Skip to content

Louis Farrakhan calls for separate state for Black Americans, says that’s ‘what God wants’

February 4, 2019

GOPUSA

2/5/2019

Source …..

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan called for a separate state for Black Americans in an Instagram video posted on Thursday, saying that’s “what God wants” while those opposed he described as “slaves.”

Farrakhan, who in recent months has made numerous anti-Semitic comments, made his call for a nation-state separate from white America in response to the question whether it’s still his and the group’s goal.

“Let me tell you what’s gonna happen. Yes I’m after a separate state. A separate nation. In the 60s what was our cry? We weren’t saying we want to integrate, we were saying ‘It’s nation time!’” he said.

This is an excerpt. Read more at Fox News.

Video …..

 

Daily Beast: New England Patriots ‘Preferred Team of White Nationalists’

February 3, 2019

Joel B. Pollak

2/3/2019

Source …..

The New England Patriots are “the preferred team of white nationalists,” according to the Daily Beast, because “[t]heir star quarterback, coach, and owner all supported Trump,” and because Boston, Massachusetts, is a racist city.

Video …..

That’s the case made this weekend by Daily Beast by writer Corbin Smith ahead of Super Bowl LIII.

Smith did not offer any empirical evidence that white nationalists support the Patriots, but argued that the Patriots are “the official team of American White Nationalism, the MAGA Boys On the Field.”

Smith also argued that all Patriot fans are guilty by association.

A sample of his argument follows (original links):

The whole institution of Boston sports, from root to stem, is tinged with the sort of racism that brought Trump into office. The Boston Red Sox were the last MLB team to desegregate, more than a decade after Jackie Robinson entered the league. The Sox’s first owner, Tom Yawkey, was an infamous racist whose speech was peppered with racial slurs. Larry Bird became a symbol of white resentment during his time in the NBA, his jersey appearing as a symbol of white entitlement to black spaces in Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing. His large teammate, Kevin McHale, was spotted at a Trump rally during the election.

Look, it doesn’t matter if the Patriots like it or not, they are the official team of American White Nationalism, the MAGA Boys On the Field. You can’t implicitly or explicitly support Trump, who reads speeches written by Stephen Miller as a matter of course, play in a market whose sporting culture is renowned for its racism, have a decade-plus organizational obsession with undersized white receivers, and be called, no shit, the Patriots, without getting the vile Fox News Soup that poisoned half the country on your shirt. Try to put on a bib of distancing yourself, deflecting questions, telling everyone your wife told you to stop talking about it, that shit isn’t gonna work. You’re the MAGA Kid. It’s on you forever. It stalks and haunts you.

When you root for the Patriots, you are associating yourself with a virulent and revolting strain of politics that seeks to Make America Great Again—which is to say, white, European, English-speaking. And look, I understand if you’ve been rooting for Boston teams your whole life. Fandom is a hard drug to quit. But please, look at yourself, look at who these guys put out for, and reconsider. Think about if you would want to find yourself in a crowd of sweaty, white men chanting WE’RE STILL HERE while a Trump supporter egged you on. Are you one-hundred percent sure you’re comfortable with that?

Angry fans blasted Smith on Twitter — although many attacked a different sports writer with the same name, who responded:

Read the full Daily Beast article here.

The Patriots take on the Los Angeles Rams in the Super Bowl on Sunday evening in Atlanta.

 

Duke University Demands Methodist Church Change Its Beliefs

February 3, 2019

Alana Mastrangelo

2/3/2019

Source …..

Duke University along with 93 other colleges, is demanding the Methodist church stop believing that homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching and accept members of the LGBTQ+ community into the church.

Duke University, along with 93 other colleges affiliated with the Methodist Church, is calling on the denomination to change its beliefs, by accepting “gender identity/expression” and “sexual orientation” within the church.

These sweeping demands are derived from the National Association of Schools & Colleges of The United Methodist Church (NASCUMC), whose members signed a joint statement calling on church leaders to secure full access to all members of the LGBTQ+ community.

The NASCUMC claims that making this change will mean that the church is upholding the “core religious and humanistic values that all persons are of sacred worth and equal standing.”

“Historically, the Church has witnessed a profound commitment to the sacred worth of all persons and to social justice,” reads the statement, “such as the Church’s positions on civil rights, women’s rights, and the rights of different ethnic communities.”

“We call upon the leaders of the United Methodist Church at this 2019 Called General Conference to honor the past and current practices of inclusion by amending their policies,” continued the NASCUMC, noting that gender identity/expression and sexual orientation should be included.

It was also noted that the joint statement was unanimously approved by everyone who had attended NASCUMC’s Scottsdale Conference in the beginning of January 2019.

The Methodist Church currently believes that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching,” and therefore, does not allow for members of the LGBTQ+ community to be ordained as ministers or serve in the church, according to its Book of Discipline.

“The 2016 General Conference directed the UMC Council of Bishops to propose ways for the church to maintain unity in the face of ongoing disagreements about human sexuality,” said the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry in a statement.

“NASCUMC members hope their statement will influence delegates of the special General Conference to approve legislation that creates an open and welcoming environment in the church for members of the LGBTQ community,” continued the Board.

The Board also stated that it is important for religious leaders to broaden their inclusiveness, in order to maintain their legacy as being “proponents of social justice and broad educational access.”

 

Feds caught pushing Buddhist-based meditation on preschoolers

February 3, 2019

Bob Unruh

2/2/2019

Source …..

The federal government has been caught trying to push a Buddhist-based meditation program on preschoolers, and the American Center for Law and Justice is demanding that the public be given details.

ACLJ representatives attended a school board meeting in Colorado where the indoctrination was being implemented.

ACLJ argued the “Inner Explorer” program imposed on elementary students was an Establishment Clause violation.

That’s because the program “coaches students through several Buddhist principles, as defined by the United Nations. For example, the practice of Prajna is to foster ‘discernment, insight, wisdom, enlightenment.”

“This is the real heart of Buddhism. Wisdom will emerge if your mind is pure and calm.’ Within Inner Explorer, children are told to walk through a similar practice.”

ACLJ said federal funds have been awarded to implement such religious teachings to preschoolers.

It responded immediately with a Freedom of Information Act request for more details.

ACLJ wants to find out from the Department of Education how many grants it has awarded for the programs “and how it justifies using federal taxpayer dollars to implement them.”

The information “will educate the American public about the U.S. government’s spending of U.S. taxpayer dollars to conduct Buddhism-based social experiments on children.”

One grant that has become public is a $3.3 allocation to Portland State University for a MindUP program, “a mindfulness-based social emotional learning program to be implemented on preschool-age children in 120 schools in Oregon.”

ACLJ said Portland State psychology professor Andrew Mashburn “specializes in testing programs to promote school readiness and has already looked into the MindUp program for the Gates Foundation.”

“He won the big five-year grant from the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences to run the program in 120 classrooms in Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas counties and measure if it works, university officials announced Tuesday.”

ACLJ noted such programs, under various names, are not exclusive to Oregon.

“We’ve learned that even more federal contracts have been awarded to push these programs. For example, in 2014, $1.5 million was awarded to the University of Wisconsin for a 3-year study to ‘take place in public elementary schools in an urban school district in Wisconsin,’ with a sample of ‘[a]pproximately 20-30 teachers and 400 students from fourth and fifth grade classrooms,’” the group said.

ACLJ said parents have claimed that if their children refuse to take part in as many as three meditations a day, the “kids are forced to sit outside their classroom, like a punishment.”

“These programs are undeniably religious,” ACLJ said. “For example, teachers play audio recordings for the children telling them: ‘We’re all connected through nature. And we’re all connected through the universe.’ It tells them how to clear their minds, watch their memories and emotions float away on clouds, and connect with the universe.”

An Open Letter To Our Legislators, Judges And Lawmen

February 1, 2019

Chuck Baldwin

1/31/2019

Source …..

I know I am speaking for tens of thousands of my fellow Montanans and tens of millions of my fellow Americans when I write what I’m about to write.

The “red flag” laws that are sweeping the country violate every principle of liberty upon which our country was founded. There is no due process associated with “red flag” laws. A judge’s order to seize the firearms from an American citizen who has not been accused of a crime, charged with a crime, convicted of a crime—or who never even threatened to commit a crime—based on the accusation of a single individual is anything but due process.

Our accuser could be a disgruntled employee, a bitter ex-spouse or relative, a vengeful neighbor, an anti-gun liberal or even an anti-gun policeman. By definition, “red flag” laws use mere suspicion of what one “might” do as justification to seize a person’s firearms. Tactics such as these have been used in virtually every despotic regime of history. In the name of protecting society, the rights and liberties of individuals were denied. Eventually, these repressive governments included political or religious persuasion as triggering “red flags,” which led to their disarmament—all in the name of public safety, of course.

You know as well as I do that when the rights of ONE American are abridged, the rights of ALL Americans are abridged. This is not yet a communist nation where the rights of the state—or even the rights of a majority of citizens—supersede the rights of the individual.

