William M. Finley's Posts (2815)

Sort by

State of “collapse”: Italy overwhelmed as 13,500 African migrants arrive in past two days

Italy is doomed to go the way of Germany and Sweden unless it finds a solution quickly to its sudden migrant “invasion” problem, before even more arrive:

The exodus from Libya to the Italian coast has continuing unabated with no visible action on the part of the Italian government or the European Union to halt it.

The Islamic State has  expressed its plan to “conquer Rome” as central to its mission to “defeat Christianity.” An Islamic State video also warned that “Libya could be used as a springboard for attacks” in Italy. More problematic for Italy is that Libyan president Fayez al-Sarraj has been refusing to take back his own people who are sent back.

In April, Italy faced a similar crisis of migrants flooding in, and sent 6,242 migrants back home to North African countries.

“State of ‘Collapse’: Italy Overwhelmed as 13,500 African Migrants Arrive in Past Two Days”, by Thomas D. Williams, Breitbart, June 27, 2017:

Italy’s migrant welcome centers are in a state of “collapse” as huge waves of African migrants take advantage of the temperate climate to make the crossing from Libya to the Italian peninsula.

On Tuesday, 8,500 African migrants are reaching Italian shores aboard 14 different ships, adding to the 5,000 who arrived on Monday. The massive arrivals have led local media as well as politicians to speak of an authentic immigrant “invasion” exceeding the country’s capacity of assimilation.

Officials reported on June 15 that more than 65,000 migrants had arrived since the beginning of the year, but that was prior to the latest influx. Figures for the year now stand at 73,380 migrants into Italy, or a rise of 14.42 percent over the same period in 2016, when then-record arrivals had reached 64,133.

The exodus from Libya to the Italian coast has continuing unabated with no visible action on the part of the Italian government or the European Union to halt it.”…

The head of Italy’s Northern League party, Matteo Salvini, expressed his exasperation in a tweet to his followers, noting that Tuesday’s arrival of 8,500 illegal immigrants onto Italian soil was “fucking enough.”

Read more…

Note to Washington Post: Thomas Jefferson Declared WAR on Muslim States, He Didn’t Cook Iftar Dinners For Them

29

The Washington Post isn’t just twisting history, they are turning inside out, and completely inverting reality. The idea that President Thomas Jefferson held an Iftar dinner is so absurd, so insane, it could only be advanced by dissemblers secure in the knowledge that their readers know nothing of American history. Thomas Jefferson conducted the first of two foreign wars with the Muslim countries in North Africa. He was hardly cooking Iftar dinners.

Muslim countries known as the Barbary States were a collection of North African states, many of which practiced state-supported piracy in order to exact the jizya from Atlantic powers. Morocco was an independent kingdom, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli owed a loose allegiance to the Ottoman Empire. The United States fought two separate wars with Tripoli (1801–1805) and Algiers (1815–1816), although at other times it paid the jizya to obtain the release of captives held in the Barbary States. (more here)

Most Americans are familiar with the first line of the United States Marine Corps hymn, “From the halls of Montezuma1 to the shores of Tripoli” but most likely don’t know the source of the “Tripoli” reference. The line “to the shores of Tripoli” refers to the First Barbary War, specifically the Battle of Derna, that took place in 1805.

Our earliest founders were familiar with the terrorist ways of radical Islamists. Thomas Jefferson, who was serving as the ambassador to France, and John Adams, the Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Ambassador Abdrahaman, the Dey of Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty. Peace for an Islamist means surrender to Islam.

Peace would come at a price. If America wanted “temporary peace,” a one-year guarantee, it would cost $66,000 plus a 10% commission. “Everlasting peace” was a bargain at $160,000 plus the obligatory commission. This only applied to Tripoli. Other Muslim nations would also have to be paid. The amount came to $1.3 million. But there was no assurance that the treaties would be honored. In vain, Jefferson and Adams tried to argue that America was not at war with Tripoli. In what way had the U.S provoked the Muslims, they asked? Ambassador Abdrahaman went on to explain “the finer points of Islamic jihad” to the Koranically challenged Jefferson and Adams. In a letter to John Jay, Jefferson wrote the following:

“The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”2

Abdrahaman was paraphrasing the Koran’s “rules of engagement” found in the 47 Surah: “Whenever you encounter the ones who disbelieve [during wartime], seize them by their necks until once you have subdued them, then tie them up as prisoners, either in order to release them later on, or also to ask for ransom, until war lays down her burdens.” (more here)

This is a little known, critical part of American history:

In the Mediterranean, the corsairs of the Barbary states began to prey on U.S. merchant ships, no longer protected by the Royal Navy. Ships and cargoes were captured, and U.S. seamen were ransomed or sold into slavery. Although the number of ships and seamen actually lost were few, the psychological effect on Americans was marked. Among the possible responses that the United States debated were paying the Barbary states [jizya] to spare U.S. commerce from attacks and building a small navy to protect trade.

The debate over naval policy was both economic and philosophical. Many Americans, among them Thomas Jefferson, later minister to the French court from 1785 to 1789, favored a naval response. Jefferson wrote in the fall of 1784: “We ought to begin a naval power, if we mean to carry on our commerce. Can we begin it on a more honorable occasion, or with a weaker foe?” (more here.) https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/barbary-war

The US Navy fought America’s first foreign war  ….. against the jihad in North Africa (the first and second Barbary wars).

Depredations against U.S. shipping by Barbary Coast pirates in the Mediterranean Sea spurred Congress to employ this power by passing the Naval Act of 1794 ordering the construction and manning of six frigates.[6] These ships were used to end most pirate activity off the Barbary Coast. In the 20th century American blue-water navy capability was demonstrated by the 1907–1909 world tour of the Great White Fleet.

 

Jefferson’s problems with Islam began long before he was President. Dr. Andrew Bostom illuminates:

Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, then serving as American ambassadors to France and Britain, respectively, met in 1786 in London with the Tripolitan Ambassador to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja. These future American presidents were attempting to negotiate a peace treaty which would spare the United States the ravages of jihad piracy—murder, enslavement (with ransoming for redemption), and expropriation of valuable commercial assets—emanating from the Barbary states (modern Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, known collectively in Arabic as the Maghrib). During their discussions, they questioned Ambassador Adja as to the source of the unprovoked animus directed at the nascent United States republic. Jefferson and Adams, in their subsequent report to the Continental Congress, recorded the Tripolitan Ambassador’s justification:

… that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Read the whole thing.

Fake News: Washington Post Claims Thomas Jefferson Held White House Iftar Dinner to ‘Celebrate Ramadan’

by Warner Todd Huston, Breitbart, 25 Jun 2017:

The establishment media became upset this weekend after President Donald Trump canceled the “White House Muslim Iftar Dinner tradition started by Thomas Jefferson.” But the media is wrong in every respect. Thomas Jefferson never held any Iftar dinner and only three out of 45 presidents ever hosted one, so there is no such “tradition” to cancel.

