Leatherneck Blogger

Posts Tagged ‘Pro-Life

ATF Considers ‘Repealing and Replacing’ Firearm Regulations

with one comment

By Beth Baumann
Bearing Arms
July 11, 2017

Over the last few months, the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) met with numerous groups – gun rights groups, gun control groups and law enforcement officials – to determine what firearm regulations the department could do away with.

The meetings were a direct result of the Trump Administration’s Executive Order, which focused on regulatory reform in order to“alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people.”

According to The Trace, a leftist news site, each organization was asked to consider the following questions:

  • What impact current regulations have on gun-violence prevention.
  • What regulations need to be ‘repealed, replaced, or modified.’
  • What regulations are outdated.

Although many are wondering what the discussions entailed, a spokesperson for the ATF declined to provide any additional details.

“Engaging in open dialogue with these professionals allows us to better understand the industries we regulate and clarify our processes and programs,” the spokesperson told The Trace.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) welcomes the discussion with the ATF.

“It is a unique opportunity to work with an administration that wants to advance the contributions of the firearms and ammunition industries to our national, state and local economies. These are discussions that would allow industry members to continue to grow their businesses and create new jobs,” Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel, said in a statement. “It is refreshing to have an administration that looks at government relations from the point of view of business and not from the point of view of a government bureaucrat.”

House rejects proposal identifying “Islamic religious doctrines” that could be used by terrorist groups

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
July 14, 2017

Choosing denial and willful ignorance instead of knowledge of the motivating ideology of the jihadis who have vowed to destroy us. That’s just asking to be defeated.

“If you have an amendment that says we’re going to study one religion and only one, we’re going to look at their leaders and put them on a list — only them — and you are going to talk about what’s orthodox practice and what’s unorthodox, then you are putting extra scrutiny on that religion,” said Muslim Brotherhood-linked Rep. Keith Ellison.

Yes, you are. And there is a reason for that: 30,000 jihad attacks committed in the name of Islam and in accord with its teachings since September 11, 2001. No one religion has anything approaching that kind of record of death and destruction. So why shouldn’t we put extra scrutiny on that religion?

Ellison added: “You are abridging the free exercise of that religion.”

No. The free exercise of any religion is not a license to break existing laws. The free exercise of religion is not a free pass to commit treason or subversion or sedition.

The amendment would have required the Defense Department to conduct “strategic assessments of the use of violent or unorthodox Islamic religious doctrine to support extremist or terrorist messaging and justification.”

There is nothing “unorthodox” about jihad violence in Islamic law and doctrine. But even this tepid recommendation was too much for the short-sighted 217 cowards of the House, who have passed up an opportunity to strengthen our defense against the global jihad.

“House rejects controversial study of Islam,” by Rachael Bade and John Bresnahan, Politico, July 13, 2017:

The House on Friday rejected a controversial GOP proposal identifying “Islamic religious doctrines, concepts or schools of thought” that could be used by terrorist groups — something opponents say is unconstitutional and will lead to the targeting of Muslims.

More than 20 centrist Republicans joined with Democrats to defeated [sic] the amendment, 208 to 217. Drafted by conservative Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), the proposal called for the Pentagon to identify Islamic leaders who preach peaceful beliefs versus those who espouse extremist views.

The proposal has drawn heavy criticism from Muslim lawmakers serving in Congress, Muslim interest groups and the American Civil Liberties Union, who say the proposal would unfairly target Muslims. They don’t trust the Trump administration to conduct the analysis.

“If you have an amendment that says we’re going to study one religion and only one, we’re going to look at their leaders and put them on a list — only them — and you are going to talk about what’s orthodox practice and what’s unorthodox, then you are putting extra scrutiny on that religion,” said Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), who is Muslim.

Ellison, who met with Franks to try to persuade him to withdraw the proposal, added: “You are abridging the free exercise of that religion. This is the wrong way to do what he’s trying to do.”…

“Right now, there is a certain spectrum within the Islamist world that is at the root of the ideological impulse for terrorism,” Franks said. “Ironically, Muslims are the prime targets of these groups. To suggest that this is anti-Muslim is a fallacy, and I think that anyone who really understands it knows that.”

Franks also took issue with Ellison’s suggestion that the amendment infringes on the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom, pointing out that he is the chairman of the International Religious Freedom Caucus.

“We’ve worked very hard to protect the religious freedom for everybody,” he said. “But it is important that we empower America to identify those heroic Muslims within the world that will help us begin to delegitimize this ideology of global jihad.”

The amendment would require the Defense Department to conduct “strategic assessments of the use of violent or unorthodox Islamic religious doctrine to support extremist or terrorist messaging and justification.”

The proposal requires the assessment to identify religious doctrines and concepts that extremists use to recruit potential terrorists, radicalize them and ultimately justify their heinous acts.

It also asks Pentagon officials for “recommendations for identifying key thought leaders or proponents.”

The proposal also requires the Pentagon to identify Islamic schools of though that could be used to counter jihadist views, as well as leaders who are preaching these sorts of doctrines….

 

Martin Luther King Jr’s Niece Alveda King: “Let’s Pray for America to End Abortion”

with one comment

By Alveda King
LifeNews.com
July 14, 2017

Celebrities — you either have to love them, hate them, or don’t care one way or the other. One interesting truth about “celebrity” men and women is that abortions have affected many of them.

I could also include cases of men celebrities, because some of them have post-abortion testimonies as well. We’ll save that one for part two.

I include myself in the mix because I became post-abortive in 1970 and was still hiding my pain in deep denial back then.

Yes, even celebrities and civil rights activists like me have had abortions. Thank goodness people are talking more about abortions these days.

At Civil Rights for the Unborn we uncover the injustice of abortion. Abortion isn’t a civil right; it’s a crime against humanity. At Priests for Life we work hard to end abortion. See Silent No More Awareness and Rachel’s Vineyard and find out why men and women truly regret our abortions.

Also, please read this compelling account about celebrity abortions by Kevin Burke, co-founder of Rachel’s Vineyard. Also read Recall Abortion by Priests for Life Executive Director Janet Morana. After reading one or both please ask yourself these questions:

1. Why must a woman choose between health, safety, and security or abortion?

2. How can taking an innocent life save a life?

3. Does the truth really matter?

“Have I now become your enemy because I am telling you the truth?” — Galatians 4:16 NLT

Let’s pray for America to end abortion and return to God.

LifeNews.com Note: Alveda King is the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. King is a leading pro-life voice who formerly had two abortions before having a faith conversion and she now is a speaker for and representative of the educational outreach of Priests for Life and the Silent No More network.

New York Times Op-Ed on Charlie Gard Backs Infanticide

with one comment

By Michael Cook
LifeNews.com
July 14, 2017

The case of dying English baby Charlie Gard shows how much public opinion about life and death issues is swayed by emotion rather than thoughtful deliberation.

Charlie was born with mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. This condition is so rare that there are probably only a dozen children in the world who are affected. The child cannot breathe on his own, cannot move and is probably profoundly intellectually disabled.

His parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, understand that their son will probably only live a short time, but want to give him every chance. They have found a professor of neurology in United States, identified only as “Dr I” in court documents, who is offering an experimental treatment which has given them a smidgen of hope. Even Dr I agrees that the probability is very low. The UK’s National Health Service will not consider paying for this, so the parents have resorted to crowd-funding. With donations from tens of thousands of people, they have raised £1.3 million.

But Great Ormond Hospital, where Charlie is being cared for, backed by the UK government, will not let the baby go to the United States. The doctors argue that it is Charlie’s best interests to die soon and in the hospital.

There are several issues in this case which make it impossible for the public, journalists and bioethicists to reach an easy conclusion. Is Charlie suffering? Should his expected quality of life determine whether he is kept alive? What are his “best interests”? Who makes the decision on whether to seek experimental treatment, the parents or the doctors? Can doctors in the NHS be trusted?

By and large, the media, especially in the United States, are giving very sympathetic coverage to the parents’ case. This is expressed very touchingly on their GoFundMe page:

We just CAN’T let our baby die when there is something that might help him! We won’t give up on him because he has a rare disease. He deserves a chance and he deserves a life as much as anyone else.

It’s not just a conservative/progressive, right/left issue. On the side of Charlie’s parents are Pope Francis and President Trump, but also – amazingly — the world’s leading utilitarian philosopher, Peter Singer, and a like-mind colleague, Oxford’s Julian Savulescu. The latter argue from a cost-benefit perspective:

It is a value judgement (not a scientific judgement) whether the pain of three months of intensive care (minimised by sedation and analgesia) [in the US] is worth taking to gather more information about the prospect of improvement with experimental therapy.

This is an issue on which there is reasonable disagreement. Many doctors and ethicists believe it is not, some doctors (such as Dr I, and now six other experts) and some ethicists believe it is worth taking this chance, even if it is a slim one.

In the face of such reasonable disagreement, we believe that we should accede to the wishes of the parents and err on the side of a chance of life. The alternative is certain death.

Now let’s take a look at a controversy at the other end of life. Noel Conway, a 67-year-old former university lecturer with motor neurone disease fears being entombed in his own body and is requesting permission for assisted suicide or euthanasia, both of which are illegal in the English legal system. His condition is incurable and he will probably die within the year. Yet coverage of his case in the British media has been very sympathetic.

How can the media support an infant fighting to live and also support an adult with considerably better “quality of life” who wants to die? Charlie Gard should be allowed to live as long as possible even though he has terrible “quality of life”, but Noel Conway should be allowed to die as soon as possible even though he has relatively good “quality of life”. “Support life at all costs” and “support death at all costs!” are contradictory theories.

The media just doesn’t have the patience or the intellectual wherewithal to puzzle their way through complex cases like these. Instead it reacts according to gut feel. And then, to heap contradiction upon contradiction, they criticise opponents of same-sex marriage and transgender rights for irrational arguments based on “repugnance”.

Just to demonstrate how impoverished is the elite media’s reasoning about life and death issues, consider an op-ed published in the New York Times this week. Without mentioning the Charlie Gard controversy, it was obviously an oblique commentary on it. In it a father remembered cradling his newly born son as he died painfully from the effects of Trisomy 18, another rare genetic condition. To heighten the emotional impact, it was written in the second person. The author argues “Shouldn’t we be allowed the swift humane option afforded the owners of dogs, a lethal dose of a painkiller?” And in his shocking conclusion, he tells himself, “You should have killed your baby.”

In other words, at the same time as the Pope and Peter Singer were united in arguing for Charlie’s right to live, the New York Times was supporting infanticide.

In any case the op-ed’s relevance to the debate is questionable. The incident may have taken place as long as 30 years ago, not last week. Palliative care has improved astronomically since then. And despite the father’s obvious anguish, he is not your average Joe. He is a professional philosopher whose main interest is showing that humans are not morally superior to non-human life forms, and possibly not to robots either.

But none of that seemed relevant to the New York Times editorial team. The op-ed was powerfully emotional and that was all that mattered.

Quality journalism helps people to think. Yellow journalism ignores the facts and puts a blowtorch to their emotions. And that, at least in the right-to-die debate, is where the New York Times has sunk to.

LifeNews Note: Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet where this story appeared.

Sansour Wants Jihad? Give Her Jihad

with one comment

By William L. Gensert
American Thinker
July 13, 20117

Linda Sarsour, a pro-sharia, progressive Islamic activist and former Director of the Arab American Association who also helped organize January’s National Women’s March (the one with the pink vagina hats) recently called for “jihad” against the “tyrant” Donald J. Trump in a speech to the Islamic Society of North America.

Sarsour said, “We are struggling against tyrants and rulers not only abroad in the Middle East and the other side of the world, but here in these United States of America where you have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House.”

She also said in the speech, “When I wake up every morning and remember who is sitting in the White House, I am outraged.”

Wow, she must be tons of fun at a party.

Of course, Sarsour explained how Americans are just too stupid to understand the nuance in her call to jihad.  No, no, no, you silly little American dolts, she wasn’t calling for violence, you don’t understand — it’s Trump who is calling for violence by insisting he serves out the presidential term he was duly elected to serve.  His refusal to resign or commit suicide, or whatever gets him out of office is the real violence here.  I’m afraid that most progressives agree with her.

Well if she wants jihad, I say we give it to her.  We are in a battle for the very soul of the nation.  Accept her declaration as is without being percipient to the underlying threat and we will be well on our way to losing.  It’s not just us who will lose, it’s the entire world — there is no one nation or even group of nations with the moral clarity and bravery to replace America as the last best hope for humanity.

If we accept her call to jihad as nonviolent, then calling for jihad against her personally is not a call to violence either.

There are many good Muslims in America today, who are grateful for the opportunity this nation gives them to live a better life.  Still, it seems to me that some Muslims come to this country and refuse to assimilate (Sarsour says they shouldn’t). They want Americans to change for them and then when people refuse, the get angry and call for jihad.  They want our women in tents and veils with their genitals mutilated, while all LBGTs are thrown to their death from the rooftops.

In short, they want us to obey sharia law.  Sharia gives infidels (anyone not a Muslim) three choices to coexist with Islam (the religion of peace): convert, pay, or die.  If this was their game plan, than they should have never come here.  Yet, the left champions their right to not assimilate and backs their desire to force us to change our nation, our society, and our values to accommodate them.  In other words, liberals think there is nothing wrong the extinguishment of Western civilization as embodied by America.

Sorry, but America is doing just fine the way we are.  It’s not us who need saving, at least not yet.

President Donald Trump gave a speech extolling the value of Western civilization and culture to the world and the entire progressive media and academic enterprise reacted in an apoplectic frenzy.  Yet, Sarsour calls for jihad against our president and of course, those same people are either silent or submissively bend over backward to be apologists for the religion of peace.  That’s the thing with this particular form of apologia (for Islam, of course), it needs morons to follow or good men to not fight back.  Remember, to paraphrase Edmund Burke, “Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.”

One way to look at the left is they are good people who are merely misinformed — but that is wrong. They really do hate America and Americans.  They seem to think that anytime someone brings up Western civilization or the virtues of the Republic of America, it should be followed by an apology or at the very least an opening of veins.  Progressives want power and control, and in order to get it, they are willing to force the nation to commit cultural and national suicide.  This is why they have no problem with Sarsour’s call to violence against the president.  Trump won’t apologize for America.  He stands up for America.  Hence, he must be a racist and a fascist.

Instead of trying to radically transform the nation in the image of Venezuela, proponents of this ideology should simply partake of the real thing and go live in that spectacularly failed socialist experiment.  Maybe they want to lose a few pounds.

One thing I can tell them is they should bring their own toilet paper and a gun because an American in Caracas today is prey, a soon-to-be carcass — hey, people gotta eat.

Barry gave his best effort at achieving the radical transformation of the nation into a socialist paradise.  Then he tried to foist his mini-me, Hillary, on the nation but Americans were smarter than that.  They saw her as an arrogant, entitled, outright criminal masquerading as a politician who nevertheless, was so unlikeable  that “unnamed sources” high in the Clinton campaign have said even her husband didn’t vote for her — but that’s just silly; everyone knows Bill wanted her to win so he could date again.

“Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?” Trump asked — and it’s the right question at the right time.

Critics have labeled the speech “nationalist,” “xenophobic,” and “racist.”  Yet if that were so, then why did the Poles love it — are they nationalistic, xenophobic, and racist as well?  To the left, if a speech is not an expiation of America’s sins or repentant for the country’s success it is nationalistic and racist.

Trump is not overly concerned with decorum.  He is his own man, a man who endeavors to live his life by his own rules and that means he will never accept the role of victim or patsy.  He hits back, and he is not afraid to defend this nation’s way of life and has no problem stooping to the level of his enemies to do so.  As would most Americans until very recently, .

However, conservatives seem to hold themselves to a higher sense of propriety; they will not fight as progressives do.  With progressives — and make no mistake, Sarsour is a progressive in good standing — everything is game, your family, the ones you love, the way you look, even the number of scoops of ice cream you have with your pie ala mode.  Either do as they say or be destroyed.

Once Trump became President, it quickly became apparent to him how he was going to be treated by the very antipathetic liberal polity and media.  He faced an existential choice with regard to his presidency, accept it in passive pajama-boy fashion, probably resulting in a one-term presidency not long remembered and of little note, but paradoxically get better press, or fight and accomplish as much as he could, while keeping as many promises as possible.

Trump understands the time is now to fight back against the outrageous behavior of the left.  Sarsour needs to be called out for exactly what she is: a radical Islamic supremacist intent on taking this country into sharia hell.  Progressives need to be told that Americans love America as the epitome of Western civilization it is.

Calling out people like Sarsour for their commitment to violence and standing up for our nation’s exceptionalism as Trump did in Poland should be the rule for our leaders and not the exception.

“Feminist” Co-Founders of The Women’s March Are Farrakhan’s Anarchist Angels

with one comment

By Jenn Jacques
Bearing Arms
July 13, 2017

The men behind the Women’s March organizers have a dangerous and radical agenda, and they’re being led by none other than Louis Farrakhan, the “father of the modern violent left.”

In her latest NRA video, Dana Loesch urges Women’s March Co-Founders Tamika Mallory, Linda Sarsour, and Carmen Perez to become real feminists and stand up to the violence of men like Farrakhan with their own clenched fists of truth.

 

Justices Thomas, Gorsuch blast court decision to reject gun rights appeal

with one comment

Fox News
Published June 26, 2017

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch issued a scathing dissent Monday to a Supreme Court decision turning away yet another gun rights case.

On a busy morning of decisions, the court on Monday rejected a challenge out of California regarding the right to carry guns outside their homes, leaving in place a San Diego sheriff’s strict limits on issuing permits for concealed weapons.

But Thomas, in a dissent joined by Gorsuch, countered that the case raises “important questions” – and warned that Second Amendment disputes aren’t getting the attention they deserve from the Supreme Court.

The Court’s decision … reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right, they wrote.

The case in question involved a San Diego man who said state and county policies requiring “good cause” — a specific reason or justifiable need to legally carry a concealed weapon — were too restrictive. A federal appeals court had ruled for the state, and now those restrictions will stay in place.

But Thomas and Gorsuch – the court’s newest member – called the appeals court’s decision to limit its review only to the “good cause” provision “indefensible.”

“The Court has not heard argument in a Second Amendment case in over seven years,” they wrote. “… This discrepancy is inexcusable, especially given how much less developed our jurisprudence is with respect to the Second Amendment as compared to the First and Fourth Amendments.”

The justices concluded by warning the court is in danger of acting dismissive toward the right to bear arms:

For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it. I respectfully dissent.

The high court decided in 2008 that the Constitution guarantees the right to a gun, at least for self-defense at home.

But the justices have refused repeated pleas to spell out the extent of gun rights in the United States, allowing permit restrictions and assault weapons bans to remain in effect in some cities and states.

More than 40 states already broadly allow gun owners to be armed in public.

The high court also turned away a second case involving guns and the federal law that bars people convicted of crimes from owning guns.

The Trump administration had urged the court to review an appellate ruling that restored the rights of two men who had been convicted of non-violent crimes to own guns.

The federal appeals court in Philadelphia ruled for the two men. The crimes were classified as misdemeanors, which typically are less serious, but carried potential prison sentences of more than a year. Such prison terms typically are for felonies, more serious crimes.

The administration says that the court should have upheld the blanket prohibition on gun ownership in the federal law and rejected case-by-case challenges.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have heard the administration’s appeal.

Fox News’ Bill Mears and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

Methodist Church and United Church of Christ Tell Senate to Oppose Defunding Planned Parenthood

with one comment

By Micaiah Bigler
LifeNews.com
June 15, 2017

Nearly a dozen religious organizations joined abortion advocacy groups Wednesday to urge U.S. Senators to keep funding the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.

United Church of Christ, Methodist, Presbyterian and Jewish groups were among the 150-plus groups that signed a letter outlining their support of the abortion chain, Obamacare and Medicaid expansions. A group called NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice also signed the letter.

“We urge you to oppose any repeal of the Affordable Care Act, attempts to change Medicaid’s open-ended funding guarantee into a block grant or per capita caps, and any attempts to defund Planned Parenthood,” the groups wrote in the letter to U.S. Senators.

They claimed that defunding Planned Parenthood would deprive patients of affordable health care, such as birth control, STD testing and treatment, cancer screenings and women’s exams.

“This loss of funds will have a disproportionate effect on poor families and people of color who make up 40 percent of Planned Parenthood patients,” they wrote. “Seventy-five percent of Planned Parenthood patients are at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty level and half of their health centers are in rural or underserved areas.”

The U.S. House passed a bill in May to defund the abortion group of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars and repeal and replace Obamacare, but the U.S. Senate has yet to take action.

Efforts to defund the abortion chain have been growing ever since undercover videos revealed that Planned Parenthood may be illegally selling aborted babies’ body parts. Earlier this year, a Congressional investigation into the matter concluded with lawmakers recommended that Congress defund Planned Parenthood. Investigations continue.

Abortion is Planned Parenthood’s main business, and its leaders have refused to give it up to focus on providing real health care to women. In 2015, it performed 328,348 abortions on unborn babies, nearly 5,000 more than the previous year.

It also receives about half a billion taxpayer dollars every year from the federal government. Earlier this year, Planned Parenthood leaders refused an offer for an increase in tax funding if they stopped doing abortions. CEO Cecile Richards called the offer “obscene and insulting,” making it very clear that abortions – not women’s health care – are the key “service” of Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood also is not performing as many non-abortion services, despite receiving increases in taxpayer funding over the past few years, according to its annual reports. From 2010 to 2014, Planned Parenthood reports showed dramatic decreases in the actual health services it provides, including breast cancer screenings, pap tests and STD tests and treatments. At the same time, its abortion numbers and taxpayer funding remained steadily high.

Legislation to defund Planned Parenthood would help ensure people have access to health care by redirecting tax dollars to community health clinics. These federally qualified health clinics serve low-income patients and outnumber Planned Parenthood facilities by more than 20 to one. They also provide much more comprehensive health care services and do not do abortions.

Pro-life advocates and Christians have been some of the leading voices calling for the government to stop taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood, but there are a few exceptions.

Religious groups that signed the letter, along with Planned Parenthood and dozens of other pro-abortion groups, include:

Bend the Arc Jewish Action

Jewish Council for Public Affairs
Jewish Women International

National Council of Churches
National Council of Jewish Women

NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice

Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options (PARO)

The United Methodist Church – General Board of Church and Society

United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries
Union for Reform Judaism

Women’s Missionary Society African Methodist Episcopal Church

The key organizers of the letter were the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the National Health Law Program and the National Partnership for Women & Families.

Muslim Brotherhood-linked Rep. Keith Ellison falsely claims 35 mosques attacked under Trump

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
June 23, 2017

Many of these “hate crimes” were just crimes: “The ACLU listed several burglaries in Alabama that targeted mosque donation boxes. But according to a police statement, authorities found ‘no evidence that these crimes are hate crime related.’ Another example involves a 16-year-old boy who set fire to a mosque, but authorities do not believe the arson was a hate crime. The ACLU also lists the murder of a young Muslim woman outside a mosque that occurred Sunday. Police currently believe the crime was a ‘road rage incident’ and not a hate crime….Ellison mischaracterizes some of the incidents CAIR reported by calling them ‘attacks,’ exaggerating instances like hate mail by including them in the 35-number from his tweet.”

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

The objective is clearly to deflect counter-terror efforts, claiming that Muslims are more victimized than victimizer, and that counter-terror efforts are part of that victimization.

Ellison has multiple links to the Muslim Brotherhood, so this is no surprise coming from him.

“FACT CHECK: Have There Been 35 Mosque Attacks Under Trump?,” by David Sivak, Daily Caller, June 21, 2017:

Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison tweeted Sunday that there have been 35 “mosque attacks” in the Trump era.

 

Verdict: Unsubstantiated

Ellison exaggerates an outdated and imprecise statistic. However, there have been a number of hate crime incidents directed at mosques in recent months. It remains to be seen whether these incidents are part of a growing trend.

Fact Check:

In his tweet, Ellison links to a Buzzfeed article that claims there have been around 35 “incidents of threats, vandalism and arson at U.S. mosques since January.” The figure is roughly based on an outdated statistic mentioned in a March press release from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

To establish a more current estimate, The Daily Caller News Foundation analyzed an ongoing list of incidents compiled by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The analysis found alleged incidents at about 60 mosques across the country to date. Many of the incidents noted by CAIR are included in the ACLU listing.

The ACLU’s list relies on local news reports, so the number of incidents could be higher if news outlets did not cover an incident or if the ACLU could not find all instances reported by local media.

The number of “anti-mosque incidents” the ACLU compiled may also be overstated because not all incidents were investigated by police as hate crimes. In addition, the list includes more subjective “incidents” like zoning disputes over the construction of new mosques.

The ACLU listed several burglaries in Alabama that targeted mosque donation boxes. But according to a police statement, authorities found “no evidence that these crimes are hate crime related.”

Another example involves a 16-year-old boy who set fire to a mosque, but authorities do not believe the arson was a hate crime.

The ACLU also lists the murder of a young Muslim woman outside a mosque that occurred Sunday. Police currently believe the crime was a “road rage incident” and not a hate crime.

Police reports and investigations are not infallible, but “anti-mosque” statistics issued by groups like the ACLU should be taken with a grain of salt. According to the FBI, “only when a law enforcement investigation reveals sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offender’s actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by his or her bias, should an agency report an incident as a hate crime.”

Ellison mischaracterizes some of the incidents CAIR reported by calling them “attacks,” exaggerating instances like hate mail by including them in the 35-number from his tweet….

 

Both Ellison’s tweet and the Buzzfeed article frame recent mosque incidents in the context of the Trump era. The article looks at incidents since January, the month President Donald Trump was inaugurated. However, evidence of a link between Trump’s presidency and attacks on mosques is unsubstantiated….

Lena Dunham Says Abortion “is the Most Basic of All Human Rights”

with 2 comments

By Micaiah Bigler
LifeNews.com
June 23, 2017

Lena Dunham is back, and she has a bunch of her celebrity friends helping her fight for abortion and Planned Parenthood again.

Dunham’s “Lenny Letter” blog produced a short video this week urging people to call their U.S. Senators and tell them to support the No. 1 abortion business in the nation, according to The Wrap.

U.S. Senate leaders announced plans to consider a bill next week to defund Planned Parenthood and repeal and replace Obamacare. The U.S. House already passed a bill.

The House version of the bill would eliminate more than $390 million (about 86 percent) of the annual federal funding to Planned Parenthood from all mandatory spending programs. The measure also would redirect funding to community health centers that outnumber Planned Parenthood facilities 20 to 1 and offer a wider array of health care services, but not abortions. The bill also would repeal Obamacare abortion subsidies.

The bill would close the largest pipeline for federal funding of Planned Parenthood, Medicaid, as well CHIP, Title V and Title X block grant programs.

In the video, Dunham railed against the legislation, along with “Hunger Games” actress Jennifer Lawrence, Jon Hamm, Brie Larson, Amy Poehler, Judd Apatow, Elisabeth Moss, Alison Brie, Andrew Rannells, Aubrey Plaza, Kate Walsh and Suki Waterhouse.

They claimed that cutting taxpayer funds to Planned Parenthood would have drastic consequences.

“This is nothing more than a blatantly political attempt to do whatever it takes to attack women’s health and rights, and take healthcare away from the people who need it most,” the celebrities said in the video. “The right to decide our own bodily future is the most basic of all human rights.”

But when it comes to Planned Parenthood and abortion, the issue is not just about women’s bodies and futures. Unborn babies’ lives and futures also are involved, and abortion destroys these babies’ most basic right, the right to life. Without it, they have no control over their bodies or futures. Without the right to life, truly the most basic of all human rights, they cannot enjoy any other rights.

In 2015, Planned Parenthood performed 328,348 abortions, nearly 5,000 more than the previous year. These numbers represent human lives, babies’ lives, not just women’s.

And if Planned Parenthood really was concerned about women’s health care, not abortions, it could get out of this political fight really quickly. Earlier this year, President Donald Trump offered to support an increase in taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood if it stopped doing abortions. The abortion chain refused.

Its CEO Cecile Richards went so far as to call the offer “obscene and insulting,” making it very clear that abortion – the destruction of unborn babies’ lives – is Planned Parenthood’s top priority.

 

%d bloggers like this: