Category Archives: Bernie Sanders

Threat to free speech: Unconstitutional S720/HR1697 will make it a felony to support anti-Israel boycott

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted in 1791, states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The criminalization of political speech and activism against Israel has become one of the gravest threats to free speech in the West:

  • In France, activists have been arrested and prosecuted for wearing T-shirts advocating a boycott of Israel.
  • The U.K. has also enacted a series of measures designed to outlaw such activism.
  • In the U.S., state governors have implemented regulations barring businesses from participating in any boycotts of Israeli settlements in Palestine. On college campuses, punishment of pro-Palestinian students for expressing criticisms of Israel is so commonplace that the Center for Constitutional Rights refers to it as “the Palestine Exception” to free speech.

Now there are two companion bills in Congress which will criminalize free speech by making it a felony to support any boycott of Israel, in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment that members of Congress have sworn to protect.

The bills are S.720 and its companion in the House, H.R. 1697, with an identical name, the Israel Anti-Boycott Act.

Here’s the text of S 720:

Israel Anti-Boycott Act

This bill declares that Congress: (1) opposes the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution of March 24, 2016, which urges countries to pressure companies to divest from, or break contracts with, Israel; and (2) encourages full implementation of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 through enhanced, governmentwide, coordinated U.S.-Israel scientific and technological cooperation in civilian areas.

The bill amends the Export Administration Act of 1979 to declare that it shall be U.S. policy to oppose:

  • requests by foreign countries to impose restrictive practices or boycotts against other countries friendly to the United States or against U.S. persons; and
  • restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by an international governmental organization, or requests to impose such practices or boycotts, against Israel.

The bill prohibits U.S. persons engaged in interstate or foreign commerce from:

  • requesting the imposition of any boycott by a foreign country against a country which is friendly to the United States; or
  • supporting any boycott fostered or imposed by an international organization, or requesting imposition of any such boycott, against Israel.

The bill amends the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 to include as a reason for the Export-Import Bank to deny credit applications for the export of goods and services between the United States and foreign countries, opposition to policies and actions that are politically motivated and are intended to penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with citizens or residents of Israel, entities organized under the laws of Israel, or the Government of Israel.

S 720’s companion bill, HR 1697, is much longer. It explains that:

“For a half century, Congress has combated anti-Israel boycotts and other discriminatory activity under the Export Administration Act of 1979.”

HR 1697 also specifies the punishment for violating the Israel Anti-Boycott Act: a minimum civil penalty of $250,000, and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison:

Whoever knowingly violates or conspires to or attempts to violate any provision of section 8(a) [of the Export Administration act of 1979] or any regulation, order, or license issued thereunder shall be fined in accordance with section 206 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1705).”

And what are those penalties? From 50 U.S.C. 1705:

“(b) Civil penalty

A civil penalty may be imposed on any person who commits an unlawful act described in subsection (a) in an amount not to exceed the greater of- (1) $250,000; or (2) an amount that is twice the amount of the transaction that is the basis of the violation with respect to which the penalty is imposed.

(c) Criminal penalty

A person who willfully commits, willfully attempts to commit, or willfully conspires to commit, or aids or abets in the commission of, an unlawful act described in subsection (a) shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.”

Both bills have widespread bipartisan support:

(1) S 720 was introduced by Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) and has 45 co-sponsors:

  • 31 Republicans: John Boozman (AR), Richard Burr (NC), Shelley Moore Capito (WV), Bill Cassidy (LA), Susan Collins (ME), John Cornyn (TX), Tom Cotton (AR), Mike Crapo (IA), Ted Cruz (TX), Deb Fischer (NE), Lindsey Graham (SC), Chuck Grassley (IA), Orrin Hatch (UT), Dean Heller (NV), John Hoeven (ND), Johnny Isakson (GA), James Lankford (OK), Jerry Moran (KS), David Perdue (GA), Rob Portman (OH), Pat Roberts (KS), Marco Rubio (FL), Ben Sasse (NE), Tim Scott (SC), Luther Strange (AL), Dan Sullivan (AR), John Thune (SD), Thom Tillis (NC), Roger Wicker (MS), Todd Young (IN).
  • 14 Democrats: Michael Bennet (CO), Richard Blementhal (CT), Maria Cantwell (WA), Christopher Coons (DE), Joe Donnelly (IN), Joni Ernst (IA), Kristen Gillibrand (NY), Margaret Wood Hassan (NH), Joe Manchin (WV), Claire McCaskill (MO), Robert Menendez (NJ), Bill Nelson (FL), Gary Peters (MI), Charles Schumer (NY), Ron Wyden (OR).

