Monday, July 25, 2022

Does Support for Israel Clash with America First?


The Republican Party has become the de facto pro-Israel political party. Should it be that way? Does Israel help American now? If so, how? Does that mean we cannot criticize the country or its government? Should the United States help pay for Israel’s defense? Are critics on the Right … right to be hostile to Israel? Last of all, does it compromise “America First” to support Israel?  Freedom of speech is a godsend, one that forces us to contend and discuss even the most elementary or transparent of issues. Anti-Israel and anti-Semitism sentiment is on the rise (especially among some on the populist Right), and their outrage compels us to revisit American-Israeli relations. Are we too tied up with other countries? Are we violating George Washington’s warning in his Farewell Address to avoid foreign entanglements when we support other countries, including Israel?

Let’s start with the charge “You can’t criticize Israel. You will pay a (political) price if you do!” Much of the corporate media is decidedly pro-Palestinian. The hateful Squad in Congress (including incestuous Ilhan Omar and Rashida Talib) routinely criticize Israel and hobnob with terrorists, and nothing happens to them. I submit that yes, you can (and should) criticize Israel, as we should be free to criticize any country. I vigorously denounced the country’s onerous COVID-19 policies, and I do not celebrate their having the second largest PRIDE festival in Tel Aviv. Even Israelis themselves criticize their country! It’s not anti-Semitism to criticize Israel.

How has Israel helped us? They keep Iran in check, for starters. They bombed ISIS in the Sinai Peninsula, when most news outlets ignored them. They have helped other allied countries develop their military prowess, too (Singapore, for example) or provide intelligence against international terrorism (Australia).

But what about ongoing foreign aid to Israel? I stand for the most part with US Congressman Thomas Massie, the only Republican to vote against the $90 million funding for Israel’s Iron Dome. Drug cartels and human-trafficking dominate our Southern border, and our political class is paying for the defense of other countries? My problem isn’t with Israel per se, but with our representatives focusing on every other country but our own. Rep. Massie’s stance is not anti-Israel or anti-Semitic, but pro-America. We should expect the same from all our representatives.

I do disagree with Massie’s statement that AIPAC (America Israel Public Affairs Committee) is foreign influence. Americans have the right to lobby their government to spend money for other countries, even though I disagree with them. Unlike Massie, I would have voted to condemn the BDS movement due to its multiple ties to terrorist organizations. It’s one thing to say a country should not exist, but it’s another to work with international terrorist groups who won’t stop with Israel. They want to erase America, too.

But what about some of the professional pundits on the right, and their criticism of Israel? Should we agree with them?

Ann Coulter raged against the 2016 Republican presidential nominees because of their focus on Israel, while ignoring our country’s immigration problems. She doesn’t have a problem with Israel per se, either. In fact, Coulter likes Israel’s border security and wants us to imitate it (so do I). I say we give Israel $3 billion a year to build our wall.


Robert Novak was convinced that Israel deliberately attacked the U.S.S. Liberty during the Six Day War. On June 6th, 1967 Israeli warplanes fired on an American ship in the Mediterranean Sea during the fractious Six Day War. Israel had warned every other nation to clear out of the Mediterranean, but the Liberty did not get the message in time.

Did Israel attack the ship on purpose to deceive the United States into the conflict via a false flag operation? Some of the surviving veterans say yes, but they also admit that they can’t prove it. After more than U.S. ten commissions on the incident (including a conference as recent as 2004), there is nothing to substantiate the charge. Besides, Israel did not have to seduce the United States into war, since they were already winning on their own. The United States and Israel did endure a twenty-year period of statis over the incident notwithstanding, and Israel paid a large indemnity. For the record, Israeli and Jewish scholars in Israel have not tried to hide discussion on this issue. Robert Novak was entitled to his opinion, but he was wrong.


Then there’s Pat Buchanan. I will never forget his statement on The McLaughlin Group: “If you want to know ethnicity and power in the United States Senate, 13 members of the Senate are Jewish folks who are from 2 percent of the population. That is where real power is at….” My initial reaction was, Wow, Pat – anti-Semitic much? Today, you hardly hear Buchanan talk about Israel. What happened? President Trump maintained a solid relationship with the country and kept the United States out of foreign wars. Yes, Pat, it can be done: you can be America First and still support Israel.

But is there really a conflict with America First if you support other countries? I supported Brexit, but I don’t think Britain’s interests are more important than America’s. I applaud Marine Le Pen’s populist efforts to break France out of the chokehold of abject secular globalism, but it's not America’s job to help make that happen. Singapore’s pro-family policies should be replicated around the world, but I vigorously oppose the country’s harsh limitations on freedom of speech.

Israel is not a perfect country, but she is special because like the United States, she was forged by people fleeing persecution to establish freedom of security of themselves and their posterity. Yes, you can criticize Israel. No, we shouldn’t have to pay for their defense (we can’t even pay our own bills!). Israel is a force for good, including for the United States. Ultimately, however, our real focus should not be denigrating any one country, anyway, but rather focusing on domestic American interests.

No Such Thing as Christian Anti-Semitism


Dr. Michael Brown is a good friend of mine. He has been a long-time supporter of MassResistance, the pro-family organization I worked for for a number of a years. I have enjoyed joining his radio program from time-to-time as well. I really appreciate his outreach to Christians on all matters political, and I respect his support for the state of Israel as well as his Christian missionary outreach to Jews in the United States and around the world.



I must take exception, however, to the title of his latest article, in which he denounces “Christian Anti-Semitism.” With all due respect, there is no such thing. That’s like talking about Satanists for Christ, or Jews for Hitler. It makes no sense. There is religious anti-Semitism, certainly, but there is nothing Christian about Christians hating Jews or (justifiably) hating Israel. To his credit, Dr. Brown in his article was clearly denouncing the so-called “progressive” Christians of the so-called Uniting Presbyterian Church in Southern Africa. Still, the joining of “Christian” and “Anti-Semitism” is wrong.

This discussion is timely, for sure. Anti-Semitism is a catch-all smear used all too often against conservatives, when the Democratic Party has a long history of anti-Semitism (one that has barely abated, I might add). Furthermore, even some so-called nationalists and populists are embracing a total hatred of Israel and of Jews, as though support for Israel is anti-America First. It’s about time that we confronted this matter.

Again, I take exception with the title and the notion “Christian Anti-Semitism,” not with Brown’s criticism of the regressive church in South Africa that he was calling out. I must add that an estimable missionary movement, One For Israel Ministries, also talks about Christian Anti-Semitism, and I think that their use of that moniker is wrong, too.



For starters, what does the Bible say about Christians and their calling in relationship to the Jews? Paul the Apostle writes to the Romans: “For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.” (Romans 9:3) He then writes: “Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.” (Romans 10:1)

Wanting Jewish people to be saved does not quite square with “The Jews should get the hell out of Palestine” or “Jews are going to hell, and I don’t care” or “Jews control everything, and we must stop them.” You cannot be a Christian and hate Jews. It makes no sense, just as someone who lives under the grace of God would have no compunction to go out and live in sin (cf. Romans 6:11-14).

Of course, the common retort from some critics is “The Jews killed Christ.”

Was it just “the Jews”? True, the Israelite religious leaders during Jesus’ earthly ministry plotted to destroy Him, and they corrupted the legal process to rush through an immediate execution of our Lord and Savior. There are numerous passages testifying to this throughout the Gospels. But let’s not forget that it was Roman leaders and soldiers along with a crowd of Jews and Gentiles which rejected Jesus before He was crucified. At this point, it’s necessary for us to embrace a humbling spiritual truth. If everyone of us had been in that crowd that day, standing before Pilate and the beaten, bleeding Christ, we all would have shouted “Away with this man! Crucify Him!” And why? Isaiah declares it so: “He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.” (Isaiah 53:3)

Biblical Hebrew uses a number of words for “man”: adam, ish, enosh, gibbor, etc. In the Messianic verse above, “ish” is used in the passage “rejected of men.” There is no difference there among the different groups of men in the world. The verse does not discriminate between Jew and Gentile. Abandon this notion “Well, if I had been there, I would have called for His release!” No, you would not.

Furthermore, there were many Jews who believed on Jesus, before, during, and after His Crucifixtion! (John 11:45, John 12:11; Acts 17:12, 21:20). No, it was not “The Jews” who killed Christ.

Some scholars distort Scriptures show that we should fear and oppose Jews. Here’s one example: “Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.” (John 20:19).

When you read the Bible, don’t discard your reason. The disciples in the upper room were Jews themselves! Were they afraid of themselves, too? The context alone bears out that the disciples were afraid of the Jewish leaders, since they were the ones trying to suppress the Gospel.

Even in the Catholic Church, if one follows the old-school Latin rite of the traditional Good Friday liturgy, there is a recitation in which the congregants pray for the conversion of the Jews: “Oremus et pro perfidies Judaeis,” i.e. “Let us pray for the unbelieving Jews.” That is not anti-Semitism. Why would anyone pray for anyone else to believe if they have a hatred towards them?!

Consider once again that prayer in the traditional Latin Mass: “Let us pray for the Jews who don’t believe,” which implies that there are Jews who DO believe! Of course there were, and there are (Michael Brown, among hundreds of thousands, if not millions around the world)!  Christianity would not exist but for those believing Jews, starting with the apostles and their adherents, who spread the Good News.

The Bible does not support anti-Semitism. True Christian faith is incommensurate with anti-Semitism, as well. Christian faith, revelation of God’s Word, Christ and Him Crucified does not teach let alone justify anti-Semitism. In fact, it outright rejects it (cf. Romans 11:18-21). Religious anti-Semitism, yes, but let’s stop calling it “Christian Anti-Semitism.”



Sunday, July 24, 2022

Gays Against Groomers: Too Little, Too Late, Not Good Enough

The homosexual and transvestite lobby has been pushing lies upon lies on the general public for decades:

1. "We were born this way."

