangerous. Johnson’s words have once again validated the view of those that ‘other’ Muslims. They send out a message that Muslim women are fair game. What starts as useful targets for ‘colorful political language’ and the odd bit of toxic campaigning ends up in attacks on our streets.”

She went on to make clear that she considered Johnson’s words would encourage hate crimes. “So, as much as Johnson thinks he’s being his usual clever self, he’s helping to create an environment in which hate crime is more likely.” She offered no evidence for this, and it seemed she was trying to create the impression that criticism of the niqab was almost a hate crime in itself. Then Sayeeda Warsi offered to give Boris Johnson lessons in diversity training herself. It’s an offer I’m certain he will refuse.

So far, so predictable. But was Johnson wrong? Isn’t the burqa, isn’t the niqab, a security risk? Does Sayeeda Warsi know that in Mecca, during worship, the face-covering is banned?  What does she think of that? Why should the full face covering be banned at the Ka’aba and not, say, at Wembley Stadium, or just outside Buckingham Palace, or in Regents Park?

And now a respected Muslim scholar, Taj Hargey, the imam at Oxford Islamic Congregation, has taken part in the debate. Hargey has been in the news many times before for his moderate stance. He once so angered the Muslim Weekly that the paper declared him to be a “Qadiani” only pretending as a Muslim (“Qadiani” is the pejorative name for Ahmadis, whom other Muslims do not regard as real Muslims) — and such a charge made him a potential target for attack. Hargey, a Sunni Muslim, sued the publication, and won a high five-figure settlement for defamation.

Hargey has entered the lists, firmly in support of Boris Johnson against his hysterical detractors:

Taj Hargey, the imam at Oxford Islamic Congregation, said Mr Johnson should “not apologise for telling the truth.’

“The burka and niqab are hideous tribal ninja-like garments that are pre-Islamic, non-Koranic and therefore un-Muslim.”

“Although this deliberate identity-concealing contraption is banned at the Kaaba in Mecca it is permitted in Britain, thus precipitating security risks, accelerating vitamin D deficiency, endorsing gender-inequality, and inhibiting community cohesion.”

“In reality it is a toxic patriarchy controlling women.”

“Is it any wonder that many younger women have internalised this poisonous chauvinism by asserting that it is their human right to hide their faces? Johnson did not go far enough.”

Boris Johnson has gone off, unfazed, and unapologetic, on holiday abroad.

What does Sayeeda Warsi, stewing in her own malevolence and hate, make of the fact that the Qur’an does not require the niqab? And will she be willing to agree that the niqab could in many circumstances be a “security risk”? Why does she think that in the West, including Great Britain, Muslim women must remove the face-covering for their passport photos? What does Sayeeda Warsi think of the opinion given by the  Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Sheikh Haji Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, a renowned scholar and head of the Islamic world’s preeminent religious institute, who has stated that “the niqab is a cultural tradition and has nothing to do with Islam.”

Warsi can foam at the mouth about provoking “hate crimes” all she wants, but Boris Johnson will return serenely from his vacation, cite Imam Taj Hargey and Sheikh Tantawy of Al-Azhar on the niqab, refuse to apologize, and watch, bemused, as Theresa May squirms, not knowing quite how to deal with this loose cannon in her ranks. The Tory investigation will take place, dutifully and perfunctorily, and conclude with some anodyne statement about “watching one’s words.” And that will be it. Johnson will not be kicked out of the Party, as the Muslim peer Lord Sheikh, founder of the Conservative Muslim Forum, has demanded. He will be stronger than ever.

The most recent poll has 60 percent of British voters not only backing Johnson’s remarks, but going even further than he did by calling for a complete ban on the niqab, which Johnson himself has so far opposed. What’s a poor prime minister to do, if her benighted people insist on backing Boris? Nothing. That’s what the waffling Theresa May will do: nothing.

And that will be a victory for Boris Johnson, and for Great Britain, now brought one step closer to banning the niqab, just like Austria, France, and Denmark.

As for Johnson’s joke about burqas making women look like letter-boxes, the last word should go to the comedian Rowan Atkinson (“Mr. Bean”), who wrote to The Times: “An almost perfect visual simile and a joke that, whether Mr Johnson apologises for it or not, will stay in the public consciousness for some time to come.”