(2) HR1697 was introduced by Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) and has 240 co-sponsors:

  • 177 Republicans
  • 63 Democrats

S 720 was referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on March 23, 2017. Its companion bill, HR 1697, was referred to the House Financial Services Committee also on March 23, 2017.

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports on July 20, 2017, that HR 1697/S 720 “was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee” (AIPAC). Indeed, AIPAC’s 2017 lobbying agenda identifies passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year.

The two bills that will make it a felony if you support any boycott of Israel also have the support of the thoroughly-cucked Christians United for Israel.

Did you know that, according to a list compiled in 2012, there are 41 members of Congress (29 in the House; 12 in the Senate) who have dual US-Israeli citizenship, which means they have dual loyalties?

The above list is dated in that Barney Frank, Henry Waxman and Anthony Weiner are no longer representatives.

Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), 73, who introduced S720 and whose grandparents were Russian Jewish immigrants, is on the above list. The family name was originally Kardonsky.

In 2015, Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL), 55, who introduced HR 1697, wrote a letter to the New York Times condemning the paper for a graphic on members of Congress opposed to Obama’s Iran nuclear agreement, which initially identified Jewish lawmakers with a bold yellow highlight. Roskam, who opposed the nuclear deal, called the graphic “anti-Semitic” and that it “feeds the canard of dual loyalty that legitimizes prejudice toward Jews worldwide.”

What is needed is an updated list. Alas, as L. Michael Hager — co-founder and former director general of the International Development Law Organization, Rome — discovered, it is extremely difficult to identify members of Congress who hold dual citizenship and to ascertain the second nationality of those members.

In October 2014, Hagen filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Congressional Research Service (CRS) for the names of members of Congress with dual citizenship. In January 2015, he finally got a non-answer in a telephone call from a legal officer of the Library of Congress. After reminding Hagen that Congress and the CRS by extension are exempt from FOIA requests, the officer said CRS does not collect dual citizenship data.

Hagen writes:

“That’s bad news for those of us who believe that citizens should know if their representatives in Congress (and senior government officials and judges, for that matter) owe allegiance to any other nation….

Without transparency on dual citizenship, Americans remain in the dark, free to speculate on which representatives may have divided loyalties…. The lack of transparency is dangerous, for it erodes trust in government, creating credibility doubts where there should be none and allowing some conflicts to continue undetected, without question or debate.

Thus the first requirement is transparency. We need a government agency (presumably the CRS) or a non-governmental organization to disclose the names and non-U.S. national affiliations of Members of Congress and senior government officials and to track and report on this issue.

Secondly, we need more media attention to the subject of dual citizenship….

Beyond the threshold issue of transparency are equally important questions of whether a dual citizen elected to Congress or appointed to a senior USG position should be required to renounce his or her citizenship in the second nation. Even if American law continues to allow the government service of dual citizens, should it not require such persons at least to recuse themselves from participating in decisions or policy debates that relate to their second nationality?….

Conflicts of interest and apparent conflicts by public officials erode trust in government. Allowing dual citizenship in Congress (and in the Executive and Judicial Branches) to flourish under cover of non-disclosure puts our democracy at risk.

It’s time to bring this issue into open debate.”

To their credit, both the ACLU and MoveOn.org oppose S720/HR1697. In a letter urging senators to oppose the bill, the ACLU’s national political director Faiz Shakir wrote:

“We take no position for or against the effort to boycott Israel or any foreign country, for that matter. However, we do assert that the government cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, punish U.S. persons based solely on their expressed political beliefs.”

See also:

~Eowyn

Advertisements

Hillary Clinton is more unpopular than Trump

Gee, I wonder why…

From NY Post: Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump in the presidential election, but she’s winning the unpopularity contest, according to a new poll.

Clinton is viewed favorably by just 39 percent of Americans, two percentage points lower than the president, a Bloomberg National Poll released Tuesday shows.

The survey also says that 58 percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of the former Democratic presidential candidate compared to the 55 percent who have an unfavorable view of Trump.

Clinton’s favorability rating was the second-lowest since the poll began tracking her in 2009.

“There’s growing discontent with Hillary Clinton even as she has largely stayed out of the spotlight,” said J. Ann Selzer, who oversaw the Bloomberg survey. “It’s not a pox on the Democratic house because numbers for other Democrats are good.”

Former President Barack Obama has a 61 percent favorability rating — up 5 percentage points since December, and the highest since the poll began tracking him in September 2009. His vice president, Joe Biden, is also enjoying high favorability ratings at 60 percent, the poll shows.

But the former secretary of state even lost popularity among people who voted for her in November, with more than a fifth saying they have an unfavorable view of her. Just 8 percent said that before the election.

In follow-up interviews, the pollsters found some Clinton supporters voted for her because she was the lesser of two evils. “She did not feel authentic or genuine to me,” Chris Leininger, 29, an insurance agent from Fountain Valley, Calif., told Bloomberg. “She was hard to like.”

Robert Taylor told the poll he would rather have seen Sen. Bernie Sanders be the Democratic nominee. “I felt like there was a smugness and that she was just a politician who was called a Democrat, but could have been a Republican,” said Taylor, 46, a second-grade teacher from suburban Chicago.

Still, some voters aren’t pleased with either. Asked whom he would rather have a beer with — Clinton or Trump — Ray Cowart, 75, said neither. “I wouldn’t go, even if I was thirsty,” said the retired owner of a software company in Elk Park, NC.

The survey of 1,0001 adults was conducted by telephone between July 8 and 12 and has a plus or minus 3.1 percentage-point margin of error.

DCG

Report claims Bernie’s wife attempted to evict disabled group home residents

Jane and Bernie Sanders

Jane and Bernie Sanders, faux socialists

Well, this is an interesting development in the “political witch hunt” against him and his wife. Apparently there was no room in one of the Sanders’ three homes to help out the disabled residents…

From Fox News: Sen. Bernie Sanders’s wife has been accused of heartlessly trying to boot disabled group home residents when she was president of a Vermont college and closed on a real estate deal now under FBI scrutiny.

The home with 16 residents was on property Jane O’Meara Sanders purchased for Burlington College in 2010 as part of an expansion project, the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch claimed Thursday.

Reports this week say Sanders is under FBI investigation in connection with her role in securing financing for the project which didn’t pan out and led to the college’s closure.

Sanders and Sen. Sanders have reportedly hired defense attorneys in connection with the probe. Sen. Sanders called the accusations against his wife “pretty pathetic” and politically motivated.

Judicial Watch says Mrs. Sanders sent a letter to an attorney representing the HowardCenter group home in January 2011, saying she was having trouble evicting the 16 residents.

“It is simply not fair to expect the College to continue to carry the burden of the expenses associated with housing both you population and ours until February 2012,” she said in the letter Judicial Watch obtained under a public records request.

“The home for the disabled was being leased from the diocese and Jane was supposed to help relocate the residents, not evict them,” Judicial Watch reported. The group contended the comments showed Mrs. Sanders’ heartlessness.

The office of Sen. Sanders, I-Vt., did not return a request for comment.

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Vermont initiated eviction proceedings against HowardCenter after selling the 32-acre property to Burlington College, Vermont’s alternative weekly Seven Days reported in March, 2011. The eviction notice gave HowardCenter until November 2010 to leave.

But the diocese extended the notice after HowardCenter said it needed more time to find another home, the paper reported.

Mrs. Sanders was chagrined to be caught up in what amounted to an eviction of mentally disabled tenants, according to the paper.

“We are not trying to be the bad guys here,” she was quoted as saying.  “We have always said that we’d be helpful and we’d try to help them as they found a new home — and we have. At first, we agreed to delay for one semester, and even that was pushing it for us. Six months beyond that is not realistic.”

Sanders  told the weekly that Burlington and the diocese had made financial sacrifices to allow HowardCenter to stay past the eviction date.

“We thought a year’s time was appropriate, and it’s worrisome that they haven’t found a place yet, but there is really no choice any longer,” she was quoted as saying.

DCG

Bernie Sanders: Faithful Christians are racist bigots, unfit for public office

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states:

no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

But a religious test is precisely what Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) applied on June 7, 2017, in a Senate confirmation hearing for Russell Vought, President Trump’s nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

To begin, Russell Vought is eminently qualified to be OMB Deputy Director. With a Bachelor’s degree from Wheaton College and a law degree from George Washington University, Vought had been:

  • Executive director and budget director of the Republican Study Committee.
  • Vice president of the conservative policy advocacy organization Heritage Action.
  • Policy director for the Republican Conference of the U.S. House of Representatives.
  • Legislative assistant for U.S. Senator Phil Gramm.

Russell Voight is also an evangelical Christian.

In 2015, Vought’s alma mater, Wheaton College — an evangelical Christian institution — suspended tenured political science professor Larycia Hawkins for stating in a Facebook post that Muslims worship the same God as Christians, and that she would wear a hijab in solidarity with Muslims. In a January 17, 2016 blog post, Vought weighed in on the theological debate sparked by Hawkins’ suspension. Referring to Dr. Hawkins’ suspension, Vought wrote:

“While many faculty, alumni, and outside observers are typically outraged and embarrassed by this ‘assault on academic freedom,’ I am proud of the school and hope they stand their ground. Here’s why:

First, the theological issue at stake is very important, as it pertains to what we believe about our savior and Lord, Jesus Christ. Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God who is fully divine (and became fully human). This matters immensely for our salvation. If Christ is not God, he cannot be the necessary substitute on our behalf for the divine retribution that we deserve. […]

Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned. In John 8:19, Jesus answered, ‘You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.’ In Luke 10:16, Jesus says, ‘The one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.’ And in John 3:18, Jesus says, ‘Whoever believes in [the Son] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.‘”

Note that Vought quoted Jesus’ own words that anyone who rejects Him and doesn’t believe that Jesus is the Son of God is “condemned already”.

For that — for stating his religious beliefs — Vought was browbeaten and called “Islamophobic” and “hateful” by Bernie Sanders during the confirmation hearing for the OMB deputy directorship.

As recounted by John Daniel Davidson for The Federalist:

“On Wednesday, June 7, 2017, another Senate hearing: Sen. Bernie Sanders, in a blatant violation of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, was applying a religious test for an office of public trust.

Specifically, Sanders doesn’t think Christians are fit to serve in government because they’re bigots. Basic Christian theology, in Sanders’s view, ‘is indefensible, it is hateful, it is Islamophobic, and it is an insult to over a billion Muslims throughout the world.’ […]

During the hearing Wednesday, Sanders repeatedly quoted one particular passage he described as ‘Islamophobic’ and ‘hateful.’ Vought wrote: ‘Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned.’

As a matter of theology, there is of course nothing objectionable, much less Islamophobic, about that. It is simply a statement of fact: core Christian doctrine, plainly stated in the Bible, says that eternal life comes only through faith in Jesus Christ. Not that exclusivity is unique to Christianity. By their very nature, most religions are exclusive, especially when it comes to salvation.

As for having a ‘deficient theology,’ one could substitute any other religious group for Muslims: Christians also believe that Jews have a deficient theology, along with Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, and the tens of thousands of Britons who claim membership in the Temple of the Jedi Order. And of course, members of all these religions likely believe Christians have a deficient theology.

But to Sanders, a sincerely held religious belief—like believing there is only one path to salvation—amounts to bigotry and should disqualify anyone, or at least Christians, from public service. Reporting for The Atlantic, Emma Green noted that at one point, the exchange between Sanders and Vought became tense, with Sanders ‘raising his voice and interrupting Vought as he tried to answer questions.

Sanders: I don’t know how many Muslims there are in America, I really don’t know, probably a couple million. Are you suggesting that all of those people stand condemned? What about Jews? Do they stand condemned too?

Vought: Senator, I am a Christian—

Sanders: I understand that you are a Christian. But this country is made up of people who are not just—I understand that Christianity is the majority religion. But there are other people who have different religions in this country and around the world. In your judgment, do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?

[…] Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who defended Sanders, saying, ‘I don’t think anybody was questioning anybody’s faith here.’ Van Hollen then questioned Vought’s faith and claimed his theology is all wrong: ‘I’m a Christian, but part of being a Christian, in my view, is recognizing that there are lots of ways that people can pursue their God.’

It should go without saying that this is the sort of thing that should never come up in a Senate confirmation hearing. […] Article VI of the Constitution states that ‘no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.’ Yet it seems that Sanders and his ilk not only want to exclude sincere Christians from public office, but to impose a kind of secular test of their own. […]

That’s more or less what Sanders did by conflating Vought’s thoroughly commonplace understanding of Christian theology with racism and bigotry. A spokesman for Sanders said in a statement issued Thursday: ‘In a democratic society, founded on the principle of religious freedom, we can all disagree over issues, but racism and bigotry—condemning an entire group of people because of their faith—cannot be part of any public policy.’ The nomination of Vought, ‘who has expressed such strong Islamaphobic language,’ the statement said, ‘is simply unacceptable.’

At the hearing on Wednesday, Sanders said he would vote against confirming Vought for deputy director of the OMB. Afterwards, Muslim groups including the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Muslim Advocates, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, condemned Vought’s comments, saying without a hint of irony that his views threaten the principle of religious freedom.

[…] the progressives who now run the Democratic Party will turn a blind eye to the exclusivity claims of Muslims and other religious groups they think they need in their political coalition. But they will not suffer Christians. There’s a simple reason for that: Democrats know they have lost orthodox Christians as a constituency, and now they have no use for them.”

Born and raised as an American Jew, Bernie Sanders had a bar mitzvah. Although he rarely speaks about religion and describes himself as “not particularly religious,” when asked about his Jewish heritage, Sanders said he is “proud to be Jewish”. (Wikipedia)

Given that, Sanders surely must know about his Jewish heritage’s Talmud — the collection of sayings and writings by rabbis which has priority over the Torah as Judaism’s sacred scripture. The deeply Christophobic and hateful Talmud that calls Jesus Christ a “bastard”, “conjurer”, “fool”, “seducer” and “buried in hell”; Jesus’ mother a “prostitute” and “whore”; and all Christians as “idolators”, “murderers”, “bestialists”, “evil”, “unclean”, “like dung”, nonhuman “beasts”, lower than dogs, and “children of the ancient serpent”. (See Rev. I. B. Pranaitis, The Talmud Unmasked: The Secret Rabbinical Teachings Concerning Christians; and Michael Hoffman, Judaism’s Strange Gods.)

By his own yardstick, Bernie Sanders should never have held political office as a U.S. senator.

Yet this anti-Constitution man wanted to be President of the United States! What chutzpah.

See also:

H/t FOTM‘s stlonginus and CP.

~Eowyn

Actors in Caesar-as-Trump assassination play in tears and fear

File this under:

The Left can give it, but not take it.

New York Public Theater’s Shakespeare in the [Central] Park this summer staged a modern “re-imagining” of the Bard’s classic Julius Caesar play, in which Caesar is stabbed to death by conspirators in the Roman Senate, but with Caesar portrayed by a Donald Trump lookalike, sporting reddish-blonde hair, wearing a suit and a tie that hangs a few inches below his belt.

To make the allusion to Trump unmistakable, Caesar’s wife, Calpurnia – who begs “Caesar” not to attend the Senate because she had a premonition about his murder — is a Melania Trump lookalike, complete with a Slavic accent. (See DCG’s post on the play here.)

In other words, the Shakespeare’s play, which ended on June 18, was “re-imagined” by Leftists into an assassinate President Trump porn.

One of the changes that became clear in the 2016 presidential election is that America’s Right really have had enough. Thus, the birth of the New or Alternative Right, who are distinguished from the traditional Right or Conservatives in that the AltRight champion American nationalism and populism, and refuse to be passive, but instead are assertive, even combative if need be.

On June 16, AltRight activists disrupted the Caesar-Trump assassination play. Laura Loomer dashed onto the stage, shouting, “This is political violence against the right!”

When Loomer was escorted by security from the stage, AltRight journalist Jack Posobiec, DC Bureau Chief of Rebel Media, who filmed the disruption from the audience, stood up and told the crowd: “You are all Nazis, like Joseph Goebbels. You are inciting terrorists. The blood of Steve Scalise is on your hands. Goebbels would be proud. You are Nazis.”

Posobiec was also escorted out by security.

During a subsequent performance of the assassinate Trump play, another AltRight protester, a man, rushed the stage shouting, “Liberal hate kills!” Indeed it does, as seen in Bernie Sanders supporter James Hodgkinson’s shooting of Congressman Steve Scalise and three others at a Republican baseball practice on June 14, 2017. (See “Pedogate and the attempted assassination of Rep. Steve Scalise”)

Police charged Loomer, Javanni Valle of Brooklyn, and Long Island man Salvatore Cipolla with trespassing.

By that time, Delta Airlines and Bank of America had withdrawn their funding of the play. Even the liberal National Endowment for the Arts distanced itself with a statement saying that no federal taxpayer dollars had been used in the production of the play.

In a June 24, 2017 article for The Guardian, decidedly nonobjective reporter Oliver Milman who calls Posobiec “a rightwing conspiracy theorist” as if there are no real conspiracies (see “Operation Northwoods: A true U.S. government conspiracy for those who mock conspiracy theories“), writes that Corey Stoll, the actor who played assassin Marcus Brutus in the Caesar-Trump play, said the protests made him “sob” and the cast “exhausted and nervous”.

BooHoo. Poor babies.

Corey Stoll, one of the Tribe, has acted in the Netflix series House of Cards and the Marvel film Ant-Man. In an essay for Vulture, Stoll moaned that the Caesar play “had become the target of hecklers and online vitriol”. Despite those evil Trump supporters, the actors pushed bravely on:

“The protesters never shut us down, but we had to fight each night to make sure they did not distort the story we were telling. At that moment, watching my castmates hold their performances together, it occurred to me that this is resistance.

When I signed on to play the reluctant assassin Marcus Brutus in this production, I didn’t know Caesar would be an explicit avatar for President Trump. I suspected that an American audience in 2017 might see aspects of him in the character, a democratically elected leader with autocratic tendencies.”

While acknowledging that Caesar was “an explicit avatar for President Trump” and that “A nontrivial percentage of our liberal audience had fantasized about undemocratic regime change in Washington,” Stoll nevertheless disingenuously proclaims that he “had little fear of offending people” and did not think anyone would see the play “as an endorsement of violence against” a duly-elected sitting President.

Really?

Stoll continues:

“The Wednesday after our opening night, a gunman opened fire on the Republican baseball team, injuring four, including Representative Steve Scalise. Of the more than 150 mass shootings so far this year, this was the first that appeared to be aimed at a politician. Like most Americans, I was saddened and horrified, but when the president’s son and others blamed us for the violence, I became scared. [,,,]

Our final show. Exhausted and nervous, we took our places. Before I could make an entrance, someone started screaming and was led off, as the audience angrily turned against him. [,,,] During the assassination, another person sprinted to the stage, yelling, ‘I’m sick of your bullshit!’ He was tackled almost immediately. Forty-five minutes later, we finished the show, and our run, as scheduled. Backstage, I exhaled and sobbed.”

Everyone and altogether, say:

~Eowyn

The synagogue of Satan

Karl Marx

Karl Marx

The “Synagogue of Satan” subject keeps injecting itself into our discussions, so here is one treatment of the subject.

Bernie Sanders

Personally speaking (in a non-scholarly way), whenever I see Karl Marx, Bernie Sanders, George Soros or some putrid Hollywood mogul, the term, “synagogue of satan,” comes to mind.

The following treatment (which is slightly different than my opinion) can be found at: https://www.gotquestions.org/synagogue-of-Satan.html.


Question: “What is the synagogue of Satan in Revelation?”

Answer: The synagogue of Satan is mentioned twice in Revelation, once in Jesus’ letter to the first-century church in Smyrna and once to the church in Philadelphia. In both cases, the synagogue of Satan is opposed to the mission and message of the church.

To the church in Smyrna, Jesus says, “I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich! I know about the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan” (Revelation 2:9).

To the church of Philadelphia in Asia Minor, Jesus says, “I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you” (Revelation 3:9).

In short, the synagogue of Satan was a group of unbelieving Jews who were persecuting Christians. These groups were guilty of slandering the church in Smyrna and opposing the church in Philadelphia in some way.

The majority of the persecution the New Testament church faced came from the Jewish community. Even most of the Roman persecution was an effort to appease the Jewish authorities. This is true of Pilate’s condemnation of Jesus (John 19:1–16) and Paul’s imprisonment by the Roman governors Felix (Acts 24:27) and Festus (Acts 25:16). This pattern held true throughout the Roman world in the first century. As long as Christians were considered a sect of Judaism, they were exempt from the required observance of certain aspects of Roman state religion. However, as Christians were expelled from synagogues and denounced by the Jewish leadership, Rome began to see Christianity as a new religion that did not have these same exemptions. Therefore, Christians outside the protective umbrella of the synagogue were open to Roman persecution.

The synagogue of Satan say they are Jews (the people of God), and they persecute those who believe in Jesus the Messiah (the true people of God). In reality, by rejecting the Jewish Messiah, they have renounced their status as “true” Jews, and that is why Jesus calls them “liars.” This distinction between ethnic Jews and faithful Jews is also seen in Romans 9:6 (“Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel”) and Romans 2:28–29 (“For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter”). By their persecution of the true people of God, these unbelieving Jews had become a synagogue of Satan—a gathering of people who were actually following the devil’s priorities.

Both churches are promised victory over the synagogue of Satan. This promise echoes Isaiah 60:14: “The children of your oppressors will come bowing before you; all who despise you will bow down at your feet.” In the context of Isaiah 60, an oppressed Jerusalem will be vindicated. Those who oppress her will bow down at her feet and will have to admit that she is indeed blessed by God—in the language of Revelation 3:9—that God loves her. But Isaiah 60:14 applied to these Jews and the Church is something of a reversal. In Isaiah 60, the oppressing Gentiles will bow down at the feet of Jews and admit that God loves them. In Revelation 2—3, oppressing Jews will bow down at the feet of the persecuted Church (with a significant population of Gentiles in it) and admit that God loves them. This is a striking role reversal.

Internet searches of “synagogue of Satan” produce quite a few links to sites that claim the “synagogue of Satan” refers to the Jewish people today and that promote all kinds of conspiracy theories about how the Jews run the world. Quite frankly, this is a misinterpretation and misapplication of the verses in Revelation. The synagogue of Satan refers to specific Jewish communities in Smyrna and Philadelphia that were persecuting the church, not to any modern situation. Likewise, no modern situation should be used as an interpretive tool to explain a passage firmly rooted in the first-century Roman world. ❦


Okay people, there’s one opinion.
Let’s have at it. 

 

Pedogate and the attempted assassination of Rep. Steve Scalise

On the morning of June 14, 2017, at 7:09 am at a practice of the Republican team for the Congressional Baseball Game in a public park (Eugene Simpson Stadium Park) in Alexandria, VA, about 10 miles from Washington, DC, a Bernie Sanders supporter named James T. Hodgkinson of Illinois opened fire with a rifle on the Republicans, shooting and wounding Congressman Steve Scalise (R-LA) and three other people. (Wikipedia)

As reported by Fox News, Sen. Jeff Flake and former combat surgeon Rep. Brad Wenstrup ran to assist Scalise after U.S. Capitol Police shot and killed Hodgkinson, 66, who had a violent history including arrests for battery, resisting arrest and drunken driving. Senator Rand Paul, also a witness, said he heard “as many as 50 shots”. Calling the scene “sort of a killing field,” Paul said, “We were like sitting ducks. Without the Capitol Hill police it would have been a massacre.”

Shot in the hip, Rep. Scalise was the only member of Congress to be hit. The other three who were wounded are:

  • Zack Barth, a congressional aide to Rep. Roger Williams (R-Texas).
  • Tyson Foods director of government relations Matt Mika was shot multiple times and was in critical condition.
  • Special Agent Crystal Griner was shot in the leg. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala) used a belt as a tourniquet to stop the bleeding.

Initially conscious after being shot, Scalise went into shock while being taken to MedStar Washington Hospital Center in critical condition, where he underwent immediate surgery. MedStar is the same hospital to which Seth Rich — believed to the source of the damaging DNC emails published by WikiLeaks — was brought after being shot in a residential D.C. neighborhood early Sunday morning, July 10, 2016. Rich died in MedStar under suspicious conditions.

MedStar surgeon Dr. Jack Sava — said to have been Seth Rich’s surgeon as well — said Scalise had been hit by a single rifle bullet that “traveled across his pelvis, fracturing bones, injuring internal organs, and causing severe bleeding”. Sava  said that when Scalise arrived at the hospital, “he was in critical condition with an imminent risk of death,” but that after surgery by June 16, although still in critical condition, “We have controlled internal bleeding and his vital signs have stabilized”. On June 17, Scalise’s condition was upgraded to “serious” and he was responsive enough to talk with his family. He will required additional operations to manage abdominal and bone injuries.

Stephen Joseph Scalise, 51, is House Majority Whip and the representative for Louisiana’s 1st congressional district, serving since 2008. Scalise endorsed President Trump during last year’s presidential campaign, and has been a vocal backer of Trump’s travel ban. As chair of the House Republican Study Committee, he has spearheaded the effort to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

The buzz in the Alternative Media is that Scalise was targeted because of his strong stance against child predators and sex trafficking. Seven reasons are cited in support:

(1) Hodgkinson specifically targeted Republicans

Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.), who left the baseball practice just before the shooting, told Fox News that as he was walking to his car, a man asked him if it was Republicans or Democrats practicing. About 3 minutes later, at around 7:09 a.m., the shooting began. DeSantis said James Hogkinson was the man who had approached him.

In fact, Hodgkinson had a “kill” list of names of conservative Republican Congressmen in his pocket at the time of the shooting. (Fox News)

(2) Rep. Scalise has spoken out on child sex predators

(3) Scalise is a co-sponsor of a bill to criminalize those who make, facilitate, use, or transmit “visual images” of child sex

Scalise is one of 6 co-sponsors of H.R. 1761: Protecting Against Child Exploitation Act of 2017, which amends title 18, United States Code, to criminalize the knowing consent of the visual depiction or live transmission of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, and for other purposes, including the amendment of subsections (a) and (b) of Section 2251 of title 18, United States Code to read as follows:

“(a) Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (f), knowingly—

“(1) employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces a minor to engage in any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct, or transmitting a live visual depiction of such conduct;

“(2) produces or causes to be produced a visual depiction of a minor engaged in any sexually explicit conduct where the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and such visual depiction is of such conduct;

“(3) transmits or causes to be transmitted a live visual depiction of a minor engaged in any sexually explicit conduct;

“(4) has a minor assist any other person to engage in any sexually explicit conduct during the commission of an offense set forth in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this subsection; or

“(5) transports any minor in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce with the intent that such minor be used in the production or live transmission of a visual depiction of a minor engaged in any sexually explicit conduct,

shall be punished as provided under subsection (e).

(b) Any parent, legal guardian, or person having custody or control of a minor who, in a circumstance described in subsection (f), knowingly permits such minor to engage in, or to assist any other person to engage in, sexually explicit conduct knowing that a visual depiction of such conduct will be produced or transmitted shall be punished as provided under subsection (e).”

HR 1761 was passed by the House of Representatives on May 25, 2017. The bill was received in the U.S. Senate on June 5, and referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

(4) New York Times tipped off the shooter on the Congressional baseball practice field

From a NYT article by Nicholas Fandos on April 12, 2017:

“When members of Congress practice in the early mornings in an Alexandrea, Va., public park for their Congressional Baseball Game, plainclothes United States Capital Police are sitting there in a black S.U.V.”

(5) President Trump knows

On June 14, the day of the shooting, President Trump and First Lady Melania made a surprise, unscheduled visit to Rep. Scalise at MedStar. They were accompanied by Trump’s personal physician, Dr. Ronny Jackson. (New York Daily News)

The Alt-Media say this is Trump’s way of ensuring Scalise’s survival by sending a message to Pedogate that he is watching them.

(6) Democrats sent pizzas to Scalise’s staff

By now, anyone acquainted with Pizzagate cannot help but associate pizza with peodphiles.

Given that, it is curious that on the day of the shooting, staffers for House Minority Whip Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) were seen carrying several boxes of pizza to Scalise’s office. (The Hill)

(7) John Podesta wanted Rep. Scalise to resign

In 2015, John Podesta, chair of Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign and a prime player in Pizzagate, was part of a signature drive in a petition to get Scalise to resign.

Here’s the email published by WikiLeaks:

So, do you think Congressman Scalise was targeted because of his stance on Pedogate? Sound off in our poll!

By the way, two days ago, AltMedia journalist Jack Posobiec tweeted that a source told him “the Podesta case is open,” implying that the FBI is investigating John Podesta.

Please pray that the evildoers be brought to justice.

UPDATE (July 6, 2017):

After undergoing multiple surgeries, Rep. Scalise was transferred out of the ICU on June 22, and was listed in fair condition.

Today, however, MedStar Washington Hospital Center announced he is in “serious” condition and has been readmitted to the intensive care unit due to “new concerns for infection”. (New York Post)

We must fight the evil ones with the light of Christ. Please pray for Steve Scalise.

~Eowyn