lifesitenews--2020-06-17--Court prevents hospice from voting to become Christian, avoid euthanasia

DELTA , British Columbia , June 17 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — A Canadian judge has blocked a hospice society from initiating a vote by membership on becoming a Christian society , which if adopted would have exempted it from the legal obligation to allow euthanasia — the killing of sick patients by lethal injection — onsite .
The Delta Hospice Society , which runs the 10-bed Irene Thomas Hospice , planned to launch the mail-in vote to its 1,500 members at a special meeting this Monday .
But British Columbia Supreme Court Judge Shelley Fitzpatrick ordered the meeting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ex-board members , the CBC reported .
“ We are highly concerned with the lack of justice in the court system today , ” the society ’ s board chair Angelina Ireland said in a statement to the B.C .
Catholic .
“ We are appealing , ” the society ’ s lawyer Albertos Polizogopoulos told LifeSiteNews in an email .
Pro-euthanasia petitioner Chris Pettypiece told CBC the judge ruled June 12 that the society ’ s board acted in bad faith to manipulate the vote by rejecting membership applications .
Pettypiece said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a list of all members and all rejected applications to the petitioners , who also include former board chair Jim Levin and former hospice acting executive director Sharon Farrish .
But Ireland argued in an affidavit that the board rejected 310 membership applications and accepted others based on whether or not it could determine if an applicant would uphold the society ’ s constitution , in compliance with the Societies Act stipulation that members “ must uphold the constitution and bylaws.
” She pointed out that the society would lose $ 11,500 in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the $ 8,500 it spent on printing and postage , if the special meeting were cancelled or postponed .
Ireland also stated in her affidavit that the three petitioners “ colluded ” with Alex Muir of the Vancouver chapter of the Dying with Dignity in their efforts to change the hospice ’ s position to not allow euthanasia onsite .
Seizure of hospice building , loss of tax status possible In a further setback , Delta city council unanimously approved a motion Monday to notify the society ’ s board that its thrift @ @ @ @ @ @ @ society ’ s home-based programs — will lose its tax exemption if the society changes its constitution to restrict membership , the Delta Optimist reported .
Delta Mayor George Harvie promised as much during a pro-euthanasia rally Saturday , where he urged the hundreds in attendance to buy memberships for the society and called on Ireland and the current board to “ do the right thing , resign on Monday.
” The Delta Hospice Society has been under increasing pressure by the NDP government and the Fraser Health Authority to allow euthanasia onsite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of sick patients , or “ Medical Aid in Dying ” ( MAiD ) , in 2016 .
The media and euthanasia advocates , who have mounted personal attacks against Ireland on social media , have inflamed the dispute , which has bitterly divided the West coast community south of Vancouver .
Hospice founder and longtime executive director Nancy Macey steadfastly opposed euthanasia as incompatible with palliative care , and asserted that the society ’ s constitution does not allow any practice that would hasten a patient ’ s death .
Both the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) and the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians ( CSPCP ) are backing the society .
“ National and international hospice palliative care organizations are unified in the position that MAiD is not part of the practice of hospice palliative care , ” the organizations said in a joint statement in November .
However , in September 2019 , the board , which then included Levin and Pettypiece , fired Macey and hired Farrish as acting executive director , and two months later voted to allow euthanasia onsite .
A week later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pro-euthanasia board members during a turbulent annual general meeting in which Ireland was elected chair .
On February 25 , 2020 , NDP health minister Adrian Dix announced the province was cutting the society ’ s $ 1.5 million in public funding effective February 2021 .
Dix also said the province is considering expropriating the hospice building , which was built by the society with $ 8.5 million in privately raised funds , but which sits on land leased to the society by the Fraser Health Authority .
As a result , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on becoming a Christian entity .
The government exempts faith-based institutions from having to allow euthanasia onsite .
“ Since its founding , the Society operated successfully with foundational Christian principles of service , love , kindness , honesty , integrity , and excellence and support the sanctity of life .
Palliative medicine has the tools to manage suffering , ” Macey wrote in an affidavit submitted to the court .
“ As the founder and former Executive Director of the Society and as a current member in good standing , I continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Constitution being that its purposes are to provide palliative care and the medical , emotional and spiritual components of care that offer comfort , meaning , dignity and hope.
” The vote the board planned to launch at Monday ’ s meeting was to amend the society ’ s constitution to include this clause as part of its mandate : “ to fulfill God ’ s calling to serve the sick and dying , and to follow Christ ’ s teachings and example in all we do , ” the B.C @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been open until June 26 , and two-thirds of the membership would have to approve the change for it to pass .
Euthanasia advocates are alleging that if the hospice become a Christian society , it won ’ t welcome non-Christians , a false claim Ireland has consistently refuted , but which has nevertheless created “ this big backlash , ” Alex Schadenberg , executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition , told LifeSiteNews .
The Delta Hospice Society has to appeal the judge ’ s order , he said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It doesn ’ t make any sense if such a decision could hold .
If this decision holds , it changes the nature of non-profit corporations or independent corporations anywhere in Canada , ” Schadenberg said .
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has launched a petition supporting the hospice that has more than 26,000 signatures , but now the society “ is going to need people to donate toward the legal funds , ” he added .
“ It ’ s David and Goliath here , ” said Schadenberg .
“ They ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources.
” Donations to the Delta Hospice Society can be made at savedeltahospice.com .

'We are highly concerned with the lack of justice in the court system today,' said the society’s board chair Angelina Ireland.
DELTA, British Columbia, June 17, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — A Canadian judge has blocked a hospice society from initiating a vote by membership on becoming a Christian society, which if adopted would have exempted it from the legal obligation to allow euthanasia — the killing of sick patients by lethal injection — onsite.
The Delta Hospice Society, which runs the 10-bed Irene Thomas Hospice, planned to launch the mail-in vote to its 1,500 members at a special meeting this Monday.
But British Columbia Supreme Court Judge Shelley Fitzpatrick ordered the meeting cancelled at the request of three pro-euthanasia ex-board members, the CBC reported.
“We are highly concerned with the lack of justice in the court system today,” the society’s board chair Angelina Ireland said in a statement to the B.C. Catholic.
“We are appealing,” the society’s lawyer Albertos Polizogopoulos told LifeSiteNews in an email.
Pro-euthanasia petitioner Chris Pettypiece told CBC the judge ruled June 12 that the society’s board acted in bad faith to manipulate the vote by rejecting membership applications.
Pettypiece said the judge ordered the board to provide a list of all members and all rejected applications to the petitioners, who also include former board chair Jim Levin and former hospice acting executive director Sharon Farrish.
But Ireland argued in an affidavit that the board rejected 310 membership applications and accepted others based on whether or not it could determine if an applicant would uphold the society’s constitution, in compliance with the Societies Act stipulation that members “must uphold the constitution and bylaws.”
She pointed out that the society would lose $11,500 in “lost sunk costs,” including the $8,500 it spent on printing and postage, if the special meeting were cancelled or postponed.
Ireland also stated in her affidavit that the three petitioners “colluded” with Alex Muir of the Vancouver chapter of the Dying with Dignity in their efforts to change the hospice’s position to not allow euthanasia onsite.
Seizure of hospice building, loss of tax status possible
In a further setback, Delta city council unanimously approved a motion Monday to notify the society’s board that its thrift store — which raises money for the society’s home-based programs — will lose its tax exemption if the society changes its constitution to restrict membership, the Delta Optimist reported.
Delta Mayor George Harvie promised as much during a pro-euthanasia rally Saturday, where he urged the hundreds in attendance to buy memberships for the society and called on Ireland and the current board to “do the right thing, resign on Monday.”
The Delta Hospice Society has been under increasing pressure by the NDP government and the Fraser Health Authority to allow euthanasia onsite ever since Canada legalized the lethal injection of sick patients, or “Medical Aid in Dying” (MAiD), in 2016.
The media and euthanasia advocates, who have mounted personal attacks against Ireland on social media, have inflamed the dispute, which has bitterly divided the West coast community south of Vancouver.
Hospice founder and longtime executive director Nancy Macey steadfastly opposed euthanasia as incompatible with palliative care, and asserted that the society’s constitution does not allow any practice that would hasten a patient’s death.
Both the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association (CHPCA) and the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians (CSPCP) are backing the society.
“National and international hospice palliative care organizations are unified in the position that MAiD is not part of the practice of hospice palliative care,” the organizations said in a joint statement in November.
However, in September 2019, the board, which then included Levin and Pettypiece, fired Macey and hired Farrish as acting executive director, and two months later voted to allow euthanasia onsite.
A week later, the society’s membership ousted the pro-euthanasia board members during a turbulent annual general meeting in which Ireland was elected chair.
On February 25, 2020, NDP health minister Adrian Dix announced the province was cutting the society’s $1.5 million in public funding effective February 2021.
Dix also said the province is considering expropriating the hospice building, which was built by the society with $8.5 million in privately raised funds, but which sits on land leased to the society by the Fraser Health Authority.
As a result, the society accelerated its plans to vote on becoming a Christian entity. The government exempts faith-based institutions from having to allow euthanasia onsite.
“Since its founding, the Society operated successfully with foundational Christian principles of service, love, kindness, honesty, integrity, and excellence and support the sanctity of life. Palliative medicine has the tools to manage suffering,” Macey wrote in an affidavit submitted to the court.
“As the founder and former Executive Director of the Society and as a current member in good standing, I continue to support the interpretation of the Society’s Constitution being that its purposes are to provide palliative care and the medical, emotional and spiritual components of care that offer comfort, meaning, dignity and hope.”
The vote the board planned to launch at Monday’s meeting was to amend the society’s constitution to include this clause as part of its mandate: “to fulfill God’s calling to serve the sick and dying, and to follow Christ’s teachings and example in all we do,” the B.C. Catholic reported.
The vote would have been open until June 26, and two-thirds of the membership would have to approve the change for it to pass.
Euthanasia advocates are alleging that if the hospice become a Christian society, it won’t welcome non-Christians, a false claim Ireland has consistently refuted, but which has nevertheless created “this big backlash,” Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, told LifeSiteNews.
The Delta Hospice Society has to appeal the judge’s order, he said.
“They don’t have a choice. It doesn’t make any sense if such a decision could hold. If this decision holds, it changes the nature of non-profit corporations or independent corporations anywhere in Canada,” Schadenberg said.
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has launched a petition supporting the hospice that has more than 26,000 signatures, but now the society “is going to need people to donate toward the legal funds,” he added.
“It’s David and Goliath here,” said Schadenberg. “They’re fighting the government which has unlimited resources.”
Donations to the Delta Hospice Society can be made at savedeltahospice.com.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-17--Left-wing activists to protest California church for hosting Family Research Council VP

