June 2019
« May    
PAYPAL Donations

< If you don’t stand behind our troops, why don’t you stand in front of them.

Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.

Proud to be an American.

Salute a Veteran!

Please consider a monthly donation; Click on the PayPal Button to contribute with PayPal

Donating by PayPal is Safe and Convenient

Send Checks to: The Highlands Tea Party 4196 Smoke signal Sebring, FL 33872

All donations are greatly appreciated, Thank You & God Bless

Donations are not tax-deductible.

My God! How little do my countrymen know what precious blessings they are in possession of, and which no other people on earth enjoy! ~Thomas Jefferson P>

General information



‘Woke Christians’ Offended by Prayer for President

The pastor who prayed over Trump is forced to defend his decision.

Thomas Gallatin · Jun. 5, 2019




Since its founding, the United States has prized the freedom of religion and explicitly protected it from government interference. However, that freedom was never intended to mean that government was to be free from religious influence or people of faith. This reality is seen in the fact that all of America’s presidents have claimed a religious faith and have been members of a Christian church. That also goes for the vast majority of members of Congress throughout our history. To put it bluntly, our nation has had a long history of religiously minded individuals being involved in government at all levels.
Yet quite a stir was created after President Donald Trump unexpectedly turned up at a large nondenominational Christian church in the DC suburb of McLean, Virginia, and asked for prayer on Sunday. The pastor, David Platt, a relatively well-known Christian leader in Evangelical circles, was caught off guard but quickly obliged. He offered an appropriate nonpartisan prayer — the kind of prayer Christians have been praying for political leaders since it was first commanded in Scripture some 2,000 years ago.
Much of the controversy may be blamed on the current hyper-partisan American culture. With Trump vilified daily by the Leftmedia to the point of being seen even by some Evangelicals as “the problem in the world today,” it’s not surprising that a pastoral prayer over the president would be considered “the wrong thing to do.”
Platt, evidently feeling negative blowback over his decision to pray over Trump, sought to explain and defend his decision in an open letter. Platt rightly pointed to 1 Timothy 2, noting that Christians are commanded to pray for political leaders, irrespective of how righteous or unrighteous these leaders may be. (Many scholars believe Nero, a major persecutor of Christians, was emperor of Rome when the Apostle Paul wrote 1 Timothy.)
Platt then writes, “I wanted to share all of this with you in part because I know that some within our church, for a variety of valid reasons, are hurt that I made this decision. This weighs heavy on my heart.” Here’s where we see the problem. Platt gives a pass to those Christians who harbor an attitude of such self-righteousness that it would “hurt” them to see their pastor publicly pray for a sinner like Trump.
Leave it to an atheist to get this more correct than Platt. Hot Air’s Allahpundit writes, “I’m just a simple unfrozen atheist caveman, unqualified to tell Christians how to practice their faith, but I can tell you this: In 12 years of Catholic schooling, not once was it intimated to me that it might be wrong to pray for someone. The very idea of it shocks me even now, decades later. Prayer is never wrong. If anything, it’s more righteous when offered for the wicked, that God might turn their hearts and redeem them. … What are the anti-Trump congregants of this church learning about their faith to make them feel ‘hurt’ that the pastor would pray for someone whom they deem wicked? And what is the pastor of this church teaching to make them believe it’s ‘valid’ to feel that way?”
Clearly, Democrats and the Left would love nothing more than to divide the Evangelical world over politics. Christian leaders hoping to avoid catering to one political party over another are finding it increasingly difficult, as seemingly everything has become a political issue. This is what happens when God is diminished and the state begins to take the place of God in people’s lives.

VETERANS STORM OUT during AOC’s Anti-AMERICAN Remarks; Office DENIES Walkout!

Kerry Picket logo-500
Former Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen Testifies Before House Oversight Committee
VETERANS STORM OUTduring AOC’s Anti-AMERICAN Remarks; Office DENIES Walkout!

In a private meeting in the Bronx with community leaders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did not make friends amongst the veteran community. Two military veterans reportedly were so upset and insulted by AOC’s remarks that they stormed out, according to the New York Post.
Silvio Mazzella, a Vietnam War vet who served in the war from 1966-1968, and treasurer of Community Board 11 said “she knocks the country, she knocks the president. And that’s not what America is about.” Another vet, Anthony Vitaliano, who worked in the NYPD for 38 years and commanded the Bronx’s homicide detectives was sitting between AOC and one of her staffers. “I just couldn’t hear her BS anymore,” said Vitaliano. “I just got up, got my umbrella in my hand and walked right out.
The closed-door meeting was a rare visit to the Bronx part of her district and there were about a dozen attendants made up of board members.  Tensions rose when a Middle Eastern board member brought up the conflict in Yemen. The Post reported “The progressive firebrand slammed the US policy of providing bombs to Saudi Arabia, which has supported Yemen’s government in a brutal civil war, according to attendees. Some blamed her for not including the roles of other nations in explaining the volatile region’s violence.”
One attendee who did not want their name published said they were “revolted” When Israel came up later in the meeting, and OAC suggested President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are autocrats. Although one member said it was not all hostile, that “there were a lot of people that really adored what she was saying,” the three members quoted above walked out of the room in disgust.
The kicker? According to AOC’s office, NO ONE stormed out of the meeting. “The only person that left the meeting while it was underway was someone who had to go pick up their children,” said AOC spokesman Corbin Trent. Veteran Anthony Vitaliano’s response? “That’s bulls**t.”

Here’s why we should never trust China on climate change

Scientists have finally solved an environmental mystery.

After following the trail of a gaseous emission that has been banned for over 30 years, they found the culprit: factories in the People’s Republic of China.
On top of under-reporting carbon emissions and downplaying the poor air quality, a new study in the scientific journal Nature found that 40 to 60% of total global emissions of the chemical compound Trichlorofluoromethane, better known as CFC-11, came from China, specifically the eastern province of Shandong. The mystery was solved a year after scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association discovered that global emissions of the chemical compound Trichlorofluoromethane rose by 25% since 2012.
So just how damaging is Trichlorofluoromethane to the environment?
Trichlorofluoromethane is a chemical used in refrigeration and foams, which causes significant ozone layer depletion. In fact, CFC-11 has an ozone depletion potential of 1.0, the highest of any chlorocarbon because it has three chlorine atoms in the molecule. It’s 5,000 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The compound was on a list of chemicals to be phased out in manufacturing and production under the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which the United States followed through on in January 1996.
This is not good for the planet. It’s also a very, shall we say, inconvenient truth, for a lot of environmentalists on the Left.
Amid all the criticism of Trump’s move, a favorite line was that China was becoming a leader in fighting climate change.
Former Vice President Al Gore told ABC News, “The rest of the world is moving on climate […] China’s reduced emissions four years in a row. We’re seeing a massive shift in solar and wind.”
Former California Gov. Jerry Brown justified his state working separately with China after Trump backed out of the Paris climate agreement by saying, “We’re going to do more with China, and we’re going to link closely together because it used to be China and the United States as the pillar. Now China is that pillar and California is very much going to be working with them to achieve our mutual goals.”
Former Obama administration official John Kirby said, “In just the last 15 years, there’s 2.5 million jobs in the United States dedicated to the clean energy industry and that number is continuing to climb and that’s the future and that’s where frankly look that’s where China wants to go. So, we’re going to be losing jobs here in the United States. We’re going to be hurting our economy. And we’ll be ceding that territory to China going forward.”
And it didn’t stop there.
The Washington Post declared “As U.S. backs away from climate pledges, India and China step up.” A CBS News headline read, “U.S. withdrawal from Paris accord offers China chance to lead world on climate change.” And Bloomberg News declared, “China, Germany Step Up as U.S. Retires from World Leadership.” The New York Times even ranked China as the top country for “filling the void” of being a climate change leader.