Amy B. Wang of the Washington Post led the pack with this nonsense that Thomas Jefferson held the “first Iftar dinner” with a June 24 piece entitled, “Trump just ended a long tradition of celebrating Ramadan at the White House.”
The often-used claim that Thomas Jefferson held the first Iftar dinner at the White House was trotted out by the Post’s Wang. She recounted the time when the diplomatic envoy from the Bey of Tunis, Sidi Soliman Melli Melli, visited Washington during Ramadan in 1805.
Jefferson invited the envoy to the White House for dinner at 3:30 PM—the time most Washingtonians had dinner in those days. But after he sent the invitation he was told that Melli Melli could not partake of a meal until after sunset because of Ramadan. Thomas Jefferson was faced with two choices: cancel the dinner entirely or simply have the meal later in the evening at a time when his guest could attend. As a good host and a decent person, Jefferson chose the latter.
In fact, all Jefferson did was change the time of his meal. He had no intention of honoring Islam. Jefferson simply was not honoring the religion of “the Musselmen”—as he termed Muslims at the time—when he changed the time of the meal. Also, there is no evidence that Jefferson asked Melli Melli what sort of food a “Musselman” would eat, so no special food was prepared to suit a Muslim’s religious needs. Jefferson neither inquired about religious accommodations nor was any made. All he did was move the time of the meal as a courtesy.
Further, Jefferson sent no letters containing proclamations about the meal being an Iftar dinner nor mentioning Islam, he never mentioned such honors in his private papers, and there is no record that he spoke to anyone about his intentions to honor the Muslim practice of an Iftar dinner.
To the Post’s Wang, that Jefferson had a dinner at all was somehow proof positive that he invented a “tradition” of some sort. As “proof” that it was an Iftar dinner, Wang quoted the words of liberal historian John Ragosta who gave the scintillating argument, “Yeah, it sounds to me like an Iftar dinner.”
Wang went on to insist there has been a “modern tradition” of having an Iftar dinner at the White House. But in truth, only three presidents in all of American history ever held an Iftar dinner.
Bill Clinton held the first one, a politically motivated dinner aimed at peeling Muslim voters away from the GOP, since at the time the growing Muslim-American community leaned toward becoming a Republican constituency.
George W. Bush, in a diplomatic effort, followed Clinton’s practice of holding Iftar dinners because he wanted to prove that the U.S. wasn’t looking to go to war with all of Islam in the wake of the attacks on 9/11/2001 and the subsequent implementation of the war on terror.
Naturally, Barack Obama held them because he had a personal connection to Islam through his childhood, growing up in Indonesia and raised during that time as a Muslim.
But three presidents out of 45 does not make a “tradition.”
In her ahistorical article, Wang also quotes John Quincy Adams who expressed “with an air of fascination” his dinner with the Tunisian envoy, but quotes Adams without also noting that the president thought Islam was a terrible and brutal creed.
What Adams thought about Islam is instructive. For instance, he described Islam as a religion of hate in a piece he wrote in the late 1820s:
The natural hatred of the Mussulmen towards the infidels is in just accordance with the precepts of the Koran. … The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. … In the 7th century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab … spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. … He declared undistinguishing and exterminating war as a part of his religion. … The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust, to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature.
Other prominent Americans at the time also disparaged Islam.
The father of American jurisprudence, Justice Joseph Story, throughly slammed Islam:
Mahomet aimed to establish his pretensions to divine authority, by the power of the sword and the terrors of his government; while he carefully avoided any attempts at miracles in the presence of his followers, and all pretences to foretell things to come. His acknowledging the divine mission of Moses and Christ confirms their authority as far as his influence will go while their doctrines entirely destroy all his pretensions to the like authority. … And now, where is the comparison between the supposed prophet of Mecca, and the Son of God; or with what propriety ought they to be named together? …The difference between these characters is so great, that the facts need not be further applied.
Other founders agreed. Both Ben Franklin and John Quincy’s famed father, John Adams, criticized Islam as a doctrine of war, not a religion.
It is true, of course, that the founders intended that Americans should be allowed to practice Islam if they wanted to. There was no thought to outlaw Islam. In fact, some even wrote that Muslims should be allowed to attain political office. After all, we did start the country on the ideal of religious freedom. But no founder felt that Islam was something we should emulate. None felt that Islam had ideas that could be incorporated into the American ethos. And Islam played no part at all in our founding. Those who say it did, such as Barack Obama, are bending over backwards — and illegitimately so — to try and shoehorn Islam into our founding.
After all, it should also be remembered that one of our earliest military actions was against Muslims when Jefferson fought the Barbary Pirates. But historical facts do not seem to enter into the liberal world view.
During several of his Iftar dinners, Barack Obama also regurgitated the nonsense that Islam is part of our founding and that Jefferson held the “first Iftar dinner in the White House.”
No better example of this garbling of the truth can be seen than that in the words of Barack Obama. For his 2012 Iftar dinner celebration, for instance, Obama said the following:
As I’ve noted before, Thomas Jefferson once held a sunset dinner here with an envoy from Tunisia—perhaps the first Iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago. And some of you, as you arrived tonight, may have seen our special display, courtesy of our friends at the Library of Congress—the Koran that belonged to Thomas Jefferson. And that’s a reminder, along with the generations of patriotic Muslims in America, that Islam—like so many faiths—is part of our national story.
The reference to Jefferson’s so-called Iftar dinner in the 2012 speech was at least a step closer to reality than in the past when he was less equivocal. In 2010 Obama said straight out that Jefferson’s was the first Iftar dinner:
Tonight, we are reminded that Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity. And Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been part of America. The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan—making it the first known Iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago.
But it is historical revisionism to say this. Jefferson’s dinner is neither a sure thing nor a “perhaps.” President Thomas Jefferson simply did not hold any Iftar dinner in the White House, nor did he intend to honor Islam that day. To claim that the very first president to authorize war against Muslims would have hosted a dinner to honor Islam is an absurdity of the first order.

 

Read more…

Antifa fascists now calling for MURDER of white children

38

Typical of the left, “Antifa,” ironically enough, stands for anti-fascist. But their violence and thuggery define fascism. Now we find that these brownshirts are openly calling for mass murder. Where is the SPLC to declare them a “hate group”?

Tea Party org:

An ANTIFA anti-Trump protester forgot to toss his garbage in the trash can. The garbage was a pamphlet revealing a terrifying slogan, “The evil white race must be destroyed!”

Read more…

The Daily Jot - Clang Clang Clang CNN

Daily reporting and analysis of current events from a biblical and prophetic perspective
 
S.gif
Bill Wilson
Clang Clang Clang CNN

NOTEWhen writing about God and Jesus, The Daily Jot means YHVH as God and Yeshua Ha Mashiach as Jesus--the actual original names and the true nature and character of them.
  
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
What's that noise we are hearing? It's the clanging of the CNN cymbals signaling the death of truth. Oh, we knew of it. Many of us have been saying for years that CNN is the propaganda arm of communism in America. But it's kind of like asking your kid, "Did you really do that?," knowing full well he did. The confirmation of it, however, is the emotional trigger. CNN's investigative team, now out of their jobs, lied to the American public using a single "unnamed" source that tied the insinuation of financial wrongdoing between members of President Donald Trump's team and Russia. It was not only a ruse, but a lie. A retraction made. An apology. But also a pulling back of the curtain of what's going on in the media.
 
Let me tell you how this "unnamed" source business works. Many years ago when I was reporting for a worldwide newswire service, I shared a newsroom office with the Associated Press, Reuters, Washington Post, Knight Ridder and several other media. At the end of the day, the old-timers would sit around and grouse about the right wingers in the new Reagan Administration. They would tell stories, share information. As the youngster in the room, I just listened and read what they wrote. It didn't take long for me to figure out they were using each other as "unnamed" sources. So I decided to play a trick on them. I had really good inside sources in the Reagan White House. These guys knew it.
 
So I floated a very specific possibility on a trade deal that was being negotiated. I gave the most outlandish information I could that was the opposite of what I knew was going to happen (according to my source, which was a cabinet member, it would happen the next day). These "journalists" were delighted. They could finally write something that would put the Reagan right wingers in a bad light. Next morning, the front page of the Washington Post top of the fold featured the false information I gave in an AP story and I was accurately quoted as an "unnamed source." My true story soon hit the wires and those reporters had tremendous egg on their face. They were angry with me, but I didn't much like them anyway.
 
Hence, when you see that CNN had to retract a story that lied to the public about a possible impeachable offense and subsequently see stories where a CNN producer admitted the Russian story was baseless, you are looking at the very small tip of the mainstream media iceberg. The media has become the clanging cymbal heralding misinformation and radical left-wing agendas while truth falls on the edit room floors. It's been that way for decades, but it is worse because a coup was on the horizon and the media smelled victory. Jesus said in John 3:20, " For everyone that does evil hates the light, neither comes to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed." Clang, Clang, Clang are the sounds of the networks' propaganda machine. Your discernment is the light that exposes the truth. Don't be deceived by their vain words.
Have a Blessed and Powerful Day!
Bill Wilson

PS. Please use the "Share This Email" link below to pass this on to as many people as you can!    
Read more…

The BBC Thinks Pedophilia Is Just Another “Sexual Orientation”

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is playing with fire by allowing an anonymous author to publish articles on its platform that aim to minimize the utter depravity of pedophilia. Similar to what the far left publication Salon tried to do several years back (along with The New York Times), the BBC seems to agree with this author that pedophilia isn’t necessarily a disorder to be treated with disdain, but rather a sexual orientation like homosexuality that simply requires “help.”

It wouldn’t be the first time that the BBC has entered the ring on the wrong side of the issue, having once employed a popular television personality by the name of Jimmy Savile who was reported to have sexually abused at least 500 young boys and girls, as well as engaged in necrophilia, or sex with dead bodies.

The long-haired, odd looking goofball of a man always seemed off to many who knew him, and yet the BBC apparently kept him on its payroll until his death in 2011. Others in the media, including a radio presenter from The Guardian, offered nothing but laud and praise for Savile and his “tireless” philanthropy. But many a discerning individual perceived the ruse as being a cover for Savile’s dark and dirty secret, which the BBC never spoke about or in any way condemned.

Despite his passing, Savile’s legacy apparently still lives on at the BBC, which is once again giving a platform to the sexually depraved to minimize the evil of illicit adult-child relations. Though the anonymous individual acknowledges pedophilia as wrong, the tone of his (or perhaps her) article actually paints child predators as victims rather than predators. The current societal view of pedophiles, the article maintains, is that those who are “outed” will potentially face “violence” and “physical attacks” – and that this needs to change.

The BBC thinks pedophilia is just another “sexual orientation” akin to being gay or transgender
Tuesday, June 27, 2017 by: Ethan Huff
Tags: BBC, identity, Pedophilia
150
VIEWS
Image: The BBC thinks pedophilia is just another “sexual orientation” akin to being gay or transgender

(Natural News) The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is playing with fire by allowing an anonymous author to publish articles on its platform that aim to minimize the utter depravity of pedophilia. Similar to what the far left publication Salon tried to do several years back (along with The New York Times), the BBC seems to agree with this author that pedophilia isn’t necessarily a disorder to be treated with disdain, but rather a sexual orientation like homosexuality that simply requires “help.”

It wouldn’t be the first time that the BBC has entered the ring on the wrong side of the issue, having once employed a popular television personality by the name of Jimmy Savile who was reported to have sexually abused at least 500 young boys and girls, as well as engaged in necrophilia, or sex with dead bodies.

The long-haired, odd looking goofball of a man always seemed off to many who knew him, and yet the BBC apparently kept him on its payroll until his death in 2011. Others in the media, including a radio presenter from The Guardian, offered nothing but laud and praise for Savile and his “tireless” philanthropy. But many a discerning individual perceived the ruse as being a cover for Savile’s dark and dirty secret, which the BBC never spoke about or in any way condemned.

Despite his passing, Savile’s legacy apparently still lives on at the BBC, which is once again giving a platform to the sexually depraved to minimize the evil of illicit adult-child relations. Though the anonymous individual acknowledges pedophilia as wrong, the tone of his (or perhaps her) article actually paints child predators as victims rather than predators. The current societal view of pedophiles, the article maintains, is that those who are “outed” will potentially face “violence” and “physical attacks” – and that this needs to change.

If pedophilia wasn’t condemned like it is, there would be no need to seek help

It’s important to note that the unnamed author of this article does admit that he was once a pedophile, and that by seeking help he was able to overcome it. But in condemning the general social response to pedophilia, this author actually contradicts the driving factor behind what drove him to seek help in the first place – the fact that society views pedophilia as being so aberrant to what’s normal and decent that those who practice it require removal from society.

“It should be noted that the author never hints that acting on the impulse to sexually abuse children is acceptable, and acknowledges that his ‘former orientation’ later led him to seek help, discovering that it is entirely curable,” writes Will Ricciardella for The Daily Caller. “He does not, it appears, understand his own tacit admission: that the condemnation of nefarious and evil sex acts perpetrated on children, rather than social acceptance or acknowledgement of it as a sexual orientation, was the impetus for him to seek help.”

So what the reader of this BBC article is aimed to be left with is a not-so-subtle sense of guilt over judging pedophiles too harshly when they’re really just victims of a sexual identity crisis that society doesn’t fully understand. And if only more people could see pedophilia as being just another type of gender, perhaps, then maybe it wouldn’t have the horrible stigma it currently does.

“The author’s theme that pedophilia should not be demonized in order to encourage pedophiles to seek help, precludes the more sensible and rational response that neither are mutually exclusive, and encouraging pedophiles to seek help is the corollary of its condemnation and degree of its perceived moral repugnancy,” Ricciardella adds. (For more from the author of “The BBC Thinks Pedophilia Is Just Another “Sexual Orientation” please click HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/06/bbc-thinks-pedophilia-just-another-sexual-orientation/

Read more…

Sen. Rand Paul on Obamacare: ‘We Gotta Really Repeal It’

After meeting with President Trump Tuesday afternoon, Senator Rand Paul, R-Ky., gave an interview with Fox News host Neil Cavuto in which he said that the president is open-minded about improvements to make the Senate version of the Obamacare bill more of a repeal.

“I think we had a good discussion, and I told the president I’m open to supporting it, but it has to get better and it has to be more of a repeal bill,” Paul said. “We keep too many of the regulations, we keep too many of the subsidies, and we create a new federal fund to subsidize insurance companies. So we’ve got to look at all of that and we have to ask the people who elected us on repealing Obamacare if this bill is really repeal.”

“I thought the president was very open-minded,” Paul said, “but everybody’s got to be open to making the bill more of a repeal bill and less of a big-government bill.”

Sen. Paul said that the president understands that regulations drive up prices and that the Obamacare insurance mandates are making insurance premiums unaffordable and causing the death spiral in insurance markets. Paul characterized President Trump as receptive to his suggestions on how to improve the bill, telling Cavuto “I didn’t get strong objections from him.”

“We have to get something that really works because – what I did tell him is ‘Look, I’ve been a doctor for twenty-some odd years, and I saw health care before Obamacare not working very well. I saw Obamacare come on and make it work even less well. I think there is some fundamental aspects to health care we have to try to fix and if we don’t fix them but we gain ownership of it, I think there is a big price to pay …’”

Paul, one of four GOP Senators opposing the Better Care Reconciliation Act on grounds that it does not go far enough to repeal Obamacare, told Cavuto that GOP leadership has not given conservatives feedback on their concerns.

“We haven’t had any feedback from leadership on their being open to changing any parts of the bill. In order for there to be negotiation, there has to be dialogue.”

Sen. Paul said he “formalized” their recommendations for the bill in writing this afternoon and will send them to Senate leadership and the president.

“I think this thing still could be done, but we have to keep our promise to the Republican voters as well as all voters that we were going to repeal the disaster that is Obamacare. But, in order to get rid of the high prices of Obamacare, you have to repeal the regulations. And if we tinker around the edge with one or two regulations, the prices won’t come down and guess who they’re gonna blame? The Republicans. So we gotta fix it, we gotta really repeal it.”

Creating a compromise the majority of the Senate can vote for is easier said than done. Two more Republican senators, Sens. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and Shelley Moore-Capito, R-W.Va., announced their opposition to the Senate Obamacare bill Tuesday over concerns that changes to Medicaid would cause individuals to lose health insurance coverage. The Obamacare vote has been delayed by Senate leadership.

President Trump invited Senate Republicans to an emergency meeting at the White House in an attempt to find a deal that can get 50 votes in the Senate. The difficulty is that any compromise that assuages the concerns of moderates by preserving Medicaid will alienate conservatives who want to see repeal go farther.

Senator Paul believes it’s important for conservatives not to back down.

“I think it’s important that some of us stand firm now,” Paul said. “Now is the time to change the bill and I think by my steadfastness in being for repeal, I think I can get this bill to look more like repeal before it goes through.” (For more from the author of “Sen. Rand Paul on Obamacare: ‘We Gotta Really Repeal It'” please click HERE)  joemiller.us/2017/06/sen-rand-paul-on-obamacare-we-gotta-really-repeal-it/

Read more…

Shocking Video of ‘Gay Pride’ Parade: Little Girl Watches Nearly-Nude Man Dance

There is ,a great EVIL AND IMMORALITY that has come to American! Who has done this? it is the socialist Democratic Party think about it we did not have this kind immorality until we let the socialist Democratic Party have power!

Principles for a free society 


A shocking video has surfaced showing a little girl waving a rainbow flag in front of a nearly nude male dancer during a “gay pride” celebration.

She appears to be all alone on the crowded sidewalk as she watches the man gyrate and provocatively tug at his crotch.

Shot through the crossbars of scaffolding, the video has a voyeuristic, “peeping Tom” feel, as if the guys with the camera sense the evil naughtiness of what is going on. The barrier between them and the girl underscores the fact that they prefer to anonymously mock her rather than help her.

Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj7rYRrhkGc

During the short video, 40 or so people stroll by and walk around her as if she were nothing more than an inanimate object, as if it were utterly unextraordinary – mundane – to witness the destruction of innocence in a child. The passersby barely even notice her. (Read more from “Shocking Video of ‘Gay Pride’ Parade: Little Girl Watches Nearly-Nude Man Dance” HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/06/shocking-video-gay-pride-parade-little-girl-watches-near

Read more…

Mexico Joins the Legal Battle Against Anti-Sanctuary City Law

Mexico filed an affidavit Monday in support of a lawsuit against the implementation of a Texas law to punish sanctuary cities and allow police officers to inquire about the immigration status of someone they have arrested or detained.

The Mexican government said in a statement that the law could increase racial discrimination and create an environment of persecution.

The statement said that the number of calls to the center for information and assistance for Mexicans in Texas in May and June increased 678 percent compared to the year prior. This is reflexive of the uncertainty and “anguish” that the Mexican community in Texas has felt due to the law.

Texas’ Senate Bill 4 punishes local officials that don’t comply with federal immigration detainers. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who signed the bill into law in May, said this could lead to sheriffs of sanctuary cities being “in the same jail with the criminals they are trying to protect.” (Read more from “Mexico Joins the Legal Battle Against Anti-Sanctuary City Law” HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/06/mexico-joins-legal-battle-anti-sanctuary-city-law

Read more…

Video: Muslims Takeover Anaheim Angel’s Stadium to End Ramadan

Muslims are celebrating the end of Ramadan – the month of jihad and conquest.

According to NBC Los Angeles, the walls of Angels stadium kept Muslims safer.

The annual observance, which usually takes place in the stadium’s parking lot, will instead be held inside on the grass, as a safety precaution, organizers told the Orange County Register.

So, why not a wall on the border?

MSNBC couldn’t decide whether there were 15,000 in attendance or upwards of 20,000. So they published both numbers in different places. Fake news much?

Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmz6atihrL


Future generations will ask why Americans allowed this to happen.

Anaheim: “Little Arabia” Now an Official Tourist Attraction

Read more…

“Muslim extremists” drive anti-Semitic violence in Europe

Individuals of Muslim background stand out among perpetrators of anti-Semitic violence in Western Europe, according to a new report by the University of Oslo Center for Research on Extremism. The next highest offending group was found to be left wing extremists.

This report speaks of Western Europe, but this phenomenon likely goes far beyond this area. On November 23, 1937, Saudi Arabia’s King Ibn Saud summed up the history of the Jew-hatred of “Muslim extremists” when he told British Colonel H.R.P. Dickson:

“Our hatred for the Jews dates from God’s condemnation of them for their persecution and rejection of Isa (Jesus) and their subsequent rejection of His chosen Prophet.” He continued that “for a Muslim to kill a Jew, or for him to be killed by a Jew, ensures him an immediate entry into Heaven and into the august presence of God Almighty.”

When Hitler introduced the Nuremberg Laws in 1935, he received congratulatory telegrams from throughout the Arab world.

Jihadists have historically tried to obliterate the Jewish state, preceded by muscular attempts to block its existence in the first place. A key Arab Muslim figure — the grand mufti of Jerusalem — led the Arab revolt in Palestine (Ottoman South Syria) from 1936-1939, before moving on to Berlin and allying with Hitler to murder Jews during the Holocaust. Article 15 of the Hamas Covenant of August 1988 explains the religious imperative behind the zeal to destroy Israel:

The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews’ usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.

The survey found that “antisemitism is particularly widespread among those most hostile to Israel,” and concluded “that Muslim extremists clearly lead the way followed by the political left.” The survey also “found that religion and anti-Israel sentiment combined to drive most attacks.”

“Report: Muslim Extremists Drive Anti-Semitic Violence in Europe”, by Simon Kent, Breitbart, June 27, 2017:

Individuals of Muslim background stand out among perpetrators of anti-Semitic violence in Western Europe, according to a new report by the University of Oslo Center for Research on Extremism. The next highest offending group was found to be left wing extremists.

The survey is titled Antisemitic Violence in Europe, 2005-2015, Exposure and Perpetrators in France, UK, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Russia. It looks at the rate of anti-Semitic attacks in a range of countries, finding Jews’ exposure to anti-Semitic violence appears to have been highest in France in the period surveyed, lower in Sweden and Germany, and lowest in the United Kingdom.

The survey found that “Russia clearly stands out with a very low number of incidents considering Russia’s relatively large Jewish population. Russia is also the only case in which there is little to indicate that Jews avoid displaying their identity in public.” It adds “attitude surveys do suggest that antisemitism is particularly widespread among those most hostile to Israel.”

As for who was behind the reported acts, the survey concluded that Muslim extremists clearly lead the way followed by the political left.

The survey examines the key drivers of anti-Semitic violence and found that religion and anti-Israel sentiment combined to drive most attacks. Attitude surveys corroborate this picture in so far as anti-Semitic attitudes are far more widespread among Muslims than among the general population in Western Europe. It ruled out any link between events in Europe and rising tensions in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict as causal effects. The report said:

“The number of reported attacks on Jews does not always increase when the conflict in the Middle East flares up… even though some attacks on Jews in Europe do occur in the wake of events in the Middle East, there is no direct causal link between Israeli government actions and subsequent attacks on Jews in Europe. Antisemitic attitudes and violence propensity are likely necessary conditions to trigger such attacks. In other words, events in the Middle East provide individuals in Western Europe who hold antisemitic views and are prone to violence with an occasion to attack Jew

Read more…

Iran’s Supremo: “It is imperative for all Muslims to fight against the Zionist regime”

Iran always couches its determination to destroy Israel in Islamic terms, based on the Qur’anic exhortation to “drive them out from where they drove you out” (2:191). Yet the Islamic motivation for the destruction of Israel is routinely discounted by Western analysts.

“Leader: Fighting against Israel Every Muslim’s Duty,” Tasnim News Agency, June 26, 2017:

TEHRAN (Tasnim) – Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei highlighted the plight of Palestinians, saying all Muslims are obliged to campaign against the Zionist regime of Israel “in any possible way”.

Addressing a huge gathering of people from different social strata and high-ranking officials in Tehran on Monday on the occasion of the Muslim festival of Eid al-Fitr, Ayatollah Khamenei highlighted the importance of the Palestinian issue and described plots to make it fade into oblivion as “a great danger”.

“According to the Islamic jurisprudence, in the face of domination of the enemy on the Islamic land, all Muslims are obliged to fight in any way possible, and for this reason, it is imperative for all Muslims to fight against the Zionist regime,” the Leader said.

“Palestine is the top concern for the Muslim world, but some Islamic countries are acting in a way so that the Palestinian issue would be ignored and forgotten,” the Leader said.

Ayatollah Khamenei further praised the Iranian people’s nationwide rallies on Friday, held in support of Palestinians on the occasion of the International Quds Day, as “an honorable example of Islamic unity”.

“This is what Islamic unity actually means, that is, fasting Shiites take to the streets so magnificently and express empathy and sympathy with the Palestinians, who are Sunnis,” the Leader went on to say…

Read more…

Milwaukee: Muslima contradicts Hamas-linked CAIR’s claim she was victim of “Islamophobic hate crime”

For years, Islamic advocacy groups such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) have wildly exaggerated the incidence of anti-Muslim hate crime, often misrepresenting crimes committed by Muslims themselves as anti-Muslim hate crimes, in order to portray Muslims in the U.S. as victims of widespread persecution. In reality, FBI statistics show that Jews are twice as likely to be victims of hate crimes as Muslims.

The objective is clearly to deflect counter-terror efforts, claiming that Muslims are more victimized than victimizer, and that counter-terror efforts are part of that victimization. Hamas-linked CAIR actually wants and needs hate crimes against Muslims, because they’re the currency they use to buy power and influence in our victimhood-oriented society, and to deflect attention away from jihad terror and onto Muslims as putative victims. Hamas-linked CAIR, designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates, and other Muslims have on many occasions not hesitated to stoop even to fabricating “hate crimes,” including attacks on mosques. The larger strategy is to paint a picture of Muslims as being harassed and persecuted in the U.S., and deserving of law enforcement protection, not law enforcement scrutiny. If that strategy succeeds, the jihad will be able to advance unopposed and unimpeded, with no one daring to say a negative word about the poor victims. Until, that is, it is far, far too late.

In this case, however, even the victim herself is denying the “Islamophobic hate crime” narrative.

“Police Report Contradicts ‘Hate Crime’ Narrative In Milwaukee Attack On Muslim Woman,” by Chuck Ross, Daily Caller, June 26, 2017 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

A Muslim woman who was attacked by a stranger in Milwaukee in April told police that she did not believe that she was targeted because of her religion, a statement which is at odds with how her story was portrayed in the media by local and national Muslim civil rights groups.

“In this attack of the Muslim woman, we know of no evidence that would indicate that this attack was anything but a hate crime,” Munjed Ahmad, a lawyer for the woman and board member of American Muslims for Palestine, claimed at a press conference held on April 14, four days after the 58-year-old woman was assaulted while walking home from prayer services at the Islamic Society of Milwaukee.

But police incident reports, obtained by TheDC through an open records request, paint a different picture.

The documents show that in the days after her April 10 attack, the woman told detectives that she “disagreed” with media reports claiming that she was the victim of a hate crime attack.

The woman, whose name is redacted in police reports, told investigators that she did not believe she was attacked because she is Muslim. Instead, she suspected that the assault had something to do with her estranged daughter, who had just divorced her husband and entered a relationship with another woman.

Despite those statements to police, Ahmad and groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Milwaukee Muslim Women’s Coalition and the left-wing Jewish Voice for Peace, all called the incident a hate crime. Milwaukee government officials echoed the claim.

“I call for this to be investigated and prosecuted as a hate crime,” Milwaukee county supervisor Jason Haas said at the April 14 press conference organized by Ahmad, who is also a board member of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee.

“It concerns us tremendously because what we’re seeing again is specifically attacks and hate targeting Muslim women,” Janan Najeeb, the president of the Milwaukee Muslim Women’s Coalition, said at the event….

“[Redacted] stated she does not feel she was attacked because she is Muslim. It should be noted that contrary to what was reported on the news, according to [redacted], the man who attacked her did not try to take her hijab,” the incident report reads.

The woman’s comments to police about her hijab do appear to conflict with statements she made in TV interviews on April 11 and April 12. In one, the woman suggested that her attacker did go for her hijab.

“I tried to fight him. Do not take my hijab, you know,” she told Milwaukee’s Fox6Now in an April 11 interview.

The attacker did not leave with the hijab, which ended up covered in blood from the assault.

In her April 13 police interview, the woman again said that she believed the assault was linked to her daughter.

“She stated she doesn’t approve of her daughter’s lifestyle and she is appalled by the fact that her daughter recently left her husband and she is now in a lesbian relationship with another woman,” the report reads.

“She feels that is why she was targeted.”

Read more…

Tennessee Issues Hilarious Response to California Travel Ban

The Tennessee Senate fired back at the California state government in a biting joint resolution issued in response to California’s travel ban.

The resolution encouraged the governor of Tennessee and the Speakers of the Tennessee House of Representatives and Senate to enact a similar travel ban against California, and urged the other 48 states of the Union to not follow California’s example.

California’s attorney general recently added four states to a list of states deemed to have laws discriminating against LGBT people. California has banned state-funded travel to these states as a show of opposition to those laws, all of which were passed to better protect religious liberties. Tennessee, which is included on that list, pointed out the folly of such a travel ban in the bulk of a joint resolution.

(Read more from “Tennessee Issues Hilarious Response to California Travel Ban” HEREhttp://joemiller.us/2017/06/tennessee-issues-hilarious-response-california-travel-ban/ ;

Read more…

The Daily Jot - The tide tur

Daily reporting and analysis of current events from a biblical and prophetic perspective
 
S.gif
Bill Wilson
The tide turns

NOTEWhen writing about God and Jesus, The Daily Jot means YHVH as God and Yeshua Ha Mashiach as Jesus--the actual original names and the true nature and character of them.
  
Tuesday, June 27, 2017
Remember the vitriol over President Donald Trump "banning" Muslims from entry into the US? The Supreme Court has ruled that the President is well within the law to scrutinize and ban entry of persons with no legitimate connection (by family, academic, or job related) because "the balance tips in favor of the Government's compelling need to provide for the Nation's security. The Court appeared to be street smart as well spelling out that "a nonprofit group devoted to immigration issues may not contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from the exclusion." The Court will reconsider the ban in October.
 
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for the unanimous decision. He said, " Today's compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding-on peril of contempt- whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country...The compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a "bona fide relationship," who precisely has a "credible claim" to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed "simply to avoid §2(c)" of Executive Order No. 13780, ante, at 11, 12."
 
Thomas also cautioned that the lawsuits emanating from the SCOTUS decision will go back to the courts whose decisions were overturned, "And litigation of the factual and legal issues that are likely to arise will presumably be directed to the two District Courts whose initial orders in these cases this Court has now- unanimously-found sufficiently questionable to be stayed as to the vast majority of the people potentially affected." In other words, the leftists judges on the Fourth and Ninth Circuit Courts will further muddy the legal waters by entertaining the litigation that attempts to define a "bona fide relationship" that would allow entry to the country from Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Syria, and Yemen.
 
The rising tide of immigration and refugees coming from terrorist sponsoring nations has been cut in half since President Trump took office. The interest of national security overrides the lunacy of the left whose insistence that people who are not citizens of the US have the right to come here even if they threaten our personal safety, and the reasonable vetting of immigrants and refugees is a violation of their rights. As the Lord said in Leviticus 24:22, "You shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country." If the stranger comes illegally or intends to not abide by our laws, that stranger should not be allowed to come to or remain in our nation. The 
Supreme Court has for a brief time turned the tide from those who wish to overthrow the US using violence and crisis.
Have a Blessed and Powerful Day!
Bill Wilson

PS. Please use the "Share This Email" link below to pass this on to as many people as you can!    
Read more…

With Senators Like These, Obamacare Repeal Was Always a Tease

This week will be marked by raging debate over the Better Care Reconciliation Act, the Senate’s version of Obamacare-lite that is drawing a swarm of criticism from conservatives for failing to repeal Obamacare and from moderate and liberal Republicans for going too far toward repealing Obamacare. Over the weekend, several U.S. senators clarified their position on the bill – casting doubts on the feasibility of its passage in its current form.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., elaborated on his opposition to the current version of the BCRA in an op-ed published at the New York times, explaining that “it relies too heavily on government spending, and ignores the role that the private sector can and should play.”

“Once again, a simple solution is obvious,” Johnson writes. “Loosen up regulations and mandates, so that Americans can choose to purchase insurance that suits their needs and that they can afford.”

“Like many other senators, I had hoped that this was where things were headed during the last several weeks as the Republican bill was discussed. We’re disappointed that the discussion draft turns its back on this simple solution, and goes with something far too familiar: throwing money at the problem.”

Johnson was joined in his opposition to the bill last week by Senators Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Rand Paul, R-Ky. All have said they are open to voting for the BCRA if certain improvements are made. In an interview with ABC’s “This Week,” Sen. Paul said that he would “consider partial repeal” if the Senate were to reach an “impasse.” Senator Cruz has offered an amendment to permit insurers to sell plans that are not compliant with Obamacare regulations, in an effort to allow insurance companies to give greater choice to consumers and drive down prices.

Senator Lee has made his vote conditional on an “opt-out provision,” acknowledging that other attempts at compromise from his position of full repeal have failed to move the liberal Republicans in the Senate.

“Conservatives have compromised on not repealing, on spending levels, tax credits, subsidies, corporate bailouts, Medicaid, and the Obamacare regulations. That is, on every substantive question in the bill,” Lee wrote Friday. “Having conceded to my moderate colleagues on all of the above, I now ask only that the bill be amended to include an opt-out provision, for states or even just for individuals.”

The liberal Republicans are wavering on the bill for vastly different reasons. Senator Dean Heller, R-Nev., declared his opposition to the bill during a press conference Friday, saying, “This bill would mean a loss of coverage for millions of Americans, and many Nevadans.” The contentious issue for these Republicans are worries that rolling back Medicaid expansion will cause some Americans to lose their insurance coverage as an entitlement is taken away. Senators Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Bill Cassidy, R-La., are among the moderates expressing concerns.

Senator Susan Collins, R-Maine, is waiting for the Congressional Budget Office score of the bill before making a final decision. ‘‘I have very serious concerns about the bill,’’ she said on ABC’s ‘‘This Week,’’ acknowledging that the CBO score ‘‘will be so important.’’ The CBO is expected to release its score of the Senate bill later today.

In the same interview, Sen. Collins objected to defunding Planned Parenthood in the BCRA, saying, “It makes absolutely no sense to eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood.” The bill would block Medicaid reimbursements to Planned Parenthood for one year. Eliminating that provision would further alienate conservative senators who have made defunding Planned Parenthood a condition of their support. Taking the provision out will alienate Sen. Collins and other liberals.

As these battles play out, other senators remain undecided or silent. Still others don’t know what to think. Senator Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, is polling her constituents for their thoughts before taking an official position.

The bottom line is that intense negotiations on this bill will dominate the work of the U.S. Senate this week. The CBO score will complicate the matter. In all likelihood, the CBO will project that millions of Americans will lose their current health insurance coverage, just as it predicted (somewhat inaccurately) would happen in the House American Health Care Act. (For more from the author of “With Senators Like These, Obamacare Repeal Was Always a Tease” please click HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/06/with-senators-like-these-obamacare-repeal-was-always

Read more…

American Propaganda in Overdrive: CNN Producer Admits Russia Narrative “Bullsh*T”, 3 Employees Quit Over Fake News

CNN Producer John Bonifield who was caught on hidden-camera admitting that there is no proof to CNN’s Russia narrative. He confirms that the driving factor at CNN is ratings:

Three Employees Resign From CNN Amid Very Fake News Scandal

By Matthew Boyle. Three CNN employees have resigned amid the network’s very fake news scandal in which it was forced to retract a hit piece on President Donald Trump and his associates.

“CNN said Monday that three journalists, including the executive editor in charge of a new investigative unit, have resigned after the publication of a Russia-related article that was retracted,” CNN’s Brian Stelter reported late Monday. “Thomas Frank, who wrote the story in question; Eric Lichtblau, an editor in the unit; and Lex Haris, who oversaw the unit, have all left CNN.”

Stelter quoted an anonymous CNN spokesperson—the network refused to comment to him on Sunday night over the scandal—as saying the network accepted their resignations. As Stelter acknowledged — not in this piece, but in his Sunday evening “Reliable Sources” newsletter — it was a Breitbart News investigation that forced CNN’s retraction and now the resignations of three top network officials. (Read more from “Three Employees Resign From CNN Amid Very Fake News Scandal” HERE)http://joemiller.us/2017/06/american-propaganda-in-overdrive-cnn-producer-admit

______________________________________

CNN Is Imposing Strict New Rules on Its Russia Coverage

By Jon Passantino. CNN is imposing strict new publishing restrictions for online articles involving Russia after the network deleted a story and then issued a retraction late Friday, according to an internal email obtained by BuzzFeed News.

The email went out at 11:21 a.m. on Saturday from Rich Barbieri, the CNNMoney executive editor, saying “No one should publish any content involving Russia without coming to me and Jason [Farkas],” a CNN vice president . . .

The new restrictions also apply to other areas of the network — not just CNNMoney, which wasn’t involved with the article that was deleted and retracted. (Read more from “CNN Is Imposing Strict New Rules on Its Russia Coverage” HEREhttp://joemiller.us/2017/06/american-propaganda-in-overdrive-cnn-producer-admit

Read more…

Democrats Need Only These 3 Things to Control the House in 2018

As we continue to wait for the Democrats actually to win something, it would be wise of Republicans not to get too cocky in response to the Left’s laughable “moral victories.” There absolutely is a path to the Democrats taking control of the House of Representatives in the 2018 midterms. It’s just a matter of whether they’re capable of implementing it. They may be, or they may not.

In fact, a Democrat House in 2018 is only these three easy steps away:

1. Dump Nancy Pelosi.

She’s unlikable, a career politician, scatter-brained, and from uber-left San Francisco. Other than that, she’s the perfect face for the Democratic Party — if you’re a GOP consultant. Seriously, if you’re a wary Republican in the uncertain age of Trump looking to concoct the perfect foil, the only thing Pelosi is missing is being a white male. But as the song goes that Trump likes to play at his rallies, you can’t always get what you want. However, if you try sometimes, you just might find you get what you need. And Republicans need Pelosi as a bogeyman to offset Trump’s scare value for Democrats, in what will be a turn-out-the-base election. As long as Pelosi is there to be the Republicans’ piñata, Paul Ryan will continue to be speaker of the House.

2. Stop talking/pursuing impeachment.

While dumping Pelosi is a necessary start, it doesn’t close the sale for Democrats. Sometimes in sports, a road environment is so raucous that it fires up the road team every bit as much as the home squad, thus creating a boomerang effect. This is what the issue of impeachment is for the Democrats.

Sure, it ignites the 15 percent of counties that voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. But it also ignites the 85 percent of counties across the country that didn’t, too. So it’s a net loss for Democrats — a big one, especially since these are district and not statewide elections.

It’s no secret that Republicans are much better at campaigning on their platform than actually governing on it, which is why they’re always at war with their own base. However, the impeachment issue is so flammable that it will cause the GOP’s base problem to all but disappear. Democrats would be much wiser to let independent counsel Robert Mueller do his work, then sit back and see how the GOP navigates the choppy seas of what its corporatist donors want vs. the reforms its base desires.

3. The GOP passes a health care bill that doesn’t substantively cut the rising costs of premiums, but does cut Medicaid.

This would be like Republican leadership actually writing Democrats’ 2018 campaign commercials next year for them, and it appears as if the Republicans are hell-bent (literally) on doing exactly that. Attaching your brand to legislation that doesn’t immediately relieve consumers suffering under Obamacare, but then promises future cuts to a program originally established for poor folks, literally fulfills every Democrat talking point ever. That’s not even political malfeasance, but more like a political Jonestown for Republicans.

How likely is it that Democrats will wake up and carry out these first two easy steps? Until Democrats first confront the fact that they’re so far left they’re scaring the (literal) hell out of much of America, Republicans will escape many of the consequences of their own betrayals. (For more from the author of “Democrats Need Only These 3 Things to Control the House in 2018” please click HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/06/democrats-need-3-things-control-house-2018/

Read more…

Guess who went golfing instead of holding a traditional Islamic “Iftar” dinner at the White House to mark the end of Ramadan?

For the first time in nearly two decades, Ramadan has come and gone without the White House recognizing it with an Iftar or Eid celebration, as had taken place each year beginning with Clinton, and continued by the Bush and Obama administrations.

%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/golfdigest_donald-trump-golf-should-be-aspirational.jpg?resize=800%2C450" alt="" width="590" height="332" />

Washington Post  (h/t Emma) In recent weeks, several former White House staff members told The Post they would usually begin planning an iftar “months in advance” and didn’t anticipate the Trump White House could pull something off before the end of Ramadan.

White House officials did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Late Saturday afternoon, the White House released a short statement from President Trump and the first lady recognizing the holiday.

%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/scr.png?resize=800%2C600" alt="" width="590" height="443" />

In late May, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson reportedly said the State Department would break with recent tradition and not host a Ramadan reception, as it had done nearly annually for two decades. On Saturday morning, Tillerson also released a brief statement sending “best wishes to all Muslims celebrating Eid al-Fitr.”

Tillerson’s and Trump’s brief remarks were in stark contrast to Obama, who released a lengthy statement for the holiday last year, as well as to ceremonies hosted at the White House for the last 20 years.

%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/1060x600-eaf801fed46e149375ce9d4f2b6ce2cf-1.jpg?resize=800%2C453" alt="" width="590" height="334" />

It wasn’t until 1996 that the modern-day White House tradition of celebrating Ramadan with a reception or meal started. That February, first lady Hillary Clinton hosted about 150 people for a reception for Eid al-Fitr, which marks the end of the holy month.

%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/328ae70f95cefc2f98d33a1c2b66f640.jpg.gif?resize=607%2C777" alt="" width="590" height="755" />

The person Clinton credited for teaching her about Islam? Teenage daughter Chelsea, who had the year before studied Islamic history in school, according to reports that year cited by Muslim Voices. Clinton described the reception as a “historic and overdue occasion,” a precedent for Muslim religious celebrations at the White House, the Associated Press reported then.

The tradition continued under President George W. Bush, who hosted an iftar dinner every year of his two terms in office — including shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, when anger toward Muslim Americans was spiking. At the 2001 dinner, in mid-November, Bush emphasized that America was fighting against terrorism, not Islam, according to The Washington Post’s coverage.

%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/obama-iftar.jpg?resize=800%2C570" alt="" width="590" height="420" />

%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/iftar_dinner.jpg?resize=800%2C533" alt="" width="590" height="393" />

But it was under President Barack Obama that the annual White House iftar dinner began to cause a bigger stir. “Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been a part of America,” Obama said in his remarks at the 2010 White House iftar.  “The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan — making it the first known iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago.”

%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/705328_AP_070830023423.jpg?resize=800%2C613" alt="" width="590" height="452" />

“And that’s a reminder, along with the generations of patriotic Muslims in America, that Islam — like so many faiths — is part of our national story,” Obama said. But bloggers seized upon Obama’s comments, insisting that Jefferson had not hosted an iftar, but rather had simply moved the time back as a courtesy. “He didn’t change the menu, he didn’t change anything else,” one blog declared, before calling Obama “disgusting” and accusing him of rewriting history to cast Islam in a favorable light.

%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/85930727.jpg?resize=800%2C534" alt="" width="590" height="394" />

 

Read more…

WAPO Pushes Fake News That Thomas Jefferson Held WH Iftar Dinner to ‘Celebrate Ramadan’

Source: Fake News: Washington Post Claims Thomas Jefferson Held White House Iftar Dinner to ‘Celebrate Ramadan’

by Warner Todd Huston

The establishment media became upset this weekend after President Donald Trump canceled the “White House Muslim Iftar Dinner tradition started by Thomas Jefferson.” But the media is wrong in every respect. Thomas Jefferson never held any Iftar dinner and only three out of 45 presidents ever hosted one, so there is no such “tradition” to cancel.

Amy B. Wang of the Washington Post led the pack with this nonsense that Thomas Jefferson held the “first Iftar dinner” with a June 24 piece entitled, “Trump just ended a long tradition of celebrating Ramadan at the White House.”

The often-used claim that Thomas Jefferson held the first Iftar dinner at the White House was trotted out by the Post’s Wang. She recounted the time when the diplomatic envoy from the Bey of Tunis, Sidi Soliman Melli Melli, visited Washington during Ramadan in 1805.

Jefferson invited the envoy to the White House for dinner at 3:30 PM—the time most Washingtonians had dinner in those days. But after he sent the invitation he was told that Melli Melli could not partake of a meal until after sunset because of Ramadan. Thomas Jefferson was faced with two choices: cancel the dinner entirely or simply have the meal later in the evening at a time when his guest could attend. As a good host and a decent person, Jefferson chose the latter.

In fact, all Jefferson did was change the time of his meal. He had no intention of honoring Islam. Jefferson simply was not honoring the religion of “the Musselmen”—as he termed Muslims at the time—when he changed the time of the meal. Also, there is no evidence that Jefferson asked Melli Melli what sort of food a “Musselman” would eat, so no special food was prepared to suit a Muslim’s religious needs. Jefferson neither inquired about religious accommodations nor was any made. All he did was move the time of the meal as a courtesy.

Further, Jefferson sent no letters containing proclamations about the meal being an Iftar dinner nor mentioning Islam, he never mentioned such honors in his private papers, and there is no record that he spoke to anyone about his intentions to honor the Muslim practice of an Iftar dinner.

To the Post’s Wang, that Jefferson had a dinner at all was somehow proof positive that he invented a “tradition” of some sort. As “proof” that it was an Iftar dinner, Wang quoted the words of liberal historian John Ragosta who gave the scintillating argument, “Yeah, it sounds to me like an Iftar dinner.”

Wang went on to insist there has been a “modern tradition” of having an Iftar dinner at the White House. But in truth, only three presidents in all of American history ever held an Iftar dinner.

Bill Clinton held the first one, a politically motivated dinner aimed at peeling Muslim voters away from the GOP, since at the time the growing Muslim-American community leaned toward becoming a Republican constituency.

George W. Bush, in a diplomatic effort, followed Clinton’s practice of holding Iftar dinners because he wanted to prove that the U.S. wasn’t looking to go to war with all of Islam in the wake of the attacks on 9/11/2001 and the subsequent implementation of the war on terror.

Naturally, Barack Obama held them because he had a personal connection to Islam through his childhood, growing up in Indonesia and raised during that time as a Muslim.

But three presidents out of 45 does not make a “tradition.”

In her ahistorical article, Wang also quotes John Quincy Adams who expressed “with an air of fascination” his dinner with the Tunisian envoy, but quotes Adams without also noting that the president thought Islam was a terrible and brutal creed.

What Adams thought about Islam is instructive. For instance, he described Islam as a religion of hate in a piece he wrote in the late 1820s:

The natural hatred of the Mussulmen towards the infidels is in just accordance with the precepts of the Koran. … The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. … In the 7th century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab … spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. … He declared undistinguishing and exterminating war as a part of his religion. … The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust, to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature.

Other prominent Americans at the time also disparaged Islam.

The father of American jurisprudence, Justice Joseph Story, throughly slammed Islam:

Mahomet aimed to establish his pretensions to divine authority, by the power of the sword and the terrors of his government; while he carefully avoided any attempts at miracles in the presence of his followers, and all pretences to foretell things to come. His acknowledging the divine mission of Moses and Christ confirms their authority as far as his influence will go while their doctrines entirely destroy all his pretensions to the like authority. … And now, where is the comparison between the supposed prophet of Mecca, and the Son of God; or with what propriety ought they to be named together? …The difference between these characters is so great, that the facts need not be further applied.

Other founders agreed. Both Ben Franklin and John Quincy’s famed father, John Adams, criticized Islam as a doctrine of war, not a religion.

Jefferson’s dinner is neither a sure thing nor a “perhaps.” President Thomas Jefferson simply did not hold any Iftar dinner in the White House, nor did he intend to honor Islam that day. To claim that the very first president to authorize war against Muslims would have hosted a dinner to honor Islam is an absurdity of the first order.

Read more…