Categories
Incest Intelwars marriage

Incest advocates step up their call to decriminalize incestuous relationships in wake of lawsuit demanding New York allow a parent to marry their child

Advocates for the legalization of consensual incest are using a recent New York lawsuit demanding the state allow a parent to marry their adult child to further their agenda, the New York Post reported over the weekend.

What’s this now?

An anonymous New Yorker filed a lawsuit this month to overturn the Empire State’s laws outlawing incestuous marriages because they want to marry their adult offspring.

Under New York law, incest is a third-degree felony punishable by up to four years in jail. According to the New York code, someone “is guilty of incest in the third degree when he or she marries or engages in sexual intercourse, oral sexual conduct or anal sexual conduct with a person whom he or she knows to be related to him or her … as an ancestor, descendant, brother or sister of either the whole or the half blood, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece.”

Incestuous marriages are null in New York, and spouses in such marriages are subject to fines and jail time, as is anyone who “knowingly and willfully” solemnizes such a marriage.

The parent behind the lawsuit — who has remained unnamed because their request is, as they admit in their filing, “an action that a large segment of society views as morally, socially and biologically repugnant” — is unhappy that the state would dare to “diminish their humanity” in an issue that is a matter of “individual autonomy.”

Now advocates for legalizing incest are jumping at the chance to support the suit and use it to advance their agenda.

Pro-incest advocate Richard Morris of Australia told the Post that he backs the suit, saying that sex between consenting adults “should not be criminalized.”

Though he and his fellow incest advocates have been working to change laws in some 60 countries, “We haven’t moved any mountains yet,” he told the paper.

Morris is using the familiar mantra of fighting for real “marriage equality,” saying to the Post that it’s “the right thing to do, isn’t it?”

“It seems to be as unjust as the law that used to imprison gay people, and the law that used to stop people of different races marrying,” he said.

The Post said another incest advocate, Keith Pullman of the Full Marriage Equality site, is enthused by the New York lawsuit.

He told the Post:

It is absurd to say that an adult can’t consent to marry their parent. That same adult can be sent to war, take on six or seven figures of debt, operate heavy machinery, be sentenced to death by a federal court, and consent to sex with five strangers (and marriage with one of them) but can’t consent to marry someone they love? In some of these cases, the genetic parent didn’t raise them and they met for the first time two years ago. Allegations of “grooming” are laughable attempts to deny someone their rights even though it will have no impact on the person objecting.

Pullman’s website advocates “for the right of consenting adults to share and enjoy love, sex, residence, and marriage without limits on the gender, number, or relation of participants” and claims that “full marriage equality is a basic human right.”

He published a long list of characteristics that detail exactly for whom the site was designed, including:

? I am attracted to or want to have sex with a family member or close relative (an in-law, step-relation, adopted relation, half-blood relative, full-blood relative, cousin).
? I am in a sexual relationship with or want a sexual relationship with a family member or close relative.
? I want to marry a family member or close relative, or have our existing marriage legally recognized.
? I have experienced Genetic Sexual Attraction or a strong attraction to a close genetic relative I was not raised with or I didn’t raise or who didn’t raise me.
? I am in or want a consensual incestuous relationship with another adult.

Those “feelings” and “experiences,” Pullman’s site says, “are not necessarily wrong or impossible.”

“Not everyone is going to want to accept who you are or who you love or how you love,” the site continues. “That’s okay, as long as they don’t try to control you. Sexual, relationship, and marriage rights are arriving for all adults, and as that happens, anyone who hates you or is prejudiced against you will have less and less ability to hurt you. That is why this blog exists; we promote relationship rights, including full marriage equality” (emphasis in original).

Share
Categories
Democratic socialist Intelwars New York City socialist

Democratic socialist anti-cop Muslim activist seeks to emulate AOC and take down veteran New York Democratic lawmaker

Remember how radical left-wing activist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez came out of nowhere to unseat longtime New York Democratic Rep. Joe Crowley a few years ago thanks to help from Democratic Socialists of America and the Justice Democrats?

Well, the left is looking to do it again in New York City, the New York Post said Friday. This time they’ve got veteran Democratic U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney in their sights — and they are using another radical, anti-cop socialist to wage their war.

The Democratic Socialists’ pick to click for the 2022 congressional election is a Muslim activist named Rana Abdelhamid, a 27-year-old Google employee from Queens, who has accused the New York Police Department of “state-sanctioned violence” and repeatedly echoed the far-left’s favorite chant-o-the-day, “defund the police.”

Who is this woman?

Abdelhamid announced her candidacy Tuesday with the full backing of the radical Justice Democrats, which now has a massive fundraising video spot at the top of its website for her. The site, which proclaims “the squad is growing,” asks fellow travelers to help “usher in a new generation of diverse, progressive, working-class Democrats with a bold vision to transform our economy and democracy.” The fundraising pitch focuses less on the candidate’s policies and ideas and more on perpetual victimhood:


Rana Abdelhamid for Congress NY-12

www.youtube.com

The candidate, the Post noted, works for Google as a “global marketing and partnerships lead” and has been a longtime advocate for Muslim women’s rights. That advocacy stemmed from what became an infamous attack on her when a man allegedly attempted to rip a hijab off her head when she was a teen. However, she never reported the incident to the NYPD.

In fact, she has been nothing but critical of the NYPD, which began with the department’s post-Sept. 11 stop-and-frisk policies, she alleged last fall during a speech for a city council candidate who vowed to divest from the NYPD.

She further engaged pro-police New Yorkers when she told the United Nations Association of the USA that her Muslim community “experienced a lot of NYPD surveillance, a lot of state-sanctioned violence.”

But Abdelhamid’s anti-cop coup de grace was an article she wrote for MPower Change, the website of the Muslim Grassroots Movement, in June shortly after the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

The piece, “Dear non-black Muslims: To be anti-racist is to help defund the police,” called for an end to “police terrorism.”

The internal community work to address anti-Blackness in the Muslim community is important. We write this to also ask our non-Black Muslims to center the calls to action presented by Black organizers across this country. This uprising, sparked by the murder of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Nina Pop and others at the hands of police, has been a call to defund policing systems across the U.S. We support the #8toAbolition campaign presented by Black organizers as a strategy to get to 100% fewer police murders. The 8 to Abolition campaign calls for:

1. Defund the police
2. Demilitarize communities
3. Remove police from schools
4. Free people from prisons & jails
5. Repeal laws criminalizing survival
6. Invest in community self-governance
7. Provide safe housing for everyone
8. Invest in care, not cops

There are several reasons why non-Black Muslims should be wholly invested in this call to action and ways for us to get involved. We recognize the long history of non-Black Muslim engagement with systems that perpetuate anti-Blackness and uphold white supremacy. Non-Black Muslim institutions, like stores and mosques, often times engage heavily with police, neglecting the reality of violence that these police systems are rooted in and contribute to in all of our communities.

Abdelhamid went on to claim that “policing is rooted in anti-Blackness.”

“The ‘Slave Patrol,’ which has evolved to becoming our modern day policing system, was founded first in 1704, when laws were passed to keep enslaved Africans from resisting White violence and exploitation,” she said, adding that “random mobs of White men were assigned the role of ‘maintaining order,’ by violently controlling the movement of enslaved people.”

This, she claims, led to today’s professional police that “were created to uphold segregation and a racial and class order that perpetuated violence against the most marginalized in many communities.”

“To this day, we know that policing continues to perpetuate a racial caste system where Black people are most frequently targeted and at the bottom of the hierarchy,” she continued in her anti-cop rant.

Her essay went on to claim that “we don’t actually need policing” and call for fellow Muslims to “demand and join organizing to defund the police and fund community needs.”

Can she beat the incumbent?

Maloney, for her part, is considered a markedly more formidable incumbent than Crowley.

She won her seat by beating an incumbent Republican in 1992, has a long record of supporting Democratic priorities, and has broad support in her district that covers most of Manhattan’s East Side, the Post said.

Share
Categories
Border crisis illegal immigrants Illegal Immigration immigration Immigration crisis Intelwars

Americans now more likely to call illegal immigration a ‘very big problem’ than coronavirus as concerns surge over border crisis

The ongoing crisis at the United States’ southern border has been making headlines — even in left-wing papers and on liberal cable networks — and with the surge in illegal immigration has come an increasing concern among Americans about how big the problem at the border really is.

In fact, worry over the scope of the illegal immigration issues has grown among Americans to the point that it has overtaken the coronavirus on the “very big problem” scale, according to Pew Research.

What’s this now?

Immigrants began surging toward and across the U.S.-Mexico border following President Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory. The crisis has seen record numbers of illegal aliens being detained, thousands of children thrown in cage-like facilities, and families separated.

Not only that, communities are reportedly being forced to take and care for immigrants — even if those communities don’t have the resources or infrastructure to properly care for them.

Also, the federal government stands accused of not properly testing illegal aliens for COVID-19 and not informing communities that are being strong-armed into housing them about their health status.

The massive rush of immigrants coupled with the Biden administration’s mangled messaging and response to the crisis has led to a significant jump in the share of Americans who consider illegal immigration a “very big problem,” Pew revealed Thursday.

In June 2020, the No. 1 “very big problem” issue among adults polled by Pew was naturally the coronavirus outbreak, with nearly 6-in-10 respondents (58%) agreeing.

At the same time, just 28% of Americans called illegal immigration a “very big problem.”

Since then, the share of adults saying the same of the coronavirus has dropped 11 points to 47%, and illegal immigration has jumped 20 points to 48%.

And the growth in concern has not been limited to just one political party. While Republicans’ level of concern about illegal immigration unsurprisingly has increased significantly, the Democrats’ concern has nearly doubled. From Pew:

While views of most national problems are divided along partisan lines, including illegal immigration, increasing shares of both Republicans and Democrats rate illegal immigration as a very big problem. Nearly three-quarters of Republicans (72%) say illegal immigration is a major problem, up 29 points since last June. The share of Democrats who say this is a major problem is now 29%, compared with 15% nearly a year ago.

The recent jump in concern over illegal immigration has pushed the issue to a tie with violent crime for the No. 3 spot on the list of issues Americans see as a “very big problem,” following only health care affordability (56%) and the federal deficit (49%).

Share
Categories
Covid vaccine FDA Intelwars Johnson & Johnson Vaccine

Confidence in Johnson & Johnson vaccine plummets after FDA issues ‘pause’; more people now see it as unsafe than safe

In a shock to efforts to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, the Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday issued a call to “pause” the administration of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine over concerns of blood clotting.

According to a new Economist/YouGov poll, the government’s move led to a sudden distrust of the vaccine among a large swath of the American people.

What happened?

As YouGov was conducting a poll on Americans’ perceptions of the safety of four leading COVID vaccines — Moderna, Pfizer, Oxford-AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson — the FDA issued its call to halt the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

As a result, the survey was able to offer a real-time look at how the FDA’s move impacted the perception of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. And the results were telling.

Before the FDA announcement, a majority of Americans (52%) said they believed the vaccine was safe, and only 26% called it unsafe.

After the the FDA’s pause, those numbers shifted dramatically, as a plurality (39%) said they considered the vaccine unsafe — a 13-point jump. The share of respondents who said the vaccine was safe dropped 15 points to 37%.

According to the survey, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was polling nearly as well on the safety question as the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines before the FDA made its call.

Prior to the government’s move, 59% of Americans said the Moderna vaccine was safe, and 58% said the same of the Pfizer shot, while, as noted above, Johnson & Johnson came in at 52%.

Johnson & Johnson was also outperforming the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, which is not available in the U.S. and was viewed by only 38% of respondents as safe — until the FDA made its announcement.

YouGov said that the FDA’s call for a halt did not impact the public’s views of the other vaccines, writing on Twitter, “For those asking, there are no statistically significant differences between pre- and post-announcement sentiment toward other vaccines, and the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are seen about the same as they were in our last poll in late Feb.”

Share
Categories
Incest Intelwars marriage New York

New York parent wants court to overturn state incest laws so they can marry their own adult child

An anonymous New Yorker filed a lawsuit this month to overturn the state’s laws outlawing incestuous marriages because they want to marry their adult offspring, the New York Post reported recently.

What’s this now?

Under New York law, incest is a third-degree felony punishable by up to four years in the clink. From New York code:

A person is guilty of incest in the third degree when he or she marries or engages in sexual intercourse, oral sexual conduct or anal sexual conduct with a person whom he or she knows to be related to him or her, whether through marriage or not, as an ancestor, descendant, brother or sister of either the whole or the half blood, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece.

Incestuous marriages — between ancestor and descendent, siblings, or uncle/aunt and nephew/niece — are void, the law says, and spouses in such marriages are subject to fines and jail time. Not only are those in the illegal marriage subject to punishment, anyone who “knowingly and willfully” solemnizes such a marriage is also subject to fines and imprisonment.

But an unnamed parent in the Empire State who wants to enter into matrimony with their own child doesn’t like those rules and wants judges to toss the laws as unconstitutional, claiming that being blocked from such a marriage would “diminish their humanity” and calling the issue a matter of “individual autonomy.”

The New Yorker who filed the lawsuit in Manhattan federal court on April 1 has kept their name a secret because, according to court documents cited by the Post, the request to jettison incest proscriptions is “an action that a large segment of society views as morally, socially and biologically repugnant.”

Little is actually known about the would-be spouses: Their genders, ages, and locations are not identified.

What is known is that, according to the lawsuit cited by the Post, they are adults who are a parent and a child and are unable to procreate.

“The proposed spouses are adults,” the suit says. “The proposed spouses are biological parent and child. The proposed spouses are unable to procreate together.”

And the couple feels that the state is currently denying them the opportunity to find “fulfillment in its highest meaning.”

“Through the enduring bond of marriage, two persons, whatever relationship they might otherwise have with one another, can find a greater level of expression, intimacy and spirituality,” the lawsuit claims, adding, “Parent-and-adult-child couples for whom procreation is either virtually or literally impossible can aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage and seek fulfillment in its highest meaning.”

What else?

Manhattan family and matrimonial law attorney Eric Wrubel told the Post that the suit is “never gonna fly” and noted that the couple’s lawsuit is “premature,” considering they haven’t even sought a marriage license yet, so they’ve not been denied any rights.

The newspaper said requests for comment sent to the lawyer for the parent who filed the lawsuit have gone unanswered. Also, the city’s Law Department told the Post that it was unaware of the lawsuit.

Share
Categories
Covid vaccine Intelwars NFL

NFL declares key team employees, including coaches, who do not get COVID vaccines will lose access to facilities and players

The NFL announced to teams this week that key employees — except players — will need to get COVID-19 vaccinations if they want to have access to some facilities and work with players. The only exception would be if they can document some sort of medical or religious reason for not getting a shot, Sports Illustrated said Tuesday.

What’s that now?

In a memo to all 32 clubs, first reported by the NFL Network’s Tom Pelissero, league bigwigs told team executives, presidents, GMs, and head coaches that key employees will need to get a vaccine unless they have what the NFL considers a “bona fide” medical or religious reason for not getting one.

Last month, ESPN reported, the league vowed that no NFL employee would be required to get vaccinated as a condition of employment. Strictly speaking, that is still the case; however, any so-called Tier 1 or Tier 2 employees — e.g. coaches, front-office executives, and medical personnel — who choose not to get vaccinated will find it much more difficult to do their jobs:

Tier 1 and Tier 2 employees (other than players) should be expected to be vaccinated unless they have a bona fide medical or religious ground for not doing so. Any staffer that refuses to be vaccinated without a religious or medical reason will not be eligible for Tier 1 or Tier 2 status and therefore will not be permitted access to the “football only” restricted area and may not work directly or in close proximity with players.

The league also said it would will be looking for ways to make life easier for employees who do get the vaccine.

“[W]e anticipate relaxing various aspects of the Protocols (such as close contact quarantine, restrictions regarding locker room, meetings and cafeteria use and the testing cadence) for vaccinated individuals,” the memo stated.

More from the league diktat:

Educate your employees and communicate to them the work-related benefits of vaccination. Those benefits include not being tested, not being required to wear a tracking device, not being considered high-risk close contact, not being required to quarantine if exposed to Covid-19, and greater flexibility outside the facility. […]

We are actively discussing with the NFLPA a set of protocol changes that would apply to clubs where vaccination levels reach a certain threshold and would give vaccinated individuals significant relief from requirements related to testing, PPE use, physical distancing, travel and other subjects.

The NFL is not currently requiring players to get vaccinated because that falls under collective bargaining, Yahoo! Sports reported, and is currently the subject of negotiation between the NFL and the NFL Players Association.

Share
Categories
Capitol riot Intelwars Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi says Capitol rioters would have had a fight on their hands had they caught her: ‘I’m pretty tough. I’m a street fighter.’

During the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, security quickly evacuated House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) when the mob breached the building.

But if security had not gotten her out forthwith and the rioters had reached her, they would have had a fight on their hands, Pelosi told USA Today on Tuesday.

What did she say?

The mob that stormed the Capitol while Congress was counting Electoral College votes and formalizing the election of President Joe Biden made it clear that they wanted to find both Pelosi and then-Vice President Mike Pence. Security personnel were able to get Pelosi and Pence to safety as pro-Trump rioters sought to disrupt and stop lawmakers’ constitutional duties.

Pelosi, noting she was thankful for security agents who kept her safe as they escorted her from the House floor, told USA Today she would have put up a fight if the mob that reportedly wanted to kill her had been able to get to her.

“That’s what they were setting out to do,” she said. The paper asked her if that frightened her, and she responded, “Well, I’m pretty tough. I’m a street fighter. They would have had a battle on their hands.”

Then she lifted a foot to show the reporter her 4-inch-high stilettos, USA Today said, and added, “I would have had these” to arm herself with.

Pelosi told the paper that the trauma the mob put people through was unforgivable and that many staffers and members of Congress are are still dealing with the aftereffects.

“I was never personally afraid because I had so much security for myself,” the speaker said. “I was afraid for everybody else, and I’ll never forgive them the trauma that they caused to the staff and the members.”

She added, “I do think it will have an impact on how people decide to come to work here or stay to work here.”

The riot resulted in at least five deaths, including that of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick.

Share
Categories
60 Minutes 60 minutes deception 60 minutes deceptively edited video Intelwars Ron DeSantis

’60 Minutes’ finally responds to criticism for hit piece on Florida Gov. DeSantis: ‘Some viewers … applauded the story’

After a week of getting slapped around for a clear hit piece on Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis accusing the executive of a pay-to-play scheme involving COVID-19 vaccine distribution, CBS News’ “60 Minutes” finally responded Sunday night.

However, the response was limited to a claim that “some viewers” — including, the show noted, a “retired newsman” — actually “applauded” what was the program’s deceptively edited exchange and smear of DeSantis. The short CBS News reaction said “viewers focused” on the edited back-and-forth with the governor, and it failed to address the controversy at the heart of the criticisms.

What’s the background?

The long-running news show ran a deceptively edited segment with Gov. DeSantis on April 4, accusing the governor of corruption.

CBS News’ Sharyn Alfonsi reported that the governor received a $100,000 donation to his PAC from Publix grocery stores, which later partnered with the state to distribute COVID-19 vaccines. “60 Minutes” aired a clip of Alfonsi confronting DeSantis at a news conference, accusing the governor of engaging in a “pay-to-play” scheme by giving Publix exclusive rights to distribute the vaccine in exchange for the donation.

DeSantis told the reporter she was spreading a “fake narrative” and then corrected the record in an extended answer, which was cut out of the segment by CBS editors before it aired.

The news program’s efforts were so egregious that even CNN’s Brian Stelter pointed out CBS’ malfeasance. And the Democratic mayor of Palm Beach County, Dave Kerner, came out in defense of DeSantis, saying the report “was not just based on bad information — it was intentionally false.”

What did ’60 Minutes’ say?

One week later, after taking a beating online — both from the left and the right — “60 Minutes” addressed the controversy … in a less-than-one-minute segment that appeared to blame viewers who “focused” on the show’s deceptive editing.

Sunday’s episode ended with Alfonsi addressing her hit piece in a “mail” segment about messages from viewers regarding the anti-DeSantis report.

“Viewers focused on an exchange with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis at a press conference,” Alfonsi began, neglecting to note it was her “exchange” with DeSantis that people were “focused on.”

As she reported the messages from viewers, Alfonsi focused first on positive feedback CBS had received, including from a “retired newsman.”

“Some viewers, including a retired newsman, applauded the story,” Alfonsi said. “Ron DeSantis will continue to deny, refute … call your reporting a witch hunt … I can only hope … that you continue to investigate and expose the truth,” she continued, quoting “retired newsman” Nick Boryack of Vero Beach, Florida.

But that’s where the glowing reviews of Alfonsi’s report ended.

“Many more comments condemned our editing and reporting,” Alfonsi said, without saying what the actual problems with the editing and reporting were.

“Shameful biased reporting — that is what you are guilty of. You are no longer journalists, but lobbyists and advocates,” one viewer wrote, Alfonsi said.

Anther viewer wrote, “I have watched 60 MINUTES for decades. After you biased piece on Governor DeSantis, I will only watch it one more time. Just to see if you broadcast this message,” the reporter said.

And with that, Alfonsi signed off without uttering a word about her role in the controversy, a correction, or any information on what happened.

(H/T: HotAir)

Share
Categories
Entertaiment Intelwars monopoly Woke

Classic Monopoly game is about to get a ‘woke’ upgrade: Community Chest cards to be updated with ‘feel-good moments’

For nearly 100 years, American children and adults have enjoyed the classic Monopoly board game. One of the features of the game is the Community Chest, where players draw a card that results in financial rewards or penalties, sends a player to jail, or gets a jailbird out of the clink.

Now, in today’s “woke” society, Hasbro has decided that the cards no longer match what they perceive as their customers’ cultural priorities.

The company launched a new
website to allow people to vote on how best to “update the Community Chest cards to include feel-good moments that reflect the best things about being part of a community.”

In a
post on the Hasbro site Thursday, the company declared, “Goodbye Second Place in A Beauty Contest, Hello Shopping Local! Monopoly Is (Finally) Updating the Community Chest Cards – and You Get to Decide How.”

“The world has changed a lot since Monopoly became a household name more than 85 years ago, and clearly today community is more important than ever,” Eric Nyman, Hasbro’s chief consumer officer,
said in a news release. “We felt like 2021 was the perfect time to give fans the opportunity to show the world what community means to them through voting on new Community Chest Cards. We’re really excited to see what new cards get voted in!”

What do the proposed new cards say?

No longer will the 16 cards focus on the “school tax” or “bank errors” or “beauty contests.” Just simply going to “directly to jail” is out. And you can apparently forget about that whole advance-to-GO-just-for-the-heck-of-it thing.

The new cards are all about sending a message about the importance of being a “woke” member of your community.

These cards will lecture you on the importance of volunteering, community involvement, not upsetting your neighbors, giving blood, rescuing puppies, shopping local, recycling — and even naming bugs.

Visitors to
MonopolyCommunityChest.com can cast 16 votes, picking their favorite cards as pairs of potential woke messages vie for the honor of replacing the traditional stack of Monopoly moves.

Below are the 32 voting options available on the Hasbro site.
(Editor’s note: The game no longer uses dollar signs but instead uses Monopoly’s own money symbol. For the sake of simplicity, we’re using the “$” here.)

“You volunteer your art skills and point a mural at the local school! COLLECT $50”
vs.

“You organize a group to clean up your town’s walking path. COLLECT $50


Image source: MonopolyCommunityChest.com screen shot

“You organize a bake sale for your local school. COLLECT $25”
vs.

“You weed the community garden and discover a new bug! Name it something fun! THEN COLLECT $25”


Image source: MonopolyCommunityChest.com screen shot

“Blasting music late at night? Your neighbors do not approve. GO TO JAIL. GO DIRECTLY TO JAIL. DO NOT PASS GO. DO NOT COLLECT $200”
vs.

You find a wallet on the sidewalk and decide not to return it! GO TO JAIL. GO DIRECTLY TO JAIL. DO NOT PASS GO. DO NOT COLLECT $200″


Image source: MonopolyCommunityChest.com screen shot

“You volunteer to run the social media accounts for a non-profit art center, and you meet some pretty talented people! COLLECT $100”
vs.

“You set aside time every week to hang out with your elderly neighbor — you’ve heard some amazing stories! COLLECT $100”


Image source: MonopolyCommunityChest.com screen shot

“You volunteer as a homework helper, and you learn some stuff, too! COLLECT $100”
vs.

“You spend the day playing games with kids at a local children’s hospital. COLLECT $100”


Image source: MonopolyCommunityChest.com screen shot

“You donate your birthday money to a community center. Keep a little for yourself. COLLECT $10”
vs.

“You donate blood. There were free cookies! COLLECT $10”


Image source: MonopolyCommunityChest.com screen shot

“Your friends video chat you after a tough day. GET OUT OF JAIL FREE.”
vs.

“You rescue a puppy — and you feel rescued, too! GET OUT OF JAIL FREE.”


Image source: MonopolyCommunityChest.com screen shot

“Just when you think you can’t go another step, you finish that foot race — and raise money for your local hospital! ADVANCE TO GO. COLLECT $200”
vs.

“You shopped local ALL week! ADVANCE TO GO. COLLECT $200”


Image source: MonopolyCommunityChest.com screen shot

“You organize a block party so people on your street can get to know each other. COLLECT $10 FROM EACH PLAYER.”
vs.

“You pass out umbrellas to people standing at a bus stop on a rainy Monday morning. COLLECT $10 FROM EACH PLAYER.”


Image source: MonopolyCommunityChest.com screen shot

“Meow! You knit cozy sweaters for the hairless cats at your local animal shelter. COLLECT $20”
vs.

“You help your neighbor bring in her groceries. She makes you lunch to say thanks! COLLECT $20”


Image source: MonopolyCommunityChest.com screen shot

“You go to the local school’s car wash fundraiser — but you forget to close your windows! PAY $100”
vs.

“You held a neighborhood party — but you didn’t recycle your trash! PAY $100”


Image source: MonopolyCommunityChest.com screen shot

“You didn’t shop local! PAY $50”
vs.

“You buy a few bags of cookies from that school bake sale. Yum! PAY $50”


Image source: MonopolyCommunityChest.com screen shot

“You volunteer at your local literacy center and learn some fun phrases in a new language! COLLECT $100”
vs.

“You help build a new school playground — then you get to test the slide! COLLECT $100”


Image source: MonopolyCommunityChest.com screen shot

“Your fuzzy friends at the animal shelter will be thankful for your donation. PAY $50”
vs.

“Your cousin forgot their wallet! You happily pay for dinner. PAY $50.”


Image source: MonopolyCommunityChest.com screen shot

“You organize a family reunion! COLLECT $200”
vs.

“You help your neighbors clean up their yards after a big storm. COLLECT $200”


Image source: MonopolyCommunityChest.com screen shot

“You graciously host a group of international students. They appreciate the home cooking! FOR EACH HOUSE YOU OWN, PAY $40. FOR EACH HOTEL YOU OWN, PAY $115.”
vs.

“You should have volunteered for that home improvement project — you would have learned valuable skills! FOR EACH HOUSE YOU OWN, PAY $40. FOR EACH HOTEL YOU OWN, PAY $115.”


Image source: MonopolyCommunityChest.com screen shot

(H/T:
New York Post)

Share
Categories
Donald Trump Intelwars Politics

San Antonio museum pulls Trump wax figure — because they can’t stop people from punching it

Donald Trump has been forced to go into hiding — in Texas of all places.

No, not that Donald Trump.

This Trump is made of wax and was on display at a San Antonio museum.

But then people decided to get violent, so higher ups at Louis Tussaud’s Waxworks on Alamo Plaza decided to move the former commander in chief to storage to protect and repair him, the San Antonio Express-News first reported Wednesday.

What happened?

The Trump figure has been at the museum run by Ripley Entertainment for at least a couple years. A June 17, 2019, Instagram post from the venue showed the fake Trump standing with figures of Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.

But as the 2020 campaign became more heated, attacks on the Trump wax figure picked up.

That’s right, people were so upset about Donald Trump that they took to punching, scratching, and gouging a wax statute of him — in a family entertainment venue.

According to the paper, the violence against the inanimate Trump was so rampant, museum operators had to move it to the lobby where attendants could keep an eye on it and try to act as a buffer to keep would-be attackers away.

But that failed to keep visitors from pummeling the statue.

So the museum quietly boxed up the figure and moved him into storage, the Express-News said.

Apparently this kind of violent political behavior is a thing, at least according to Clay Stewart, a regional manager for Ripley Entertainment.

“When it’s a highly political figure, attacks can be a problem,” Stewart told the Express-News.

“We’ve always had trouble with the presidential section because no matter what president it was — Bush, Obama or Trump — they’ve all had people beat them,” Stewart said. “The ears were torn off Obama six times. And then Bush’s nose was punched in.”

“People are just aggressive about their political party,” he added.

Share
Categories
Border crisis Border surge illegal immigrants Illegal Immigration Intelwars

Texas border sheriff says US has an open door for illegals to enter thanks to Biden, warns things will only get worse

Texas Sheriff J.E. Guerra is not happy with how things are currently going along U.S.-Mexico border.

Illegal aliens are surging across, demanding that the Biden administration let them in and swamping Border Patrol agents.

Guerra should know, as his Hidalgo County sits on the border.

And the sheriff — a Democrat — knows where the blame lies: President Joe Biden.

What’s he saying?

In an interview with the New York Post this week, Guerra warned, “Now, basically, the border’s open.” And things are going to get worse if the Biden White House doesn’t do something quick.

“We’re hopeful with this administration, [Biden’s] got an opportunity starting now but let’s wait and see,” he told the Post. “They’ve got to make a decision here pretty quick because as long as [immigrants] think that, ‘Hey, the border’s open,’ here comes the flood, they’ve got to stop that.”

According to Guerra, Border Patrol agents currently aren’t able to do their jobs. Instead of watching the border fence and the Rio Grande River, they’re now stuck working in processing centers due to the massive influx of immigrants.

The lack of agents physically manning the border has led to a surge in crime, especially smuggling organizations, the sheriff said. And the big money is in human smuggling now, instead of drug smuggling.

“[T]hey’re calling all the agents on the line to go process. So all that does is opens up an opportunity for these smuggling organizations to take advantage of that,” Guerra said.

He pointed out that the decrease in physical security has led to more people trying to cross, which has “fueled organized crime in Mexico because migrants and coyotes must pay a toll to the cartels in order to traverse the Rio Grande and cross into this section of Texas,” the Post said.

“Your Mexican cartels are making more money on humans than they are on the drug side and right now, it’s a boom. It’s a boom for ’em, it’s huge. … They’re making a killing right now,” Guerra told the paper.

Sheriff says Biden administration wasn’t ready

And it’s because the Biden administration wasn’t prepared, he said.

“The new administration came in, they changed policy, and I don’t think that our federal government was prepared to have the adequate resources and you’re seeing the results of that right now,” Guerra added. “They don’t have the resources, the boots on the ground, nor the infrastructure to handle what you’re seeing and I believe that it’s going to get worse if the administration doesn’t go back, or limit the policy. So I feel for my partners, my federal partners.

“The previous convicted felons and the pedophiles and the people that have been convicted of sexual assault that have been deported, you’ll see those coming across in droves and the cartels know that so they charge them a lot more money,” Guerra continued.

The sheriff knows that the only answer is for the Biden administration to get its act together.

“We need our leaders in Washington to come up with an immigration policy that is fair and until that is done, we’re going to continue to see what we’re seeing,” Guerra said.

“It’s a concern, a national security concern, a public safety concern, and basically, you know, a humanitarian concern that this is causing and our leaders in Washington just need to come up with immigration reform and come up with some policy and at this point, we don’t care what it is,” the sheriff pleaded.

Share
Categories
border patrol Border surge illegal immigrants Illegal Immigration Intelwars

Border Patrol agents nab previously deported convicted rapist among group of illegal aliens hiding in California

U.S. Customs and Border Protection revealed Wednesday that agents recently arrested a convicted rapist who had made his way back into the U.S. with a group of nearly 20 illegal aliens.

CBP said agents in the Yuma Sector apprehended the previously deported sex offender in California on Monday night, just across the border from Yuma, Arizona.

The convicted rapist, Aurelio Sandoval-Valdivia, was found with 17 other illegals near midnight Monday.

Sandoval-Valdivia, a 54-year-old Mexican national, had been deported following his conviction on rape charges, as well as charges of willful cruelty to a child and driving while intoxicated.

From CBP:

Yuma Sector Border Patrol agents apprehended a convicted rapist who illegally entered the United States as part of a group of 18 Monday night.

Agents assigned to the Yuma station encountered and arrested the group near Andrade, California, at approximately 11:30 p.m. After conducting record checks, agents discovered that one of the individuals, Aurelio Sandoval-Valdivia, had a felony conviction for rape. Sandoval-Valdivia also had misdemeanor convictions for willful cruelty to a child and driving while intoxicated, and was previously deported from U.S.

The 54-year-old Mexican national was processed according to CBP guidelines.

The New York Post said that Border Patrol officials have not responded to requests for comment.

Anything else?

Axios reported this week that four people whose names match those of suspects on the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Database have been arrested trying to illegally enter the U.S. from Mexico since Oct. 1.

CBP said that three of the individuals were Yemen nationals and the fourth was Serbian.

“Individuals that they have on the watch list for terrorism are now starting to exploit the southern border,” Rep. John Katko (N.Y.) — the top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee — said during a press conference at the southern border. “People who they’ve got in the last few days … have been on the terror watchlist.”

Share
Categories
Intelwars Voter bill voter ID

Dems push to eliminate ‘racist’ voter ID laws that Americans overwhelmingly support — including huge majorities of black, minority voters: poll

Democrats have long decried voter ID laws, claiming that requiring people to prove they are who they say they are before exercising the franchise is somehow a racist act.

So it came as no surprise that the federal voting expansion bill the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives passed earlier this month includes a provision to essentially wipe out the various state voter ID laws.

But it could be an uphill battle for Democrats considering an overwhelming majority of Americans — including minority voters — support voter ID laws.

What’s going on?

The so-called “For the People Act,” which the House passed March 3, is the left’s dream voting reform bill and a piece of legislation that Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee described as “written in hell by the devil himself.”

The bill includes several controversial provisions, including mandatory automatic nationwide voter registration, mail-in voting expansion, voting rights for convicted felons, and statehood for the District of Columbia.

One of the most contentious parts of the bill would nullify the various forms of voter ID requirements currently on the books in 36 states.

The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky offered this description of the provision in an op-ed for Fox News:

It would eviscerate state voter ID laws that require a voter to authenticate his identity. Indeed, it would force states to allow anyone to vote who simply signs a form saying that they are who they claim they are. When combined with the mandate that states implement same-day voter registration, it means I could walk into any polling place on Election Day, register under the name John Smith, sign a form claiming I really am John Smith, cast a ballot, and walk out. Not only would election officials have no way of preventing that or verifying that I am not really John Smith, I could repeat this in as many polling places as I can get to.

Democrats have repeatedly called for the elimination of voter ID requirements, saying they’re racist in nature because, they claim, too many minorities are incapable of obtaining photo identification.

But if they want to get the country on board with canceling identification requirements, they’ve got a lot of work ahead of them — including in minority communities.

A new Rasmussen Reports poll found that 75% of Americans believe voters should be required to show photo ID before being allowed to vote — only 21% oppose such measures. Rasmussen noted that support for such laws are actually up since 2018, when 67% of Americans supported voter ID laws.

Unfortunately for the Democratic Party, it’s not just white GOP voters standing in their way.

While Republicans do overwhelmingly support ID requirements, Democrats and independents are supporters, too. Rasmussen’s survey found that 89% of Republicans, 60% of Democrats, and 77% of independents believe ID should be required in order to vote.

And despite the fact that Democrats repeatedly claim that ID laws are clearly discriminatory, Americans disagree at a margin of 2 to 1. According to the survey, 60% of voters say the laws are not discriminatory, while just 31% say they are.

In what is likely the poll’s biggest blow to the Democrats’ push to erase voter ID laws, blacks showed they are nearly as likely as whites to say voters should be required to show photo ID, and “other minorities” are even more likely.

Significant majorities of all racial groups support voter ID laws: 74% of whites, 69% of blacks, and 82% of other minorities.

And if Democrats thought they had young voters convinced, they should think again. Rasmussen said, “Voters under 40 support voter ID laws more than do older voters.”

Share
Categories
Ben Sasse Brett kavanaugh FBI Intelwars SCOTUS sheldon whitehouse Supreme Court

Sen. Sasse rips Democrat’s ‘sinister … paranoid obsession’ that the FBI conducted a ‘fake’ investigation of Justice Kavanaugh

Left-wing progressive Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) made headlines this week with his letter to U.S Attorney General Merrick Garland demanding the Department of Justice look into the FBI’s “perhaps fake” investigation of allegations of misconduct by Brett Kavanaugh that were brought up during his 2018 Supreme Court nomination hearings.

Whitehouse has made a bit of a name for himself with his rabid rants against and conspiracy theories about Republican-nominated Supreme Court justices.

For example, the far-left New England Democrat garnered a lot of attention for a long-winded diatribe about a conspiracy connecting “dark money” to federal courts that he believed he had uncovered and then “exposed” during the nomination hearings for Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Now GOP Sen. Ben Sasse (Neb.) is standing up to Whitehouse and telling him to knock it off, warning that his most recent nonsense is a threat to the republic.

What happened?

Whitehouse sent a letter to Garland on Monday accusing the FBI of conducting “a politically-constrained and perhaps fake FBI investigation into alleged misconduct by now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.”

The senator was upset that the law enforcement agency did not find corroboration of the allegations against Kavanaugh — corroboration that the justice’s accusers failed to provide themselves.

Whitehouse claimed that the FBI ignored multiple witnesses and sent “tips” down a virtual “garbage chute.” He went on to accuse FBI Director Christopher Wray of “stonewalling” congressional inquiries about the investigation.

Following publication of Whitehouse’s allegations, Sen. Sasse decided it was time to punch back against the Democratic senator’s ongoing “sinister” bloviation that, according to the Nebraska senator, is actually a threat to the nation.

“If senators want to join conspiracy theory book clubs, wear tinfoil hats, and talk about Roswell, that’s their prerogative, but this is something more sinister,” Sasse, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee with Whitehouse, told National Review.

Whitehouse’s rhetoric goes beyond political differences over SCOTUS nominees, Sasse said. Now, the Rhode Island senator is actually attempting to use the Justice Department to take down a member of the nation’s highest court.

“A United States Senator who once peddled lies about a Supreme Court nominee is now trying to weaponize the DOJ against a sitting Supreme Court Justice,” Sasse added. “This kind of paranoid obsession is Nixonian poison to public trust.”

Not the first Sasse-vs.-Whitehouse conspiracy kerfuffle

This isn’t the first time Sasse has taken Whitehouse to task for his conspiracy twaddle.

In July, the Committee on Codes of Conduct of the Judicial Conference of the United States, a government panel that creates binding conduct guidelines for federal judges, was considering changing its rules in order to ban judges from being members of the Federalist Society, at least in part at the urging of Sen. Whitehouse, who has repeatedly attempted to connect the organization with “dark money” plots and underhanded conservative movements.

The committee ultimately decided against the Federalist Society membership ban, to which Sasse responded with thanks and a dig at Whitehouse’s penchant for perpetuating conspiracy theories.

“I’m glad the Judicial Conference decided not to participate in a vicious liberal smear campaign against the Federalist Society,” Sasse said. “Senator Whitehouse can hyperventilate about the Illuminati all he wants, but the Federalist Society is a group of law students and lawyers with diverse opinions who formed a debate society. Because they take the Constitution and the rule of law seriously, they’ve been the target of a ruthless blitz that will ultimately erode confidence in an independent and fair Judiciary. The Judicial Conference made the right call.”

Share
Categories
Arizona illegal immigrants Illegal Immigration immigration Immigration crisis Intelwars

‘We are completely in the dark’: Arizona mayor says Biden admin refuses to give info about illegal aliens it plans to drop off in his town

Gila Bend, Arizona, Mayor Chris Riggs has had it with the Biden administration’s handling of the ongoing border crisis (which the White House still refuses to admit is a crisis).

According to Riggs, there’s a deluge of illegal aliens coming to his town, courtesy of the federal government, and the administration is keeping him and his fellow residents in the dark about what it has planned.

What’s going on?

Riggs told Fox News’ “Your World” Monday that Gila Bend is being made into what the outlet called “a waypoint for illegal immigrants captured by federal authorities.”

The mayor said his community is “very economically depressed” and cannot handle a massive influx of illegals.

But the feds don’t appear to care, as the Border Patrol prepares to drop people off in Gila Bend and force the town to fend for itself, Riggs said.

“We can barely afford to take care of the people that we have here in our community now, and as of the second [of March], the Border Patrol advised us that they’re going to drop people off here and [say], ‘They’re your problem,'” he said. “We just do not have the ability to care for these people. Quite frankly, it’s going to cost us tens of thousands of dollars a year to be able just to provide them with a bottle of water and a sandwich when they get dropped off.”

According to Riggs, President Joe Biden’s border officials are refusing to give him any information about the plan or the people who are reportedly going to be shipped there — including the number of illegals and their COVID infection rates.

“We are completely in the dark,” Riggs said.

“I have a lot of seniors and elders here … that are susceptible to COVID,” he added, “and now you’re going to drop people off here?”

The mayor said he has asked the government for crime and health information to keep his people safe — especially considering Gila Bend has not seen the same COVID outbreaks that the rest of Arizona has — but that the feds have given him nothing.

“We’ve asked [for] documentation, some kind of documentation. Give us something. We’re still not getting anything,” Riggs said. “We’re really frustrated with how we’re being treated for a crisis that [the federal government] started.”

Riggs said Gila Bend has seen a massive increase in foot traffic and a surge in “drug mules like I’ve never seen before.”

“It needs to stop. And the federal government has to step up and do their job,” he said. “They’re the ones who created this problem; they need to fix it.”

Share
Categories
covid Covid restrictions Intelwars New York

New York opens for weddings but imposes dancing rules, mandatory testing, and eating and drinking dos and don’ts. So people are taking their business elsewhere.

The Empire State decided to finally open itself up for “big” weddings, but if you think those nuptial celebrations are going to be the kind of fun you once knew, think again.

Weddings and catered events were allowed to resume statewide Monday with up to 150 guests, but with restrictions imposed by Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

According to wedding planners, these new rules from on high are spurring some couples to take their business to states with fewer restrictions, especially New Jersey, the New York Post reported.

What are the new rules?

Though Cuomo deigned to allow his citizens to celebrate their weddings with their friends and family beginning on the Ides of March, he implemented new rules on capacity, testing, masking, and social distancing that are causing event organizers to scratch their heads — and their clients to take their business across the Hudson River.

On top of the 50% capacity limit (up to 150 people), the state is now requiring anyone attending a wedding to provide proof of a negative COVID test with 72 hours of the event — or an antigen test within six hours, the Post said, citing state guidelines.

But New Jersey, which allows the same number of guests, has no testing requirements.

The Post talked to event planners in both states who noted that the Garden State is benefiting from the current rules.

“The testing is an issue,” Max Janoff, a partner in the Crystal Palace in Livingston, New Jersey, told the Post, adding that he has been taking calls from New Yorkers who want to move their events since the day Cuomo’s rules came out.

New York businessman Anthony Gerardi, who provides sound and music for wedding events in New York, told the paper that the testing requirement makes no sense.

“You don’t get tested to walk into a Walmart, go to a restaurant or attend a Zumba class, so why do you need to get tested for a private event?” he asked.

And if you think the testing requirements are causing problems, check out the dancing rules.

Guests can dance only with members of their household or people seated at their table, the Post reported. On top of that, everyone wanting to cut a rug must stay in their own “zones” — a “designated and clearly marked” area for getting one’s groove on — that is at least six feet from any other dancing zone.

Making sense of the socially distanced dancing rules is tricky for those tasked with putting the events together.

Mickey King, who owns a catering hall in Queens, told the Post, “I tried to explain the dancing rule and was told by one of my clients ‘you’re making that up.'”

“I guess I’ll use masking tape,” King added. “But how ugly is that going to look when I have to outline a box on a floor?”

Another anonymous venue operator was flummoxed: “How can we police whether table three and four are mingling? If they choose to dance together, who am I to stop their freedom of expression?”

Then there are the mask and contact tracing rules.

Masks are required at all time for all guests — unless they are both seated and eating or drinking.

And every guest is required to sign in at the wedding and provide contact information for tracing purposes.

Despite the many new rules, many couples are still going forward with their weddings and keeping them in New York — and they’re eating the costs the regulations are imposing. For example, the Post noted, couples are offering to cover the costs of COVID tests — even going so far as hiring lab technicians to administer rapid tests as people arrive at a cost of up to $150 per test.

Share
Categories
Faith Intelwars Section 230

Federal appeals court tells ‘ex-gay’ pastor he can’t sue Vimeo for deleting his ministry’s videos, says company is covered by Section 230

James Domen, the pastor of Church United in Southern California and a self-described “former homosexual,” lost his appeal last week seeking to sue Vimeo after the video platform removed his and his church’s videos for promoting “sexual orientation change efforts,” or SOCE, in December 2018.

According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Vimeo is protected by Section 230, which offers tech companies a way to avoid liability for content that appears on their websites.

What happened?

Domen, a former practicing homosexual who chose to leave the lifestyle and enter ministry and now has a wife and kids, created a Vimeo account in October 2016 promoting his ministry, the Christian Post reported. Domen and his church posted nearly 100 videos to the account, including “videos addressing sexual orientation as it relates to religion,” over the next two years.

Domen said the videos were part of Church United’s work to challenge the state’s efforts to expand its ban on SOCE to include pastoral counseling, the Post said.

That did not sit well with Vimeo, which alleged that Domen’s account violated the platform’s content rules banning SOCE — or what critics of “ex-gay” ministries call “conversion therapy.”

Vimeo warmed the pastor and his church via email in November 2018 that “a moderator had marked the Church United account for review. The e-mail explained, ‘Vimeo does not allow videos that promote [SOCE],'” the appellate court said.

The company reportedly told Church United to remove the problematic videos within 24 hours. If they did not, Vimeo said it would do it for them — or delete the account entirely.

When Domen’s ministry chose not to remove the videos, Vimeo elected to delete the account on Dec. 6, 2018, saying, “Vimeo does not allow videos that harass, incite hatred, or include discriminatory or defamatory speech,” the Christian Post said.

Domen and his church sued Vimeo in response, but U.S. Magistrate Judge Stewart Aaron ruled against them in January 2020.

In the appellate court ruling last week, the court said Domen and Church United could not sue Vimeo “due to the company’s immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,” according to the Post.

In her opinion for the Second Circuit, Judge Rosemary S. Pooler wrote that Vimeo’s actions and policy “fell within the confines of the good-faith content policing immunity that the CDA provides to interactive computer services.”

This story has been updated.

Share
Categories
Catholic Faith Intelwars LGBT marriage Pope Francis Same-sex marriage

‘The cool pope isn’t so cool after all’: Pope Francis says church won’t bless same-sex unions, calls homosexuality a sin

The Vatican published a document Monday saying the Catholic Church would not bless same-sex unions, a statement that likely let down a number of Catholics who identify as LGBT.

Now Pope Francis, whom progressive outlets like Rolling Stone have called the “cool pope,” is being seen as not so cool after all for not being woke enough to betray thousands of years of Christian teaching.

What did the pope say?

In a response to the question to the Holy See of “Does the Church have the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex?” the Vatican responded, “Negative.”

The pope-approved statement called homosexuality a choice and said God “does not and cannot bless sin,” which means the church, too, cannot bless sin.

Blessings belong to the category of the sacramentals, whereby the Church “calls us to praise God, encourages us to implore his protection, and exhorts us to seek his mercy by our holiness of life.” In addition, they “have been established as a kind of imitation of the sacraments, blessings are signs above all of spiritual effects that are achieved through the Church’s intercession.”

Consequently, in order to conform with the nature of sacramentals, when a blessing is invoked on particular human relationships, in addition to the right intention of those who participate, it is necessary that what is blessed be objectively and positively ordered to receive and express grace, according to the designs of God inscribed in creation, and fully revealed by Christ the Lord. Therefore, only those realities which are in themselves ordered to serve those ends are congruent with the essence of the blessing imparted by the Church.

For this reason, it is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage (i.e., outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life), as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex. The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated, cannot justify these relationships and render them legitimate objects of an ecclesial blessing, since the positive elements exist within the context of a union not ordered to the Creator’s plan.

Furthermore, since blessings on persons are in relationship with the sacraments, the blessing of homosexual unions cannot be considered licit. This is because they would constitute a certain imitation or analogue of the nuptial blessing invoked on the man and woman united in the sacrament of Matrimony, while in fact “there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.”

No longer a ‘cool pope’

Rolling Stone, the leftist progressive entertainment magazine, reported this story on its website under the banner headline “Guess the Cool Pope Isn’t So Cool After All.”

Pope Francis has gained a reputation among left-wing — many non-religious or non-Catholic — fans for being woke on issues near and dear to the left’s heart (except, much to their lament, abortion). For example:

  • The pope said last year that the coronavirus is “nature’s response” to man’s mistreatment of the environment.
  • Last fall, the pontiff denounced trickle-down economics and private property and advocated for the redistribution of wealth in a papal encyclical.
  • He used his 2020 Easter address to advocate for a socialist “universal basic wage.”
  • Francis was on record saying he was considering adding “ecological sin” to the church’s official teachings in order to take on “sin against ecology … against our common home.”
  • A couple years ago, there was discussion that the pope may allow married men to become ordained priests and thereby bring an end to celibacy.
  • In December 2018, rumors swirled that the pope was considering the approval of a significant edit to the Lord’s Prayer.
  • He added environmentalism to the church’s seven works of mercy in 2016.
  • In October, the pope appeared to endorse same-sex civil unions in a documentary in which he discussed pastoral care for those who identify as LGBT. (The Vatican said the comments were taken out of context.)
  • Last November, he praised NBA players for their racial justice protests.

So it’s no wonder that the reporters and editors at Rolling Stone were taken aback by the pope daring to uphold 2,000 years of Christian teaching by calling homosexuality a sin and standing for traditional marriage.

In fact, the rag pointed out that it’s got to be tough for the pope to be cool when he’s running a backwards, two-millennia-old faith organization:

Rightly or wrongly, Pope Francis has long enjoyed the reputation as the “cool pope,” a view that has been bolstered by, among other things, his public statements in support of the theory of evolution and a 2014 profile in the pages of this magazine. A documentary released last fall even appeared to suggest his emerging support for same-sex pairings.

As it turns out, however, it’s pretty difficult to be hip and woke and with-it if you’re the face of a retrograde thousands-year-old religious institution, as the Vatican clarified in a statement on Monday that it would not bless same-sex unions on the grounds that God “does not and cannot bless sin.”

The pope’s critics, naturally, said he was somehow hypocritical for calling homosexuality a sin while numerous priests stand accused of pedophilia — a scandal the pope has condemned.

Share
Categories
Christianity Church Faith Intelwars Woke Woke culture

Famed pastor condemns ‘woke’ culture that is creeping into evangelical churches: ‘Deadly’ for the Gospel

Atlanta pastor Michael Youssef shared a powerful warning this week to evangelical churches to watch out for “woke” pastors who hide from telling the hard truths, as well as far-left ideology that is making its way to the pulpit.

The insidious theology that is creeping into the church is “deadly as far as the Gospel of Jesus Christ is concerned,” he told the Christian Post in an interview reported Wednesday.

He has seen this before

Youssef, 72, who serves as pastor of the Church of The Apostles in Atlanta with about 3,000 members, told the outlet that he remembers watching the Episcopal Church collapse from the inside in the ’80s as an Episcopal priest. He said the denomination followed the culture away from Christian principles and moved toward secularism — a move made evident with its vote to approve same-sex marriage.

“Those same battles that I fought in the mainline denominations are now invading the evangelical churches,” Youssef said. “It’s the same arguments, the same lingo, and the same words repeating themselves with such precision I am deeply, deeply concerned.”

Youssef, the Christian Post said, is concerned that pastors are “falling into the trap” of woke cultured are doing so for a couple reasons: first, it’s “popular,” and second, it “appeals to the flesh.”

“Bowing to woke culture allows you to avoid rejection by culture and society,” Youssef said. “It’s a very, very popular message that is now being preached from many evangelical pulpits; traditionally Bible-believing, Gospel-preaching churches. We have gone so far that it just grieves me to the point that I literally sometimes just weep tears.”

Pulpit to culture

And what gets pushed from the pulpit will infect the congregation, and what infects the congregation will impact the culture.

“I’ve always believed, as goes the pulpit, so goes the pew. As goes the pew, so goes the culture,” he added. “As a pastor, I put the full blame on us, right in our laps, because we want to be liked, loved, and followed on social media by millions of people. Pastors are the culprits. We need to be about Jesus, not about being liked, because that is deadly as far as the Gospel of Jesus Christ is concerned.”

Now he’s doing what he can to influence younger pastors and ministry leaders to stick to Christian principles and not yield to the spirit of the age, notably the infamous “Marxist” Critical Race Theory that categorizes everything by racial victim groupings.

“Young pastors must realize that this is a deception. It’s very subtle and very clever, but it’s a deception nonetheless,” Youssef told the Christian Post. “And that is the burden that God laid on my heart to such a point I just couldn’t sleep. I had to address it. I believe people are in a state of confusion and need a clear word from Scripture.”

Critical Race Theory is “a very Marxist ideology that people are taking very seriously,” he added. “The idea of the oppressed and the oppressors is not that simple. Now we have private Christian schools here in Atlanta where white children are apologizing to black kids. Apologizing for what? They are innocent; they haven’t done anything. It’s crazy; it’s just going insane.”

As long as a pastor bows to moral relativism in an attempt not to “offend” anyone, Youssef warned, his church will fail to effectively minister to future generations. Instead of cowing to culture, he said, the Church needs to “invade” areas of society that Christians fled years ago.

“We must take charge,” Youssef encouraged. “Christians have abandoned so many areas of society, from media and the classroom. Instead of withdrawing, we need to go and invade these areas and take them for Christ and not be afraid.”

Share
Categories
2nd Amend. Burgess owens gun control gun rights guns Intelwars Second Amendment

GOP Rep. Burgess Owens blasts Democrats’ push for ‘racist’ gun control laws

Former NFL star Burgess Owens, who is now serving as a U.S. representative from Utah, took to the House floor this week to rip two gun control measures being pushed by the Democratic majority.

The two bills, H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446, have the full backing of the Biden administration and are opposed by pro-Second Amendment groups.

H.R. 8 will expand universal background check requirements to include all private firearm transactions, require private gun sales to go through a licensed dealer, and effectively ban adults age 18 to 20 years old from buying handguns.

H.R. 1446 will extend the time the FBI has to perform an “instant” background check from three business days to at least 10 business days, Bearing Arms’ Cam Edwards reported. The bill “could extend the waiting period indefinitely,” Edwards added.

Rep. Owens had a big problem with both of these bills — and he noted that this kind of gun control was often used to keep blacks in check.

What did he say?

In a floor speech Wednesday, Owens cited concerns his constituents expressed that the bills will “make it impossible to sell or loan guns” to relatives or trusted friends and will “impose restrictions on natural rights.”

Owens vowed to fight the bills with “every tool in my grasp” in his stand for “rights to protect my life, liberty and property” that “were granted to me by God and cannot be taken from me by D.C. bureaucrats.”

Then the former defensive back explained why Americans — especially minorities — should not allow the government to curb their Second Amendment rights: It was the government that kept blacks down with discriminatory laws, including gun proscription.

“I grew up in the Deep South at a time when black Americans were unable to defend themselves,” he said. “After the Civil War, Black Codes and Jim Crow laws prohibited people of color from owning firearms.”

Owens then reminded lawmakers that “racist gun control laws” kept Martin Luther King Jr. from being able to fully protect himself.

“In the mid-1950s, Martin Luther King Jr. kept firearms for self-protection, but his application for a concealed weapons permit was denied because of racist gun control laws in his state,” Owens said.

And then he got personal, sharing the story of how important guns were in his family to protect against attacks from whites in the South:

As a child, my dad witnessed an altercation between his father and a southern white man who thought my grandfather was being disrespectful and threatened to teach him a lesson. Later that night, he drove up to my grandfather’s home with a bunch of his friends standing on the forerunner of a Model-T Ford.

My grandfather was prepared — he and his brothers hid around his front porch. As these bullies and cowards approached the house, they heard the click of rifles and left just as fast as they came.

Without ever firing his gun on another human being, my grandfather’s right to own a firearm ensured his rights to protect his life, liberty, and property.

Unfortunately, Owens’ words fell on deaf congressional ears. The Democratic House majority passed both measures Wednesday evening.


GOP lawmaker invokes Martin Luther King Jr. in opposition to gun control bill

www.youtube.com

Share
Categories
deficit Intelwars National Debt spending

After passing ginormous $1.9 trillion ‘relief’ bill — with even bigger spending bills on the way — some Dems are now saying they need try to pay for the Biden agenda

Big-government Democrats have long been criticized for not caring about the national deficit or the ballooning national debt — unless they’re opposing tax relief. And during the Trump administration, Republicans also seemed to abandon fiscal restraint, approving trillions of dollars of new debt during Trump’s four years — even before the pandemic hit.

So when Democrats pushed the so-called COVID relief package loaded with pork and perks for non-pandemic priorities through on a party-line vote, few people were surprised.

But now some Democrats are actually admitting that the red ink-spilling spending spree can’t keep going: Congress has to find a way to pay for the Biden agenda.

What are they saying?

President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), and their left-wing supporters in the media, government, and electorate celebrated the passage of the massive relief bill this week.

With this notch on their wallet, Democrats don’t plan to slow down. Party leaders intend to use this momentum to push through an infrastructure package with a price tag that’s likely to surpass the stimulus bill.

But, according to Politico, some Democratic lawmakers — the outlet called them “centrists” — are hoping to “pump the brakes.”

Though they’ve been willing to spend trillions of dollars to allegedly combat the COVID-19 crisis without bothering to ask where the money would come from, some Democrats on Capitol Hill are finally starting to ask who’s going to foot the bill as the pandemic seems to be winding down.

Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats and keeps them in the majority, told Politico, “At some point we’ve got to start paying for things.”

The sudden interest in fiscal responsibility from the likes of King and others could make life much more difficult for Schumer and Pelosi.

Biden’s massive infrastructure bill and other giant spending priorities could move interest rates higher, King fears, and “become an albatross on the economy,” Politico said.

“It’s got to be paid for,” the Maine lawmaker said. “It’s just a question of who pays. Are we going to pay or our kids going to pay?”

Montana Democratic Sen. Jon Tester told the outlet, “Some of it needs to be paid for,” and wants an “all of the above” plan for paying for Biden’s infrastructure bill with spending cuts and tax and fee hikes.

“You’re going to remind me of this [later] when none of it’s paid for,” Tester told Politico, “but I do think some of it needs to be paid for.”

Other Democrats indicated to Politico that paying for spending bills needs to at least be considered:

  • House Budget Chairman John Yarmouth (Ky.) shared that his fellow Democrats are under the “assumption” that they’ll pay for at least some of the infrastructure bill, but called paying for the entire thing “unrealistic.”
  • Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) said he will not support a bill without his party at least attempting to get Republicans on board. And he wants to “pay” for the bill — but by repealing the Trump tax cuts.
  • Rep. Dean Phillips (Minn.) stated, “I think it’s time for everybody in this body, in the country, to start injecting that term back into the vernacular — ‘paid for.'” He also said that his fellow centrists are in talks with party chiefs about how important it is that the the next package be paid for.
  • Rep. Kurt Schrader (Ore.) quipped, “Well, I assume it’ll be paid for,” adding, “According to Democrat rules, the only thing we’re at liberty to put on our children’s credit card is Covid [relief] and climate change.”
  • Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.) said that, though she thinks addressing infrastructure is more important than the deficit and the debt, “there would need to be revenues paid for some portions of it. I don’t think there’s an appetite for all deficit spending.”

The Biden administration, though, wants to go big:

But key figures in Biden’s Cabinet are envisioning a different approach. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, for instance, has signaled that he prefers deficit spending, telling POLITICO in a recent interview that “the opportunity and the constraints are just different when you have historically low interest rates.”

Democrats are largely of the mind that going big is better than going small, trumpeting that they’ve learned their lessons from the Obama years about trimming their ambitions to cut a deal with Republicans. And they say there’s never been a crisis that warrants more spending than the pandemic, which has left 18 million Americans still out of work and as many as 10 million jobs permanently lost.

You read that right: They are not planning to let this “crisis” go to waste.

Share
Categories
Abortion Biden administration Covid relief Hyde amendment Intelwars Joe Biden President joe biden

After being ‘betrayed’ by Biden on abortion, evangelical leader says he would not publicly support Biden’s election if he had it to do over

Pro-life evangelical scholar Richard Mouw led a fellowship of pro-life Christians who loudly and proudly endorsed Joe Biden in the 2020 election. That group, Pro-Life Evangelicals for Biden, this week got a lot of attention when they revealed their shock and dismay that pro-abortion President Biden betrayed their movement and was endorsing the use of federal tax dollars to pay for abortions.

Mouw, the president emeritus of Fuller Seminary in California who is realizing too late that there are no take-backsies in real life, told the Christian Post on Tuesday that if he had it to do over, he would not offer his public support for Biden’s election. But he would still vote for the Democratic nominee.

What did he say?

After the Biden-backed COVID relief bill passed the U.S. Senate over the weekend without the Hyde Amendment, which prevents tax money from being used to fund abortion, Mouw’s group wrote an open letter expressing their disappointment. The members said they felt “used and betrayed” by the administration — an administration that literally campaigned on repealing the Hyde Amendment.

Mouw claimed to the Christian Post that he and other members of the pro-life, pro-Biden group were aware that Biden had been “shifting” his stance on the Hyde Amendment when they issued their statement in October publicly urging fellow pro-lifers to give the pro-choice president their vote.

Biden’s campaign site made it clear that Biden “supports repealing the Hyde Amendment” and said so since at least July 2020 — three months before Mouw’s group issued its statement — according to the Wayback Machine internet archive.

But according to Mouw, his group felt reassured by conversations they had with Biden campaign officials.

“We made … clear that we would offer support with the understanding that they would urge the White House to have serious conversations with Catholics and evangelicals who are right-to-life people,” he told the Christian Post. “The problem is that we haven’t had those conversations, and leaving the Hyde Amendment out of this particular package, this latest COVID package, is a signal that … there really … is no room for that kind of conversation.”

The outlet asked Mouw if he wold still vote for and publicly support Biden if he had it to do over again and knew Biden would push a relief package that excluded Hyde Amendment language.

Mouw told the Christian Post that he would “vote the same way” but added, “I would not give my public support.”

Yet he still defended his group’s support of Biden. From the Christian Post:

Acknowledging that he received “a lot of angry messages from right-to-life people,” some of whom called him “naive” due to his support for Biden and subsequent feelings of betrayal, Mouw still defended the object of his previous remarks in support of Biden. He said they would be necessary to provide reassurance to the “many younger evangelicals who are not happy about … the way in which their parents and grandparents have endorsed and defended the Trump administration.”

“We … don’t want to lose them to evangelicalism because of what is perceived as a mean-spirited, highly partisan commitment on the part of the older generation of evangelicals who voted 81% … in the presidential election before this last one for Mr. Trump,” he said.

“We thought it was important to hold up the right to life position and at the same time, say it’s OK to be concerned about a broader range of issues such as global warming and children at the border separated from their parents and those kinds of questions. And so, we wanted to use our own access through the Biden campaign people to at least get them to stay in conversation with people like us.”

Mouw admitted that he was “less optimistic” about the chance that Biden’s Democratic Party would ever be able to build a “bigger tent” to include pro-lifers.

Share
Categories
CDC Cdc guidelines Covid lockdowns Intelwars Vaccine Vaccine guidelines

Johns Hopkins professor rips CDC for ‘absurdly restrictive’ guidelines for vaccinated people: Agency is ‘paralyzed by fear’

Dr. Marty Makary is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Bloomberg School of Public Health, so he knows a thing or two when it comes to dealing with the coronavirus.

And he is none too impressed with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s latest recommendation for Americans who get the vaccine. He made his disdain for the agency’s latest “absurdly restrictive” guidelines clear in a Wednesday op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, “Covid Prescription: Get the Vaccine, Wait a Month, Return to Normal,” in which he noted that though the CDC claims to be “following the science,” the truth is “its advice suggests it’s still paralyzed by fear.”

What did he say?

In the wake of the CDC’s announcement that it’s now safe for fully vaccinated people to mingle indoors with some other people without masks or social distancing — a move CNN described as the agency “giving limited freedoms” to people — but not to travel, Makary stated that this is just another instance of the CDC being late or wrong when it comes to COVID-19. Which fits a pattern, the doctor said.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has lost a lot of credibility during the Covid-19 pandemic by being late or wrong on testing, masks, vaccine allocation and school reopening. Staying consistent with that pattern, this week—three months after the vaccine rollout began—the CDC finally started telling vaccinated people that they can have normal interactions with other vaccinated people—but only in highly limited circumstances. Given the impressive effectiveness of the vaccine, that should have been immediately obvious by applying scientific inference and common sense.

Parts of the new guidelines are absurdly restrictive. For example, the CDC didn’t withdraw its advice to avoid air travel after vaccination. A year of prevaccine experience has demonstrated that airplanes aren’t a source of spread. A study conducted for the defense department found that commercial planes have HEPA filtration and airflow that exceed the standards of a hospital operating room.

Makary added that instead of running scared from encouraging a return to normal, the agency should take a look at the available data, including that vaccination reduces transmission 89% to 94% and almost totally prevents hospitalization and death, according to a study from Israel.

Full immunity kicks in around the four-week mark after the first dose, he added, making the vaccinated patient “essentially bulletproof.” Combine that with wearing a mask indoors “for a few more weeks or months,” and there is “little a vaccinated person should be discouraged from doing.”

Instead, Makary said, the CDC has been wasting time and tests and is being “ridiculously cautious” about the virus while ignoring the dangers that come from the isolation that has been forced on the American people:

On a positive note, the CDC did say that fully vaccinated people who are asymptomatic don’t need to be tested. But that obvious recommendation should have come two months ago, before wasting so many tests on people who have high levels of circulating antibodies from vaccination.

In its guidance the CDC says the risks of infection in vaccinated people “cannot be completely eliminated.” True, we don’t have conclusive data that guarantees vaccination reduces risk to zero. We never will. We are operating in the realm of medical discretion based on the best available data, as practicing physicians have always done. The CDC highlights the vaccines’ stunning success but is ridiculously cautious about its implications. Public-health officials focus myopically on transmission risk while all but ignoring the broader health crisis stemming from isolation. The CDC acknowledges “potential” risks of isolation, but doesn’t go into details.

It’s time to liberate vaccinated people to restore their relationships and rebuild their lives.

Being too cautious about the virus has been the hallmark of “authorities” as hospitals stood in the way of family members being with loved ones as they suffered and died, Makary said, calling the separation of families “excessive and cruel, driven by narrow thinking that focused singularly on reducing viral transmission risk, heedless of the harm to the quality of human life.”

The doctor urged the CDC to not repeat its mistakes. Instead of exaggerating the public-health threat that crushes the human spirit, he said, it’s time to use “common sense” and tell Americans to “go back to normal” a month after they have received their first shot.

Share
Categories
covid Covid lockdowns Intelwars Texas Texas reopening

Texas school district has never required masks or distancing — and students are thriving: ‘It’s not that difficult if you really put the needs of kids first’

A rural school district in Texas defied the experts and orders from its government masters when it came to face masks and social distancing in reaction to the coronavirus pandemic. Instead of bowing to pressure, the district worked with parents to open schools in August without COVID restrictions or mandates — and by all accounts, the students are thriving.

What happened?

Peaster Independent School District has had no distancing, no required face masks, and no mandatory quarantines since school started last August, KTVT-TV reported Monday. The students have had a “100% normal school experience” this school year – nothing has been canceled and no one has been quarantined.

“And the kids in Peaster, Texas, have thrived,” Superintendent Lance Johnson told the outlet.

It all goes back to a decision last year that virtual schooling would not be successful for this community, KTVT said.

PISD surveyed families to see what they wanted for their kids and what they would be comfortable with. According to KTVT, 55% of parents said they would send their students to school if masks and social distancing were required for all grades. When the district asked about offering a school year as close to normal as possible, that number jumped to 86%.

And it appears to have paid off. The school year started on time in August, and nobody has looked back.

In the district of more than 1,400 students, only eight students are still learning online.

Daily attendance now is higher than it was a year ago.

There were only about a dozen more teacher absences in the fall over a year ago, but no cases of COVID-19 in the first 10 weeks of the school year among students or staff. Only a few COVID cases were recorded by the end of 2020 — and no cases have been recorded this year, KTVT said.

District data shows that most students in PISD will finish the year at grade level, the station noted, as the district has closed the learning gaps that were created when schools shut down in the spring.

How’d they do it?

According to Johnson, the teachers, school board, and community “stood in solidarity to … do what is best for kids — and what’s best for kids is having them in school in front of that teacher learning in a traditional school model.”

Personal responsibility played a big part, Johnson said. Any students or teachers who felt ill stayed home, recovered, and came back when they were healthy.

It all comes down to doing their jobs, the superintendent said.

“It’s real simple. We’ve just done it,” he said. “It’s not that difficult if you really put the needs of kids first.”

Share