2. "We are just consenting adults who want to love one another."

3. "What we want is just to be respected and left alone."

4. "We promise that we won't go after your freedom of speech or religion."

5. "There is nothing wrong with homosexuality or transgenderism."

6. "Yes, people can change their sex."

All of these promises and statements have turned out to be big fat lies. They were lies in the beginning, and yet for the last thirty years, the public has been jammed and programmed to believe the lies.

But now there is a new group out there, a bunch of homosexuals, who are dedicated to stopping the grooming of children at all costs ... supposedly.

The group is called "Gays Against Groomers", and they are supposedly taking on the LGBT activists around the world that are targeting children with homosexuality and transgenderism:

The admission from one lesbian activist is somewhat telling:

This lesbian shares the following admission (of sorts):

"So here it is, the most unpopular opinion I will ever do. If I would have understood  when I was younger that fighting for my rights as a lesbian would mean allowing children to drag shows, attaching child molesters to our community, and allowing children to change their sex ebfore they know what their favorite color, I would have never done it."

My first response? Too little remorse, too late.

The LGBT movement at its core was interested in normalizing indoctrination, grooming, and pedophilia. Don't believe me? Check out this quick crash course in Queer Theory history:

What's more, a liberal author/reporter/propagandist acknowledged in his latest book detailing the rise of the Right in 1970s America that the advancement of "gay rights" went hand-in-hand with repealing age of consent laws:

In 1972, the Democrats' gay caucus won the right to hold a convention floor vote on a gay rights plank in the party platform. (The plank failed in part because at an earlier meeting the caucus had voted 32-24 in to endorse abolition of "all laws governing the age of sexual consent.") (Reaganland, pg 84, 2020)

Pastor Scott Lively has also written extensively about how the push to normalize homosexuality went hand-in-hand with the drive to normalize sexual predation and exploitation of children.

I must also remind everyone of the fantastic undercover work that Ryan Sorba did for Project Veritas, exposing the truth beliefs of homosexuals, including a large cohort at a San Diego gay bar:

Born Gay Hoax from highblur on Vimeo.

Child abuse has been central to the entrenchment and proliferation of homosexuality and transgenderism. It originates from abuse, and tto normalize these terrible behaviors is to normalize sexual abuse.

Out lesbians and active homosexuals who spent so much of their time normalizing their destructive lifestyles and pushing for acceptance now should have realized that they needed to deal with the earlier trauma in their lives which caused their unhealthy desires and distorted self-perception.

Because the body politick and the collective culture refused to take a stand for truth and against the normalization of these destructive behaviors, it is inevitable that the people suffering from these painful traumas, who in turn sought solace and acceptance in demanding government support and subsidy, would in turn unleash onto the world terrible targeting of our nation's younger generations.

In many ways, I have no sympathy with the above woman's coming to her senses. A lot of homosexuals are trying to maintain the imposed, inauthentic normalcy of their conduct, and at the same time they are trying to prop up the lie that they were "born that way." But at the same time, they want to back away from their extreme activism of the 1990s and 2000s, hoping that they can restore their standing in the general public by "proving" that they do not want children to be harmed.

They need to come to grips with the fact that they were harmed themselves. If they really want to go after the groomers, they need to start confronting the groomers who groomed them to become homosexual and transgender.

They need to confront a much deeper, more painful reality: that the identities that they have constructed for themselves, which in turn they have foisted on others, is a lie, and that their true identities will be found in resting in the natural order and truth of their bodies and minds.

If they really want to stop the groomers, then the gays need to give up the gay, as well. The truth is, the reason they are gay is that they were groomed, harmed, abused, neglected, molested, or enabled into these destructive behaviors and false ideas. In a sense, yes, they are victims and there needs to be that one degree of compassion. At the same time, the fact that hurt people hurt people is not an excuse.

The "Gays Against Groomers" push is too little, too late, not good enough.

If they want to redeem their past activism and make good on all the bad that has taken place, they need to apologize for trying to normalize their own behaviors. They need to seek proper help to deal with the deeper issues that caused them harm, and then knock the hell out of the lies of the LGBT agenda as a whole!

"Gays Against Groomers" should become "Ex-Gays Against Groomers" if they want to be serious about stopping this culture contagion for good.

What PRIDE Really Represents



Every time you see a PRIDE flag or banner in a shop or the window of a home, consider the following. That location is celebrating:

1. a creepy adult who preyed on a minor, causing them terrible sexual confusion.

2. bad teachers who indoctrinate students to believe lies about male and female.

3. pornography being pushed on children, all under the guise of diversity and inclusion.

4. children being warped by pornography at a young age, and struggling with sexual identity and behaviors afterwards.

5. people dying before their time because of venereal disease and mental health issues

6. normalizing trauma in hurting adults, who were harmed as children

7. predators who hide their perverse desires by pretending to be allies for one cohort of individuals

Just keep that in mind ...




Saturday, July 23, 2022

Recall Gascon Update

 

Arthur,While we wait for the Registrar to verify the 715,833 signatures we submitted, George Gascon’s Los Angeles continues to slide into disorder.On Tuesday, Andrew Cachu, a convicted murderer who George Gascon released from prison decades early, was arrested on gun and DUI charges after leading police on a chase.In 2015, Cachu, 17 at the time, executed 41-year-old Louis Amela outside a restaurant in Palmdale while robbing him. Cachu was charged as an adult, convicted, and sentenced to 50 years to life.Last year, Cachu asked for a new sentence. Gascon and his handpicked deputy Alisa Blair could have requested to keep Cachu in prison. They declined to do so, ultimately resulting in his release.What happened Tuesday was preventable and predictable. Releasing a murderer after only 5 years is dangerous, reckless, and disqualifying. It’s a miracle no bystanders or police were harmed.
Last week, it was revealed that Gascon’s office is dissolving the “Lifer Unit” — prosecutors and victim advocates who notify victims of crime and their families when their assailant is up for a parole hearing.George Gascon puts violent criminals on the streets and keeps victims in the dark.He has got to go.And if the Registrar qualifies our recall, he will, in a landslide.
PAID FOR BY THE COMMITTEE TO SUPPORT THE RECALL OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY GEORGE GASCONCommittee Major Funding from:Geoff PalmerGerald J. MarcilIoaban LLC and affiliated entities 
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Instagram
Website
Copyright © 2022 , All rights reserved.Our mailing address is:500 W. Colorado, C - 455Glendale, CA 91204Committee ID: 1440808 
Want to change how you receive these emails?You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

When President Jimmy Carter Came to Torrance


 

'Town Meeting' Is Carter's Centerpiece

By Edward Walsh

October 2, 1980

Jimmy Carter was never a high school basketball star. He is not tall, and even as a boy his taste in running was for the space and solitude of the distance events, not for jostling with nine other kids up and down a 74-foot strip of hardwood floor.

But now that he is a man and the president, Carter has become at home in the high school gymnasiums of America. Already in the fall campaign he has visited the gyms at Truman High School in Independence, Mo., Moody High School in Corpus Christi., Tex., and North High School in Torrance, Calif.

And today, which happened to be his 56th birthday. He was in the gym at Northern Community High School here, home of the Vikings, where he was as comfortable and at ease as any member of the girl's basketball team, winners of 56 straight, state champions the last two years.

The president was holding another of his "town meetings" and, as usual, it was an event.

The walls of the building were plastered with signs welcoming him, praising him, wishing him happy birthday. At one end of the gym, the school band sat cramped in a section of retractable wooden bleachers, poised to play "Hail to the Chief." There would be no basketball game here this afternoon, for the gym floor was covered with folding chairs where the respectful citizens of Flint would sit and listen to the president.

This was Carter's 22nd "town meeting" as president, and the fourth he has held during the one month of the general election campaign against Republican Ronald Reagan. The president told the cheering crowd that it was no accident he decided to come today to Flint, where he ended his 1976 campaign.

It is also no accident that the "town meeting" -- a format in which the president makes opening and closing statements and in between answers about a dozen questions from randomly selected citizens -- has become the centerplace, the main event, of the Carter campaign on the road.

The president is running as tightly a controlled campaign, and is at least as shielded from questions from the traveling press, as is Reagan. But it is part of Carter strategy to portray Reagan as a man out of his intellectual depth when it comes to national issues and to accuse the GOP nominee, as Carter did in a speech Tuesday night, of being "muzzled" by a staff that does his thinking for him.

The "town meeting" is the device the White House has hit up to contrast the "open" president with his "muzzled" opponent. Carter has used the device since the beginning of his presidency. He is more comfortable with it than with news conferences, and he is extremely skillful in exploiting the format.

Like other presidents before him, Carter has also said he gets better questions from ordinary citizens at these sessions than he does from Washington reporters. That, occasionally, is the case, but it is also true the questions posed at a "town meeting" can be as silly and shallow as any asked during a White House news conference.

Today's hour-long "town meeting" at Northern Community High was another virtuoso performance.

The first questioner, who began her inquiry about Cuban refugees in Spanish, gave the president a chance to show off his knowledge of Spanish, which won applause.

And elderly woman said she was concerned about the future of senior citizens, to which the president replied, "A lot of the future life for senior citizens will depend on the decisions that will be made in the ballot boxes of voting places on Nov. 4." He then launched into a discourse on his devotion to the Social Security System and other issues of particular concern to the elderly.

A man complained that Flint had not received due recognition as an automobile manufacturing center. Carter quickly agreed, expressed sympathy for the city's economic woes, and concluded by saying: " i was invited to meet here to have a man-to-man debate with Gov. Reagan. I'm here -- and anytime he's willing to meet me back here on a two-man debate proposition, I'll make my sixth visit to Flint, Mich."

Almost nothing fazes the president at a "town meeting" not even the two questions posed today about the economy of Flint, where last summer the unemployment rate hit almost 26 percent and where more than 22,000 people are still out of work, according to the Detroit Free Press.

Nor was Carter rattled by the truck driver who challenged administration policy on a complex issue involving umemployment benefits for workers in industries, such as trucking, that are indirectly affected by foreign imports. There was no suggestion of a change in policy from the president. Instead, he asked the man for his name and address so he could "go back and talk to the secretary of labor and give you a call."

The crowd loved it. They loved it when Marlene Laro, 9, asked Carter to explain "the difference between the Republicans and you so I can tell my parents how to vote." And they loved it when Carter, after his long answer to Marlene that he was more than happy to provide, shed his suit coat, a regular part of the theater at these events.

At the end, the crowd in the gym stood and sang "happy Birthday" to the president. With a broad grin, Carter thanked them and then he was gone. He is off Thursday to Dayton, Ohio, for another "town meeting."

Call the US Senate, and Tell them to Reject the "DIS-Respect for Marriage Act"

Last week, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives passed the so-called Respect for Marriage Act.

This legislation actually seeks to codify disrespect for marriage, because the legislation will force states to recognize false marraige licenses from other states. This terrible legislation is another step to legitimize lies, hurt, and trauma, while depriving women of their dignity, children of their necessities, and the public square of stability.


These US Senators need to hear from ALL OF US to reject the DIS-Respect for Marriage Act. We need to ensure that the Democrats do not manage to get 10 US Senators to join them, thus granting this legislation cloture and a speedy vote.

Contact Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell and urge him to lead the fight to stop this terrible bill:

Phone: (202) 224-2541

Contact the Senate GOP Whip, at well:

John Thune (SD) (202) 224-2321

Then contact these US Senators, too:

John Cornyn (Texas): 202-224-2934
Roy Blunt (Mo.): (202) 224-5721
Richard Burr (N.C.): (202) 224-3154
Thom Tillis (N.C.): (202) 224-6342
Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.): 202-224-6472
Bill Cassidy (La.): 202-224-5824
Susan Collins (Maine): (202) 224-2523
Joni Ernst (Iowa): (202) 224-3254
Lisa Murkowski (Alaska): (202)-224-6665
Rob Portman (Ohio): 202-224-3353
Mitt Romney (Utah): (202) 224-5251
Pat Toomey (Penn.): (202) 224-4254
Todd Young (Ind.): 202-224-5623
Ron Johnson (Wisconsin): (202) 224-5323
Mike Braun (IND) – (202) 224-8414
Cynthia Lummis (WY) - (202) 224-3424
Rand Paul (KY) -(202) 224-4343
Mike Rounds (SD) -(202) 224-5842
Rick Scott (FL) -(202) 224-5274
Dan Sullivan (Alaska) (202) 224-3004
Tommy Tuberville (Alabama): (202) 224-4124

Make sure to call these Democratic US Senators, too, since they are either moderate (ish) or they are up for election this year, and they may feel the pressure to try to save their campaigns this year:

Raphael Warnock (Georgia): (202) 224-3643
Joe Manchin (W.Va.): 202-224-3954
Mark Kelly (AZ): (202) 224-2235
Mark Warner (VA): 202-224-2023

You can use the following talking points:

1. This terrible legislation will deprive children of their natural parents. That is child abuse.
2. This bill turns homosexuality into a normal behavior, when the origins of such conduct is based in trauma, abuse, neglect, and child molestation. Do not normalize trauma.
3. Marriage as an institution can be nothing else beyond one man and one woman.
4. Do not deprive our country of this fundamental sacrament, necessary for the stability of society.
5. People are not born gay, and the government has no right to pass any legislation based on this lie.

Friday, July 22, 2022

Barbara Ferrer, Health Hypocrite

Ferrer with no mask

Barbara Ferrer is a health hypocrite.

She is the Los Angeles County health director because she was appointed to the job, not because she had any worthwhile qualifications for the position.

She is an unaccountable, unelected bureaucrat, and she does not look like the picture of health, either.

Yet she holds this outrageous sway to tell everyone to mask up in Los Angeles County. This is outrageous, and it needs to stop.

And her guidance for following through on another mask mandate? A corrupted study from her daughter.

RedState reports:

A “study” finding that COVID mitigation efforts in schools, including forced masking, were highly effective in stopping disease spread — and cited by the CDC and most states as the scientific basis for school mask mandates — was authored by LA County bureaucrats, including the daughter of the county’s Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer.

When does the hurting stop? When will Los Angeles County residents stop complying with this nonsense and just ignore the county health department?

Hey, even Barbara Ferrer doesn't follow her own guidelines:


And there here she is pretending to be friendly, condescending to the residents of Los Angeles county once again:
Thankfully, businesses throughout the county have announced that they are rejecting this policy, and they are telling the county leaders that masking should remain optional. RedState reports:

The founding CEO of the Los Angeles County Business Federation, Tracy Hernandez, said:

“This is not a debate about choosing between lives and livelihoods … This is a discussion about educating and empowering Angelenos to make smart choices about protecting their health, our workers and the region’s collective ability to weather this latest wave of infections. We can do better than a heavy-handed mandate at this stage of pandemic recovery and endemic recalibration.

It's time to stand up to Barbara Ferrer and her anti-healthcare bullying. She does not tell us what to do. She works for us; we do not work for her.


The Racist LA Times Strikes Again: "Should Black People Get to Own Guns?"

Black guns matter -- all guns matter
because All Lives Matter

The LA Times is a racist newspaper.

They denigrated a black man, calling him the blackface of white supremacy. You can also see their hate against him here, and the LA Times promotes racist professor Melina Abdullah, who called Elder as much and more.

They have reporters on their staff who support open anti-Semites who think "The Jews should get the hell out of Palestine."

They recently published a massive editorial plus a letter from the owner of the newspaper, in which they acknowledge that the LA Times is racist.

And now, they publish an article questioning whether black people should be able to own guns:

This kind of assertion sounds like something that white supremacists would chant at a Klan rally. After all, the Ku Klux Klan was committed to disarming black people (as well as white Republicans, who believed that black people were just as much American citizens as everyone else born in the United States). 

Here's the entire article (reprinted in bold print), written by racist SJW Erika Smith, with my comments:

Racist Erika Smith
(Why do black people hate other black people so much?)

Nathan W. Jones leads the Bay Area chapter of the Black Gun Owners Assn. But until a few years ago, he wasn’t even into guns.

Then the COVID-19 pandemic hit. And George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police, sending racial justice protesters into the streets. And white supremacists trashed the U.S. Capitol in the Jan. 6 insurrection.

The lies are already pouring in. There were people of all backgrounds at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th. Wow, the racism just oozes out of this report already.

Suddenly, it seemed as if America was on the brink. And with the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe vs. Wade on Friday, emboldening a militant array of white Christian nationalists, we clearly still are.

"White Christian nationalists ..." really?

“I had visions of mobs dragging people through the streets, and something just kind of switched,” Jones told me. “We can’t rely on anybody else to come and save us. It has to be us.”

So, on Thursday, while many were apoplectic over the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the rights of gun owners to carry a loaded weapon in public — throwing gun control laws in California and New York into limbo at a time when shootings are increasing — Jones was thoughtful.

On the one hand, he wants it to be easy for law-abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves “if and when the time arises.” But on the other hand, he’s a 50-year-old realist who knows that fear and hatred of Black people run deep in the United States, especially when we’re armed.

Has anyone shown him the statistics, in which black people kill other black people in the highest numbers? Does anyone bother to check facts or read data anymore?

“There’s no overt racism when we go to the gun range, but we know how people are looking at us,” Jones said of the dozens of Black members who meet up to go shooting. “We know the things that people think.”

It sounds to me that this person is just obsessed with himself. Most people don't have time to care about other people, they are so busy thinking about themselves and their families. 

California Democrats are scrambling to craft and enact new legislation this week that would somehow salvage the requirement — assuming local law enforcement continues to enforce it — that residents get a permit before carrying a concealed weapon. Current law forces gun owners to show “good cause” for needing such a permit, and that is now unconstitutional.

Forcing citizens to show good cause to obtain a CCW was always unconstitutional. It's strange how this racist writer, Erika D. Smith, doesn't point out that weapons permits (limits) were initially implemented in order to prevent black people from carrying firearms in the first place.

“Our state will continue to lead in the fight to keep our people safe,” Gov. Gavin Newsom insisted on Thursday. Indeed, of all states, we have one of the lowest rates of dying by a bullet.

No, California is not a safe state. The rampant crime rates throughout the larger urban areas, combined with the declining enforcement and incarceration rates around the state, plus the growing proliferation of gan activity, have all but assured that the criminals have the rights, and the victims have to pay for it.

Gun crimes are up, murders are up. California is not a safe state for many residents. The gaslighting from Governor Hairgel is just astonishing. Of course, voters had their chance to recall this fool last year, and they threw it away. Of course Governor Newsom is arrogant.

But the governor and lawmakers could fail in their efforts, and the Supreme Court’s ruling could stand. And then, California could be forced to confront a reality that has long made many self-proclaimed liberals uncomfortable: Black people — potentially a lot of us — legally carrying guns in public.

Why is it that people find allowing black people to carry guns in public so scary? Notice also how ridiculous this question is, in that the NYPRA v. Bruen decision clearly extended to the right keep and bear arms to outside of the home, but that does not necessarily mean that people can carry a firearm openly.

Lest you think I’m being facetious, recall how California got started on its journey to having the toughest gun control laws in the country.

It was in 1967 that members of the Black Panther Party for Self Defense staged a protest at the state Capitol. Armed with the handguns and shotguns they normally used to protect Black neighborhoods in Oakland by “policing the police,” they announced that the time had come for “Black people to arm themselves against this terror before it is too late.” And then they went inside.

“We have a constitutional right to bear arms,” they shouted as they wandered the halls of the Capitol.

 Yes, indeed, American citizens do have a right to keep and bear arms. I also share the belief that citizens should be able to carry firearms in government buildings, not just in general public spaces. After all, the government is supposed to be of the people, for the people, by the people, is it not?

Lawmakers were so freaked out that they quickly passed the very bill the Black Panthers had been protesting — the Mulford Act, which banned the open carry of loaded weapons without a permit. Gov. Ronald Reagan signed it posthaste.

Shame on Gov. Reagan. Many conservatives today are moving away from Ronald Reagan as the biggest standard of conservatism now, and this action was one of them. Most people also forget that in 1968, Republicans captured marjorities in both chambers of the California State Legislature, and even then they were passing gun control measures. Sadly, California has a more liberal streak than most California conservatives are willing to recognize. Even the Republicans were pretty bad, and this is going back to when Republicans had a considerable toehold in state government and federal representation.

Over the next few years, the Mulford Act, which the National Rifle Assn. supported, inspired a slew of gun control laws in other states and Congress.

The National Rifle Association had been co-opted by liberal elements at this time. Conservatives would retake the NRA in the late 1970s.

Of course, these days, the NRA is very much against gun control, although its stance on Black people doesn’t seem to have changed very much.

Where's the proof for this? Nowhere, because the writer of this article is racist, simple as that, in part because she sees racism in everyone else, and thus cannot accept that she is a racist herself. 

Still, over the last few years as Americans have stocked up on guns at record rates, it is Black people — especially women — who have been buying them the most. Between 2019 and 2020 alone, there was a 58% spike, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Can you blame them? The pro-criminal, pro-defund the police policies that white and black liberals, leftists, and regressive progressives favor the most are hurting black communities the most! The George Soros district attorneys getting elected in urban areas all over the country are letting criminals commit all sorts of crimes with impunity, only to release them back onto the streets a second time, and they recidivate the most in black areas!

Black people are some of the most outspoken in support of pro-police and public safety measures. They want to be safe in their communities, and racist blacks like Erika Smith.

Emmanuel Choice, who runs a Black gun club in Los Angeles, has watched this trend play out in Southern California. Black people are not only buying guns in big numbers, but also eager to get the training to follow the law and handle them safely.

Good for them. Then they need to start voting Republican so that they can keep those rights. Let's hope they learn the history lesson quickly that Democrats are committed to keeping black people enslaved, down and out, unable to protect themselves.

“This is not a country where you want folks just randomly walking around with firearms,” said Choice, who thinks the Supreme Court’s ruling on Thursday was shortsighted and reckless. “The one thing I will say about California and their concealed carry requirements is you got to get a lot of education.”

Why shouldn't we allow people to walk around with firearms? That is not an argument. That is paranoia. I visited Arizona twice one year, and I got used to the constitutional carry provision in the state. Yes, people walk around with guns, and guess what? People are safe!

Jones said he also has seen a huge uptick in interest in his Bay Area club over the last six months, often by Black people looking for camaraderie and an alternative to the NRA.

Most who join say they bought a gun for self-defense, Choice and Jones agree. Many reach out after getting — forgive the phrase — triggered by high-profile racist incidents, including last month’s massacre of Black people at a supermarket in Buffalo, N.Y.

"Forgive the phrase ..." This is professional journalism now? For the Los Angeles Times, perhaps ...

But even before that, during the height of the racial justice protests in 2020, Black people armed themselves and formed groups for self-defense and community protection in Minneapolis, Atlanta and Detroit, among other cities.

Since when is burning down buildings, destroying black businesses, or anyone's businesses for that matter, an example of racial justice? Would someone please explain?

“Black folks are choosing more frequently and in greater numbers to be prepared,” Choice said. “There’s a concern that I haven’t seen before. And there’s a willingness to, you know, step up.”

But this isn’t 1967.

That meme that has been floating around social media for a few weeks — the one that half-jokingly suggests that Republican politicians could be prompted to support gun control if more Black people were to start packing heat?

Thing is, Black people are already packing more heat, both legally and, unfortunately, illegally. But gun control laws are still getting weaker — the rare exception being the bipartisan bill President Biden just signed.

That bipartisan bill is trash, and everyone who voted for it is trash. Shame on them!

And the other, truly weird thing is that race is now actually being used as an argument in support of loosening gun laws.

It should be used. It was racism that put in place gun control measures in the first place. I wonder how many of these black liberals realize that they are mouthing the same talking points as the racist Democrats of the late 1800s and early 1900s? They are useful idiots for a hateful cause to take away people's rights. Shame on them!

Justice Clarence Thomas, in his opinion for the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. vs. Bruen case, waxed philosophical about how the right to bear arms was crucial for the self-protection of Black people in the South during Reconstruction.

And how in 1868, Congress “reaffirmed that freedmen were entitled to the ‘full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty [and] personal security ... including the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.’”

For some reason, Erika Smith has a problem with a black man on the highest court in the land reaffirming the natural rights of all men, including black men. Why does Erika Smith have a problem with her own community?

Meanwhile, a coalition of progressive organizations, including the Black Attorneys of Legal Aid, the Bronx Defenders and Brooklyn Defender Services, filed an amicus brief in the case, urging the Supreme Court to rule exactly as it did.

Exactly. But again, Erika Smith has a problem with black people owning guns, and therefore she thinks that those black organizations are racist, too, no doubt.

Their argument? That gun control laws in New York, like California, disproportionately harm Black and Latino people who carry guns for self-defense. They complained of clients who have been “stopped, questioned, and frisked,” and deprived of their livelihoods because they “exercised a constitutional right.”

“We represent hundreds of indigent people whom New York criminally charges for exercising their right to keep and bear arms,” they wrote. “For our clients, New York’s licensing requirement renders the Second Amendment a legal fiction.”

::

How all of this will play out remains to be seen.

It will play out with lower crime rates, that's what!

Choice, the leader of the L.A. gun club, is doubtful that more Black people in Los Angeles will start carrying guns in public, even if doing so without a permit becomes common practice in California. It would just attract too much attention.

“I don’t think I’m going to be going to Roscoe’s to sit there with a sidearm,” he said.

Besides, he added, most Black people just want to come home safe every night and so will avoid taking risks that could result in injury or death.

“No. 1 is the police. I don’t want to interact with them ever. And they never give you a break when they pull you over, so you’re always under suspicion,” Choice explained. “So, if you have something under your seat, and you want to argue with them about the new ruling from.... Please! Are you kidding me?”

But to Jones, this is part of the problem.

As a business owner in Oakland, his gun club — like Choice’s club — is full of fellow Black professionals. Doctors, even cops. Law-abiding citizens with wives and husbands and children, and deep ties to their communities.

“Still, we know that all eyes are on us,” Jones said. “And so we also know that we cannot be the group that has an accidental discharge. We cannot be the group that is handling our firearms in an unsafe manner. We have to be more in control and knowing what we’re doing more than anybody else, because all eyes are on us waiting for us to make a mistake.”

Jones sees it as part of the mission of the Black Gun Owners Assn. to challenge preconceived notions many Americans have about who should and should not be able to carry a gun. But he laments that this is the reality, even in liberal California.

Liberal California is run by racist Democrats right now. That is why there is so much suspicion about black people owning guns and protecting themselves.

“It’s, ‘We’re all for equal rights and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,’ but they are still uneasy when it comes to the idea of Black folks being legally armed,” he said.

Not me. I have no problem with anyone exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

If the Supreme Court’s ruling sticks, Jones believes more Black people could start carrying their weapons in public — particularly if the white supremacists and Christian nationalists in our midst start doing the same.

In our polarized political environment, that’s a dangerous scenario that seems increasingly likely. Just as likely as some Black people wrongly getting shot by police while legally carrying a firearm. When society is armed to the teeth, bad things are bound to happen.

Jones feels he has little choice but to be a gun owner, though.

“What we need to do,” he said, “is redefine the notion of Black people with guns and what that means.”

Final Reflection

Erika Smith is a racist. She does not believe that black people should be able to keep and bear arms. But it gets worse: the LA Times editorial board allowed this trashy article, with its hateful title, to be printed in the first place. What were they thinking? The fact is that the LA Times is a racist newspaper, simple as that.

BREAKING: Pastor Art Pawlowski Contempt Charges DROPPED (via Rebel News)

 

Pastor Artur just scored his biggest and most complete victory yet! 

The Alberta Court of Appeals ruled that the injunction against him, his arrest, his jail time, the censorship order and fines against him were illegal. 

This is HUGE news. The injunction used to put Pastor Artur Pawlowski in prison for months was deemed so vague and useless, that it should never have been used in the first place. The judge threw it out! 

Ezra Levant is LIVE right now to share the details of this monumental decision and break down the ruling. 

Tune in right here

LIVE REACTION: Pastor Artur Pawlowksi’s contempt conviction set

aside on appeal

This is a total condemnation of Jason Kenney’s persecution of Pastor Artur, the Liberal judge Adam Germain, and frankly, Judge Rooke, who wrote the illegal injunction. A repudiation of all of them — and the Health Minister and Justice Minister who obsessively pursued Pastor Artur and his brother Dawid. There must be a resignation over this — but of course there won’t be. 

Pastor Artur has been vindicated. This really is the best result we could have asked for. 

Two years of tireless legal battles got us here, and much of the credit goes to our viewers and donors who shared Pastor Artur’s story and pitched in at SaveArtur.com to help pay for his legal battles. (We still have substantial legal bills to cover, so please click here to donate.) 

There’s so much more to come, including our exclusive interviews with Pastor Artur and his incredible lawyer Sarah Miller. 

Stay tuned for more, and please join Ezra on the livestream right here

Yours truly, 

Rebel News

P.S. This incredible legal victory could not have been possible without our viewers who pitched in at SaveArtur.com to help cover his legal fees. Pastor Artur beat the odds because of your help. If you haven't had a chance to donate, please do so by clicking here.