A timely post about from www.jihadwatch.org about "hate crimes" against Muslims. This follows this post about Steve Bannon and Keith Ellison. This follows this post about Hillary Clinton's loss.This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries. For more, you can read two very interesting books HERE.You can follow me here.

FBI can’t confirm that hate letters sent to mosques actually came from outside Muslim community

 By Robert Spencer 36 Comments

“The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) could not, however, confirm that the letters actually came from outside the community, or that they were not a prank.”
As I explained here, there is plenty of reason to doubt that these letters are genuine. They are much more likely to be part of Muslim groups’ in the U.S. never-ending quest for protected victim status.

“FBI, LAPD Cannot Confirm Anti-Muslim Letters as ‘Hate Crime,’” by Joel B. Pollak, Breitbart, November 28, 2016:

LOS ANGELES — Law enforcement officials gathered with local Muslim leaders at the Islamic Center of Southern California to respond to threatening letters that had been sent to several mosques in the state.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) could not, however, confirm that the letters actually came from outside the community, or that they were not a prank. And the Los Angeles Police Department said that the letters were being investigated as a “hate incident,” not a “hate crime,” because there was no specific, immediate threat.
Stephen Woolery, FBI Special Agent in Charge of the Counterterrorism Division in Los Angeles, said that at least five letters were received by Islamic institutions in California. Letters were received in San Jose, Northridge, Claremont, Signal Hill, and Los Angeles. He added that there was possibly one more letter that had been received outside the state, possibly in Georgia.
One letter, widely circulated in the media, read, in part: “You Muslims are a vile and filthy people … There’s a new sheriff in town — President Donald Trump. He’s going to cleanse America … He’s going to do to you Muslims what Hitler did to the Jews.”
The language of each of the letters was similar, officials said. They did not contain a specific threat of violence….
Local Muslim leaders at the press conference, which involved both local and international media, invited the author or authors of the letter to have a frank discussion about faith. “We want this to be out in the open, in broad daylight. Bullies feel emboldened in dark alleys.
Dr. Sayed Moustafa al-Qazwini, the president of the Shia Muslim Council of Southern California, said: “We stand against hate crime and against terrorism.” He advised members of the community to go about their normal activities.
Another Muslim leader responded to a suspected terror attack earlier in the day at Ohio State, where several people were injured in an attack, apparently carried out by a Muslim immigrant from Somalia, involving a car and knives.
“The problem comes when we politicize one incident over others … when the reality is, it’s just violence,” he said….

In other words, ignore the motivating ideology behind jihad terror attacks.

[Woolery] said that the FBI had wanted to participate in the press conference, despite the lack of an investigation, “to be visible, strong partners with our community. Our role is to monitor the situation … making sure there is no threat.”
“It was important for us to be here to demonstrate that partnership, because I think that’s important to the community.”

White House warns against blaming Islam for OSU jihad attack

Columbus Somali Muslim leader on OSU jihad attack: "The timing is not good"

Here is an interesting article from http://www.debbieschlussel.com/ reviewing some of the movies that came out over the past weekend. This follows this post about some of the movies from last week and THIS POST about some movies that have been released over the past few years that you might have missed! This all follows this post about guidelines to choosing good movies to watch yourself!

Weekend Box Office: Arrival (Pretentious, OVERRATED!)

By Debbie Schlussel




So we’re into November and, usually, at this time of year, the movies are supposed to get better. Right now, it seems like it’s just hype getting bigger. (I did not see “Shut In,” which was not screened for critics and didn’t have any nearby early showings–both bad signs.)
* Arrival – Rated PG-13: This movie is waaaay overrated. Liberal movie critics are falling all over themselves to gush about this nothing movie. Don’t believe the hype. In fact, it’s a crappy movie. This movie emperor wears no clothing. It’s long, slow, and boring, and nothing really ever happens. I never thought I’d hate an aliens-from-space movie, but this managed to induce me to that state. This is how liberals idealize dealing with aliens and fellow humans. It’s soooo pretentious. And so dumb. It will also be confusing to most moviegoers.
This is a snoozefest chick flick parading as something else. If you enjoy constant flashbacks to a single mother playing with and lamenting over her young daughter who died of cancer, then this is for you. For everyone else, this is a dud.
And there are a couple of cheap tricks used at the end of the movie to explain what is unexplainable. It doesn’t pass the smell test. I felt ripped off. On top of that, the script hides the relationship between some of the characters. Like I said, the whole thing makes for a confusing ending for the average moviegoer. It’s almost like you need a movie whisperer or a Cliffs Notes aide to help you figure it.
The story: twelve pod-style spaceships from outer space land all over the world. Well, they don’t really “land,” so much as they hover. There’s one hovering over a field in the United States. U.S. government officials can’t communicate with the aliens aboard the pods because they can’t understand the alien language, which is essentially a bunch of pictures that look like puffs of smoke in the shapes of circles.
Amy Adams plays the aforementioned single mother of the young daughter who died of cancer. She’s a linguistics professor who is recruited by the feds to go to the alien pod over the U.S. and try to figure out their language. This is necessary to tell the aliens we are peaceful and to find out if the aliens are peaceful (and why they are here). There, she and a physicist (Jeremy Renner) try to communicate with the aliens.
The movie is supposed to be a statement on miscommunications between humans. It’s a “statement” I could do without. There’s nothing enlightening or the very least interesting here. Anyone who says otherwise is delusional or a pretentious, phony intellectual.
ONE MARX PLUS ONE MICHELLE LAVAUGHN ROBINSON HUSSEIN OBAMA IDI AMIN DADA DON’T LET THE DOOR AT 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE HIT YA ON THE WAY OUT ON JANUARY 20TH

A Flood of Immorality & Crime

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about immorality and criminals. This follows this post about the U.S. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

A Flood of Immorality

 by Tom Robinson Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

With the kind of leadership America has at the top—or perhaps we should say that with Americans having chosen this kind of leadership—it should be no surprise that America (along with the rest of the world) wallows in immoral behavior of every kind.