PRO GUN RALLY SEPT 29, KENT STATE: KAITLIN BENNETT TO HOLD OPEN CARRY RALLY AT KENT STATE UNIVERSITY

KAITLIN BENNETT TO HOLD OPEN CARRY RALLY AT KENT STATE UNIVERSITY

BY JOHN CRUMP

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2018/08/kaitlin-bennett-to-hold-open-carry-rally-at-kent-state-university/#axzz5O9jR2fc3; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

Kaitlin Bennett Ar10 Kent State

Kent State University –-(Ammoland.com)- Kaitlin Bennett, the Kent State graduate, who made national headlines by posting a picture of herself with her AR-10 and a graduation cap that bore the pro-gun phrase “Come and Take It”, is returning to campus.

On Saturday, September 29th, Bennett will be hosting an open carry rally on Risman Plaza on the campus of Kent State University. The Liberty Hangout will be hosting speakers and live streaming the event to the people who could not make the rally.

Instead of asking for a “safe space” for the event, the rallies organizers are inviting those that disagree with them to attend the rally. One of the goals of the rally is to provide a space for civil discourse and discussions between the pro-gun and anti-gun advocates. Through an exchange of ideas, the organizers want to bring people together.

The rally will also show that gun owners and Second Amendment supporters are not willing to trade their rights away for a false sense of safety. The organizers believe that any new gun regulations would be mostly ineffective in combatting violence. These laws make us less safe rather than protect us from those that wish to do us harm.

Organizers are asking those that come to the rally with a long gun to keep their firearms slung and practice proper muzzle control. Those that attend with pistols are being asked to keep their pistol holstered at all times. Even though the rules permit guns on campus, the University bans firearms from university buildings.

Even though visitors are permitted to have guns on campus, the university bans students from having firearms on university property. This rule is one of the nonsensical regulations that the university enforces that this gathering is set to highlight and combat.

The organizers hope that even though the university doesn't allow students to carry firearms on campus that pro-Second Amendment students will attend the rally. They are encouraged to bring signs and flags to show their support for our rights. Maybe with pressure from the student body, the university will change their anti-gun rules.

As of this writing, over 100 people have responded to the Facebook invite as “going.” Another 800 are interested in the event. A good turnout is critical to making this rally a success. Second Amendment supporters need to show their support by showing up to the event.

Last Spring Bennett hosted an open carry event with Jeffry Smith. Everything is pointing to this event as being even more significant than the previous rally due to Bennett's notoriety from her photo with her gun going viral.

Bennett and the Liberty Den will be holding the rally from 2 PM to 5 PM EDT. The Liberty Hangout will be announcing speakers as they are confirmed closer to the event. The organizers are encouraging attendees to show up at least 30 minutes early.

After the rally Bennett will be heading to the range for some target practice. She is inviting not only the pro-gun attendees to the range, but she is also encouraging those students with an open mind to attend the range session to learn about guns and gun rights.

InfoWars reporter Millie Weaver will be on campus for the rally, interviewing all in attendance about their support for the Second Amendment and why they are at the event. She will even be attempting to question the students of the University about their stance on firearms.

The event can be found on Facebook.

Rally organizers are using the hashtag #KSUOpenCarryRally on Twitter.

---

About John Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. He is the former CEO of Veritas Firearms, LLC and is the co-host of The Patriot News Podcast which can be found at www.blogtalkradio.com/patriotnews. John has written extensively on the patriot movement including 3%'ers, Oath Keepers, and Militias. In addition to the Patriot movement, John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and is currently working on a book on leftist deplatforming methods and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, on Facebook at realjohncrump, or at www.crumpy.com.

_________________________________________________________________

Kent State Open Carry event April 27, 2018

Gun rights advocate Jeffry Smith and Kent State senior Kaitlin Bennett held an open carry event at Risman Plaza on Kent State's main campus Friday afternoon. The event went on without incident despite local residents opposing it on social media.

Gun Rights Are Women's Rights!

Infowars Reporter Millie Weaver goes to the gun range with Kaitlin Bennett to talk woman's rights and gun rights. Bennett is the Kent State student whose controversial pictures of her open carrying her AR-10 on her college campus went viral.