Byron York: Law enforcement, media changed standards for Trump

Byron York: Law enforcement, media changed standards for Trump
Byron York

One of the more unfortunate effects of the Trump-Russia investigation — and there have been many — is the weakening of traditional standards of argument and proof in the public debate over allegations that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to fix the 2016 election. (Just for the record: It didn’t.)
In particular, angry disputes about the president have done terrible harm to the principle that an investigator, be it a journalist or a prosecutor, should meet at least some standard of proof before leveling an accusation.
Two examples. First is the so-called Steele dossier, the collection of wild allegations against Trump compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee
Steele’s unfounded accusations — that there was a years-long “well-developed conspiracy” between Trump and Russia, that Trump accepted “a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin,” and that Russian spies taped Trump watching prostitutes perform a kinky sex act in a Moscow hotel room in 2013 — circulated throughout law enforcement and political circles starting in the summer of 2016. That just happened to be the time the Clinton campaign and some in the media began accusing Trump of “colluding” with Russia to gain an advantage in the election.
Top Clinton staff received updates on Steele’s material. Then, they accused Trump of collusion. FBI investigators, who also had the dossier, were trying to confirm it. They failed.
Without evidence to prove any of the dossier’s most serious allegations, a new standard of proof emerged: The allegations were legitimate because they had not been proven untrue.
Leading figures in politics and journalism adopted the new standard. “Not a single revelation in the Steele dossier has been refuted,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. “[I’m] aware of nothing in the Christopher Steele dossier that has been shown to be false,” said Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe. “So far with this dossier, nothing yet has been proven untrue,” said Chuck Todd, host of NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
The new Trump standard turned the old standard — can an allegation be proven true? — on its head.
It’s not surprising that commentators, especially those with partisan motives, would adopt such a low standard. It was surprising when — and this is example number two — Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller upended the justice system’s traditional norms by declaring that his investigation, while not accusing the president of committing a crime, also could not exonerate him.
“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” Mueller said in his 448-page report. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Mueller repeated the point in his recent public statement. “If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” he said. “We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.”

It was a mind-blowing moment for some Justice Department veterans. Since when do prosecutors hand out certificates of exoneration to the people they investigate? (Answer: They don’t.) Since when has “not exonerated” been an accepted legal outcome — as in “How does the jury find the defendant? We find him not exonerated.” (Answer: Never.)

Mueller, like Feinstein and Tribe and Todd before him, changed widely accepted standards, casting the shadow of guilt on Trump without formally accusing him of wrongdoing. Except Mueller, unlike the senator, the law professor, and the journalist, wielded the prosecutorial power of the United States. Given the length and thoroughness of his investigation, Mueller’s no-exoneration verdict carried a lot of weight in the public debate. Except that it didn’t mean anything, while at the same time suggesting to the public that the president had committed some unspecified offense.

Trump’s critics often accuse him of violating the norms that make our society and government work. Yet in their discussion of the dossier, some of those critics violated essential norms of fairness and accuracy. And in Mueller’s no-exoneration gambit, a storied figure in American law enforcement abandoned one of the most important standards of justice. The damage done could last a long time.


Inside the DNC’s plan to defeat Trump


Hundreds of young Democrats will arrive in Atlanta next month to be trained as field organizers in an effort to prepare the party’s next generation of operatives to join the eventual nominee’s presidential campaign in seven battleground states.  The field organizing program is one of several new initiatives the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has implemented under Chairman Tom Perez, whose two-year-long overhaul of the national party has focused on building out the DNC’s campaign infrastructure, data and cybersecurity programs.
That means the potential for more paid staff on the ground in the states that will determine the outcome of the 2020 election, a revamped “war room” with a focus on President Trump’s first-term record and a cybersecurity system the DNC hopes will withstand Russian hacking efforts.  In an interview with The Hill from the Democrats’ national headquarters in Washington, Perez detailed the DNC’s 2020 battle plan and core mission, which he said is twofold: To ensure that primary voters have confidence in the nominating process and to hand the eventual nominee the resources and infrastructure he or she will need to defeat Trump from the moment that person walks off the stage from the convention in Milwaukee.
All of that will have to be accomplished with a budget that is only a fraction of what the Republican National Committee will spend, and Perez acknowledged that taking out an incumbent president “won’t be easy.”  “I don’t underestimate him for a moment,” Perez said, lighting up with anger as the conversation turned to Trump. “I don’t underestimate their capacity to lie, cheat and steal to get elected. … This is going to be a challenge.”  The DNC has launched an institution called Organizing Corps 2020, which will train 1,000 college-aged students to be the next wave of Democratic operatives and to prepare them to potentially join the 2020 presidential campaign.
Perez will address the first round of 300 participants at a five-day national training seminar next month in Atlanta, where the group will be coached by campaign veterans on field organizing and data analytics.  Attendees are paid $4,000 over the course of the eight-week programs, which will also take place in Charlotte, Detroit, Ft. Lauderdale, Miami, Milwaukee, Orlando, Phoenix, Philadelphia and Tampa.  Seventy-five percent of program entrants are people of color, and 90 percent come from one of seven potential swing states: Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia and Florida. After training, the young Democrats will return to their home states ready to join the field team for the eventual nominee, although positions on the campaign are not guaranteed.
The organizing principle behind the training program is that voters will be more receptive to Democratic outreach if it’s coming from locals within the community who intimately know the culture and nuances of their own neighborhoods.  “Hillary Clinton was handed a very substandard infrastructure writ large, including, but not limited to, a lack of organizing infrastructure,” Perez said, relaxing on the brown leather sofa in his office overlooking South Capitol Street.  “In 2008, Barack Obama … had the capacity to build his own organizing and technological infrastructure,” Perez continued. “He had the resources and the human capital to do it. Fast forward to 2020 and in a field that’s as large as we have, there’s nobody in a position to do what Obama did in 2008. That’s why the role of the DNC is so important.”
Perez broke into a smile when he brought up Obama. The DNC chairman was a civil rights attorney in the Obama Justice Department, and there’s a picture in his office of himself and the former president in the Oval Office.  Elsewhere, Perez has repurposed the DNC’s war room to battle Republicans over the narrative of the Trump presidency.  The DNC claims to be in possession of the world’s most comprehensive trove of research on Trump. The war room is staffed by dozens of operatives, many of whom are veterans of Clinton’s 2016 campaign and have been building opposition research files on Trump since he first burst on to the political scene in 2015.
Their files include more than 7,000 lawsuits, volumes of Freedom of Information Act requests and hours of video footage. The DNC claims its war room has placed bombshell stories in the press that have derailed Trump administration nominees and has introduced key themes, such as Trump’s conflicts of interests around his business empire, into the mainstream.  In 2020, Perez says the focus will be on holding Trump accountable for the promises he made on the campaign trail in 2016, such as lowering prescription drug prices, making health care more affordable and keeping factories open.
“A lot of Obama-Trump voters saw [Trump] as a change agent,” Perez said. “They saw him as a different kind of politician who was going to bring about change … and what they’re seeing is that yeah, he’s a different kind of politician in the sense that … he is perhaps the most corrupt politician in American history … and now he has a record and a trail of broken promises.”  The DNC has also overhauled its data platform as it seeks to close the gap with the Republican National Committee, which invested heavily in data under former Chairman Reince Priebus.
When Perez took over in early 2017, the national party was using an antiquated system that was four years beyond its shelf life and required users to understand complicated coding language to access voter information files.  The DNC now has access to a state-of-the-art data warehouse and a Google-run cloud-based infrastructure that has added millions of new cellphone numbers in just the last year.  “If we had 40 people running for president, we’d have the capacity to handle their data and deal with their data and tech needs,” Perez said. “And the data warehouse isn’t simply for the presidential candidates, it’s for every [Democratic] candidate running up and down the ballot.”
That means an enormous investment to safeguard the data and avoid a repeat of the 2016 hacking fiasco, which undermined confidence in the national party and continues to hamper the DNC’s fundraising efforts.  Last year, the DNC hired Bob Lord, a veteran cybersecurity officer at Yahoo and Twitter, to oversee its data security.  Reminders to DNC staff to be mindful of their passwords and potential hacking attempts are everywhere — even in the men’s bathrooms, where signs hang on the walls with the steps workers must take to keep their data safe.  The DNC’s cyber tripwires were triggered at one point last year. It turned out to be a false alarm, but Perez said the dry run was executed seamlessly, giving him confidence that the DNC is ready to deal with an attempted breach in the real world.
The Hill asked Perez if he could guarantee the DNC would not be hacked this cycle.
“Anyone who tells you they’re hermetically cyber secure is fooling you,” he said. “Cybersecurity is an arms war. What we’ve done, I believe, is make it a lot more difficult and expensive for the bad guys to try and infiltrate.”

The personal blog of Mateen Elass – Very educational Article on Islam.

Can Islam Be Defeated?

Two of the questions I am most often asked are, “Why does Islam seem so attractive to converts?” and “Can Islam be defeated?” Not surprisingly, these two questions are interrelated.
There are many elements to Islam that attract Western converts today, including its seeming clarity on right/wrong, its unwavering commitment to monotheism and its appeal to anti-Jewish and anti-Christian sentiments in our post-Christian culture. But I believe there is an even greater appeal to the heart of fallen human nature.
In the New Testament, the apostle Paul speaks of the fallen human heart as the life of the “flesh.” This stands in opposition to “life in the Spirit,” the new nature born in the human heart upon conversion to Christ, when the Spirit of God takes up residence within a person’s spirit and begins transforming him/her into the likeness of Jesus Christ, a lifelong process theologians refer to as “sanctification.”
Islam knows no such process, because it does not believe that human nature is fallen or inherently flawed by a sinful bent, but teaches instead that humans tend to be forgetful and just need regular reminders that their rightful role in life is submission as slaves to Allah. As such, Islam has no equivalent to Paul’s teaching that believers are to “put to death whatever belongs to your earthly nature” (Col. 3:5; see also Rom. 8:13), but rather proposes that our natural earthly desires are to be harnessed in service to a very “fleshly” Allah.
Islam is such a powerful movement because it is the perfect religion to appeal to the flesh. Our fallen hearts naturally lust after the fulfillment of certain basic cravings. Chief among these are three: ego (hubris); power; pleasure. In our natural state, we want to favorably compare ourselves to others, to show that we are better than those around us; we want power to be able to shape the world for our benefit or according to our whims and appetites; we want to enjoy a variety of pleasures the world affords and avoid its pains. Islam caters to these cravings.
As to hubris, the Qur’an teaches Muslims that they are “the best of all peoples ever raised up for mankind” (3:110), and that by contrast the rest of the world (all those who reject Islam, including Christians, Jews, pagans, etc.) are “the worst of all creatures” in Allah’s sight (98:6).  This theme woven throughout the Qur’an has produced the supremacist attitude so apparent in Islamic thought down through the centuries, an attitude central to its drive to conquer the world so as to justify the belief that Islam is better than any alternative and that Muslims are better than all non-Muslims.
As to power, Islam preaches a god of absolute might and sovereignty who routinely resorts to force when his creatures refuse to willingly comply with his will. The cry of Muslim armies, Muslim terrorists, and Muslim protagonists all over the world, Allahu akbar, does not mean “God is great,” as so many mistranslate it, but rather “God is greater!” It is not merely a metaphysical claim about a certain god, but rather an in-your-face challenge to all who follow someone or something other than the god of Islam. “Our Allah is greater than whatever you cherish and value most highly, and we will wipe your idols off the throne of your lives and replace them with Allah, if you don’t voluntarily submit to Islam.” The Qur’an calls Muslims to “kill and be killed” for the cause of Allah (9:111), and Allah promises his warriors supernatural aid (angels will fight alongside them and strengthen them) so that twenty jihadis will defeat two hundred infidels, and a hundred will defeat a thousand (8:65). According to Islam, the true prophets have always fought and killed for the advancement of Allah’s kingdom. In Sura 8:67, Muhammad declares (as Allah’s mouthpiece), “It is not for a prophet to have captives [of war] until he inflicts a massacre [upon Allah ‘s enemies] in the land.” Allah harnesses the fallen human heart’s penchant for power over others by givingMuslims free rein to slaughter all who will not bow before Islam’s command to submit to Allah. Such violent compulsion is not a sin when used in Allah’s cause.
Lastly, with regard to pleasure, Islam gives Muslim men (who are the masters of their women and children that, as a result. have no say in the matter) the booty they collect from their wars against unbelievers, both in terms of material goods and those they have captured as slaves. Slaves can be sold off for financial gain or kept for service. Conquered females can be turned into sex slaves, whether married or virgin. These are part and parcel of the “benefits” Allah grants his faithful jihadis. But of course the greatest pleasure he promises his devotees is that if they are faithful enough to him on earth, he will grant them entrance to an eternal paradise on the Day of Judgment. And what characterizes this Paradise? All the earthly pleasures a fallen heart could ever desire: gardens filled with an unlimited variety of fruit-bearing trees, watered by streams of clear water, wholesome milk, pure honey and robust wine flowing between shaded banks covered with soft mossy rises; an abundance of foods considered rare delicacies in the desert reaches of Arabia; boys available as servants to do the Muslim master’s bidding, whatever that might be; houris (young, beautiful, buxom virgins created by Allah for the dwellers of Paradise, women panting with desire for their respective masters and available at a moment’s notice for sexual coupling, after which they miraculously return to their virginal state (Muslim commentators differ on the minimum number of houris assigned to each Muslim man in Paradise, from dozens to thousands), and if you think that this sexual gymnasium might become tiresome, there are commentators quick to assure readers that in Paradise Muslim men will be capable of ceaseless erections. Allah, of course, is not present, because in his loftiness he cannot condescend to hobnob with his rutting subjects, but he has provided them this erotic elysium as a reward for their unflagging service on earth.
Why does Islam appeal to so many in the West today? Because it gives divine approval to the pursuit of our sinful passions, making them virtuous: it encourages hubris by stroking the egos of Muslims, declaring them the best of humans in Allah’s eyes; it commands them to wield the sword and enjoy their divinely-bestowed power by lording their authority over non-Muslims, demanding that infidels serve them and accept an inferior status before their Muslim overlords; and it promises them unlimited fulfillment of the appetites of the flesh — what they can’t win for themselves through conquest on earth, Allah will supply in spades in heaven, all to be enjoyed without the least tinge of a wounded conscience.
Islam is the perfect religion of the flesh, even if it does promote the death of its followers. Death is only the gateway to infinite enjoyment of carnal pleasures.
Can such a religion be defeated? The answer, of course, is yes. But can Islam be defeated by Western civilization as it now stands? I’m afraid the answer to that is no. The post-Christian West has lost the compelling reason for its existence. We still enjoy many of the fruits of the biblical worldview that inspired the fundamentals of Western thought: the notion that all human beings are created in the image of God and therefore of equal value and dignity, and imbued with certain inalienable rights, things we today call “human rights.” Yet as Western civilization has become increasingly secular in the last two hundred years, we have consciously undermined the metaphysical framework on which our freedoms and successes were built, and assumed that the structure would remain standing. We want to enjoy the good values and practices we have, but can no longer find the deep justifications for why they must exist. We are like the inhabitants of a great tree that is dying, still enjoying the dwindling fruit that remain on its branches, wondering why the tree is so sickly as all the while we are chopping away at the base of the trunk in the desire to gather wood for our huts in the branches. We have mindlessly cut ourselves off from the life-giving roots of our majestic tree, but continue to pick the diminishing fruit and hope vainly that the tree will somehow regain her strength.
America and Europe have squandered the legacy of a worldview that brought untold blessing to humanity. We have let slip through our fingers the majestic and profound truths upon which the best of human society has been built: that the God of all creation made human beings as the apple of His eye, and stamped our spirits with His image and likeness; that this God is Love Himself, and from Him flow all things good; that He made us for a relationship with Himself and for one another, to know Him intimately and to live in  love as brothers and sisters; that sin has destroyed this harmony which will only be fully restored by His self-sacrifice to repair the breach caused by human evil; that His incarnation as one of us to bear our sins and draw us to Himself has turned the tide against evil; that we are invited to enjoy the fullness of His redeeming love and to share that with all the world until He returns to bring all things to their appointed end and cleanse His creation once and for all of evil.
This worldview once empowered our forebears and became the foundation of the greatness of Western culture and civilization. But we have gradually walked away from that and replaced it with secular humanism, a notion that there is no God behind this world, that we just exist as human beings with inherent rights granted us by a lifeless, mindless, random universe of mass and energy. We want desperately to believe that we matter, that all human beings matter, that concepts like justice, mercy, kindness, freedom, and love have inherent worth and value, but if in the end we are all just products of random acts of a mindless and uncaring universe, why should anyone care about anyone else, or about “enduring moral principles”? For in the end, everything will blink out of existence in the same way as it randomly came into existence. We may rage against the night for the brief moment of our existence, but soon enough the night wins.
Secular humanism has been hacking away at the trunk of Western civilization for quite a while now. I saw a sad but telling example of this a few months ago in the suburbs of London. Having an afternoon off on a rainy day, I took a hike along the banks of the Thames River till I came upon the town of Teddington in Middlesex. Deciding to follow the pathway into town, I spied a beautiful church rising above the nearby roofs and trees, and determined to spend some time inside. As I walked completely around the perimeter, I could find no main entrance into the sanctuary, only a side entrance into an area called the “Landmark Arts Centre,” where a few people were coming and going. Finally, not seeing any alternative, I walked through that entrance and spoke with a very helpful attendant at the welcome desk. “Isn’t this a church?” I asked. “May I see the sanctuary?”

Former sanctuary of the Church of St. Alban the Martyr

“Oh, no, I’m sorry,” she said. “This hasn’t been a church since the 1990s. It now serves as space for our Landmark Arts Centre, which hosts art displays and social dinners and concerts as part of our effort to support local artists.” I discovered in further conversation and research that the original structure, Church of St. Alban the Martyr was built and dedicated to the glory of God in 1889. Though never formally designated a “cathedral,” it became known informally as “The Cathedral of the Thames Valley.” It is indeed a majestic building, reflecting the religious gratitude of multitudes in constructing such a monument to the grace of God.
However, as British society grew more secular and indifferent to things Christian, St. Alban’s disbanded as a congregation in 1977 (only 90 years after the cornerstone had been laid!) and the building was declared “redundant” (don’t you just love British terminology? — it means “superfluous/no longer needed”). Once a glorious edifice, St. Alban’s deteriorated for some 15 years as a derelict building until locals formed a “robust campaign” to see it restored as an English Heritage site in the 1990s. And so today, the Church of St. Alban the Martyr no longer exists, but has been replaced by the Landmarks Art Centre.

Here’s what the former sanctuary looked like the day I visited in November 2017.

A sad, real-life parable reflecting what has been going on in Western civilization as a whole. The original purpose of the structure has been lost, and it now serves a small enterprise that cannot give meaning to that original architectural masterpiece. A cathedral built for the glory of God now fronts as a warehouse to view paintings and sculptures.
Secular humanism cannot breathe meaning and purpose into a civilization built upon a biblical worldview. It can seek to maintain the structure for a while, as it has in America, but sooner or later the grand architecture of rights and blessings we have enjoyed due to the out-working of the gospel will weigh too heavily on the small enterprise of humanism, and post-Christian civilization will collapse upon itself.
So, can Western civilization defeat Islam? Hardly. It is having a hard enough time standing on its own two feet to resist a secular worldview intent on knocking it over. Certainly, the Western world has enough military power and political resources to restrain the world of Muslim nations and radical jihadi groups, but mere force cannot destroy Islam as an ideology or worldview. Secular humanism is a lightweight against the juggernaut of Islam, which is not just a set of religious beliefs but an all-encompassing worldview, informing the whole of life for its adherents. What is needed to defeat Islam is exactly what the West has jettisoned — an embrace of the worldview of Christianity.
To defeat a strong worldview necessitates an even stronger one. What is stronger than a god of hate if not a God of love? What is better than a god who uses and commands brutal force than a God who exhibits and commands self-sacrifice? What is stronger, a god who harnesses the power of temptation to advance his cause, or a God who defeats the power of sin so as to rescue human beings for a higher calling? What is stronger, a god who promises to reward those who kill and are killed in his name, or a God who conquers death by His own death, in order to offer eternal life as a gift to those who come in gratitude? What is a greater worldview: one that commands love for Muslims and hatred for infidels, or one that commands love for all neighbors, including enemies?
The religion of Islam will one day crumble into oblivion, because it is built upon a worldly spirituality that opposes the true Kingdom of God as revealed in and through Jesus Christ. It will not be other earthly powers that defeat Islam, whether military, political or religious. Only the Church has the message that sounds the death knell of Islam — but it won’t happen primarily by a frontal attack on its tenets and practices. It will come about by the conversions of massive numbers of Muslims who discover that the message of the gospel shines with a light and love and truth which Islam has never been able to match, for all its efforts.
Already, over the last forty years Muslims have been leaving Islam in droves. Many turn first to atheism, thinking that if the “final religion given to man” has proven untenable, then no religion can be true. But thousands upon thousands are being exposed to the gospel for the first time in their lives, and discovering to their irrepressible joy that the Arabian prophet cannot hold a candle to the Son of God.
Can Islam be defeated? Yes, and it will be, but only when the Church wakes up once again to her true Love, and lives out her mission with a passion to love and reach the lost, including 1.6 billion Muslims! If the last forty years are indicative of what God holds for the future, the tide is already turning.


I was very taken by your article today. The most pertinent point being “Islam is such a powerful movement because it is the perfect religion to appeal to the flesh.” In doing so Islam eviscerates the central tenets of the Christian faith by denying Allah has a son as it is not befitting to his majesty, denying that Jesus died on the cross and denying the Trinity all with insults, curses and calls of blasphemy. (Quran 9:30, 4:157, 4:171, 5:17, 5:72-73, 19:35 ) Of course the game in so called interfaith is that Jesus is in the Quran. This was recently quoted confidently by my local CoE vicar as it that settles something. However reading the Quran reveals that the Quran’s Jesus is not the Jesus of the bible but a miraculous fatherless created being for no apparent reason but to endorse the message in the Quran and deny explicitly Christianity, all with the usual threats and insults 9:29-30 , 8:55 and 98:6. The Quran also explicitly states for Muslims to pretty well not to have any dealings with Jews or Christians 3:28, 5:51.
So why does the Quran go out of the way to deny Jesus the Son of God, to deny the cross, to deny the Trinity? To have an illegitimate Jesus without a father. That reveals a relationship with creation problem. The god of the Quran has no real relationship with the creation unlike the God of the Bible.
Your article goes beyond Islam but deals with the ills of Western society. The article also goes into what is different about the God of the Bible and His relationship with it in ‘Life in the Spirit’ using the teaching of Paul. We can get lost here in theological teaching and terms which abstract the reality. We use explanations by Paul and in the epistles which while not wrong sometimes miss the basics such as: You must be Born Again in the Spirit John 3:5-15 ( by the way that passage also explains the reason for the bronze serpent in Numbers 21:9 that prefigured Jesus on the Cross. He became sin for us and nailed it on a cross, that Jesus died for our sins is also something explicitly denied in the Quran 4:157)
Also in the article is an indication of falling away from the faith and the weakness of Christianity in the West. The church converted to an arts centre as a metaphor. Where is the salt today may you ask? Mt 5:13-14.
This is important as this explains why the Quran is so ambivalent to Jesus as the Son of God and His death on a cross.
John 14 v 16 “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.
Yes the Holy Spirit is sent as a personal Helper to a believer to be with them forever and will abide with you and be in you. Who is the Holy Spirit, the Helper? He is the Spirit of Truth! Can you see why Jesus death is denied, the Spirit your Helper who will be in you denied? Can you see why Christianity is such a problem to Secular Humanism, Islam, and enemies of God? The Spirit of Truth, the Helper will teach you all things Jn 14:26, will guide you into all Truth Jn16:13. What is so lacking today: Truth! It is being suppressed/perverted at every turn. You will be in more trouble today stating plan facts and the truth than ever before.
Denying the Trinity is to deny God. Why? John 14 23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.
Yes the God of the Bible desires relationship with His creation as we are made in His image. God uses the term Father to illustrate that relationship. The god of the Quran would never do such a thing, can never be addressed as Father and explicitly denies anything that would lead to such a thing. Even the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem has inscribed round it: Allah has no son.
Why is that relationship so precious and why is life so precious. Why ultimately is it wrong to kill for your faith? Because all men (note woman has man with a ‘wo’ in front so it is inclusive it you look ) are made in the image of God: Gen 1:26. As a born again believer you are ‘a Temple of the Holy Spirit’ 1 Cor 6:19.
Why then is the West in such decline with such an inheritance? It is all a relationship issue. People no longer know who God is and elements in society have done their best to erase God from society’s consciousness. The church has lost sight of the relationship with God and life in the Spirit. Even the charismatic churches in their pursuit of spiritual power over relationship. You can sum up the problem: The church charismatic movement has largely concentrated on the power of the Holy Spirit and not of the Person of the Holy Spirit as the Helper sent by Jesus (Jn 14:16-17). The salt is in the relationship, the power is in the relationship. That has been neglected. The Bible is full of what happens when people stop listening to God. God stops listening and He gives them over ( Rom 1 24,26,28), makes people blind and deaf Isa 6 v9-10 (quoted 6 times in the New Testament) sends a powerful delusion even: 2 Thess 2 v11.
The solution repent and turn to the throne seek Jesus John 14 6Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
That is why Jesus sent the Helper, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth:
John 15 26“When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me
The Holy Spirit will testify about Jesus! No wonder the Quran denies the Trinity. The Quran does not want you to know the God of the Bible the Father who sent His Son Jesus. Man cannot prevent the Holy Spirit acting on your heart but can discourage you from even trying.

Teach Your Children True Islam From a Young Age

Capitol Hill Outsider

Islam Stuck in 6th Century
By Amil Imani:

Amil Imani
Start to immediately tell them that to know Islam is not a race and Islamophobia is a term used by groups of Muslims and non-Muslim apologists in order to protect Islam from scrutiny. Make sure they understand the term Islamophobia is itself misleading. A phobia is an irrational fear of something. In the case of Islam, however, it often makes practical sense to be afraid. Even most former Muslims themselves, have genuine fears about a religion that advocates the murder of its apostates and victimizes its own members, especially innocent women and children.
Make sure they understand the criminalization of homosexuality under the teachings of Islam. Homosexuality is not only a sin, but a crime. As a crime against God, it is permissible, according to many Muslim scholars, to punish the offender with death.
Be sure they understand once a Muslim leaves the religion of Islam, he or she is condemned to death for turning their back against Islam. Educate them about the founder of Islam, the prophet Muhammad and his crimes against humanity.  They must know any criticism against Islam in public can be punished by death. Do not allow them to learn the sanitized version of it in public schools. Make sure they understand that. Most school texts are written by Muslims and it is a pure fabrication.
(Webmaster Comment) (many of the Pearson book publishing company are Muslims and the text books are written in Britain.
According to the “Financial Times” a publication owned by Pearson,The Sovereign fund of Libya initially took a 3.27 per cent stake in Pearson. 3.27% is a significant stake in what is the largest educational publishing company in the world. Pearson is a $9 Billion giant that dominates textbooks, testing, teacher evaluation, IT platforms for schools, and may have the largest investment in lobbying of any publishing company operating in the United States. Pearson is also a major supplier to states who have adopted the Common Core Standard.  So why does it matter that Libya may have had or still has a stake in Pearson?According to a February 2012 study by Citizens for National Security about Muslim Biasedtextbooks in Florida, four are published by Pearson

Pearson basically owns the Education system of America!


For a starter, remember the Somali Muslim cabbies of the Minneapolis airport and their refusal of blind fares with seeing-eye dogs, because dogs are unclean according to their belief. The same cabbies that had a virtual monopoly at the airport also rejected passengers who had alcoholic beverages in their possession.
Be honest and firm about it. Explain that the Muslim book, the Quran, discriminates against women:
[Quran 4.34] “Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the others and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you take no further action against them. Allah is high, supreme.”
Muslims always blame others for their misery. They blame the Jews, Christians and America for their fate. No, it is not the Jews or the Christians who are misrepresenting Islam and make them unhappy. It is Muslims and Muslim organizations who are guilty of dissimulation and fraud. Muslims act meekly when they lack sufficient power. Once in power, the real Islam emerges from its shell of dissimulation and puts free people and their way of life to the sword.
First, let’s grasp the definition of indoctrination.
Indoctrination occurs when we present opinions as fact without presenting opposing views. Saying that Islam teaches “Allah is the one true God” is of course a fact, but the statement itself is widely disputed by billions of Christians worldwide, who believe the claim is false. When schools present Islamic beliefs, without balancing those beliefs with opposing views from other religions or even to present secular opposition, then a line has been crossed into indoctrination.  It’s ancient wisdom that our actions speak louder than our words—or when it comes to our children, our screaming.  As parents, most of us seek advice on best parenting tips so that our children listen to us and follow our values and ideals.
The prophet Muhammad understood human motivation and learning styles very well.  At his farewell khutbah (sermon) on Mount Arafat, he reminded believers that he had left behind him the Qur’an and his Sunnah, and anyone who adhered to them would not err.  Thus, the prophet’s Sunnah is the demonstration of the Qur’an which he had modeled to his Ummah, as the Qur’an by itself may not be fully understood by all.
Recognizing that people will do exactly what he did in his life for generations to come, even at the level of imitating how he dressed and ate, he was very careful about each and every one of his actions and words. With all his actions, the prophet not only considered his the current generation, but also the future.  In short. to Westerners, just about all matters range from black to white with an array of gray shades in between the two poles. To Muslims, by contrast, nearly everything is in black and white and with virtually no shades of gray. The former type of thinking is typical of more mature minds, while the latter is that of young children and the less enlightened.
© Copyright by Amil Imani, 2019. All rights reserved.
Email Amil: freeamericanpress@yahoo.com
Read More Articles by Amil Imani

Deep State Panel: “Investigating the Investigators”


Judicial Watch
Published on May 29, 2019
Judicial Watch hosted a special educational panel on Wednesday, May 29, 2019 to discuss “Investigating the Investigators.” Now that the Mueller report has exonerated President Trump of the false accusations of collusion and obstruction, it is time to look into the politicization of DOJ and the intelligence community in their effort to undermine the president.
The expert panelists include:
Dr. Carter Page -Former Trump Campaign Advisor –
Founder and Managing Partner of Global Natural Gas Ventures LLC
Victoria Toensing – -Founding Partner, diGenova & Toensing LLP


The Winners and Losers of ‘Medicare for All’

Charles Blahous J. Fish and Lillian F. Smith Chair
Many Members of Congress and presidential candidates, including Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, have embraced “Medicare for All” (M4A), the catch-all phrase used to describe proposals that would replace our current blend of private and public health insurance with a single-payer system run by the federal government. This month provided two opportunities to learn more about the implications of M4A, one a hearing of the House Rules Committee, the other a report issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). I was privileged to be a commenter on the draft CBO report as well as to testify at the committee hearing. Below are some of the key findings from the hearing and the report.
New federal costs under M4A would be unprecedentedly large.
I estimated in my testimony that new federal budget costs would be somewhere between $32.6 trillion and $38.8 trillion over the first 10 years of M4A. These large numbers represent just the additional federal costs above and beyond currently projected federal spending. Total federal costs of M4A over the first ten years would be much higher, somewhere between $54.6 trillion and $60.7 trillion. This increase in federal spending would be of such a magnitude that even doubling currently projected individual and corporate income taxes would be insufficient to finance it.
We do not know how or whether the federal government could successfully finance its additional spending under M4A.
Multiple experts who testified at the hearing agreed that most of these new federal costs would arise from the federal government’s taking on spending currently done by the private sector—e.g., through private health insurance and individual payments out of pocket. Under M4A the federal government would also assume health spending obligations currently financed by state and local governments. The fact that most of this spending is already being done by someone else does not, however, imply that the federal government could successfully finance it without causing significant damage to the U.S. economy. Indeed, most of the taxes under discussion for financing M4A would leave Americans poorer on average, after the deadweight loss from such taxation is taken into account.
The projected additional costs of M4A’s coverage expansion would exceed the potential savings from eliminating private health insurance administration.
Many proponents of M4A hope that a single-payer system would allow health care to be provided more efficiently, by eliminating private health insurance administrative overhead and profit. However, my projections as well as others have found that the additional costs of providing expanded and more generous health insurance would far exceed the savings from reducing insurance administrative costs. CBO’s analysis is consistent with this calculation, and its text reinforces the point: “[E]xisting evidence indicates that people use more care when their cost is lower, so little or no cost sharing in a single-payer system would tend to increase the use of services and lead to additional (national) health care spending, as well as more government spending.”
Importantly, this additional spending wouldn’t just be a matter of previously uninsured people finally receiving the care they need. Instead, previously-insured individuals would also demand more services, irrespective of those services’ quality, necessity or efficacy. The net effect would be an introduction of new inefficiencies and added costs to our health care system, exceeding the savings that might be gained by eliminating private insurance administration.
Current M4A proposals would sharply cut payments to health providers while increasing health service demand, most likely causing supply shortages, and disrupting Americans’ timely access to health care.
Neither my study nor my subsequent writings or testimony offer judgments of what health providers should be paid. The study simply notes that we do not know what will happen to the timeliness or quality of health services if we cut provider payments from current, higher private insurance payment rates down to Medicare payment rates, as current M4A proposals stipulate.
The CBO report is more explicit that doing so would likely limit Americans’ timely access to health care services (emphasis in bold added):
“Setting payment rates equal to Medicare FFS rates under a single-payer system would reduce the average payment rates most providers receive—often substantially. Such a reduction in provider payment rates would probably reduce the amount of care supplied and could also reduce the quality of care. Studies have found that increases in provider payment rates lead to a greater supply of medical care, whereas decreases in payment rates lead to a lower supply. . . .
In addition to the short-term effects discussed above, changes in provider payment rates under the single-payer system could have longer-term effects on the supply of providers. If the average provider payment rate under a single-payer system was significantly lower than it cur­rently is, fewer people might decide to enter the medical profession in the future. The number of hospitals and other health care facilities might also decline as a result of closures, and there might be less investment in new and existing facilities. That decline could lead to a shortage of providers, longer wait times, and changes in the quality of care, especially if patient demand increased substan­tially because many previously uninsured people received coverage and if previously insured people received more generous benefits. How providers would respond to such changes in demand for their services is uncertain.”
The costs of M4A would be borne most directly by health providers and those most in need of health services.
An irony of the Rules Committee hearing was that it featured positive comments about M4A from the perspectives of physicians and those facing severe and expensive health conditions. While there would be winners and losers under single-payer health care, some of the groups represented at the hearing would be among those paying the largest and most direct costs. Under current M4A proposals, health providers would pay the greatest price up front, for they would bear the brunt of payment cuts that have been proposed to contain the additional costs of M4A’s expanded and more generous insurance coverage. The other group to feel M4A’s costs most severely, at least under the M4A legislation as written, would be those in most dire need of health care services. This is because, as CBO notes, the supply of health services would be reduced relative to demand, making the services less available in the aggregate and putting upward pressure on prices.
This would be particularly problematic for those with income limitations and urgent health needs, because M4A would not target federal resources on those of modest income, nor on those facing severe health challenges. Instead it would provide first-dollar coverage of all Americans’ health care services, from the most routine to the most urgent, from the least expensive to the most, and for the wealthiest patients as well as the poorest. By so doing, it would create much more competition for access to urgently needed health services.
It would be an elementary analytical mistake to compare the imperfect reality of our current health system to an idealized fantasy of perfectly functioning M4A, in which everyone gets more care for less money. That is not how things would work. Instead of cost-saving improvements for everyone, there would be winners and losers. The winners would include state governments as well as those who currently pay for routine health expenses out of pocket under their plans’ deductibles. The biggest losers under the introduced M4A bills would be federal taxpayers, hospitals, doctors and nurses, and patients urgently needing swift access to care.

Photo credit: Senate Democrats/Wikimedia Commons

Dinesh D’Souza SLAMS the Left for hypocrisy over MLK and #MeToo

Published on Jun 1, 2019
The latest revelations about Martin Luther King, Jr. pose a painful challenge to the Left. That’s why the media and the progressive historians have gone into hiding!

Evil of Margaret Sanger’s Eugenics Designs – The founder of Planned Parenthood

By Walter M. Weber  days ago

The U.S. Supreme Court on May 28, 2019 issued a decision (pp. 9-34) that upheld an Indiana law requiring the humane disposition of aborted babies. While the Court simultaneously declined to review a separate Indiana law that forbade abortions based on the unborn child’s race, sex, or disability, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion that powerfully reveals the ugly eugenics movement in the United States and its connection to abortion as a eugenic tool.
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) had filed a friend-of-the-court  brief urging the Supreme Court to review an abortion case out of Indiana. The ACLJ had filed the amicus brief on behalf of itself and parents from 44 families who gave birth to a child with a disability. The case is Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky (PPINK) No. 18-483(There is a separate petition with the same name addressing an Indiana informed consent law. That petition, No. 18-1019, is still pending.)
The state of Indiana had asked the Supreme Court to hear the case. Both the federal district court in Indiana, and then the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, held that the challenged provisions were unconstitutional and in conflict with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision declaring a right to abortion. Here’s what happened:

Respect for human remains

As the Supreme Court explained, the first challenged statute “excluded fetal remains from the definition of infectious and pathological waste” – i.e., as we phrased it in our amicus brief, abortionists could not “treat the bodies of dead unborn children as just so much ‘medical trash.’” The lower court somehow found this to violate the Supreme Court’s abortion cases, but the Supreme Court strongly disagreed:  This Court has already acknowledged that a State has a “legitimate interest in proper disposal of fetal remains.” . . . The Seventh Circuit clearly erred in failing to recognize that interest as a permissible basis for Indiana’s disposition law.  Even Justices Breyer and Kagan, who are generally sympathetic to pro-abortion legal claims, joined the Court’s 7-2 majority in reversing the lower court on this issue. (Only Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor voted to deny review of this law.) This aspect of the case should have been easy for the Court – and it was.

Ban on eugenic abortions

Turning to the ban on aborting babies because of their race, sex, or disabilities, the Supreme Court decided not to review the Indiana law, noting that this was the first time the issue had reached a federal appeals court. (The Supreme Court generally prefers to let multiple lower courts rule on an issue before it steps in to resolve the matter.) Nevertheless, there was a very bright spot even on this question: Justice Thomas’s 20-page concurrence. In that opinion, Justice Thomas documented at length the link between Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood, the eugenics movement, and the use of abortion as a eugenic tool.
Eugenics, which literally means “good genes,” refers to the “purification” of the human race by the elimination of those deemed “inferior” or “defective.” As Justice Thomas explained, a leading figure of eugenics described eugenics as “the science of improving stock” through “all influences that tend in however remote a degree to give to the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable than they otherwise would have.” F. Galton, Inquiries Into Human Faculty and Its Development 25, n. 1 (1883).

Justice Thomas’s opinion deserves reading in full, but his key thesis is as follows:

The foundations for legalizing abortion in America were laid during the early 20th-century birth-control movement. That movement developed alongside the American eugenics movement. And significantly, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger recognized the eugenic potential of her cause.

There are key three points here. Let’s look at them in turn.

She emphasized and embraced the notion that birth control “opens the way to the eugenist.” Sanger, Birth Control and Racial Betterment, Birth Control Rev., Feb. 1919, p. 12 (Racial Betterment). As a means of reducing the “ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all,” Sanger argued that “Birth Control . . . is really the greatest and most truly eugenic method” of “human generation.” M. Sanger, Pivot of Civilization 187, 189 (1922). In her view, birth control had been “accepted by the most clear thinking and far seeing of the Eugenists themselves as the most constructive and necessary of the means to racial health.” Id., at 189.

As Justice Thomas documented, eugenics was “a ‘full-fledged intellectual craze’ in the United States, particularly among progressives, professionals, and intellectual elites.” Indeed, “[a]lthough eugenics was widely embraced, Harvard was ‘more central to American eugenics than any other university.’”   And many prominent eugenicists of the early 1900s were blatantly racist white supremacists. Indeed, eugenicist Lothrop Stoddard titled his best seller “The Rising Tide of Color: The Threat Against White World Supremacy”. (Stoddard worked closely with Margaret Sanger.)
Of course, Justice Thomas explained, “[a]lthough race was relevant, eugenicists did not define a person’s ‘fitness’ exclusively by race. A typical list of dysgenic individuals would also include some combination of the ‘feeble-minded,’ ‘insane,’ ‘criminalistic,’ ‘deformed,’ ‘crippled,’ ‘epileptic,’ ‘inebriate,’ ‘diseased,’ ‘blind,’ ‘deaf,’ and ‘dependent (including orphans and paupers).’” And the Supreme Court itself “threw its prestige behind the eugenics movement in its 1927 decision upholding the constitutionality of Virginia’s forced-sterilization law, Buck v. Bell, 274 U. S. 200.”
As Justice Thomas documented, Margaret Sanger “agreed with eugenicists that ‘the unbalance between the birth rate of the “unfit” and the “fit”’ was ‘the greatest present menace to civilization.’” Sanger believed “frequent reproduction among ‘the majority of wage workers’ would lead to ‘the contributing of morons, feeble-minded, insane and various criminal types to the already tremendous social burden constituted by these unfit.’” In practice, that translated for Sanger into a particular focus on black people: “in 1939, Sanger initiated the ‘Negro Project,’ an effort to promote birth control in poor, Southern black communities.”

In a report titled “Birth Control and the Negro,” Sanger and her coauthors identified blacks as “‘the great problem of the South’”—“the group with ‘the greatest economic, health, and social problems’”—and developed a birth-control program geared toward this population. . . . She later emphasized that black ministers should be involved in the program, noting, “‘We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.’” Ibid.

Second, according to Justice Thomas, Planned Parenthood, the organization which Sanger founded (originally called the American Birth Control League), furthered Sanger’s eugenic aims.

A successor president of the organization, Alan Guttmacher, explicitly endorsed eugenic reasons for abortion. A. Guttmacher, Babies by Choice or by Chance 186–188 (1959). He explained that “the quality of the parents must be taken into account,” including “[f]eeble-mindedness,” and believed that “it should be permissible to abort any pregnancy . . . in which there is a strong probability of an abnormal or malformed infant.” . . . He added that the question whether to allow abortion . . . “must have as its focus normal, healthy infants born into homes peopled with parents who have healthy bodies and minds.” . . . Guttmacher stated that “. . . ‘We’re now concerned more with the quality of population than the quantity.’”

Third, Justice Thomas explained, abortion is now a tool for the furtherance of eugenic goals:

Abortion can easily be used to eliminate children with unwanted characteristics. Indeed, the individualized nature of abortion gives it even more eugenic potential than birth control, which simply reduces the chance of conceiving any child. As petitioners and several amicus curiae briefs point out, moreover, abortion has proved to be a disturbingly effective tool for implementing the discriminatory preferences that undergird eugenics. . . . Eight decades after Sanger’s “Negro Project,” abortion in the United States is also marked by a considerable racial disparity. The reported nationwide abortion ratio—the number of abortions per 1,000 live births—among black women is nearly 3.5 times the ratio for white women.

The Indiana law that banned abortions based on race, sex, or disability was a response to the eugenic use of abortion. While it is unfortunate that, for now, the Supreme Court has allowed a lower court ruling against the statute to stand, Justice Thomas’s devastating quotation of the eugenicists’ own words – and Margaret Sanger’s appalling embrace of the same mentality – shines a powerful spotlight on a very chilling aspect of the abortion movement and its flagship business, Planned Parenthood.


By Matthew Clark

Planned Parenthood has once again been exposed in a lie.
This time peddling the pernicious propaganda that “thousands of women died” each year from back alley abortions before Roe v. Wade.
The argument is a slight-of-hand by Planned Parenthood seeking to shift any focus on saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of unborn babies each year to the blatantly false allegation that ending abortion would lead to the deaths of thousands of women each year. They back this false claim with, you guessed it, made-up statistics. Now even the mainstream media isn’t buying it – with the Washington Post fact checker giving it a maximum pants on fire score of four Pinocchios.
Planned Parenthood is dedicated in its campaign to push extreme, late-term, taxpayer-funded abortion across the country, and it’s not above distorting the facts to do it. We often call it the “abortion distortion.”  The abortion giant presents falsehoods as facts. For example, for years (and still to this day) Planned Parenthood hid behind its “3%” lie – that abortion only made up 3% of its services. We showed you that wasn’t true. And several years ago the Washington Post fact checker finally agreed.  As I’ve detailed numerous times, Planned Parenthood unbundles its services in deceptive ways so as to make abortions seem like a small portion of its services. If it gives a woman a pregnancy test, an std screening, a few contraceptives, and performs an abortion, it counts that as 4 or 5 other services and 1 abortion. You get the idea.  As I’ve explained:

Planned Parenthood’s claim that only 3 percent of its business is abortion is no different than if a car dealership claimed that it wasn’t really in the business of selling cars because the number of new car sales was only a fraction of its total services provided (financing cars, repairing cars, providing manufacture recommended maintenance for cars, cleaning car[s], and so forth). Of course no one would believe such an outrageous claim. Sure, a car dealership does all of those things, but its purpose is to sell cars.

The abortion industry is no different. The abortion industry, led by Planned Parenthood, is about committing abortion. Sure they provide some other services, but when your only self-sustaining revenue source is one thing and you are responsible for 40 percent of that one thing in the entire nation, that is what you are about. Planned Parenthood is about abortion.

Now Planned Parenthood has been caught in a new – and even more deceptive – lie.
But Planned Parenthood and its abortion allies present these lies with such fervor, such vehemence, that it scares anyone who doesn’t know any better into thinking that they’re rights – and even their very lives – are somehow in jeopardy if they don’t support a pro-abortion ideology.  And leading by example, all the way from the top of its abortion empire, current Planned Parenthood president Leana Wen has continually stated that “thousands of women died every year” before Roe v. Wade due to unsafe, illegal abortions.
Just days ago, Wen told MSNBC:

“We’re not going to go back in time to a time before Roe when thousands of women died every year because they didn’t have access to essential health care.”  Not long before that interview, Wen took to Twitter to attack new pro-life laws in this country with more fearmongering, and stating her “thousands died” figure, warning it could “happen again”:  “Before Roe v. Wade, thousands of women died every year — and because of extreme attacks on safe, legal abortion care, this could happen again right here in America.”

Thousands of women dying tragically, and needlessly, every year is certainly a scary statistic. It would surely have people up in arms. The problem is, it’s not actually true. It’s just made up out of whole cloth.  In fact, the evidence shows the mortality numbers steadily declined as medical procedures evolved, long before Roe v. Wade.  In a recent Washington Post fact check article, Wen’s claim of thousands of deaths every year was investigated, and the statistic was found to have no evidence behind it. According to the article:

Erica Sackin, a Planned Parenthood spokeswoman, directed us to a 2014 policy statement issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG): “It is estimated that before 1973, 1.2 million U.S. women resorted to illegal abortion each year and that unsafe abortions caused as many as 5,000 annual deaths.”  There is no citation in the statement for the estimate of “as many as 5,000 annual deaths,” even though many of the other sentences are carefully documented. None of the citations around this sentence supports the figure, and there is no explanation about how it was calculated.

The article went on to cite additional findings by a leading researcher that make it seem very unlikely that the number of deaths from illegal abortions could have even breached 1,000, let alone 5,000.  “In 1957, there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind. In New York City in 1921, there were 144 abortion deaths, in 1951 there were only 15.”
The truth is the number of deaths from illegal abortions dropped drastically over the decades. Wen and Planned Parenthood just don’t want you to know that. Instead they want you to be afraid, and they will resort to patent falsehoods to convince the American public that abortion is sacrosanct and must be protected at all costs – or thousands will die.  The reality is thousands are dying each day BECAUSE of abortion – innocent babies – and Planned Parenthood is profiting hand over fist as a result. Planned Parenthood is profiting from death while fear mongering with fake death statistics.  As a result, just like with the 3% lie, the Washington Post fact checker gave Planned Parenthood’s “thousands of women died” lie four Pinocchios (the worst rating one can get).
The WaPo fact checker’s conclusion is particularly brutal:

Wen is a doctor, and the ACOG is made up of doctors. They should know better than to peddle statistics based on data that predates the advent of antibiotics. Even given the fuzzy nature of the data and estimates, there is no evidence that in the years immediately preceding the Supreme Court’s decision, thousands of women died every year in the United States from illegal abortions. . . .

These numbers were debunked in 1969 — 50 years ago — by a statistician celebrated by Planned Parenthood. There’s no reason to use them today.

Yet, the reality is Planned Parenthood knows this lie doesn’t hold up, but it just doesn’t care. Its own spokesperson, Erica Sackin, released a statement basically saying we know our numbers are fuzzy, but we demand legal, taxpayer funded abortion anyway.
According to Planned Parenthood’s statement:

“While stigma, fear, and poor tracking mean we can never know the exact number who suffered before Roe v Wade was decided, what we do know is that even one woman’s death from abortion before it was legal is one too many. Abortion is health care, and it is one of the safest medical procedures there is — there is no reason anyone’s health or life should be endangered by politicians bent on keeping people from accessing this basic health care. Yet far too many politicians seem determined to take us back to the days before Roe was decided — where abortion was virtually inaccessible and all those who could become pregnant paid the price.”

More misinformation. More fearmongering. More abortion distortion.
In fact, we’ve detailed in briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court the numerous times each year that ambulances come to take women away from Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics – women injured from botched abortions.  Abortion is not healthcare. It’s taking an innocent life – something Planned Parenthood doesn’t want anyone to admit. That’s why it’s desperately fighting the new wave of “heartbeat” legislation sweeping the country. States are outlawing abortion as soon as a heartbeat is detectable. Every one of these laws is a major victory in our fight to defend the defenseless. And every one takes a brick out of Planned Parenthood’s stronghold.  We’re continuing our fight to defund Planned Parenthood, stopping the flood of tax dollars that have allowed it to grow so powerful. The Department of Health and Human Services released a rule blocking millions of tax dollars from being sent to abortion providers. Planned Parenthood is suing to maintain its taxpayer support.
We filed formal public comments supporting the HHS rule and have filed amicus briefs in two of these cases at the trial court level. We will continue to fight in support of the rule defunding millions from Planned Parenthood even if, as is likely, the case goes all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States.  The facts are simple. Planned Parenthood intentionally lies. Planned Parenthood intentionally kills babies. And it doesn’t deserve a dime of your tax dollars.
We need you in the fight with us. Sign our petition to stop the abortion distortion and defund Planned Parenthood.
Read the full text of the petition

PRO LIFE     274,607  Signatures as of June 1, 2019


Receive the latest news, updates, and contribution opportunities from ACLJ.



75 Anniversary D-DAY June 6 1944



Legendary journalist Tom Brokaw called them the “Greatest Generation.” Countless Americans call them heroes.

This year marks the 75th anniversary of Operation Overlord, the Allied invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944 — most commonly known as D-Day. An epic multinational amphibious and airborne operation, D-Day forged partnerships and reinforced transatlantic bonds that remain strong today
This was the generation of Americans who had lived through the deprivation of The Great Depression, rallied to fight the rising Axis Powers both on the battlefield and through solidarity on the home front. Americans ran scrap metal drives, planted Victory Gardens, rationed basic staples such as sugar and gasoline, even halted commercial automotive production in deference to wartime production; they forewent luxuries in all forms to contribute to a cause on which the survival of civil society as they knew it hinged.
Those in the generation of mine and your parents, who grew up in the Great Depression and World War II had sacrificed, fought, bled, and died to give the United States and much of the free world its current blessings. Out of the Great Depression and WWII came what history will surely call the “Greatest Generation”.
In World War Two, the “Greatest Generation” used their strength of character and purpose to stop the Nazis and their allies from taking over the world. At Midway, U.S. Navy, Marine, and Army Air Corps forces overcame great odds to turn back a Japanese invasion force and destroy four enemy aircraft carriers. At Iwo Jima, thousands of U.S. Marines sacrificed their lives to overcome a fortified enemy defense. In Normandy, those of the “Greatest Generation” fought bravely in all branches of the armed services to establish a beachhead and start the liberation of Europe.
The “Greatest Generation”, having served so well in World War II, primarily provided a core of leadership throughout the Cold War. The character of a generation forged in the twin furnaces of the depression and World War II had its metal tested again during the Cold War. The character of that generation safeguarded America. That character kept the United States from falling into the abyss of a nuclear war. The leadership, courage, and resolve of that character also kept the United States and the free world from falling under the domination of an evil empire Russia – an empire which built walls around cities and nations to keep whole peoples locked in and to keep ideas locked out.
Imagine what the world would be like if we had fallen into the nuclear abyss. Imagine what the world would be like if Communism had prevailed in what President John Kennedy referred to as the “twilight struggle against . . . tyranny.” Now think about those, living and dead, who prevented both of those calamities.
The individuals of the “Greatest Generation” had their character tested. The generation collectively was tested by the Depression, World War II and the Cold War. Like George Washington’s troops in that cold winter at Valley Forge over two hundred years ago, the “Greatest Generation” endured unbearable hardships and overcame impossible challenges. This generation didn’t really have a choice.
The test of a person is whether the world is a better place because that person lived. The same test should apply to a generation. By any measure, the “Greatest Generation” made the world a better place. They are the reason that this is the American Century.
The years are growing short for the “Greatest Generation”. Memories of the fire, steel, and death raining down on Iwo Jima, Normandy and thousands of other places seem like a nightmare of long ago. The shells and fighters over Schweinfurt, torpedo and kamikaze attacks, and danger, death and destruction of a half century ago seem unreal.
The Sun has risen and set thousands of times since then. Those who sacrificed their lives in World War II or hotspots in the Cold War should know that their character has prevailed. Their character saw America through the Great Depression, World War II, the Cold War, the Korean War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Vietnam War.
Theirs is a debt that can never be repaid. It’s impossible for a child to fully repay parents who provide the child with love and the ability to succeed in life. Likewise, there is nothing that can be given to the remaining members of  “The Greatest Generation” to repay them for their sacrifices in providing our freedoms and material well being. Respect has been earned in triplicate. It should be given, but it will never be enough. Thanking them for the sacrifice, blood, and toil that has given us a precious heritage of freedom and prosperity is a starting point.
I now ask everyone to give a moment of silence  on this day for those 48, 871  who gave their all in the defense of the free world during Operation Overlord which commenced on D-Day June 1944:  These included; 9,386 American, 17,769 British, 5,002 Canadian combined Allied Ground Forces, along with 16,714 Air Force personnel, whose remains are held in 27 War Cemeteries
They are not here to read these words of praise for their sacrifices, but they will hear our words and prayers through the Almighty.

John Nelson – SFC U.S Army 

One America’s Emerald Robinson sat down with Pompeo for this exclusive interview.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said progress is being made in multilateral relations,
but he’s calling on our international allies to do more as part of a collective defense.




GEN X  1965-1976
GEN Y  1977-1995 (Millennials)
GEN Z  1996 -tbd  (Centennials)
Baby Boomers  1946 -1964
THe Silent Generation 1945 and before (Greatest Generation)

If the Democrats succeed in this manipulation of the laws of our nation, you will lose your voice in Government, you will lose your constitution, you will lose the rule of law, when a nation becomes a one party nation it becomes a dictatorship, the people lose! You know what happens, you have seen it throughout history, if you do not know learn it,  it is all out there on the web!
Take a look around the world, Germany prior to WWII, Italy Prior to WWII, Russia, China, all became dictatorships, Millions of citizens in these countries died because they opposed these dictatorships! Is this really what even the Democratic citizens want? Remember Dictators rule by Terror!

This video will shock you!

Below is a list of Dictators, a telling list of how many of their people they directly caused the
deaths of after taking power. Does anyone really want to see this happen to America?
It could, those who come into  powder under dictatorships make their first action that of
removing the dissenters (opposing parties),  so the can insure maintaining that dictatorship;
look at the history, do the research!
It is time to wake up America You have two choices, go the dictator path of the Democrats, or the path
of Freedom under our constitution, and the maintaining of a two party system to prevent a dictatorship .
What the Democrats are doing is trying upset the balance of the voting public so they can maintain
a win in any election, they know it would be impossible to eliminate the Constitutional Electoral vote, but
they also know they can stack certain states to insure an electoral vote win in every election.  They know most
illegal aliens they allow in if given the right to vote will vote Democrat.
  • Joseph Stalin (1878-1953) was the dictator of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) from 1929 to 1953
    Responsible for approximately 20 Million deaths.
  • Mao Zedong (1949-1976) up to 46 Million people perished under his dictatorship due to famine, and being beaten to death
  • Hitler (1933-1944)  Dictator, murder of six million Jewish men, women and children by the Nazi regime because they were considered inferior race. These number were increased with the killing of other considered inferior people like the Roma (Gypsies), Communists, Socialists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and homosexuals. Estimates are calculated from wartime reports generated by those who implemented Nazi population policy, and postwar demographic studies on population loss during World War II., all totaled Hitler ) was responsible for over 18 Million deaths.  Virtually all deaths of Soviet, Polish, and Serb civilians during the course of military and anti-partisan operations had, however, a racist component. German units conducted those operations with an ideologically driven and willful disregard for civilian life.
  • Benito Mussolini, Italy (1833-1945)  Responsible for oner 500,000 Deaths under his 21 year dictators rule.
  • Idi Amin Country: Uganda Kill tally: up to 500,000
  • Ion Antonescu Country: Romania Kill tally: up to 1,000,000
  • Agha Mohammad Yahya Khan Country: Pakistan  Kill tally: up to 5,000,000
  • Kim Il Sung Country: North Korea  Kill tally: up to 5,000,000
  • Pol Pot  Country: Cambodia  Kill tally: up to 5,000,000
  • Saddam Hussein Country: Iraq Kill tally: 1,000,000 to 5,000,000


Warned in 1989! Sharia is the goal, Taqiyya
is the method. Meet Clinton pal – Sharifa

Sharifa Alkhateeb – Muslim educator shares ultimate goal of Muslim education in America Ultimate objective of Muslim education in America is to make all of America Muslim.

She says: “The long range process of making America muslim -ALL of America Muslim…and being very calculated about it” Original video: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c462848… She died in 2004.
Clinton connection- Clinton speaking: “I want to thank everyone who has worked on bringing this event together. We have had a wonderful turnout in the past. We had more people this time, so we are actually occupying two rooms here in the Old Executive Office Building. *Sharifa Alkhateeb* of the North American Council for Muslim Women has been largely responsible for working with the White House staff in bringing us here.

As many of you may know, Sharifa was the chair of the Muslim Caucus in Beijing in 1995. *And she is also a great friend to me* and to my staff for many, many occasions when we call upon her for advice and counsel.
And I am pleased that once again she could be so helpful, both on her own behalf and on behalf of the Council in helping us out here.” https://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/EOP/Firs…

Huma connection: “Afterward, in the corridor, Sharifa greets a young friend, Huma Abedin, office manager for Hillary Rodham Clinton.” http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/07/mag…




John Nelson - jenkan04@gmail.com
Bob Gilmore
Dick Fankhauser

WP2FB Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com