Sexual immorality is clearly on the rise. As of  this writing, same-sex marriage is legal in 17 countries around the world—with others giving recognition to such unions. In America it is legal in 19 states and the District of Columbia—8 by court decision, 8 by state legislatures and 3 by popular vote.
Legalization has the effect of normalizing the practice and making it more and more acceptable—along with homosexuality in general (see “ Government and the Gay Agenda “). Same-sex couples are also increasingly being allowed to adopt children, further corrupting the younger generation by making homosexuality seem normal.
Yet we should not only consider such sensational matters that garner attention in national debates. Rampant adultery and widespread divorce don't receive much notice. Nor does pornography, premarital sex and cohabitation or, as it used to be called, “living in sin.” So many movies and TV shows depict unmarried couples sleeping or living together that we rarely give it a second thought. That's just the way it is now, so there is rarely the kind of outrage such behavior should provoke.
The truth is that we have been inundated and overwhelmed—and usually we don't even think about it. The slide in this direction has been happening for a long time, but it has greatly sped up in recent years.
Lying and stealing are often the business of political and government leaders these days—as we hear repeated denial of wrongdoing and see our hard-earned money taken or diminished in value to increase the wealth of others. Indeed, lying and stealing have become the business of many businesses—and of the average person. It may bother us on discovering that we are the victim, but it's often an expectation now. And worse, so many of us persist in the same behavior.
Violence is on the rise. Many blame the existence of guns. But the problem is not with the weapons—it's with those wielding them. It's with society as a whole, which has lost its moral underpinnings. Priorities are upside down—and almighty government leads the way.
Here's a relevant story: “Among the 36,000 immigrants whom U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] released from custody last year there were 116 with convictions for homicide, 43 for negligent manslaughter, 14 for voluntary manslaughter and one with a conviction classified by ICE as 'homicide-willful kill-public official-gun' …
“'This would be considered the worst prison break in American history, except it was sanctioned by the president and perpetrated by our own immigration officials,' said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican” (Stephen Dinan, “Feds Release Hundreds of Immigrant Murderers, Drunk Drivers, Sex-Crime Convicts,” The Washington Times, May 12, 2014, emphasis added).
When we read something like this, it may seem that something is wrong with people's minds—that they are irrational. And indeed they are! In fact, we all are to some degree—and it's a problem that ultimately needs to be dealt with on the inside.

News and Prophecy

You might also be interested in...

The Surprising Sayings of Jesus Christ: Who Was Jesus Christ? - Part 2

In the first part of answering this question, we examined Jesus' identity as...

The Good News Beyond the Bad

World peace. For centuries, philosophers and poets have dared to dream the...

• 

  Tom Robinson

  Tom is an elder in the United Church of God who works from his home near St. Louis, Missouri, as a senior writer and editor for the Beyond Today magazine and church booklets. He is also the editor of the UCG Bible Commentary. He also served as a copy editor for Vertical Thought and managing editor for World News and Prophecy .

Add to my study list

Print this Page

Appeared In...

Good News Magazine: November - December 2014

Join the conversation!

Log in or register to post comments

A timely post about from www.jihadwatch.org about Google and Islam. This follows this post about the Clinton Foundation. This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries. For more, you can read two very interesting books HERE.You can follow me here.

How Google’s search engines use faked results to manipulate people’s views of jihad

By Robert Spencer 92 Comments

This post by Jihad Watch tech expert Marc offers extraordinary insight into how Google skews its presentation of information in order to manipulate people into accepting half-truths and falsehoods that serve the Left’s agenda. He explains how Google deliberately manipulates its results when one searches for the word “jihad” — and doubtless this is just one of countless examples of how Google advances the Leftist/Islamic supremacist line while burying the truth.

“How Google’s Search Engines use faked results for social engineering,” FreeSpeechDefense.net, September 4, 2016:

So how does it work, I’ll use one example, a simple Google search for the word “Jihad”, but first I’d like to give you some background on how Google search is understood and intended to work. My knowledge comes from a variety of sources, but is in line with the well known public authority on the subject of Search Engine Optimisation (SEO), an employee and till recently the public voice of Google and its search engine, Matt Cutts, he now works for the Pentagon (yeh, I know). Google has published an “overview” of how it all works, but that’s a lot to get through.
So in a nutshell, Google is looking for the freshest, most authoritative, easiest to display (big screen and mobile) content to serve its search engine users, it crawls them, caching (grabbing) content, looking at the speed of download, the textual content, counting words to find the relevance, checking what it looks like on different sized devices. It also looks at what other sites link to it, both number of and “quality” of those links. When I say quality, it wants to see how authoritative the linking in sites are. They also have a number of algorithms in place that block the listing of “spammy” sites, but spam would not be relevant here. Additionally they also have recently claimed to boost sites using HTTPS to promote security and privacy (fox, henhouse – lol).
There are a few exceptions which I don’t think anyone could have issue with, a search for a single word might bring up a dictionary or encyclopedia, but more often, they add Wikipedia to the list of results, especially if it’s a busy wiki page with constant updates.
There is a way to beat these results and get to the top, and that’s by paying for the Google Adwords service, these ads at the top are clearly identified with a little “Ad” button, that is not the case here.
I am not in the US, so used a VPN to proxy my research from the US, as searches from other locations provide different results.
So search the word “jihad”, and you will see at the top of a list of 32 million results a list as this:

1. A dictionary definition
2. Wikipedia
3. A link to a page of the “Islamic Supreme Council”
4. A link to “Jihad Watch”

So we know how the dictionary definition and Wikipedia got there, but how did the “Islamic Supreme Council” and “Jihad Watch” get 3^rd and 4^th place? JihadWatch.org I know well, I do the server and site management, following SEO best practice, here are the major pertinent reasons for its high listing in such a competitive search, 32 million is huge in this game:

• Robert Spencer, an accomplished author is a prolific blogger, adding a minimum of 10 posts of current jihad related news stories of the day.
• It’s part of the domain name, that always gives a massive boot (searching “free speech defense”, my tiny, low volume blog always comes top).
• Doing a jihad site:jihadwatch.org shows that the word “jihad” is mentioned on the site 35,000 times, proving its main focus of discussion is “jihad”.
• A search for just jihadwatch.org shows that it is mentioned on 631,000 other sites pages (linking in), proving it is very authoritative and often referenced.
• Jihadwatch.org is currently the 10,488^th most popular website in the US, this fluctuates, but not much.
• The site uses HTTPS and a responsive (mobile friendly) theme, so it looks great on any device.

So how about the “Islamic Supreme Council”, I’d never heard of them. I asked a few people who have studied Islam, they hadn’t either, so lets look at the comparative statistics:

• The site is run by Sheik Kabbani, a Naqshbandi Sufi. It has additional posts added a couple of times a year, the latest news panel lists an event in 1996.
• It has “Islamic” in the domain name, understandable that Google maybe has confused the two words. /sarc off
• Doing a jihad site:islamicsupremecouncil.org shows that the word “jihad” is mentioned on the site 123 times, whereas searching the word “Sufi” brings up over 200 results proving it’s main focus of discussion is not “jihad”.
• A search for just islamicsupremecouncil.org shows that it is mentioned on 79,000 other sites pages (linking in), showing it is as 1/10th as popular/authoritative as jihadwatch.org.
• This is confirmed with an Alexa popularity search, showing it is the 307,832^_th most popular site in the US.
• The site does not use HTTPS, and it is very mobile unfriendly, using technology from a previous millennium (I’m not kidding, it’s using web standards from 1999 if you look at the source files).

So what’s up? How does the site get this boost, if you search the word Sufi, the “Islamic Supreme Council” isn’t even listed in the top 10 pages. Funny thing about the meaning of the word “Jihad”, to the fast majority of Muslims they themselves know of two meanings, the Google dictionary definition at the top of the results is correct:

1. (among Muslims) a war or struggle against unbelievers.
2. the spiritual struggle within oneself against sin.

Often differentiated as the greater and lesser Jihad, but Sunni and Shia Muslims, who make up the vast majority of Muslims, understand when the word Jihad is used alone they mean the violent kind, world conquering imposing of Sharia law, blowing stuff up and cutting heads of infidels, and they accept the lesser Jihad as a false construct, but that’s another debate, you can read more here at wikiislam.
But what is unique about Sufis, a tiny minority of Muslims, if in fact they are Muslims, as the vast majority of Muslims do not accept Sufis as such, and many Sufis themselves do not identify with being Muslim, is that they are unique in only having this peaceful, lesser Jihad, being somewhat pacifists, ironically often violently targeted for their beliefs in Muslim majority countries.
So in conclusion, how are you being socially engineered by Google? Anyone doing a search for Jihad will think they are seeing an opposing, authoritative view of Jihad Watch’s, but the “Islamic Supreme Council” is of no authority, it’s poor in every way. Nonetheless, the Googler will read all about all this peaceful unrepresentative Jihad, trusting Google will live by their moto “Don’t be evil”. Former Google CEO and current executive chairman Eric Schmidt once said, “it was a dumb rule merely because the word ‘evil’ isn’t really defined, and Google doesn’t quite know what evil is.”
So how about another site which might be more of an authority on Jihad in the US, cair.com (Council on American-Islamic Relations) is constantly being updated, is far more popular at 146,590th place, actually probably even more so, as it has a vast network of sites. A search for jihad site:cair.com gives 342 results, and is mentioned and linked to a whopping 60 million times, it’s mobile friendly and has HTTPS enabled, and it’s not even on the top 10 pages of results for a search on Jihad. Odd, that except their own political agenda is for Americans to believe the Sufi understanding of Jihad is a common Muslim understanding, rather than their own aggressive one, with proven ties between CAIR, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Some would say “a war or struggle against unbelievers” Jihad was CAIR’s main purpose, advertising that fact doesn’t help their agenda, much better American Googlers read the Sufi version for them. I think I have described in detail how this subtle manipulation works.
It’s not a secret. Facebook has been at it also. The connections with the Obama administration and now Hillary Clinton are well documented. My enemy’s enemy is not my necessarily my friend, but here is what Julian Assange has to say on the collusion between the US administration and Google.

DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson addresses ISNA, Muslim group linked to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood

UK journo: Syrian kidnapper who shot me twice is now a CIA-vetted "moderate"

A timely post from http://www.vdare.com about Donald Trump's immigration speech. This follows this post about the allegations about Donald Trump doing housing discrimination. This follows this post about rap songs referencing Donald Trump.
You can follow me here.

<

Trump’s Great Immigration Speech–If It Doesn’t Save America, Nothing Can

---

Washington Watcher

After two weeks of speculation of whether he would soften his stance on immigration, Donald Trump gave an amazing, astounding, detailed and rock solid speech outlining his patriotic immigration reform agenda. Trump reaffirmed his pledge to secure the borders, oppose any Amnesty, restrict refugee admissions, and enact tough interior enforcement measures. Additionally, he supported strict enforcement of E-Verify and laid out principles for legal immigration reform which unmistakably implied lower numbers and high quality immigrants.
In this piece I will answer three questions:

• Did Trump backtrack?
• Why did he seem to be waffling before the speech?
• Will this help him win?

The short answers: No; I’m not sure; and—almost certainly, yes.
Did Trump Backtrack?
Trump clarified and, in some cases, finessed his previously bluntly-stated positions. However, he did not alter the substance away from patriotic immigration reform.

• No wiggle room for Amnesty: Even some of Trump’s supporters have worried that he would support some form a “touchback” Amnesty, whereby illegal aliens would have to leave the country, but could immediately re-apply for citizenship. But Trump in his speech said specifically that the “one route” for illegals to obtain legal status is “to return home and apply for re-entry like everybody else, under the rules of the new legal immigration system that I have outlined above.”

Touchback amnesty plans–like the one Mike Pence proposed in 2006–include a special visa under which the illegals are to re-apply, or simply greatly increase legal immigration numbers so they can quickly gain re-entry. Trump, however, made clear that illegals “will not be awarded surplus visas, but will have to apply for entry under the immigration caps.”
Trump concluded that we would not have any “discussion” to “consider the appropriate disposition” of the remaining illegal aliens until “several years” after “illegal immigration is a memory of the past.”
In other words: well into Trump’s second term, after all the bulk of the illegal aliens have been deported or left on their own, Trump might—might—consider giving Amnesty to the few that remain.

• Deportation priorities: Trump said he would “set priorities” for those he would deport, specifically “removing criminals, gang members, security threats, visa overstays, public charges.”

It’s noteworthy that “visa overstays” constitute around 40% of the illegal population–including 60% of recent illegals, and Trump cited a Center for Immigration Studies paper that found that 62% of illegal alien households received welfare.
Of course, the Obama administration has always justified its non-enforcement of the law by saying it was prioritizing removal of terrorists, gang members, and violent criminals. But unlike Obama, who uses prioritizing enforcement against terrorists and violent criminals as a euphemism to mean he won’t deport anyone else, Trump clarified that under his administration “anyone who has entered the United States illegally is subject to deportation.”

• Deportation Force to Deportation Task Force: Probably the biggest buzz over the last couple of weeks was whether Trump would drop his call for a “deportation force.”

In his speech, Trump stated that “within ICE I am going to create a new special deportation task force focused on identifying and quickly removing the most dangerous criminal illegal immigrants in America who have evaded justice.” This is not what the Main Stream Media really had in mind by “deportation force.” But of course, ICE is supposed to be a deportation force to begin with.
Actually, Trump never proposed a deportation force. When Mika Brzezinski asked him  “Are you going to have a massive deportation force,” Trump just let her put words in his mouth he would support it without elaborating. [Trump: You’re Going To Have A “Deportation Force,” They’ll Be Humane, by Tim Haines, Real Clear Politics, November 11, 2015]

• Muslim Ban to Country Ban: Trump stated he would suspend “suspend the issuance of visas to any place where adequate screening cannot occur,” specifically singling out Syria and Libya.

This differs from his previous statement that he would suspend all Muslim immigration. This is not news, as he had modified this statement earlier. As I’ve written, there are pros and cons to each approach, but his fundamental premise—that excluding potential terrorists, even if that means keeping out some perfectly innocent babies in the toxic bathwater, is the most effective way prevent terrorism– remains
So what was going on?
Trump and his campaign manager Kellyanne Conway have been giving mixed signals over the last few weeks, implying he was “softening,” might be open to some limited Amnesty or would really back off of deportations. Ann Coulter was so annoyed that she said she might cancel the publicity tour for her excellent new book In Trump We Trust if Trump embraced Amnesty [Trump’s immigration pivot a buzzkill for Coulter’s book tour, CNN, August 26, 2016]
So why did Trump give all of his most dedicated supporters heartburn worrying he would back down? I have no inside information, but here are a few possibilities:

• Trump was making Beltway immigration patriot arguments poorly. Black MSNBC reporter Joy Reid tweeted

ADVERTISEMENT

Non nobis domine! In our modest opinion, Trump’s speech sounded distinctly more like NumbersUSA’s Roy Beck, Center for Immigration Studies’ Mark Krikorian and other herbivorous Beltway immigration patriots, who have emphasized that we do not need massive deportations to get the illegal population to return to their home country. Krikorian calls this “attrition through enforcement”—combining E-Verify, cutting off welfare, and increasing interior enforcement through cooperation with state law enforcement.  [Pew Report Shows Attrition of the Illegal Population Is Possible, By Mark Krikorian, CIS.org,  November 2015]
Prior to the speech Trump rarely discussed immigration enforcement beyond deportations—something I criticized way back in November 2015. Now he has finally adopted the more sophisticated attrition approach, citing CIS and using its buzzwords like “jobs magnet.”
But while Beck and Krikorian are good at making pretty strong policy proposals sound much less tough than they actually are, this requires them to use words very carefully. Trump, we must concede, does not choose his words carefully. Thus Trump could take Roy Beck’s argument that “we aren’t going to deport everyone, most illegals will return on their own if we remove the jobs magnet” without mentioning E-Verify and it would sound like amnesty.

• Internal debate: Still, Trump’s trumpeting does not fully explain the “softening” stories. Obviously, some of his more precise surrogates did prepare the MSM for a pivot.

The campaign recently replaced the relatively establishment Paul Manafort with Breitbart chief Stephen Bannon as campaign CEO and pollster Kellyanne Conway as campaign manager. Conway was the main voice suggesting that Trump might soften his tone ahead of the speech, telling Face the Nation “he is not talking about a deportation force, but he is talking about being fair and humane.” Bannon and former Jeff Sessions aide Stephen Miller wrote the Arizona speech (though that was always the plan). It’s possible that there was an internal struggle with Conway, which they won.
However, it’s worth noting that Conway has been pretty solid on immigration long before Trump and she may have simply been pushing the aforementioned clarifications as the “fair and humane” policies. Indeed, as I noted, Trump even called the “Deportation Force” humane. Conway also took the fight to Clinton’s “Full Merkel” Amnesty/ Immigration Surge proposals, as Trump did in his speech. [Kellyanne Conway: Clinton camp made ‘grievous error’, By David Wright, CNN, August 22, 2016]

• 3D Chess: If nothing else, Trump knows how to manipulate the media. Could that be what he was doing here?

The MSM would probably have paid no more attention to Trump’s speech than to his other recent strong statements (here and here and here) if they thought he would just give a few extra details to the same policies he’s promoted the entire campaign. However, because there appeared to be a big chance he would flip-flop on his signature issue, it became his most anticipated speech since the Convention.
Maybe that’s what Trump wanted the whole time. As it is, Trump’s rumored flip flop ended up further cementing hardline immigration patriotism as the centerpiece of his campaign.
But will it help Trump win?
The MSM is predictably claiming that immigration patriotism will doom Trump’s chances. The Washington Post’s James Hohmann, typified this conventional wisdom:

Republicans facing four more years in the wilderness will long recall the raucous rally in Phoenix as a low point of the Trump campaign, perhaps even as the moment that he definitively extinguished his hopes of becoming president.
[Trump triples down on a losing immigration position in Phoenix, September 1, 2016]

Hohmann goes on to bring up the spectre of Proposition 187 and the damage it supposedly caused the Republican brand.
And Trump had (ill-advisedly) allowed pro-amnesty consultants like Alfonso Aguilar onto his National Hispanic Advisory Council. The original rumors that he would flip flop came from this Council and now many members are withdrawing their support [Several Hispanic Trump surrogates reconsider support, by Katie Glueck & Kyle Cheney, Politico, September 1, 2016]
VDARE.com has repeatedly debunked the myths about Proposition 187 and the Hispanic Vote. Without repeating all the arguments, it’s notable that less than half of Hispanics are eligible to vote, that they are concentrated in non-swing states and that they turn out at the lowest level of any other group [Why Hispanics Don’t Have a Larger Political Voice, by Nate Cohn, New York Times, June 15, 2014]. Even though Trump is the first Republican Presidential nominee to run on a true immigration patriot position, Hispanic apathy persists, with recent polls showing they are less worried about the outcome of the election than any other ethnic group [In U.S., Hispanics Least Worried About Election Outcome, Gallup, July 13, 2016]
That being said, of course not every single white voter is an immigration patriot. Furthermore, Hillary Clinton is running on an openly anti-American immigration policy and making it central to her campaign. The more cautious course would have been for Trump to focus on 80-20 proxy-type issues like Administrative Amnesty, Official English, and sanctuary cities to turn out the White Vote.
Still I think Trump made the right decision. Had he focused on these popular, but ultimately peripheral issues, immigration would not be central to the campaign. And American voters have not only never had a choice to vote on immigration patriotism—they have never heard the arguments for it.
Take total immigration levels. Polls show about half of Americans support reducing legal immigration levels, while 15% think it should be increased, and 34% think it should stay the same [U.S. Public Has Mixed Views of Immigrants and Immigration, Pew Research Center, September 28, 2015]. If Trump had simply said immigration should stay the same while focused on attacking Hillary for increasing legal immigration, 85% of the country would agree with him more than her.
Yet after hearing Trump say “legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers,” and we should “select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society, and their ability to be financially self-sufficient,” I believe there is every chance that reducing immigration will become an 80-20 issue.
Perhaps I am putting too much faith in the common sense of the American people. But if Trump’s great speech in Phoenix cannot convince them to save their country, it is already lost.
Washington Watcher [email him] is an anonymous source Inside The Beltway.

Editorial: Was the Gitmo/Afghan prisoner exchange worth it? Was it legal?

Editorial


Was it worth exchanging five Guantanamo Bay prisoners for one captured American? Was it legal? Was he really a captured American or a deserter?

Goodbye Columbus, Goodbye America: The 4th of July Targeted Next!

A very interesting post from www.Alipac.US about Columbus Day being opposed by pro-amnesty groups. This follows this post about California giving drivers licenses to illegal aliens. This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more about what you can do click here and you can read two very interesting books HERE.

Goodbye Columbus, Goodbye America: The 4th of July Targeted Next!


by

ALIPAC

ALIPAC NOTE: Due to unchecked illegal immigration and hyper legal immigration, anti-American attitudes are flourishing on American streets and this article hits the nail on the head. Today, Columbus Day has fallen. Tomorrow it will be a full assault on Christmas and the 4th of July! Please support our fight to stop and reverse illegal immigration and amnesty! (Click Here)

--------



Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog



Columbus may have outfoxed the Spanish court and his rivals, but he is falling victim to the court of political correctness.



The explorer who discovered America has become controversial because the very idea of America has become controversial.

There are counter-historical claims put forward by Muslim and Chinese scholars claiming that they discovered America first. And there are mobs of fake indigenous activists on every campus to whom the old Italian is as much of a villain as the bearded Uncle Sam.



Columbus Day parades are met with protests and some have been minimized or eliminated.



In California, Columbus Day became Indigenous People's Day, which sounds like a Marxist terrorist group's holiday. While it's tempting to put that down to California political correctness, in South Dakota it was renamed Native American Day.



The shift from celebrating Columbus' arrival in America to commemorating it as an American Nakba by focusing on the Indians, rather than the Americans, is a profound form of historical revisionism that hacks away at the origins of this country.



No American state has followed Venezuela's lead in renaming it Día de la Resistencia Indígena, or Day of Indigenous Resistance, which actually is a Marxist terrorist group's holiday, the whole notion of celebrating the discovery of America has come to be seen as somehow shameful and worst of all, politically incorrect.



Anti-Columbus Day protests are mounted by La Raza, whose members, despite their indigenous posturing, are actually mostly descended from Spanish colonists, but who know that most American liberals are too confused to rationally frame an objection to a protest by any minority group.



About the only thing sillier than a group of people emphasizing their collective identity as a Spanish speaking people, and denouncing Columbus as an imperialist exploiter is Ward Churchill, a fake Indian, who compared Columbus to Heinrich Himmler. Ward Churchill's scholarship consists of comparing Americans in past history and current events to random Nazis. If he hasn't yet compared Amerigo Vespucci or Daniel Boone to Ernst Röhm; it's only a matter of time.



The absurdity of these attacks is only deepened by the linguistic and cultural ties between the Italian Columbus Day marchers and the Latino Anti-Columbus Day protesters with the latter set cynically exploiting white guilt to pretend that being the descendants of Southern European colonists makes them a minority.



If being descended from Southern Europeans makes you a minority, then Columbus, the parade marchers, the Greek restaurant owner nearby and even Rush Limbaugh are all "people of color."



Italian-Americans are the only bulwark against political correctness still keeping Columbus on the calendar, and that has made mayors and governors in cities and states with large Italian-American communities wary of tossing the great explorer completely overboard. But while Ferdinand and Isabella may have brought Columbus back in chains, modern day political correctness has banished him to the darkened dungeon of non-personhood, erasing him from history and replacing him with a note reading, "I'm Sorry We Ever Landed Here."



But this is about more than one single 15th century Genoan with a complicated life who was neither a monster nor a saint. It is about whether America really has any right to exist at all. Is there any argument against celebrating Columbus Day, that cannot similarly be applied to the Fourth of July?



If Columbus is to be stricken from the history books in favor of ideological thugs like Malcolm X or Caesar Chavez, then America must soon follow. Columbus' crime is that he enabled European settlement of the continent.



If the settlement of non-Indians in North America is illegitimate, then any national state they created is also illegitimate.



It is easier to hack away at a nation's history by beginning with the lower branches.



Columbus is an easier target than America itself, though La Raza considers both colonialist vermin. Americans are less likely to protest over the banishment of Columbus to the politically correct Gulag than over the banishing America itself, which was named after another one of those colonialist explorers, Amerigo Vespucci. First they came for Columbus Day and then for the Fourth of July.



The battles being fought over Columbus Day foreshadow the battles to be fought over the Fourth of July. As Columbus Day joins the list of banned holidays in more cities, one day there may not be a Fourth of July, just a day of Native Resistance to remember the atrocities of the colonists with PBS documentaries comparing George Washington to Hitler.



These documentaries already exist, they just haven't gone mainstream. Yet.



We celebrate Columbus Day and the Fourth of July because history is written by the winners. Had the Aztecs, the Mayans or the Iroquois Confederation developed the necessary technology and skills to cross the Atlantic and begin colonizing Europe, the fate of its native inhabitants would have been far uglier. The different perspectives on history often depend on which side you happen to be on.