Furthermore, it is a fallacy to suggest that a mental health diagnosis, by itself, indicates that someone is automatically a threat to himself or others. Dr. Ann Bukacek, a highly-respected medical doctor in the community in which I live, recently wrote:

Mental health diagnoses given by physicians or other mental health care workers do not predict firearm violence. As a physician for over 30 years who has treated many patients with mental health diagnoses and some autistic spectrum patients, I have not had one of those patients commit an act of gun violence. I did have a patient who bludgeoned a man to death with a blunt object, and that patient carried no mental health diagnosis. Psychopaths with no conscience, especially the more intelligent ones, usually escape detection and/or a particular diagnosis.

This doctor’s examination of the issue reflects reality.

Besides, under these “red flag” laws, exactly who is it that determines that someone is “crazy”? Is it one judge, who bases his or her conclusion on the accusations of just one individual? Is it up to politicians or government bureaucrats to define who is and who is not “crazy”?

There are some people who believe that anyone who would even own a firearm is “crazy.” Others believe one’s political or religious beliefs qualify him as “crazy.” Heck! We have all read the documentation of various governments (local, State and federal) that have assigned all kinds of “crazy” (even “dangerous”) definitions against people based on their interpretation of Bible prophecy or their association with political candidates such as former Congressman Ron Paul or their opposition to politically correct ideologies, etc.

Does the judge who issues a warrant to seize a person’s firearms under a “red flag” law provide the accused with an opportunity to defend himself BEFORE violating his constitutional and Natural rights? No. Does the judge provide an opportunity for a close examination of the accusations against the accused (including investigating the accuser) BEFORE violating his constitutional and Natural rights? No. Does the judge allow the accused to face his accuser BEFORE violating his constitutional and Natural rights? No.

“Red flag” laws turn the Bill of Rights and the fundamental legal doctrine that a man is innocent until proven guilty completely upside down. “Red flag” laws are a mockery to every constitutional principle of liberty since the Magna Carta. Seizing a citizen’s firearms by force (and thereby rendering him defenseless) without a crime being committed—or even the accusation of a crime being made—is old-fashioned TYRANNY. Such an act presumes a person is guilty until proven innocent.

Then there is this: After the guns are seized, it could take years for the victim to prove his innocence (or competence) and have his guns returned—and in what condition would they be when (and IF) returned? Furthermore, will you legislators, judges and police officers who collaborate to strip an innocent person’s ability to defend himself accept any responsibility when the real bad guys take advantage of this person’s vulnerability and invade his home and bludgeon or rape or even kill his family? Of course you won’t. But mark it down: You will be held responsible in the eyes of Almighty God—and in the eyes of the citizens you have victimized.

And are you really going to try and tell us that police officers are more competent and mentally stable than the rest of us? Are you kidding? The examples of improper, unsafe, careless and even homicidal acts of cops with guns are ubiquitous.

It was an FBI agent who was armed at a nightclub in Denver and then started gyrating and dancing like a madman until his handgun fell on the floor, discharged and wounded a fellow patron. But no official even questioned this officer’s fitness to possess a firearm—even AFTER that event took place.

Then there is the case of the Dallas police officer who walked into the wrong apartment and shot and killed the man who lived inside. Where was the “red flag” regarding this officer? And what about the two police officers in St. Louis who used a revolver to play Russian roulette, and one of the two wound up shooting and killing the other one? Why wasn’t a “red flag” raised about these nincompoops? These stories could go on forever.

Where are the “red flag” laws for the policemen and sheriff’s deputies in this country? The only difference between them and the rest of us who are being victimized by these draconian “red flag” laws is that they wear badges, and we do not—and the other difference is the vast majority of private citizens who carry firearms are not nearly as stupid and incompetent as the policemen mentioned above.

So much for equal justice under the law.

It has taken many of us a lifetime of hard work and labor to be able to obtain our gun collections; we have successfully passed FBI background checks and local and State requirements and obligations for responsible gun ownership, yet our guns are going to be confiscated overnight on the word of someone (an anonymous someone, at that) who claims we “might” be unsuitable to own a gun? Again, such an act turns American history and our Bill of Rights upside down.

Kris Kobach is the former Secretary of State of Kansas. He is a former professor of constitutional law at UMKC School of Law. He wrote an excellent analysis of the constitutional violations of these “red flag” laws:

  1. The seizure of guns without any hearing at all. The laws all contain an ex parte provision that allows the state to temporarily seize a person’s guns without even notifying the gun owner or giving him a chance to be heard. This is the quintessential denial of due process. The Fourth Amendment makes clear that a person cannot be denied of liberty (to exercise one’s constitutional right to bear arms) without due process of law. This confiscation is “temporary,” but it can easily lead to long-term or permanent confiscation.
  2. Based on the testimony of one unrelated person. The confiscation order can be based on the testimony of only one person claiming that the gun owner poses a risk to the safety of himself or others. The law [proposed in Kansas] deceptively says that it has to be the testimony of a “family member.” But “family member” is defined to include “former dating partners” and anyone who has ever lived with the defendant. So a jilted former boyfriend or girlfriend, or even a roommate from years ago, could easily set in motion the disarming of a lawful gun owner.
  3. Using a very low standard of proof. The standard for obtaining an ex parte order against a gun owner is absurdly low – one need only show “reasonable cause” to believe that the person may pose a risk. That’s even lower than the “probable cause” standard for obtaining a search warrant. In addition, the judge is forced to rush his decision and issue the confiscation order on the same day of the ex parte hearing. Within two weeks of the ex parte hearing, a hearing with the gun owner present must occur; the purpose is to put in place a long-term confiscation order. But even at that hearing, the standard of proof is far below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal trials. Rather, it need only be shown by “a preponderance of evidence” that the person poses a risk of injury to self or others. What kind of evidence? Things like the “reckless storage” of firearms and drinking habits can be considered. If you keep a handgun in the bedside table and drink beer regularly, you may [be] in trouble.
  4. Shifting the burden of proof to the gun owner. The long-term confiscation order lasts up to a year, but may be renewed indefinitely. Once it is in place, it becomes very difficult to remove. To have the confiscation order lifted, the gun owner must provehe does not pose a threat to himself or others. Proving a negative is nearly impossible. Adding insult to injury, the bill even authorizes local law enforcement to charge the gun owner a storage fee for confiscating and storing his guns.

The implementation of “red flag” laws (at any level) is unconscionable and totally unacceptable. And I am here to warn you that there are millions of Americans who will never submit to such oppression. None of us wants to see acts of violence committed against law enforcement personnel in America, but when law enforcers begin carrying out these draconian “red flag” laws, they will begin lighting the matches of resistance in the hearts of freedom-loving people in this country like hasn’t been seen in over 150 years.

We have already heard about Gary Willis, the Maryland man who was killed by police officers in his own home as they attempted to carry out a “red flag” order to seize his guns. This man had committed no crime; he had not been accused of committing a crime; he was given no hearing and no due process. Mr. Willis did not attempt to harm the officers; he merely resisted their efforts to disarm him, and he was killed on the spot—in his own home—by police officers who had taken an oath to protect the liberties of this poor innocent man.

I assure you, Mr. Willis will not be the last American to resist the attempted confiscation of his firearms.

Do you legislators, judges, county sheriffs, chiefs of police, sheriff’s deputies and city policemen not realize that “red flag” laws are tantamount to a declaration of war against the American people? Are you so far removed from “the laws of Nature and Nature’s God” that you cannot see this? Do you not realize that in spite of all of Great Britain’s abuses of power, our colonist forebears did not openly rebel against the Crown until King George sent troops to Lexington and Concord to confiscate the colonists’ firearms? You do understand that, right? And you do understand, do you not, that the blood of the colonists flows in the veins of we Americans?

At what point do the American people come to believe that you truly do NOT wish to honor your oath to the Constitution or behave in a manner that truly honors America’s Second Amendment and the heritage of liberty that we all share as Americans? At what point do we Americans lose all respect for our civil magistrates and peace officers? For many Americans, that point will come when policemen bang on their doors at 5am and attempt to seize their guns.

Do you not realize that every single instance of an innocent person being subjected to a “red flag” gun confiscation order will only magnify and strengthen the resentment and animosity in the hearts of the community against these laws—and against the ones who are creating and implementing them? Do you not understand that this is a powder keg that could explode into all-out rebellion at any time? Do you want that? I don’t want that! I don’t want that for my wife and me, my children and grandchildren, my friends or my community.

Why would you legislators, judges and policemen even think about doing such a thing?

In the name of all that we hold dear, in the name of the brave men at Lexington Green and Concord Bridge, in the name of every American who has given his life in defense of the principles contained in our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and our Bill of Rights—including many of our brave police officers and sheriff’s deputies—and in the name of the Natural Laws of our Creator, please STOP this madness before you literally tear our communities and our country apart.

As a legislator, you must not pass any semblance of a “red flag” law; as a judge, you must not issue a gun confiscation warrant on the basis of a “red flag” law; as a sheriff or chief of police, you must not order your officers to confiscate a citizen’s guns on the basis of a “red flag” warrant; and if you are a sheriff’s deputy or city policeman, you must not obey an order to confiscate your fellow citizens’ guns on the basis of a “red flag” law.

I beg you to realize what you are doing. I beg you to refuse to participate in this madness. I beg you to join your fellow churchmen, clubmen, neighbors, friends and townsmen and help us turn back this dastardly attempt to transform our constitutional republic into another repressive regime that, in the end, would require The People to tear it down.

“Red flag” laws are on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of our Constitution, the wrong side of liberty and on the wrong side of the laws of God.

Again, I beg you to think about what you are doing, about the pain you are causing, about the lives you are ruining and about the potential harm you are inflicting on our country. Please think this through.

 

Trump Reportedly Considering Naming Herman Cain to Fed

February 1, 2019

John Carney

1/31/2019

Source …..

President Donald Trump reportedly is considering tapping Herman Cain to fill one of the two vacant seats on the Federal Reserve’s board.

Bloomberg News first reported the news, citing unnamed sources. CNBC says it has confirmed that Trump is considering Cain.

Cain, 73, served as a director on the board of the Kansas City Fed from 1992-1996.  He eventually rose to become chairman of the board. He had been a board member of the Omaha branch of the Kansas City Fed since 1989.

Fed directors are dedicated representatives of Main Street business, community development, organized labor, and financial services sectors. As a Class C director, Cain’s role was to represent the public–as opposed to the banking sector–on the board. Class C directors cannot be affiliated with the banking industry.

Cain campaigned for the Republican nomination in the 2012 presidential contest. He was best known for his 9-9-9 tax plan which would have replaced the current tax system with flat 9 percent taxes on personal income, a 9 percent corporate income tax, and a 9 percent sales tax.

In 2011, Thomas M. Hoenig, then president and chief executive officer of the Kansas City Fed, praised Cain for his service on the board.

Cain may be best known as the chief executive of the Omaha-based Godfather’s Pizza chain. He was tapped to run that company in 1986 after a successful career as an executive at Burger King. In 1990, he helped lead a leveraged buyout of the chain, which he led until 1996.

He would be a surprising choice to fill one of the vacant Fed seats. President Trump has frequently criticized the Fed for hiking rates and said he “maybe” regrets appointing Jerome Powell to be chairman.  National Economic Council director Larry Kudlow has said that the president wants to put people at the Fed “who understand you can have strong economic growth without higher inflation.”

But Cain has in the past advocated for “sound money,” a phrase usually used by inflation hawks. During the Republican debates, Cain was critical of the Fed’s “dual mandate,” the requirement that the central bank pursue a monetary policy aimed at maximum employment and price stability. That too is typically a view taken by those who would aggressively raise rates to fight inflation.

A 2011 Atlantic magazine article quoted a fellow Kansas City Fed board member who described Cain as an inflation hawk.

“Inflation was always the big bugaboo,” the board member said. “And when it comes to monetary policy, he was an inflation hawk. I’ll tell you, that’s the most conservative bunch of guys I’ve ever met.”

And far from bucking the establishment of the Fed, Cain was very supportive.

“His views were pretty consistent with those of the Fed at the time. Alan Greenspan was, of course, chairman and Herman was in lock stop with the policies of the Fed,” the former board member said.

 

Blue State Blues: Nancy Pelosi Must Remove Ilhan Omar from the House Foreign Affairs Committee

February 1, 2019

Joel B. Pollak

2/1/2019

Source …..

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has spent two weeks proving that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) made a big mistake promoting her to the House Foreign Affairs Committee — an error that is hurting her party and the country.

In the past several days, Omar has:

  • Failed to apologize for an antisemitic tweet that, she says, she now realizes is “offensive,” but refuses to delete;
  • Mocked the idea that Israel is a democracy, comparing it to Iran and saying it should not be accepted as a “Jewish state” — then doubled down; and
  • Justified writing a letter to a judge in 2016 asking for a lenient sentence for nine Somali-Americans who were convicted of trying to join the so-called “Islamic State,” or ISIS.

(Omar has also defended the autocratic socialist regime of Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro, accusing the U.S. of a “coup” by supporting the opposition, which she falsely called “far right.”)

The result has been a public relations mess for Democratic Party leaders. They have been at pains this week to defend Omar as well as fellow first-year Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), as the Capitol Hill press corps has finally begun to ask whether their hostility to Israel goes too far.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) told reporters he did not accept the claim that Omar and Tlaib are antisemitic. House Democratic Caucus chair Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said they were “thoughtful colleagues.”

Democratic National Committee chair (DNC) Tom Perez dodged the question entirely, and tried to deflect scrutiny to President Donald Trump, whom he claimed (falsely) had failed to condemn neo-Nazis in Charlottesville in 2017.

But it was Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) who effectively endorsed Omar’s views when she elevated Omar to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, where she will be able to carry out her anti-Israel policies.

When Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY), the new ranking member on the committee, objected to Pelosi appointing Omar to the committee, Omar accused him of Islamophobia:

Zeldin responded by pointing out that he opposed her views and rhetoric — not her religion, or her gender:

In response, Omar retweeted a number of supporters — including one who tried linking Zeldin to Nazis:

Zeldin is Jewish.

Later, after Zeldin posted an antisemitic voice mail he had received and dared Omar to disagree, she did so — and offered to meet with him to “share notes on how to fight religious discrimination of all kinds.”

As if her anti-Israel views were not discriminatory.

In the midst of her battle with Zeldin, Omar retweeted a supporter who declared, “Israel is not a real democracy,” and compared the Jewish state to the Jim Crow South. She added: “Many of them truly know this, but don’t want to accept it.”

Omar’s claim is a vicious lie. Israel is a diverse society that guarantees equal rights for all. Arabs have the vote, and there is no segregation.

But to Omar, a “Jewish state” cannot be a democracy. That is the warped view of an antisemite.

On the Daily Show Thursday evening, host Trevor Noah claimed — incorrectly — that Omar had apologized for her tweet declaring, “Israel has hypnotized the world.”

She said that she would continue criticize Israel, regardless.

And the tweet remains live.

Criticism of Israeli policies is not necessarily antisemitic — unless that criticism only applies to Israel.

Omar, for example, backs the “boycott, divestment, and sanctions” (BDS) movement against Israel — which she pretended to oppose before the election — but opposes sanctions against Venezuela.

Likewise, it is theoretically possible to oppose the Jewish state without hating Jews — though less convincing when using classic antisemitic themes along the way, as Omar and Tlaib have done.

Faced with criticism, Omar and Tlaib have claimed to be the victims of anti-Muslim prejudice. But it is not who they are, but rather the words they use and the policies they embrace, that have invited controversy.

If anything, the backlash to Omar and Tlaib’s views ought to provoke a long-overdue self-examination in the American Muslim community. Many Islamic societies have tolerated Jews (and Christians), but as second-class citizens. Worldwide, many Muslims remain hostile to the idea of a Jewish state. Some have even embraced old-style European antisemitism.

These attitudes persist among some Muslims in the U.S. — a population that has grown nearly 50% in the last decade. Certainly not all Muslims share these views, but some — too many — still do. The Daily Caller revealed this week, for example, that Tlaib belonged to a Palestinian-American Facebook group rife with antisemitic content.

The DNC recently broke with the Women’s March because of its ties with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who is both a racist and an antisemite. (Last year, he referred to Jews as “termites.”)

Still, Democrats are reluctant to criticize Omar and Tlaib because of the growing importance of Muslim voters to the Democratic coalition.

Democrats have also, independently, become hostile to Israel. That development began under Obama, who not only sought to create distance from Israel to appease the Arab and Muslim world, but also pushed the Iran deal through despite the protests of the Israeli government (and the existential fears of many Israelis).

On his way out of office, Obama also allowed a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israel’s presence in Jerusalem to pass. And not one elected Democrat attended the opening of the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem, or the Washington, DC, party that the Israeli embassy threw to celebrate the occasion.

Until recently, however, Democrats at least tried to couch their policies as being in Israel’s best interest (presuming, both cynically and paternalistically, that Israelis did not know themselves what their interests were).

They argued that criticism of Israel would help it — that, in the words of then-Secretary of State John Kerry, they were “trying to preserve” Israel’s future as a democratic state as well as a Jewish one.

The difference now is that Omar, Tlaib and their cohort of anti-Israel “progressives” do not even pretend to care about protecting Israel. Omar calls Israel an “apartheid regime,” and wants to isolate it. Tlaib thinks Israel should be dismantled entirely.

Putting Omar on the House Foreign Affairs Committee gives her the power to disrupt the U.S. alliance with Israel.

It is alarming enough that people who hold anti-Israel views, and use antisemitic rhetoric, are elected to Congress — but that is up to the voters in their districts.

The decision to place Omar on the House Foreign Affairs Committee was Speaker Pelosi’s alone.

If she remains on the committee, there will no longer be any doubt that the Democratic Party has become an anti-Israel party — and that Democrats are not only prepared to tolerate and ignore antisemitism, but eager to promote it.

Republicans stripped Rep. Steve King (R-IA) of his committee assignments when he was alleged to have made a racist remark.

Democrats should do the same to Omar. Let her rant against Israel if she wants — from the back benches.

 

Fox News now demanding the criminalization and ARREST of “anti-vaxxers” … we warned you this was coming

February 1, 2019

1/31/2019

Source …..

A quick reminder to our many faithful readers: Don’t believe everything you hear over at Fox News, despite the network’s seeming support for conservative, a.k.a. liberty-centric, ideals – because things are not always as they seem.

Just a few days ago, Fox News Medical Correspondent, Dr. Marc Siegel, declared war on health freedom by stating that he believes doctors who issue vaccine exemptions should be prosecuted.