SOULSBYVILLE , California , June 17 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – A coalition of area left-wing groups are banding together to attack a California church for hosting a prominent pro-family leader as part of its reopening , accusing the church of legitimizing “ hate.
” Calvary Chapel Sonora Men 's Ministries in Soulsbyville has announced its sixth annual men ’ s conference for this weekend , which will kick off the reopening of the Church of Tuolumne County with a catered lunch , activities , and a guest speaker : Lt. Gen .
( Ret . )
William G. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minister , founding member of the U.S. Army ’ s Delta Force , former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence , and current Executive Vice President of the Family Research Council ( FRC ) .
Several left-wing organizations intend to respond to Boykin ’ s involvement by protesting the event , according to Left Coast Right Watch ( LCRW ) , a Bay Area site that bills itself as a monitor against “ extremism.
” The article , by LCRW ’ s editor in chief Abner Hauge , accuses Boykin of “ campaigning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stances on marriage and sexuality , and of “ vilifying Muslims.
” Hauge even writes that Boykin is “ likely guilty of war crimes , ” though he offers no evidence for the explosive claim .
As for the charge of Islamophobia , Hauge claims that “ Boykin has a long and well-documented history of bigoted statements against Muslims , ” but acknowledges that “ LCRW didn ’ t bother tracking down the specific quotes , ” because Calvary Pastor Dave Atkins ’ defense of Boykin was “ in obvious bad faith.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decrying the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood , which is not a general reference to Muslims but a specific organization with deep , documented ties to global terrorism .
Nevertheless , LCRW ’ s allies are planning to demonstrate against Boykin 's remarks .
“ It ’ s hard to see a church and the Family Research Council out here , ” complained Julie Gorgas , Vice President of Tuolumne County Indivisible ( TCI ) .
“ I ’ m really against conversion therapy and this guy is responsible for thousands of LGBTQ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s really disappointing that a Christian church would invite someone like that to speak–as if he ’ s a good moral leader.
” Flyers being distributed around Soulsbyville implores people to protest to “ celebrate Pride Month , ” stand in solidarity with “ black trans lives , ” and “ remind Calvary Church that hate is not a Christian value.
” Activists are also circulating phone numbers and email addresses of the church ’ s leadership .
As a result , Cavalry has been deluged with hostile emails and Facebook comments attacking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a Christian event , ” for inviting “ controversy and conflict ” over “ inclusion , ” and calling them “ despicable ” and even “ neo-fascist.
” In response to the attacks , Atkins released a statement defending Boykin and rejecting any notion that the event is meant to “ cause offense to our friends in the LGBTQ community.
” “ It is true that I support our keynote speaker and have promoted his arrival for some time now .
It is also true that Boykin has made some comments in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against him , ” Atkins said .
“ He has made public clarifications pertaining to those comments and you can research them on the web on your own time .
The protest against his coming to speak to our men , during pride month , is a distraction from the greater message that he proclaims – The Gospel .
He is an American hero with a stellar military record in the United States Army.
” Atkins announced that the ministry will be meeting any protesters at their driveway with free food and drink @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regular guests to keep their focus on the spirit of the event , not potential confrontation .
“ Do not come to pick a fight , ” he said .
“ Come with a humble heart ready to hear from God ’ s Word .
Do not invite friends on the basis that this is being protested .
Do not rant on Facebook on behalf of CCS .
If you have a chip on your shoulder leave it at home .
Those protesting this event are not our enemies .
They have the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sisters who have yet to place their faith in Jesus Christ.
” “ Since the beginning [ the ] problem hasn ’ t been a skin issue , ” but rather a “ sin issue , ” Atkins continued .
“ The issue is a moral rebellion against a plan that a loving God has laid out in His word .
The issue and the solution have never changed .
The more biblical we become , the less racial we will be .
The same Bible that teaches marriage is only between male @ @ @ @ @ @ @ teaches us to ‘ love our neighbor.
’ ” Tuolumne County Indivisible is under the nationwide banner of Indivisible , a “ movement of thousands of group leaders and more than a million members taking regular , iterative , and increasingly complex actions to resist the GOPs agenda , elect local champions , and fight for progressive policies .
The group admits to receiving a “ modest general operating grant ” from far-left financier George Soros ’ Open Society Foundations ( OSF ) in 2017 , but denies the connection goes further than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cite as their source for labeling Boykin and FRC “ hateful ” the infamous Southern Poverty Law Center ( SPLC ) , a far-left group known for its efforts to drive conservative and pro-family organizations out of mainstream society .
Despite its popular media framing as an authority on “ extremism , ” SPLC has found itself on the losing end of at least one defamation suit for its work , and has been called by insiders a “ highly profitable scam ” that uses “ civil-rights work mainly as a marketing tool @ @ @ @ @ @ @

The ministry will be meeting any protesters at their driveway with free food and drink. 'They have the potential to be our future brothers and sisters who have yet to place their faith in Jesus Christ,' said Pastor Dave Atkins.
SOULSBYVILLE, California, June 17, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A coalition of area left-wing groups are banding together to attack a California church for hosting a prominent pro-family leader as part of its reopening, accusing the church of legitimizing “hate.”
Calvary Chapel Sonora Men's Ministries in Soulsbyville has announced its sixth annual men’s conference for this weekend, which will kick off the reopening of the Church of Tuolumne County with a catered lunch, activities, and a guest speaker: Lt. Gen. (Ret.) William G. “Jerry” Boykin, an ordained minister, founding member of the U.S. Army’s Delta Force, former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, and current Executive Vice President of the Family Research Council (FRC).
Several left-wing organizations intend to respond to Boykin’s involvement by protesting the event, according to Left Coast Right Watch (LCRW), a Bay Area site that bills itself as a monitor against “extremism.” The article, by LCRW’s editor in chief Abner Hauge, accuses Boykin of “campaigning against LGBTQ+ rights” for his Christian stances on marriage and sexuality, and of “vilifying Muslims.” Hauge even writes that Boykin is “likely guilty of war crimes,” though he offers no evidence for the explosive claim.
As for the charge of Islamophobia, Hauge claims that “Boykin has a long and well-documented history of bigoted statements against Muslims,” but acknowledges that “LCRW didn’t bother tracking down the specific quotes,” because Calvary Pastor Dave Atkins’ defense of Boykin was “in obvious bad faith.”
Hauge’s sole example is Boykin decrying the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is not a general reference to Muslims but a specific organization with deep, documented ties to global terrorism.
Nevertheless, LCRW’s allies are planning to demonstrate against Boykin's remarks. “It’s hard to see a church and the Family Research Council out here,” complained Julie Gorgas, Vice President of Tuolumne County Indivisible (TCI). “I’m really against conversion therapy and this guy is responsible for thousands of LGBTQ suicides. I just think it’s really disappointing that a Christian church would invite someone like that to speak–as if he’s a good moral leader.”
Flyers being distributed around Soulsbyville implores people to protest to “celebrate Pride Month,” stand in solidarity with “black trans lives,” and “remind Calvary Church that hate is not a Christian value.” Activists are also circulating phone numbers and email addresses of the church’s leadership.
As a result, Cavalry has been deluged with hostile emails and Facebook comments attacking them for “having a bigot appear at a Christian event,” for inviting “controversy and conflict” over “inclusion,” and calling them “despicable” and even “neo-fascist.”
In response to the attacks, Atkins released a statement defending Boykin and rejecting any notion that the event is meant to “cause offense to our friends in the LGBTQ community.”
“It is true that I support our keynote speaker and have promoted his arrival for some time now. It is also true that Boykin has made some comments in the past that are currently being used against him,” Atkins said. “He has made public clarifications pertaining to those comments and you can research them on the web on your own time. The protest against his coming to speak to our men, during pride month, is a distraction from the greater message that he proclaims – The Gospel. He is an American hero with a stellar military record in the United States Army.”
Atkins announced that the ministry will be meeting any protesters at their driveway with free food and drink, and implored the event’s regular guests to keep their focus on the spirit of the event, not potential confrontation.
“Do not come to pick a fight,” he said. “Come with a humble heart ready to hear from God’s Word. Do not invite friends on the basis that this is being protested. Do not rant on Facebook on behalf of CCS. If you have a chip on your shoulder leave it at home. Those protesting this event are not our enemies. They have the potential to be our future brothers and sisters who have yet to place their faith in Jesus Christ.”
“Since the beginning [the] problem hasn’t been a skin issue,” but rather a “sin issue,” Atkins continued. “The issue is a moral rebellion against a plan that a loving God has laid out in His word. The issue and the solution have never changed. The more biblical we become, the less racial we will be. The same Bible that teaches marriage is only between male and female is the same Bible that teaches us to ‘love our neighbor.’”
Tuolumne County Indivisible is under the nationwide banner of Indivisible, a “movement of thousands of group leaders and more than a million members taking regular, iterative, and increasingly complex actions to resist the GOPs agenda, elect local champions, and fight for progressive policies.
The group admits to receiving a “modest general operating grant” from far-left financier George Soros’ Open Society Foundations (OSF) in 2017, but denies the connection goes further than that.
Many of those attacking Calvary cite as their source for labeling Boykin and FRC “hateful” the infamous Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a far-left group known for its efforts to drive conservative and pro-family organizations out of mainstream society. Despite its popular media framing as an authority on “extremism,” SPLC has found itself on the losing end of at least one defamation suit for its work, and has been called by insiders a “highly profitable scam” that uses “civil-rights work mainly as a marketing tool for bilking gullible Northern liberals.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-17--How the Supreme Court’s trans ruling will reshape federal law and further marginalize Christians

June 17 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – In a devastating 6-3 ruling on Monday , the U.S. Supreme Court dealt religious liberty a brutal blow and handed the LGBT movement a victory that stunned even them by deciding that both “ sexual orientation ” and “ gender identity ” are protected under the 1964 Civil Rights Act .
Antonin Scalia ’ s replacement Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion , and John Roberts joined him .
President Donald Trump called it a “ very powerful decision , ” and most of the top GOP senators greeted the ruling with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Josh Hawley offered criticism , but for the rest , it appears that Rod Dreher has been correct in his constant warnings that much of the Republican Party is disinterested in doing the tough work necessary to protect religious liberty .
To discuss the implications of the ruling , I contacted Dr. Darel E. Paul , professor of political science at Williams College and author of the essential book From Tolerance to Equality : How the Elites Brought America to Same-Sex Marriage , published by Baylor University Press .
He writes regularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve had him on my podcast several times to share his insights on the transformation of American values .
He was kind enough to share his perspective once again .
How would you explain this Supreme Court decision in layman ’ s terms ?
In a 6-3 decision , the Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County decided that the word “ sex ” in Title VII of the famous 1964 Civil Rights Act—the section that deals with employment—must be understood to include both sexual orientation and gender identity ( SOGI ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Court , Justice Neil Gorsuch , wrote the majority opinion .
This outcome was , suffice to say , quite a shock to conservatives .
While social conservatives now worry over its implications for religious liberty and the state ’ s enforcement of progressive gender ideology , many liberal conservatives such as Mitt Romney and David French quickly reconciled themselves to the ruling .
What is the real-world impact of this Supreme Court decision for Christians and social conservatives ?
The immediate effect is to effectively pass much of the Democratic Party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This bill was passed by the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives in 2019 but never taken up by the Republican-controlled Senate .
The Gorsuch majority in Bostock has thus effectively made an end run around the Congress and the President .
During oral arguments in October 2019 , Justice Alito proclaimed sarcastically to the attorneys for the plaintiffs , “ We might as well just take the Equality Act and issue that as our opinion !
” A prophetic statement indeed .
The short-term real-world impact , however , is small .
The Bostock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ About half the U.S. states and most of the largest cities in the other half practice what the Gorsuch majority has now mandated .
Thus much like the Supreme Court ’ s 2003 Lawrence decision striking down sodomy laws , this ruling is in some ways a mop-up operation against the few remaining resistors to the Sexual Revolution .
That being said , there will certainly be larger implications down the road that are thus far unknown .
Observers on both the right and the left expect them to be sweeping .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no reason to believe this expansion of the word “ sex ” will not expand to public accommodations such as locker rooms or waxing salons , educational institutions and therefore to girls ’ sports , and housing including room rental .
Bostock will reshape federal law for years to come in ways that [ will ] increasingly marginalize social conservatives in the public sphere .
Why do you think so many of the Court ’ s conservatives voted the way that they did ?
This case shows that it is too simplistic to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court into a “ liberal ” bloc and a “ conservative ” bloc .
Justice Gorsuch adheres to the “ textualist ” school of Constitutional interpretation and goes on at considerable length in Bostock parsing the Title VII text “ because of such individual ’ s … sex ” to reach his decision .
Justice Alito , another textualist on the Court , takes him to task precisely on textualist grounds .
No matter which side of the arcane craft of “ conservative ” methods of interpretation you are on , it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal philosophy with no obvious relationship to conservative political or moral philosophy .
We don ’ t know why Justice Roberts voted the way he did .
Many have speculated , however , that he did so less because he believes in Justice Gorsuch ’ s reasoning and more in order to ensure that Justice Ginsburg ( the most senior justice in a hypothetical 5-person Bostock majority ) did not assign the opinion to one of the more liberal members of the Court .
By voting with the majority , Justice Roberts could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limited textualist opinion would be the one that shaped American law rather than a culturally progressive opinion containing sweeping statements about human sexuality and social identity .
What are the potential implications for the Trump Administration ?
President Trump has spent considerable effort since 2016 shoring up the white evangelical wing of his electoral base .
His appointments to the courts are his primary—perhaps his only—positive argument to them for re-election .
Now just five months before the election , the Court shows how limited even that victory is .
Some are speculating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s re-election chances .
Certainly he can not win essential states like Ohio , North Carolina and Iowa without white evangelical votes .
Yet elections turn on negative as much as positive messages .
Perhaps white evangelicals and other social conservatives will vote for Trump if only to stave off what they see as the more dangerous threat of a Democratic President ( and perhaps Congress ) picking up where the second Obama administration left off .
I will simply echo Ross Douthat ’ s sentiment here : “ so long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be an accelerant of the right ’ s erasure , an agent of its marginalization and defeat.
” If social conservatives carry Trump to a second Electoral College win/popular vote loss , they will test the meaning of the phrase “ Pyrrhic victory ” as never before in American politics .
What do you think the implications of this decision are for Christians in politics , especially considering that judicial appointments have been the primary motivation for GOP voters for some time and do you believe that voting “ for the courts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Christians seeking to protect religious liberty ?
A primary strategy emphasizing religious liberty may yield temporary legal victories , but it is a stark loser socially and politically—and thus , eventually , even legally .
Christians will have to start making moral , not merely procedural , arguments if they want to remain relevant in twenty-first century America .
They will also have to embrace the suffering that will inevitably follow .
This is especially true in professional-managerial class settings where social conservatism is becoming anathema .
Consistently demanding exemptions on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rest of the country like bigoted idiosyncrasies may save a school or a business today only to have it swept aside tomorrow by larger and more powerful cultural , social , political , and ultimately legal forces .
Jonathon ’ s new podcast , The Van Maren Show , is dedicated to telling the stories of the pro-life and pro-family movement .
In his latest episode , he interviews Dale Ahlquist , famed Chesterton scholar and founder of the Chesterton society and the Chesterton schools , about what G.K. Chesterton would think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including the ongoing riots .

June 17, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – In a devastating 6-3 ruling on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt religious liberty a brutal blow and handed the LGBT movement a victory that stunned even them by deciding that both “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are protected under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Antonin Scalia’s replacement Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion, and John Roberts joined him. President Donald Trump called it a “very powerful decision,” and most of the top GOP senators greeted the ruling with a collective shrug. Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley offered criticism, but for the rest, it appears that Rod Dreher has been correct in his constant warnings that much of the Republican Party is disinterested in doing the tough work necessary to protect religious liberty.
To discuss the implications of the ruling, I contacted Dr. Darel E. Paul, professor of political science at Williams College and author of the essential book From Tolerance to Equality: How the Elites Brought America to Same-Sex Marriage, published by Baylor University Press. He writes regularly for First Things, and I’ve had him on my podcast several times to share his insights on the transformation of American values. He was kind enough to share his perspective once again.
How would you explain this Supreme Court decision in layman’s terms?
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County decided that the word “sex” in Title VII of the famous 1964 Civil Rights Act—the section that deals with employment—must be understood to include both sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI). President Trump’s first appointment to the Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch, wrote the majority opinion. This outcome was, suffice to say, quite a shock to conservatives. While social conservatives now worry over its implications for religious liberty and the state’s enforcement of progressive gender ideology, many liberal conservatives such as Mitt Romney and David French quickly reconciled themselves to the ruling.
What is the real-world impact of this Supreme Court decision for Christians and social conservatives?
The immediate effect is to effectively pass much of the Democratic Party’s Equality Act into law. This bill was passed by the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives in 2019 but never taken up by the Republican-controlled Senate. The Gorsuch majority in Bostock has thus effectively made an end run around the Congress and the President. During oral arguments in October 2019, Justice Alito proclaimed sarcastically to the attorneys for the plaintiffs, “We might as well just take the Equality Act and issue that as our opinion!” A prophetic statement indeed.
The short-term real-world impact, however, is small. The Bostock decision is limited to employment matters. About half the U.S. states and most of the largest cities in the other half already practice what the Gorsuch majority has now mandated. Thus much like the Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence decision striking down sodomy laws, this ruling is in some ways a mop-up operation against the few remaining resistors to the Sexual Revolution.
That being said, there will certainly be larger implications down the road that are thus far unknown. Observers on both the right and the left expect them to be sweeping. While currently limited to employment, there is no reason to believe this expansion of the word “sex” will not expand to public accommodations such as locker rooms or waxing salons, educational institutions and therefore to girls’ sports, and housing including room rental. Bostock will reshape federal law for years to come in ways that [will] increasingly marginalize social conservatives in the public sphere.
Why do you think so many of the Court’s conservatives voted the way that they did?
This case shows that it is too simplistic to break down the nine members of the Court into a “liberal” bloc and a “conservative” bloc. Justice Gorsuch adheres to the “textualist” school of Constitutional interpretation and goes on at considerable length in Bostock parsing the Title VII text “because of such individual’s … sex” to reach his decision. Justice Alito, another textualist on the Court, takes him to task precisely on textualist grounds. No matter which side of the arcane craft of “conservative” methods of interpretation you are on, it is now obvious that textualism is just a legal philosophy with no obvious relationship to conservative political or moral philosophy.
We don’t know why Justice Roberts voted the way he did. Many have speculated, however, that he did so less because he believes in Justice Gorsuch’s reasoning and more in order to ensure that Justice Ginsburg (the most senior justice in a hypothetical 5-person Bostock majority) did not assign the opinion to one of the more liberal members of the Court. By voting with the majority, Justice Roberts could ensure that Justice Gorsuch’s more limited textualist opinion would be the one that shaped American law rather than a culturally progressive opinion containing sweeping statements about human sexuality and social identity.
What are the potential implications for the Trump Administration?
President Trump has spent considerable effort since 2016 shoring up the white evangelical wing of his electoral base. His appointments to the courts are his primary—perhaps his only—positive argument to them for re-election. Now just five months before the election, the Court shows how limited even that victory is. Some are speculating that the disappointment arising from Bostock ends Trump’s re-election chances. Certainly he cannot win essential states like Ohio, North Carolina and Iowa without white evangelical votes.
Yet elections turn on negative as much as positive messages. Perhaps white evangelicals and other social conservatives will vote for Trump if only to stave off what they see as the more dangerous threat of a Democratic President (and perhaps Congress) picking up where the second Obama administration left off. I will simply echo Ross Douthat’s sentiment here: “so long as he remains in office, Trump will be an accelerant of the right’s erasure, an agent of its marginalization and defeat.” If social conservatives carry Trump to a second Electoral College win/popular vote loss, they will test the meaning of the phrase “Pyrrhic victory” as never before in American politics.
What do you think the implications of this decision are for Christians in politics, especially considering that judicial appointments have been the primary motivation for GOP voters for some time and do you believe that voting “for the courts” is still a viable political strategy for Christians seeking to protect religious liberty?
A primary strategy emphasizing religious liberty may yield temporary legal victories, but it is a stark loser socially and politically—and thus, eventually, even legally. Christians will have to start making moral, not merely procedural, arguments if they want to remain relevant in twenty-first century America. They will also have to embrace the suffering that will inevitably follow. This is especially true in professional-managerial class settings where social conservatism is becoming anathema. Consistently demanding exemptions on the grounds of what looks to much of the rest of the country like bigoted idiosyncrasies may save a school or a business today only to have it swept aside tomorrow by larger and more powerful cultural, social, political, and ultimately legal forces.
Jonathon’s new podcast, The Van Maren Show, is dedicated to telling the stories of the pro-life and pro-family movement. In his latest episode, he interviews Dale Ahlquist, famed Chesterton scholar and founder of the Chesterton society and the Chesterton schools, about what G.K. Chesterton would think of the state of the world, including the ongoing riots.
You can subscribe here and listen to the episode below:
Follow Jonathon Jonathon Van Maren is a public speaker, writer, and pro-life activist. His commentary has been translated into more than eight languages and published widely online as well as print newspapers such as the Jewish Independent, the National Post, the Hamilton Spectator and others. He has received an award for combating anti-Semitism in print from the Jewish organization B’nai Brith. His commentary has been featured on CTV Primetime, Global News, EWTN, and the CBC as well as dozens of radio stations and news outlets in Canada and the United States. He speaks on a wide variety of cultural topics across North America at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions. Some of these topics include abortion, pornography, the Sexual Revolution, and euthanasia. Jonathon holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in history from Simon Fraser University, and is the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform. Jonathon’s first book, The Culture War, was released in 2016.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-17--Are we entering the Dark Ages that G.K. Chesterton predicted?

The requested podcast episode was not found .

To help keep this and other programs on the air, please donate here.
In today’s episode of The Van Maren Show, famed Chesterton scholar and founder of the Chesterton society and the Chesterton schools, Dale Ahlquist joins Jonathon Van Maren to discuss what G.K. Chesterton would the riots happening in the United States and the current state of the world. Ahlquist and Van Maren speak about the riots, the upcoming ‘dark ages’ of society, and what we need to do to save the culture for future generations, including taking your kids out of public schools.


lifesitenews--2020-06-17--How communists plotted to overthrow the US, as Fatima seer foretold

Sr. Lucia revealed that Our Lady informed her that even the United States of America would be overcome by communism @ @ @ @ @ to Her Immaculate Heart by the Pope in union with the world ’ s bishops @

Sr. Lucia revealed that Our Lady informed her that even the United States of America would be overcome by communism if Russia was not consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart by the Pope in union with the world’s bishops.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-17--Join our daily worldwide rosary HERE

Join our daily worldwide rosary HERE

June 17 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – In response to the coronavirus crisis , LifeSite is offering Catholics throughout the world a chance to be united in praying the rosary together , at the same time , every day at 12:00 noon EST .
The rosary is led by Father Anthony Pillari , an American priest currently in Italy .
To date , Catholics from Israel , Uganda , Italy , France , Germany , Ireland , the United Kingdom , the U.S. , Canada , Mexico , Chile , Brazil , Australia , New Zealand , the Philippines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as well as other countries , have been joining in .
The whole world – including the Church – has been thrown into chaos because of the coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) .
Thousands of people have passed away as a result of the viral outbreak , while thousands more have been sickened .
And , across the world , business has come to a grinding halt , resulting in sudden job loss and threatening economic recession .
If there ever was a time for prayer , this is it .
Catholics around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Sacraments , but in many places are unable to access them because of bishops ’ orders or government restrictions .
We know that community with other believers is vital all the time , but especially during this time of global calls for “ sheltering-in-place ” and quarantine .
“ The rosary is the weapon for these times , ” St. Padre Pio said .
Through prayer , we can shape history , change the world , and bring this painful crisis to an end .
Join us today !
Send photos or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rosary with Father Pillari to [ email protected ]

(LifeSiteNews) — In response to the crisis unfolding in our world and in the Church, LifeSite is happy to promote Regina Angelorum Press’s Daily Rosary, which is offering Catholics throughout the world the chance to be united daily in prayer, in the Our Lady of Fatima Rosary Crusade.
Catholics from all over the world — from Israel, Uganda, Italy, France, Germany, Ireland, Pakistan, Singapore, the Philippines, India, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the U.S., Canada, Brazil, and other countries — are gathering daily to pray the Rosary, led by Father Pillari, JCL, MCL, STL, an American priest currently studying in Italy.
The Daily Rosary is being offered each day at 12noon EST through Regina Angelorum Press’ YouTube Channel to which you can subscribe HERE.
The goal is, by means of this Daily Rosary and by embracing and living out the message given by the Virgin Mary at Fatima, the triumph of Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart.
To help obtain that goal, Bishop Athanasius Schneider graciously composed the following prayer for this worldwide Rosary crusade:
O Immaculate Heart of Mary, you are the holy Mother of God and our tender Mother. Look upon the distress in which the Church and the whole of humanity are living because of the spread of materialism and the persecution of the Church. In Fatima you warned against these errors, as you spoke about the errors of Russia. You are the Mediatrix of all graces. Implore your Divine Son to grant this special grace for the Pope: that he might consecrate Russia to your Immaculate Heart, so that Russia will be converted, a period of peace will be granted to the world, and your Immaculate Heart will triumph, through an authentic renewal of the Church in the splendor of the purity of the Catholic Faith, of the sacredness of Divine worship and of the holiness of the Christian life. O Queen of the holy Rosary and our sweet Mother, turn your merciful eyes to us and graciously hear this our trusting prayer. Amen. + Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana
To learn more about the urgency of responding to Our Lady’s message at Fatima, and about what you can do, please read Cardinal Burke’s 2017 address at the Rome Life Forum.
As St. Padre Pio once said, “The Rosary is the weapon for these times.” Through prayer, God can shape history, change the world, and bring about a great time of renewal and peace for the Church and for the world, through the triumph of Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart. Join us today!
If you would like to follow along with the prayers said during this Rosary, you can access them HERE. The document also includes a brief F.A.Q. pertaining to the daily Rosary.
You can send your prayer requests to https://reginangelorumpress.com/prayer-intentions/
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-17--Sen. Josh Hawley reacts to SCOTUS trans ruling: ‘The end of the conservative legal movement’

WASHINGTON , D.C. , June 17 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Senator Josh Hawley , R-MO , decried “ the end of the conservative legal movement ” in a fiery speech before the U.S. Senate yesterday .
He also called out the Republican Party for its treatment of religious conservatives .
Hawley made his remarks following Monday ’ s Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County , Georgia .
The ruling concluded that “ sex discrimination ” in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act should be interpreted to mean “ sexual orientation ” and “ gender @ @ @ @ @ @ @ original biological meaning .
“ After Bostock , ” the 40-year-old senator said , the effort of the conservative legal movement , “ as it has existed up to now , is over.
” Hawley referred to the legal philosophies of textualism and originalism , which were supposed to essentially interpret legal texts based on their ordinary meaning , as understood by regular citizens at the time the law was made .
He said that “ if you can invoke textualism and originalism in order to reach such a decision—an outcome that fundamentally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of statutory law—then textualism and originalism and all of those phrases don ’ t mean much at all.
” “ And if those are the things that we ’ ve been fighting for—it ’ s what I thought we had been fighting for , those of us who call ourselves legal conservatives—if we ’ ve been fighting for originalism and textualism , and this is the result of that , then I have to say it turns out we haven ’ t been fighting for very much , ” Hawley pointed out .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fighting for quite a lot , but it ’ s been exactly the opposite of what we thought we were fighting for , ” he speculated .
According to the young senator , who had previously already served as the Missouri Attorney General , the conservative legal movement always depended on religious conservatives “ in order to carry the weight of the votes to actually support this out in public , to get out there and make it possible electorally.
” “ Evangelicals , conservative Catholics , conservative Jews : let ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ones who have been the core of the legal conservative effort , ” he said .
Now , however , it has become evident that “ the bargain that has been offered to religious conservatives for years now is a bad one .
It ’ s time to reject it.
” “ The bargain has never been explicitly articulated , ” Hawley admitted , “ but religious conservatives know what it is .
The bargain is that you go along with the party establishment , you support their policies and priorities—or at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in return , the establishment will put some judges on the bench who supposedly will protect your constitutional rights to freedom of worship , to freedom of exercise.
” Hawley went on to recount some of the policies pushed by the Republican Party that religious conservatives accepted , hoping for a strong defense of the First Amendment in return : We were told that we ’ re supposed to shut up while the party establishment focuses more on cutting taxes and handing out favors for corporations , multinational corporations who don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stand up for American principles , who were only too happy to ship American jobs overseas .
But we ’ re supposed to say nothing about that .
We ’ re supposed to keep our mouths shut because maybe we ’ ll get a judge out of the deal .
That was the implicit bargain .
We ’ re supposed to keep our mouths shut while the party establishment opens borders , while the party establishment pursues ruinous trade policies .
We ’ re supposed to keep our mouths shut while those at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get all of the attention .
While working families and college students and those who don ’ t want to go to college but can ’ t get a good job , while they get what ?
What attention ?
Workers ?
Children ?
What about parents looking for help with the cost of raising children ?
Looking for help with the culture in which they have to raise children ?
Looking for help with the communities , rebuilding the communities in which they must carry out their family life ?
What about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that isn ’ t ruinously expensive and then figure out some way to pay back that enormous debt ?
What about those who don ’ t have a college degree and don ’ t want one , but would like to get a good job ?
What about them ?
Hawley also seemed to reference his public disputes with the Judicial Crisis Network , a conservative legal group that backed President Trump ’ s nominees to the Supreme Court and lower courts : ... the truth is , to those who have objected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this body , to those who said I was wrong to question judges who came for the Judiciary Committee , to those who chided me for asking tough questions even of nominees by a Republican president , for those who said that I was slowing the process down , that I was out of line , for the supposedly conservative groups who threatened to buy television time in my own state to punish me for asking questions about conservative judges , I just have this to say : this is why I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t stop .
And I wish some more people would ask some harder questions .
Because this outcome is not acceptable .
And the bargain which religious conservatives have been offered is not tenable .
He encouraged religious conservatives “ to bring forward the best of our ideas on every policy affecting this nation .
We should be out in the forefront leading on economics , on trade , on race , on class , on every subject that matters for what our founders called the ‘ general welfare ’ because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It ’ s time for religious conservatives to stand up and speak out rather than being told to sit down and shut up , ” he added .
“ So , let this be a departure .
Let this be a new beginning , let this be the start of something better.
” Rod Dreher , author of The Benedict Option : A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation , praised Hawley for what he called “ a game-changing speech.
” “ This speech is a call for religious conservatives to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing political business — and , I hope , from the old leadership that has gotten very fat and happy networking with the GOP establishment over the years , ” Dreher wrote .
“ In this speech , Josh Hawley has made explicit the connections between class , culture , economics , and law in the Republican Party , ” he explained .
“ This is heresy to the old guard .
Good !
Nail this speech to the doors of every Republican senator and political consultant , and every Christian Right lobbyist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court , this time led by Trump-appointee Justice Neil Gorsuch , for legislating from the bench instead of judging in a case , he did not criticize the content of the ruling as a deviation from natural law and traditional biblical morality .
Hawley said the ruling would be applied to cases involving questions of religious liberty in future cases .
While explicitly mentioning churches , religious schools , and religious charities , he did not address , for instance , the case of a simple business owner who does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a woman at work , even if the business owner is not religious .
Cases like these , it appears , were already decided by Monday ’ s ruling .

The junior senator from Missouri called out the Republican Party for its treatment of religious conservatives and conservative legal groups for attacking his questioning of Trump judicial nominees.
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 17, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Senator Josh Hawley, R-MO, decried “the end of the conservative legal movement” in a fiery speech before the U.S. Senate yesterday. He also called out the Republican Party for its treatment of religious conservatives.
Hawley made his remarks following Monday’s Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. The ruling concluded that “sex discrimination” in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act should be interpreted to mean “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” in addition to its original biological meaning.
“After Bostock,” the 40-year-old senator said, the effort of the conservative legal movement, “as it has existed up to now, is over.”
Hawley referred to the legal philosophies of textualism and originalism, which were supposed to essentially interpret legal texts based on their ordinary meaning, as understood by regular citizens at the time the law was made.
He said that “if you can invoke textualism and originalism in order to reach such a decision—an outcome that fundamentally changes the scope and meaning and application of statutory law—then textualism and originalism and all of those phrases don’t mean much at all.”
“And if those are the things that we’ve been fighting for—it’s what I thought we had been fighting for, those of us who call ourselves legal conservatives—if we’ve been fighting for originalism and textualism, and this is the result of that, then I have to say it turns out we haven’t been fighting for very much,” Hawley pointed out.
“Or maybe we’ve been fighting for quite a lot, but it’s been exactly the opposite of what we thought we were fighting for,” he speculated.
According to the young senator, who had previously already served as the Missouri Attorney General, the conservative legal movement always depended on religious conservatives “in order to carry the weight of the votes to actually support this out in public, to get out there and make it possible electorally.”
“Evangelicals, conservative Catholics, conservative Jews: let’s be honest, they’re the ones who have been the core of the legal conservative effort,” he said.
Now, however, it has become evident that “the bargain that has been offered to religious conservatives for years now is a bad one. It’s time to reject it.”
“The bargain has never been explicitly articulated,” Hawley admitted, “but religious conservatives know what it is. The bargain is that you go along with the party establishment, you support their policies and priorities—or at least keep your mouth shut about it—and, in return, the establishment will put some judges on the bench who supposedly will protect your constitutional rights to freedom of worship, to freedom of exercise.”
Hawley went on to recount some of the policies pushed by the Republican Party that religious conservatives accepted, hoping for a strong defense of the First Amendment in return:
We were told that we’re supposed to shut up while the party establishment focuses more on cutting taxes and handing out favors for corporations, multinational corporations who don’t share our values, who will not stand up for American principles, who were only too happy to ship American jobs overseas. But we’re supposed to say nothing about that. We’re supposed to keep our mouths shut because maybe we’ll get a judge out of the deal. That was the implicit bargain. We’re supposed to keep our mouths shut while the party establishment opens borders, while the party establishment pursues ruinous trade policies. We’re supposed to keep our mouths shut while those at the upper end of the income bracket get all of the attention. While working families and college students and those who don’t want to go to college but can’t get a good job, while they get what? What attention? Workers? Children? What about parents looking for help with the cost of raising children? Looking for help with the culture in which they have to raise children? Looking for help with the communities, rebuilding the communities in which they must carry out their family life? What about college students trying to find an education that isn’t ruinously expensive and then figure out some way to pay back that enormous debt? What about those who don’t have a college degree and don’t want one, but would like to get a good job? What about them?
Hawley also seemed to reference his public disputes with the Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative legal group that backed President Trump’s nominees to the Supreme Court and lower courts:
…the truth is, to those who have objected to my own questioning of judicial nominees in this body, to those who said I was wrong to question judges who came for the Judiciary Committee, to those who chided me for asking tough questions even of nominees by a Republican president, for those who said that I was slowing the process down, that I was out of line, for the supposedly conservative groups who threatened to buy television time in my own state to punish me for asking questions about conservative judges, I just have this to say: this is why I asked questions. This is why I won’t stop. And I wish some more people would ask some harder questions. Because this outcome is not acceptable. And the bargain which religious conservatives have been offered is not tenable.
Hawley ended on a somewhat hopeful note.
He encouraged religious conservatives “to bring forward the best of our ideas on every policy affecting this nation. We should be out in the forefront leading on economics, on trade, on race, on class, on every subject that matters for what our founders called the ‘general welfare’ because we have a lot to offer.”
“It’s time for religious conservatives to stand up and speak out rather than being told to sit down and shut up,” he added. “So, let this be a departure. Let this be a new beginning, let this be the start of something better.”
Rod Dreher, author of The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation, praised Hawley for what he called “a game-changing speech.”
“This speech is a call for religious conservatives to break away from the old way of doing political business — and, I hope, from the old leadership that has gotten very fat and happy networking with the GOP establishment over the years,” Dreher wrote.
“In this speech, Josh Hawley has made explicit the connections between class, culture, economics, and law in the Republican Party,” he explained. “This is heresy to the old guard. Good! Nail this speech to the doors of every Republican senator and political consultant, and every Christian Right lobbyist in Washington.”
Even though Hawley criticized the Supreme Court, this time led by Trump-appointee Justice Neil Gorsuch, for legislating from the bench instead of judging in a case, he did not criticize the content of the ruling as a deviation from natural law and traditional biblical morality.
Hawley said the ruling would be applied to cases involving questions of religious liberty in future cases. While explicitly mentioning churches, religious schools, and religious charities, he did not address, for instance, the case of a simple business owner who does not want his male employee to dress like a woman at work, even if the business owner is not religious. Cases like these, it appears, were already decided by Monday’s ruling.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-17--Supreme Court’s new LGBT decision makes a dangerous lie the law of the land

June 17 , 2020 ( CatholicCulture.org ) — The US Supreme Court , which arbitrarily redefined human life in the Roe decision , and redefined marriage in Obergefell , has now redefined sex .
There ’ s a frightening consistency to these decisions , a logic explained by Lewis Carroll in Through the Looking Glass : “ When I use a word , ” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone , “ it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.
” “ The question is , ” said Alice , “ whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different things.
” “ The question is , ” said Humpty Dumpty , “ which is to be master — that ’ s all.
” In the Bostock decision , the Supreme Court interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to mean things that , in all likelihood , not a single member of Congress intended at the time the bill was enacted .
At any time in the 56 intervening years , Congress could have amended that Act , or passed other legislation , to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This decision is a pure act of judicial legislation .
But this is nothing new .
With Obergefell , the Court had legalized same-sex marriage without even a nod at Congress .
In that case the Court had discovered the right to homosexual marriage in the “ emanations from penumbra ” of the Constitution .
As Kevin Williamson wrote in National Review : Williamson pinpoints the most important argument against the Bostock decision : not that it is a usurpation of Congressional authority ( although it is ) , nor that it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will ) , but that it is patently false .
In this calamitous decision , six members of our nation ’ s highest court signed their names to a lie .
It ’ s manifestly untrue that when Congress outlawed discrimination on the basis of sex , the lawmakers intended also to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity : concepts that had not even been introduced into the language of the American polity at that time .
But again that is not the key point .
Still more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the word “ sex , ” which denotes physical characteristics , can be stretched to include behaviors and attitudes .
With very rare exceptions — which are universally recognized as medical anomalies — human beings fall neatly into one of two categories .
“ Male and female He created them , ” the Book of Genesis tells us , and science confirms that report .
To discriminate on the basis of sex means to discriminate against someone because of his or her chromosomes .
But now the Supreme Court has cast aside the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sexuality — just as , in 1973 , the Court cast aside the evidence of science on the question of when human life begins .
In each case , science and Scripture and settled law and centuries of tradition all pointed in one direction , yet the Supreme Court struck out on a different route .
To deny reality is to flirt with insanity , and the Court ’ s flights of illogic have spawned many other nonsensical judicial rulings and public policies .
The Bostock decision is certain to cause regulatory nightmares @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civil liberties .
Helen Andrews explored the unhappy prospects in The American Conservative : Women will suffer as a consequence of this decision , because as Jennifer Roback Morse has observed Bostock effectively “ erases womanhood.
” Racial minorities will suffer , because the legislation intended to protect them will now be commandeered by the sexual revolutionaries .
Christians and conservatives will suffer , because their beliefs will be deemed violations of human rights .
Thousands of confused individuals will suffer , because they will be confirmed in their delusions .
Bostock , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that matter like Dred Scott — threatens the stability of our Republic , because in all these cases the Supreme Court has aggravated serious divisions among the American people .
It might have been possible for skilled statesmen to reach an amicable resolution of our differences ( although I see no such statesmen on the political horizon , and I wonder whether a peaceful resolution is still possible ) .
By coming down squarely on one side of the deep divide , the Court has short-circuited the normal political process a nasty backlash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a house divided .
Still worse , as long as the Supreme Court ’ s decision stands , we as a nation are living a lie .
Our laws and our Constitution , as interpreted by our highest court , no longer satisfy the minimum demands of logic and sanity .
When the people can no longer respect the law — can no longer predict or understand the law — the regime can not survive .

Bostock, like Roe and Obergefell — and for that matter like Dred Scott — threatens the stability of our Republic.
June 17, 2020 (CatholicCulture.org) — The US Supreme Court, which arbitrarily redefined human life in the Roe decision, and redefined marriage in Obergefell, has now redefined sex. There’s a frightening consistency to these decisions, a logic explained by Lewis Carroll in Through the Looking Glass:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”
In the Bostock decision, the Supreme Court interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to mean things that, in all likelihood, not a single member of Congress intended at the time the bill was enacted. At any time in the 56 intervening years, Congress could have amended that Act, or passed other legislation, to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Congress never did so. This decision is a pure act of judicial legislation.
But this is nothing new. With Obergefell, the Court had legalized same-sex marriage without even a nod at Congress. In that case the Court had discovered the right to homosexual marriage in the “emanations from penumbra” of the Constitution. As Kevin Williamson wrote in National Review:
The gentlemen who wrote the Constitution did not get around to enfranchising women or abolishing slavery, but they snuck in a constitutional right to gay marriage that we’ve somehow overlooked for 228 years or so: No mentally functional adult, regardless of his views on gay marriage, should be expected to pretend that that is true.
Williamson pinpoints the most important argument against the Bostock decision: not that it is a usurpation of Congressional authority (although it is), nor that it will produce disastrous public policy (although it will), but that it is patently false. In this calamitous decision, six members of our nation’s highest court signed their names to a lie.
It’s manifestly untrue that when Congress outlawed discrimination on the basis of sex, the lawmakers intended also to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity: concepts that had not even been introduced into the language of the American polity at that time. But again that is not the key point. Still more important, it’s untrue that the word “sex,” which denotes physical characteristics, can be stretched to include behaviors and attitudes.
With very rare exceptions — which are universally recognized as medical anomalies — human beings fall neatly into one of two categories. “Male and female He created them,” the Book of Genesis tells us, and science confirms that report. To discriminate on the basis of sex means to discriminate against someone because of his or her chromosomes.
But now the Supreme Court has cast aside the evidence of science in the matter of sexuality — just as, in 1973, the Court cast aside the evidence of science on the question of when human life begins. In each case, science and Scripture and settled law and centuries of tradition all pointed in one direction, yet the Supreme Court struck out on a different route.
To deny reality is to flirt with insanity, and the Court’s flights of illogic have spawned many other nonsensical judicial rulings and public policies. The Bostock decision is certain to cause regulatory nightmares, inviting new abuses and threatening ordinary civil liberties. Helen Andrews explored the unhappy prospects in The American Conservative:
Under Bostock, an LGBT employee could allege a hostile work environment if a coworker expressed the wrong opinion about Prop 8 or said he believed a person’s sex is determined at birth. Some employers are already justifying firing workers who won’t use someone’s preferred pronouns because discrimination law requires it. Misgendering, they say, is harassment.
Women will suffer as a consequence of this decision, because as Jennifer Roback Morse has observed Bostock effectively “erases womanhood.” Racial minorities will suffer, because the legislation intended to protect them will now be commandeered by the sexual revolutionaries. Christians and conservatives will suffer, because their beliefs will be deemed violations of human rights. Thousands of confused individuals will suffer, because they will be confirmed in their delusions.
Bostock, like Roe and Obergefell — and for that matter like Dred Scott — threatens the stability of our Republic, because in all these cases the Supreme Court has aggravated serious divisions among the American people. It might have been possible for skilled statesmen to reach an amicable resolution of our differences (although I see no such statesmen on the political horizon, and I wonder whether a peaceful resolution is still possible). By coming down squarely on one side of the deep divide, the Court has short-circuited the normal political process a nasty backlash is now almost unavoidable.
We are a house divided. Still worse, as long as the Supreme Court’s decision stands, we as a nation are living a lie. Our laws and our Constitution, as interpreted by our highest court, no longer satisfy the minimum demands of logic and sanity. When the people can no longer respect the law — can no longer predict or understand the law — the regime cannot survive.
Published with permission from CatholicCulture.org.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-17--Media won’t mention it, but Antifa is of a piece with the Muslim Brotherhood

June 17 , 2020 ( Turning Point Project ) — “ There are decades where nothing happens , and there are weeks where decades happen.
” So wrote Vladimir Lenin .
The Communist Revolution which he engineered did seem to pack many decades of change into a relatively short time .
The old tsarist order was quickly overthrown , and , almost overnight , Russia was transformed from a Christian country to an officially atheist state .
The year 2020 may well be one of those times in which decades ’ worth of change are compressed into a short time-frame @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a great deal of unexpected and unwelcome change .
Many of those changes may turn out to be permanent .
What ’ s more , the economic effects of the epidemic ( which have not yet fully unfolded ) may be the chief factor in deciding the crucial 2020 election .
That election is now shaping up as a contest between two parties with radically different views of life — perhaps not as radically opposed as monarchist Christians and communist revolutionaries , but somewhere in the same vicinity .
Should the party of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changes we can expect will be almost as sweeping and as swift as those that followed the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia .
That ’ s not an unreasonable prediction .
The liberal-leftists of today share many of the same ideological , political , and economic views as the Leninists .
For example , even though many on the left claim to believe in God , they are actually functional atheists .
They act and legislate as though God does not exist , and they see traditional Christians as a threat to the secular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The leftists in our midst are a dangerous lot .
Witness the role that various leftist groups such as Antifa are playing in organizing and encouraging violent riots in dozens of American cities .
But even if the worst fears about leftists in power don ’ t materialize , another danger is close at hand .
Even if America ’ s progressive socialists turn out to be as mild as the Swedish variety , they will — as the ever naïve Swedes have already done — pave the way for an even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Islam .
Although the left understands that Christianity is a competitor for the hearts and minds of people , it fails to realize that Islam is also .
Why is that ?
Well , primarily because the left seems to have fallen for its own multicultural propaganda .
It looks upon Muslims as a victim class which has been held back by capitalism , colonialism , racism , and , of course , “ Islamophobia.
” Left-liberals may even believe that Islam is a religion of peace which has gotten a bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken a few years ago revealed that they believed Islam to be no more violent than Christianity .
Leftists do , however , understand that Islam is no friend of Christianity .
So they believe that they can work together with Islamic groups to achieve mutual goals .
For their part , radical Muslims tend to see leftists as useful idiots .
They are willing to play the oppressed victim role that leftists have assigned to them if it will further their own interests .
So , it ’ s not surprising that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress , such as Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar , are also activist Muslims .
Likewise , Linda Sasour , who is considered one of the leaders of the Women ’ s Movement in America , never appears in public without a hijab .
The fact that Sasour , a strong advocate of sharia law , is considered to be a champion of women ’ s rights reveals a lot about the liberal left ’ s inability to come to grips with the realities of Islam .
So does the fact that Phyllis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has criticized Islam ’ s treatment of women , is now shunned by her former feminist colleagues .
Extremist views of the Islamic variety are no bar to moving up the ladder in liberal social and political circles .
Take Keith Ellison , for example .
He embodies both the extremes of liberalism and the extremes of Islamism .
Yet this didn ’ t prevent him from being elected several times to the House of Representatives , and after that to be named the Deputy Director of the Democratic National Committee .
Currently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State of Minnesota , and , as might be expected , he has had a few things to say about the riots in Minneapolis .
Among other things , he has been retweeting theories that white supremacist groups may be responsible for the violence .
Well , actually , there is one , largely white group that is responsible for organizing much of the violence .
But it ’ s mostly made up of left-wing college grads , not right-wing rednecks .
But Antifa is not the white group Ellison suspects .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Indeed , he once posed with a copy of Antifa : The Anti-Fascist Handbook — today ’ s equivalent of Mao ’ s Little Red Book .
Ellison is very much a man of the left .
His candidacy for Congress was supported by the Communist Party USA ; he praised Fidel Castro and other leftist heroes ; and he was a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus .
On the other hand , his radical Islamist credentials are just as solid .
A convert to Islam , Ellison took his oath @ @ @ @ @ @ @ photo-op re-enactment of his swearing-in ceremony .
And he has disparaged moderate Muslims as “ Uncle Toms , ” which suggests that Ellison himself could , perhaps , be categorized as an immoderate Muslim .
His immoderation is confirmed by looking at the groups he has associated with over the years .
He started off as a supporter of Louis Farrakhan ’ s Nation of Islam .
Later , he found it politically expedient to get the endorsement of more “ respectable ” groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations ( CAIR @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America ( ISNA ) , the Muslim American Society ( MAS ) , and a half-dozen other Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups .
Over the years , Ellison has been the keynote speaker or featured speaker at dozens of conventions and conferences sponsored by what one commentator calls “ suit-wearing jihadists.
” You can ’ t very well call Ellison an “ infiltrator ” of the liberal political establishment .
He didn ’ t make much of an effort to conceal his leftist and Islamist leanings .
In fact , he often flaunted them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting when it appointed him the co-chair of the Democratic National Committee .
That doesn ’ t mean , however , that there hasn ’ t been genuine infiltration of the party .
Take the case of Debbie Wasserman Schultz , Ellison ’ s predecessor at the DNC .
In 2005 , after being elected to the House , Wasserman Schultz hired Imran Awan as an IT aide .
To make a long story short , Awan and his two brothers were soon working as information technology managers for dozens of Democrat members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of several years , they worked for three members of the House Committee on Intelligence , five members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs , and for various Democrat members of the Homeland Security Committee and the Armed Services Committee .
In short , the Pakistani brothers had access to highly sensitive government information .
Doesn ’ t that require a security clearance ?
Well , yes .
Did the brothers have one ?
Well , no .
That requirement would have been Islamophobic .
Finally , in 2016 , in order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Intelligence Committee Democrats requested “ Top Secret ” clearance for the Awan brothers .
Yet the brothers were involved in various forms of financial fraud , and one of them had been twice arrested for public drunkenness .
In addition , they had numerous close relatives in Pakistan — which alone would raise red flags in the security clearance process .
Despite all this , Wasserman Schultz retained Imran Awan on her staff right up to the moment he was arrested at Dulles Airport for trying to flee the country .
There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government and the military .
To name just a few : In 2008 , when Major Stephen Coughlin , the Pentagon ’ s top authority on Islamic war doctrine , reported on the connection between Islamic law and violence , he was fired at the behest of Hesham Islam , a special assistant to the deputy secretary of defense .
A year later , as if to prove Coughlin ’ s point , Major Nidal Hasan , who once lectured his colleagues on Islamic law , killed fourteen people at Fort Hood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might think that the Army would have tightened up its vetting procedure after that , but one would be wrong .
Instead , the military tightened up its Islamophobia watch .
One result was the penetration of Pensacola Naval Air Station in 2019 by a jihadist Saudi officer who killed three and wounded eight before he was shot and killed .
We tend to assume that our military and security establishment are always on high alert , but too often national security takes a back seat to diversity .
One could be forgiven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Downton Abbey are more carefully vetted than the people entering sensitive security positions in our politically correct government .
The idea that vetting is somehow discriminatory may help to explain why there hasn ’ t been much investigation of Antifa — even though it ’ s been around for two decades in the U.S. and for much longer than that in Europe ( where it often launches violent attacks on critics of Islam ) .
Looking too closely into the activities of Antifa and into its sources of funding would be , well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Antifa “ leans ” to the left , as one news outlet recently put it , but everyone knows there are no enemies on the left .
On the other hand , if you ’ re anti-Antifa , you ’ re probably a conspiracy theorist , and ought to be investigated yourself .
Being pro-Antifa , however , is no problem .
Just the other day , Jeremiah Ellison ( son of Keith ) , a Minneapolis City Council member , declared “ my support for Antifa.
” He added : “ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white power terrorist [ s that ] are actually attacking us.
” Once again , if you ’ re an Ellison , you don ’ t have to hide what you believe .
That ’ s because much of the media share the same beliefs .
And if , perchance , there is anything to hide , they ’ ll hide it for you .
I first read about Jeremiah Ellison on the Understanding the Threat ( UTT ) site in connection with a short video report by UTT president John Guandolo regarding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clicked “ Here ” to see the video report , but all I was allowed to see was a black screen with the message “ this video has been removed for violating YouTube ’ s terms of service.
” The internet giants have become like the school librarians of yore who decided what books you should and shouldn ’ t read .
Meanwhile , TV news plays a similar role by telling you how to interpret the current disturbances .
The screen shows you rows of broken store windows and streets lit up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commentator assures you that this only proves that the vast majority of protesters are peaceful .
Because our society is already flush with leftists in media , in politics , in academia , and in the streets , we are closer than most think to one of those tipping points in history where accepted norms are suddenly swept away .
And the left doesn ’ t stand alone .
Islamic cultural jihadists are also interested in encouraging radical social change .
It ’ s not exactly the same change that the left wants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two groups are willing to reinforce each other .
The possibility that we now stand on the brink of revolutionary change is difficult to entertain .
In America , we have grown accustomed to long periods of internal peace and prosperity .
When disruptions occur , we assume that we will soon return to normalcy .
But that ’ s not always the case in history .
“ Current trends ” are often replaced by new , radically different trends .
It ’ s said that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be vigilant in a time of eternal distractions .
The fact that many think of a return to normalcy as simply a return to shopping , sports , and mindless entertainments suggests that we are ill-prepared to cope with those single-minded people who have revolution , not normalcy , on their minds .
This article originally appeared in the June 9 , 2020 edition of Crisis .
It is published here with permission from the Turning Point Project .

June 17, 2020 (Turning Point Project) — “There are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks where decades happen.”
So wrote Vladimir Lenin. The Communist Revolution which he engineered did seem to pack many decades of change into a relatively short time. The old tsarist order was quickly overthrown, and, almost overnight, Russia was transformed from a Christian country to an officially atheist state.
The year 2020 may well be one of those times in which decades’ worth of change are compressed into a short time-frame. The Covid-19 pandemic brought with it a great deal of unexpected and unwelcome change. Many of those changes may turn out to be permanent.
What’s more, the economic effects of the epidemic (which have not yet fully unfolded) may be the chief factor in deciding the crucial 2020 election. That election is now shaping up as a contest between two parties with radically different views of life — perhaps not as radically opposed as monarchist Christians and communist revolutionaries, but somewhere in the same vicinity.
Should the party of the liberal-left come to power, the changes we can expect will be almost as sweeping and as swift as those that followed the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. That’s not an unreasonable prediction. The liberal-leftists of today share many of the same ideological, political, and economic views as the Leninists. For example, even though many on the left claim to believe in God, they are actually functional atheists. They act and legislate as though God does not exist, and they see traditional Christians as a threat to the secular heaven they hope to create on earth.
The leftists in our midst are a dangerous lot. Witness the role that various leftist groups such as Antifa are playing in organizing and encouraging violent riots in dozens of American cities. But even if the worst fears about leftists in power don’t materialize, another danger is close at hand. Even if America’s progressive socialists turn out to be as mild as the Swedish variety, they will — as the ever naïve Swedes have already done — pave the way for an even more dangerous and oppressive ideology — namely, Islam.
Although the left understands that Christianity is a competitor for the hearts and minds of people, it fails to realize that Islam is also. Why is that? Well, primarily because the left seems to have fallen for its own multicultural propaganda. It looks upon Muslims as a victim class which has been held back by capitalism, colonialism, racism, and, of course, “Islamophobia.” Left-liberals may even believe that Islam is a religion of peace which has gotten a bad press. A poll of Democrat voters taken a few years ago revealed that they believed Islam to be no more violent than Christianity. Leftists do, however, understand that Islam is no friend of Christianity. So they believe that they can work together with Islamic groups to achieve mutual goals.
For their part, radical Muslims tend to see leftists as useful idiots. They are willing to play the oppressed victim role that leftists have assigned to them if it will further their own interests. So, it’s not surprising that some of the most radical Democrats in Congress, such as Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, are also activist Muslims. Likewise, Linda Sasour, who is considered one of the leaders of the Women’s Movement in America, never appears in public without a hijab.
The fact that Sasour, a strong advocate of sharia law, is considered to be a champion of women’s rights reveals a lot about the liberal left’s inability to come to grips with the realities of Islam. So does the fact that Phyllis Chesler, the only prominent feminist who has criticized Islam’s treatment of women, is now shunned by her former feminist colleagues.
* * *
Extremist views of the Islamic variety are no bar to moving up the ladder in liberal social and political circles. Take Keith Ellison, for example. He embodies both the extremes of liberalism and the extremes of Islamism. Yet this didn’t prevent him from being elected several times to the House of Representatives, and after that to be named the Deputy Director of the Democratic National Committee.
Currently, Ellison is Attorney General for the State of Minnesota, and, as might be expected, he has had a few things to say about the riots in Minneapolis. Among other things, he has been retweeting theories that white supremacist groups may be responsible for the violence.
Well, actually, there is one, largely white group that is responsible for organizing much of the violence. But it’s mostly made up of left-wing college grads, not right-wing rednecks. But Antifa is not the white group Ellison suspects. In fact, he seems to favor it. Indeed, he once posed with a copy of Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook — today’s equivalent of Mao’s Little Red Book.
Ellison is very much a man of the left. His candidacy for Congress was supported by the Communist Party USA; he praised Fidel Castro and other leftist heroes; and he was a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
On the other hand, his radical Islamist credentials are just as solid. A convert to Islam, Ellison took his oath of office on the Koran at the photo-op re-enactment of his swearing-in ceremony. And he has disparaged moderate Muslims as “Uncle Toms,” which suggests that Ellison himself could, perhaps, be categorized as an immoderate Muslim.
His immoderation is confirmed by looking at the groups he has associated with over the years. He started off as a supporter of Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam. Later, he found it politically expedient to get the endorsement of more “respectable” groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), and a half-dozen other Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups. Over the years, Ellison has been the keynote speaker or featured speaker at dozens of conventions and conferences sponsored by what one commentator calls “suit-wearing jihadists.”
You can’t very well call Ellison an “infiltrator” of the liberal political establishment. He didn’t make much of an effort to conceal his leftist and Islamist leanings. In fact, he often flaunted them. The Democratic Party knew what it was getting when it appointed him the co-chair of the Democratic National Committee.
That doesn’t mean, however, that there hasn’t been genuine infiltration of the party. Take the case of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Ellison’s predecessor at the DNC. In 2005, after being elected to the House, Wasserman Schultz hired Imran Awan as an IT aide. To make a long story short, Awan and his two brothers were soon working as information technology managers for dozens of Democrat members of the House. Over the course of several years, they worked for three members of the House Committee on Intelligence, five members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and for various Democrat members of the Homeland Security Committee and the Armed Services Committee. In short, the Pakistani brothers had access to highly sensitive government information.
Doesn’t that require a security clearance? Well, yes. Did the brothers have one? Well, no. That requirement would have been Islamophobic. Finally, in 2016, in order to keep up appearances, the House Intelligence Committee Democrats requested “Top Secret” clearance for the Awan brothers. Yet the brothers were involved in various forms of financial fraud, and one of them had been twice arrested for public drunkenness. In addition, they had numerous close relatives in Pakistan — which alone would raise red flags in the security clearance process. Despite all this, Wasserman Schultz retained Imran Awan on her staff right up to the moment he was arrested at Dulles Airport for trying to flee the country.
* * *
There are numerous other examples of lax security in the government and the military. To name just a few:
In 2008, when Major Stephen Coughlin, the Pentagon’s top authority on Islamic war doctrine, reported on the connection between Islamic law and violence, he was fired at the behest of Hesham Islam, a special assistant to the deputy secretary of defense.
A year later, as if to prove Coughlin’s point, Major Nidal Hasan, who once lectured his colleagues on Islamic law, killed fourteen people at Fort Hood after successfully infiltrating the Army.
One might think that the Army would have tightened up its vetting procedure after that, but one would be wrong. Instead, the military tightened up its Islamophobia watch. One result was the penetration of Pensacola Naval Air Station in 2019 by a jihadist Saudi officer who killed three and wounded eight before he was shot and killed.
We tend to assume that our military and security establishment are always on high alert, but too often national security takes a back seat to diversity. One could be forgiven for thinking that the kitchen help at Downton Abbey are more carefully vetted than the people entering sensitive security positions in our politically correct government.
The idea that vetting is somehow discriminatory may help to explain why there hasn’t been much investigation of Antifa — even though it’s been around for two decades in the U.S. and for much longer than that in Europe (where it often launches violent attacks on critics of Islam). Looking too closely into the activities of Antifa and into its sources of funding would be, well, downright “Antifa-phobic.” Sure, Antifa “leans” to the left, as one news outlet recently put it, but everyone knows there are no enemies on the left. On the other hand, if you’re anti-Antifa, you’re probably a conspiracy theorist, and ought to be investigated yourself.
Being pro-Antifa, however, is no problem. Just the other day, Jeremiah Ellison (son of Keith), a Minneapolis City Council member, declared “my support for Antifa.” He added: “I’ll keep focusing on stopping the white power terrorist[s that] are actually attacking us.”
Once again, if you’re an Ellison, you don’t have to hide what you believe. That’s because much of the media share the same beliefs. And if, perchance, there is anything to hide, they’ll hide it for you. I first read about Jeremiah Ellison on the Understanding the Threat (UTT) site in connection with a short video report by UTT president John Guandolo regarding the recent attacks across America. I clicked “Here” to see the video report, but all I was allowed to see was a black screen with the message “this video has been removed for violating YouTube’s terms of service.”
The internet giants have become like the school librarians of yore who decided what books you should and shouldn’t read. Meanwhile, TV news plays a similar role by telling you how to interpret the current disturbances. The screen shows you rows of broken store windows and streets lit up by burning cars, but the news commentator assures you that this only proves that the vast majority of protesters are peaceful.
Because our society is already flush with leftists in media, in politics, in academia, and in the streets, we are closer than most think to one of those tipping points in history where accepted norms are suddenly swept away.
And the left doesn’t stand alone. Islamic cultural jihadists are also interested in encouraging radical social change. It’s not exactly the same change that the left wants, but for the time being the two groups are willing to reinforce each other.
The possibility that we now stand on the brink of revolutionary change is difficult to entertain. In America, we have grown accustomed to long periods of internal peace and prosperity. When disruptions occur, we assume that we will soon return to normalcy. But that’s not always the case in history. “Current trends” are often replaced by new, radically different trends.
It’s said that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. But it’s difficult to be vigilant in a time of eternal distractions. The fact that many think of a return to normalcy as simply a return to shopping, sports, and mindless entertainments suggests that we are ill-prepared to cope with those single-minded people who have revolution, not normalcy, on their minds.
This article originally appeared in the June 9, 2020 edition of Crisis. It is published here with permission from the Turning Point Project.
Share