To Americans, the Alamo is a shining moment of heroism. To the Mexicans who are the heirs of a colonialist empire far more ruthless than anything to be found north of the Rio Grande, the war was a plot to conquer Mexican territory. And neither side is altogether wrong, but choosing which version of history to go by is the difference between being an American or a Mexican.



A nation's mythology, its paragons and heroes, its founding legends and great deeds, are its soul. To replace them with another culture's perspective on its history is to kill that soul.



That is the ultimate goal of political correctness, to kill America's soul. To stick George Washington, Patrick Henry, Jefferson, James Bowie, Paul Revere, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and all the rest on a shelf in a back room somewhere, and replace them with timelier liberal heroes. Move over Washington, Caesar Chavez needs this space. No more American heroes need apply.



Followed of course by no more America.



This is how it begins. And that is how it ends. Nations are not destroyed by atomic bombs or economic catastrophes; they are lost when they lose any reason to go on living. When they no longer have enough pride to go on fighting to survive.



The final note of politically correct lunacy comes from a headline in the Columbus Dispatch about the Columbus Day festival in the city of Columbus, Ohio. "Italian Festival honors controversial explorer with its own Columbus Day parade".



Once the great discover of America, Columbus is now dubbed "controversial" by a newspaper named after him, in a city named after him .And if he is controversial, how can naming a city after him and a newspaper after the city not be equally controversial?



Can the day when USA Today has a headline reading, "Some cities still plan controversial 4th of July celebration of American independence" be far behind?







http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2013....knw1t4KR.hpvt

"There Is One God, the Father...and One Lord, Jesus Christ"

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Jesus Christ as God. This follows this post about  Syria’s Civil War. For a free magazine subscription or to get the book shown for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

"There Is One God, the Father...and One Lord, Jesus Christ"

A number of scriptural passages identify Jesus Christ as God along with God the Father. Yet some contend that the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 8 denied the divinity of Christ in applying the distinction God exclusively to the Father. Let's consider what Paul was actually saying here - and what he wasn't.



In a discussion over whether Christians could eat meat sacrificed to idols, Paul agreed that idols were powerless and represented false gods, stating: "About eating food offered to idols, then, we know that 'an idol is nothing in the world,' and that 'there is no God but one.' For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth—as there are many 'gods' and many 'lords'—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him" (verses 4-6, HCSB).



So does the fact that "for us there is one God, the Father," mean that Jesus cannot also be God? Initially it might seem so. But consider a parallel question based on the same passage: Does the fact that "for us there is . . . one Lord, Jesus Christ," mean that the Father cannot also be Lord?



This is obviously not the case, for the Father is certainly Lord—meaning Master and Ruler. Jesus prayed, "I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth" (Matthew 11:25At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.



See All...). And Revelation 11:15And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.



See All... mentions the Kingdom "of our Lord and of His Christ." Jesus is indeed Lord, but obviously the Father is Lord above Him. This does not contradict Paul's statement. And neither do other verses that proclaim the deity of Christ.



Rather than excluding Jesus from being God, a careful reading of 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 [4] As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

[5] For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

[6] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.





See All... should help us to see that He is included in the divine identity. Paul is briefly affirming the contrast between pagan polytheism (the belief in many gods) and true monotheism (the belief in just one God). But why doesn't he limit his affirmation that "there is no God but one" to stating only that "there is one God, the Father"? Why does he even mention "one Lord, Jesus Christ," in this context?



Surely it is because Jesus is an important part of what God is. As elsewhere, Paul shows here that while "all things"—the entire created realm, both physical and spiritual—is ultimately from God the Father, it was all actually made through Jesus Christ. And Jesus rules over it all as Lord under the Father.



Does "Lord" designate divinity?

Some maintain that of the terms "God" and "Lord" used here, only "God" designates divinity in context. It is true that the term Lord does not always denote deity. It can refer to any master—divine, human or otherwise. Yet we should note the parallelism in what Paul has written. He refers to the pagans' "so-called gods" as both "many 'gods' and many 'lords.'" Thus he includes the latter term "lords" as designating deity—whether the imaginary gods of the pagans or human rulers looked on as divine. In parallel, Paul refers to the true God as both "one God" and "one Lord." So "Lord" in this context likewise designates divinity.



In fact, the passage here recognizes far more power and rule belonging to the Lord Jesus Christ than what the pagan systems attributed to their various gods. This point is vital to understanding the matter at hand. Paul acknowledges the label of "gods" for the pagan objects of worship, each believed to have a limited sphere of power. Yet he points out that Jesus, "through whom are all things," is the Maker of all that exists, including ourselves!



By the very terminology Paul employs here, Jesus must rank as divine. For how can the imaginary Aphrodite or Venus, goddess of love appearing as the evening star, be classified as deity while Jesus, Maker of all the stars and of man and woman and of human love—having greater power and lordship than that attributed to all of the pagan gods and goddesses combined—not be classified as deity?



With this in mind, some label Jesus as a god—but that would imply power over a limited sphere. Yet Jesus has dominion over everything that exists with the exception of only one thing—the Father, who is over Him. Jesus is thus subordinate to the Father, but the Father has entrusted "all authority" and "all things" to Him (Matthew 28:18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.



See All...; 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 [27] For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

[28] And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.





See All...). And as explained elsewhere, Jesus is in perfect and total agreement with the Father.



Both crucial to defining God

So if both Father and Son are God and both are Lord, why does Paul divide Them out as "one God, the Father" and "one Lord, Jesus Christ"? We are not explicitly told, but the classification is used elsewhere in Scripture. In Psalm 110:1(A Psalm of David.) The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.



See All..., Israel's King David referred to an intermediary between God and himself as Lord. The verse begins: "The Lord [ Yhwh ] said to my Lord . . ." As the New Testament makes plain, Yhwh (the Eternal God) in this case designates the Father, who is speaking to the One who became Jesus Christ, David's immediate Lord, ruling on the Father's behalf.



We also have Jesus' own prayer to the Father the night before His death, wherein He stated, "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent" (John 17:3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.



See All...). Some regard this verse as likewise denying the divinity of Christ, but it assuredly does not. Besides the fact that Jesus said this while His power was limited in human flesh, when only the Father could act throughout the universe as God (John 5:30I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.



See All...; 14:10), the obvious intent is that He was pointing to the Father as the true focus of our worship, with Himself as the Father's representative serving as intermediary.



This latter fact is evidently what Paul had in mind as well. In declaring the Father as the one God, he was referring to exclusivity of position, not exclusivity of divine nature. Just as Christ Himself did, Paul was acknowledging the Father as the Supreme Being over all and the focus of our worship. While "all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father" (John 5:23That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.



See All...), it should be evident that our honor of the Son is still relative to our honor of the Father. We honor the Son in this way because the Father has so ordained it. Thus, the Son is not the one God in the sense of the Supreme Being—and Paul therefore did not include Him in that designation.



But this does not exclude the Son from being God in the sense of sharing the same level of existence with the Father and sharing rule with the Father over all—and of acting as God on the Father's behalf throughout eternity, past and future. For the Son is in fact God in this very sense. Yet had Paul referred to Jesus as God in this particular context of denying polytheism and labeling the Father as the "one God," it would likely have resulted in confusion for many. So he chose to use a different distinction, Lord —the same title Paul typically used for Jesus in his writings.



Designating Jesus as the "one Lord" stresses His role as the One who exercises God's rule over creation—the point being that the Father does not do so directly but acts through Jesus Christ. This fact is a crucial aspect of defining God. And particularly for us, just as David recognized, Jesus is our immediate Lord and Master—the Father being ultimate Lord and Master. But there is no division in allegiance, for devotion to Christ is the way we are devoted to the Father. So again, the fact that the Father is Lord does not contradict Jesus being the "one Lord." For their lordship is not divided. Rather, the Father rules through the Son.



This then, in stark contrast to the competing deities of pagan polytheism, is Paul's brief explanation of true monotheism—God the Father, who is supreme, working through the Son, who perfectly carries out His will, these two being one in unity. And it is through Jesus that we worship and serve the Father. Thus, we should be able to see that Paul in 1 Corinthians 8 was not denying the deity of Christ but was, rather, affirming it through carefully chosen wording.

Inherent Beliefs

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about examining one's beliefs. This follows this post about dealing with conflict.  For a free magazine subscription or to get the book shown  for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

Inherent Beliefs


by Whitney Creech

One of the most important things I’ve learned in my three years of marriage is that everyone has grown up learning different ways to do daily tasks: washing the dishes, doing the laundry, folding clothes, etc. I had to learn that my husband’s way of folding a t-shirt is just as effective as mine. In fact, his way actually saved some time. So I put my pride aside and quickly learned a more effective way to get laundry done. This is a simple example of how learning something new can actually be good, even though it’s not the way I was raised.



When it’s simply a difference in how our t-shirts are folded, changes don’t seem that big of a deal. However, there are things we might have been taught growing up that could potentially keep us from personal growth. This concept occurred to me as viewers have been calling in to the front desk here at UCG after seeing the recent Beyond Today episode “Has Religion Lied to You?”, which challenges the doctrine of the Trinity. Are we afraid to look at the hard questions that come up when they question our long-held beliefs?



The book Is God a Trinity? states, “Most people assume that everything that bears the label ‘Christian’ must have originated with Jesus Christ and His early followers. But this is definitely not the case. All we have to do is look at the words of Jesus Christ and His apostles to see that this is clearly not true” (page 11) . It’s difficult to realize that what we have learned from our parents, society, or mainstream Christian churches might not be what the Bible actually teaches. Are we willing to start proving what we believe from the Bible?



I’ve learned over the past couple of weeks that the answer is sometimes no. When some start to see that the Bible does not support ideas that they’ve grown up with, such as the celebration of Easter, or the belief in the Trinity, I’ve been confronted with statements like, “I’m not comfortable going against what I’ve always been taught” or “I don’t want to become more confused by adding in a different idea that goes against what I think.” I realize this isn’t easy. I realize it takes a lot of faith and perseverance to find the truth.



2 Timothy 3:16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:



See All... says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” This says scripture is profitable for correction when what we’ve always been taught goes against what the Bible teaches. When we read a verse that points out a flaw in our behavior, attitude or something we’ve learned, do we read over it or take time to look into how we might need to change?



Personal growth can only come from realizing the flaws in ourselves or our beliefs and making a commitment to becoming more like Jesus Christ. Philippians 2:5 says, “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ.” In order to have the same mind of Christ, we need to allow God’s Spirit to work in us to make the changes in our lives and overcome the fear of personal evaluation.