Responding to the recent measles “outbreak” in Washington State, Dr. Siegel went on a tirade against parents who choose not to vaccinate their children with the MMR vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella, expressing anger over the fact that some Americans are exercising their freedom not to vaccinate.

“This is a disgrace,” Dr. Siegel shouted during the segment. “And I am hoping that the doctors that are responsible for this get prosecuted.”

When asked to explain what he believes is the problem, Dr. Siegel went on to state that “there are a few doctors in California that are not even pediatricians, (who) are writing exemption letters for a ton of kids in certain schools.”

“Some schools have up to 20 percent of their kids don’t have the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine because they got a crazy exemption letter that’s fraudulent,” Dr. Siegel added, barely taking a breath amid his rant.

For more vaccine-related news, be sure to check out Vaccines.news.

Big Pharma is the biggest advertiser at Fox News

Anyone who watches Fox News and pays close attention to what’s being advertised during every commercial break has likely noticed that the network pushes pharmaceutical drug after pharmaceutical drug after pharmaceutical drug – so much drug advertising, in fact, that Fox News might as well be renamed Big Pharma News.

With this in mind, it’s not really all that surprising that Fox‘s top medical talking head is aggressively pro-vaccine, as drugs and vaccines appear to be what keeps Fox News financially afloat. It would also explain why Fox News remains aggressively anti-cannabis, as healing plants are a threat to Fox‘s Big Pharma advertisers.

ALL Americans have the right to refuse vaccines for ANY reason

Contrary to Dr. Siegel’s wild claims, vaccine exemptions are not “fraudulent,” and all doctors, pediatricians or otherwise, are free to write them for whomever they wish. Further, sovereign American citizens are free to refuse vaccines for any reason, and don’t technically or legally need a vaccine exemption at all – though the medical establishment is working overtime to squelch that truth, as Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, warned about.

“A medical doctor can give you an exemption for whatever you want, but there’s not even a law there,” points out Alex Jones from Infowars.

Be sure to watch the full segment with Alex Jones about the MMR vaccine below:

“So [Dr. Siegel is] saying it’s a fraud, when he’s engaged in fraud. See, he’s saying these are ‘fraudulent letters’ – you don’t even need the letter for the exemption. They just trick you into that. You have a right – there’s no law that you have to take these vaccines.”

According to Dr. Siegel, however, it’s a “problem” that parents are “allowed” to refuse vaccines even with a signed medical exemption. In his view, the MMR vaccine, and presumably all vaccines, are simply awesome – which, in his mind, means that everybody should be forced by the government to get injected.

“It is one of the greatest inventions in the history of public health,” Dr. Siegel maintains about the MMR vaccine.

For a more in-depth discussion about measles, be sure to check out this article by Roger Stark.

You can also keep up with the latest news about the establishment’s assault against medical freedom of choice at VaccineJihad.com.

Sources for this article include:

 

Yahoo News story accidentally admits most children infected with measles outbreak were already vaccinated against the measles

February 1, 2019

1/30/2019

Source …..

In announcing a trumped up “state of emergency” that was recently declared by Washington Governor Jay Inslee in response to a measles outbreak in Clark County, Yahoo News accidentally let it slip that most of the children affected had actually been previously vaccinated against the disease – once again proving that vaccines don’t work.

Contrary to the mainstream media’s unsubstantiated narrative that this latest measles outbreak, like many others in the past, was supposedly caused by “the anti-vaccine movement,” it’s now apparent that it was actually a total failure of the MMR vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella that resulted in children getting sick.

“The majority of those infected are children, many of whom have not been immunized against the disease,” reported AFP News, and republished by Yahoo News, indicating that at least some of the children stricken with measles had received the MMR in accordance with CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) guidelines.

Why we’re surmising that it was actually most of the kids, however, has to do with the article’s tricky wording. Had most of the children who’ve contracted measles not previously been vaccinated with MMR as insinuated, you can be sure that Yahoo and AFP would have clearly indicated this.

“The majority of those infected are children, most of whom have not been immunized against the disease,” would have been the quote. But instead of using the word “most,” the article instead uses the word “many” – which, if you read between the lines, suggests that at least half of the affected children were previously vaccinated with MMR.

For more vaccine-related news, be sure to visit Vaccines.news.

Big Vaccine constantly manufacturers disease outbreak crises like this to scare parents into vaccinating

The same news report goes on to quote Governor Jay Inslee, who gave an absurd public statement claiming that measles “is a highly contagious infectious disease that can be fatal in small children” – the suggestion being that parents had better vaccinate their children if they don’t want them to die.

But, as usual, this is just another trumped up falsehood, seeing as how measles was viewed in the past as being no more severe than common chickenpox. In fact, an old episode of “The Brady Bunch” referred to measles as the “best” disease for a child to get if he or she has to be sick with something.

The great thing about naturally contracting measles is that, once you recover, you’re immune from the disease for life. The same can’t be said for the MMR vaccine, however, which only provides temporary protection at best.

For Governor Inslee and the mainstream media to convey a message of death in conjunction with measles, along with a declaration of a state of emergency, is just more mindless fear-mongering at the behest of Big Vaccine, which is losing considerable market share as more and more parents refuse vaccines for their children.

It has nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with vaccine industry profits, which suffer whenever parents make the decision to allow their children to develop immunity naturally instead of injecting them with aborted human fetal tissue, cancer-causing chemicals, and other harmful vaccine additives.

Even right-leaning news outlets like The Daily Caller are guilty of spreading vaccine industry lies that try to scare parents into getting their children jabbed, which puts these little ones at risk of serious complications and even death.

The truth of the matter is that a mere 26 children came down with the measles in this latest outbreak, and most of them were already vaccinated. If the MMR vaccine really worked, and Governor Inslee’s comments were valid, this number would be zero, and all of the children affected would be dead – which none of them are.

Sources for this article include:

Virginia governor defends letting babies die AFTER birth

January 31, 2019

Joe Kovacs

1/30/2019

Source …..

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam is raising eyebrows with his comments in support of letting infants die after they have been born alive.

Northam, a Democrat, appeared Wednesday on WTOP Radio to discuss House Bill 2491, also known as the Repeal Act, which would remove all restrictions on abortion in Virginia, even allowing a woman to abort her child while she’s in labor.

When asked if he supported the measure promoted by fellow Democrat Kathy Tran, the governor said doctors could make decisions to allow a baby to die even after it’s born alive.

“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” Northam explained.

“The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

The governor noted earlier in the interview that such cases develop concerning children having “severe deformities.”

“When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physician – more than one physician, by the way – and it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities,” he said. “There may be a fetus that’s non-viable.”

The debate in Virginia comes on the heels of a massive expansion of abortion rights in New York, where the members of the State Senate gave a standing ovation upon its passage and Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo had buildings illuminated in pink lighting to celebrate the measure.

Radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh commented on the trend Wednesday.

“I don’t know what’s happening to the left, the Democrats,” he wondered aloud. “I can’t even relate to this, this competition they have to outperform each other on such inhumane, barbaric, murderous behavior toward infants.”

“It’s just inexplicable,” he added. “They all pile on and they want to be in the contest to see who can be the most outrageous, the meanest, the vilest.”

Limbaugh speculated the political left’s hatred for President Donald Trump has emboldened them, and they feel they “no longer have to trick people,” but can be up front in who they are.

“This is about killing children, and they are delivering standing ovations after passing laws permitting it, or they’re talking about it in the same way they would talk about turning a faucet on and off as did the governor of Virginia.”

Limbaugh suggested that Trump mention the new “infanticide laws” in his State of the Union address next week:

I think he ought to call the Democrats out. I think he ought to talk about the infanticide laws that just passed in New York, and make Democrats applaud this stuff in open and in public! He ought to go down the list of everything the Democrats are doing, are proposing. Not saying he agrees with it. “Ladies and gentlemen, this is the State of the Union. Your Democrat Party just legalized the killing of babies if they survive an abortion,” and make the New York delegation stand up and applaud that.

Make them applaud what they do, ’cause that’s what they do! They applaud things they like – or make them boo Trump when he says it, or make them get up and walk out. Whatever. The fact is, call the left out on what they’re doing. You got a national TV audience here watching a very controversial, contested State of the Union after the government shutdown. The media’s gonna be driving up audience participation here. They’re gonna be promoting this like crazy.

The president ought to call these people out on all these wacko ideas – on immigration, open borders, sanctuary cities – and make these Democrats applaud it, ’cause that’s what happens. They either sit on their hands or applaud. Call ’em out! The Drive-By Media’s not telling anybody what’s going on here! The Drive-By Media’s not telling people that infanticide has just gotten a standing ovation in the New York State Senate. People who live in New York got up one night and they saw the tops of the beings lit up in pink and said, “I wonder what that is?” Well, the New York State Senate just legalized infanticide is what that means.

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, said Northam’s support of post-birth abortions was a “defining moment.”

“It is so thoughtful of Gov. Northam to assure us that the baby would be ‘kept comfortable’ before they put him down or let him die,” Donohue said.

“Here’s an early 19th century analogy,” he continued. “The slave would be resuscitated if that’s what the master and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between lawmakers and the owner.”

“The Democratic Party is fast becoming the party of death. Every Democrat running for president, including those who may run, should be asked whether they agree with Northam. This is a defining moment.

This is a defining moment. They should also be asked who else they think does not merit the most basic of human rights.”

%d bloggers like this: