Revisionist Lies about History, Palestine and Israel: Jesus was NOT a Palestinian

Revisionist history

Lies about History, Palestine and Israel:

Jesus was NOT a Palestinian

Dr. Michael Brown

Attempts to revise history do not change reality.. Let’s set the record straight. Jesus was a Galilean Jew, not a Palestinian Muslim.

Jesus was a Galilean Jew, not a Palestinian Muslim.

 

He celebrated Passover, not Ramadan, and he was called “Rabbi” not “Imam.” His followers were named Yaakov and Yochanan and Yehudah, not Muhammad and Abdullah and Khalid. And he himself had one of the most common Jewish names of the day: Yeshua.

Israel called Palestine by the Romans to Mock the Jewish People

As for the name “Palestine,” it was not used in any widespread way to describe the land of Israel until 135 AD – in other words, more than 100 years after Yeshua’s death and resurrection. And it was renamed Palestine by the Romans to mock the Jewish people, thereby calling their ancient (and sacred) homeland the land of the Philistines.

But it is not only anachronistic to label Jesus a Palestinian. It is also misleading.

That’s because the word “Palestinian” today speaks of non-Israelites, of non-Jews. It speaks of a people who claim that the land of Israel belongs to them, not to the Jewish people. And it speaks primarily of Muslims.

That’s what comes to mind when someone says, “Jesus was a Palestinian.” And that’s why Palestinian activists have tried to recast Jesus in their own image.

Leading up to Christmas celebrations in Bethlehem last year, Fatah officials called Jesus “the first Palestinian.”

Five years earlier, in 2013, the PLO declared, “Every Christmas, Palestine celebrates the birth of one of its own, Jesus Christ.”

Back in 2005, the PA stated that “We must not forget that Messiah [Jesus] is a Palestinian, the son of Mary the Palestinian.”

And Fatah even declared Jesus to be “the first Palestinian martyr (shahid)” in 2015.

Anything but declaring that Jesus, who is revered in Islam as a prophet (but not as the crucified Son of God), was a first-century Jewish rabbi.

Instead, Jesus is recast as a Palestinian freedom fighter, born of a Palestinian mother, at war with the evil Jews, and (through Islamic eyes) a prophet of Islam. God forbid that he is recognized as Rabbi Yeshua, the Messiah of Israel.

But it’s one thing when Palestinian activists and Muslim propagandists recreate Jesus in their own image, calling him a Palestinian.

It’s another thing when a member of the House of Representatives does this same thing. Yet it was none other than Rep. Ilhan Omar who retweeted a tweet from Omar Suleiman which included the statement that “Jesus was a Palestinian.” In fact, the tweet highlighted the suffering of Palestinian Christians at the hands of evil Israel, further separating Jesus from his Jewish ancestry.

It was for good reason that Rabbi Abraham Cooper took umbrage to Omar’s retweet, noting that “Palestine was a name made up by Romans after they crucified thousands, destroyed the Holy Temple in Jerusalem and exiled the People of Israel from their homeland.”

But Omar is not the only one to perpetuate this fraud.

In an op-ed in the New York Times, published one day before the misleading tweet, Eric V. Copage claimed that “Jesus, born in Bethlehem, was most likely a Palestinian man with dark skin.”

Jesus the Palestinian!

And note carefully that, in an op-ed of roughly 700 words, the word “Jew” does not occur a single time. The same with the word “Israel.” Not one single mention.

Ironically, Copage was explaining why he, as a black Christian, was mystified as a child at the “fair-skinned, blue-eyed depiction of Jesus.”

And for good reason. Jesus was not a European Caucasian.

But he was also not an African Black. Or a Palestinian.

He was a first-century, Middle Eastern Jew. And he would have been recognized for his Jewish religious garb, including the fringes at the corners of his garments (see Numbers 15:37-41; and compare Matthew 9:20; 14:36 in the RSV; NRSV; ESV; NASB; NLT; TLV).

That doesn’t mean that Jesus is indifferent to the challenges faced by the Palestinians. Or that he doesn’t identify with Palestinian Christians. Or that American Christians who support Israel should be anti-Palestinian.

Not at all.

True friends of Israel – especially true Christian friends of Israel – should want justice and fairness for both the Israelis and the Palestinians. As for Jesus, he is both the Messiah of Israel and the Savior of the world, giving his life for Jew and Gentile alike.

But let’s call out this hijacking of Jesus’ identity by Palestinian activists, Muslim leaders, a US congresswoman, and the New York Times.

Let’s stop the lie in its tracks.

Advertisements

History Facts: Founding Father James Monroe and the Monroe Doctrine

History Facts:

Founding Father James Monroe and the Monroe Doctrine

James Monroe (/mənˈroʊ/; April 28, 1758 – July 4, 1831) was an American statesman who served from 1817 to 1825 as the fifth President of the United States. Monroe was the last president among the Founding Fathers of the United States as well as the Virginian dynasty; he also represented the end of the Republican Generation in that office.[1] Born in Westmoreland County, Virginia, Monroe was of the planter class and fought in the American Revolutionary War. He was wounded in the Battle of Trenton with a musket ball to his shoulder. After studying law under Thomas Jefferson from 1780 to 1783, he served as a delegate in the Continental Congress.

As an anti-federalist delegate to the Virginia convention that considered ratification of the United States Constitution, Monroe opposed ratification, claiming it gave too much power to the central government. He took an active part in the new government, and in 1790 he was elected to the Senate of the first United States Congress, where he joined the Democratic-Republicans. He gained experience as an executive as the Governor of Virginia and rose to national prominence as a diplomat in France, when he helped negotiate the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. During the War of 1812, Monroe served in critical roles as Secretary of State and the Secretary of War under President James Madison.[2]

Facing little opposition from the fractured Federalist Party, Monroe was easily elected president in 1816, winning over 80 percent of the electoral vote and becoming the last president during the First Party System era of American politics. As president, he sought to ease partisan tensions, embarking on a tour of the country that was well received. With the ratification of the Treaty of 1818, under the successful diplomacy of his Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, the United States extended its reach from the Atlantic to the Pacific, by acquiring harbor and fishing rights in the Pacific Northwest; the United States and Britain jointly occupied the Oregon Country. In addition to the acquisition of Florida, the 1819 Adams–Onís Treaty secured the border of the United States along the 42nd Parallel to the Pacific Ocean and represented America’s first determined attempt at creating an “American global empire”.[3] As nationalism surged, partisan fury subsided, and the “Era of Good Feelings” ensued, until the Panic of 1819 struck, and a dispute over the admission of Missouri embroiled the country in 1820. Nonetheless, Monroe won near-unanimous reelection.

Monroe supported the founding of colonies in Africa for freed slaves that would eventually form the nation of Liberia, whose capital, Monrovia, is named in his honor. In 1823, he announced the United States’ opposition to any European intervention in the recently independent countries of the Americas with the Monroe Doctrine, which became a landmark in American foreign policy. His presidency concluded the first period of American presidential history before the beginning of Jacksonian democracy and the Second Party System era. Following his retirement in 1825, Monroe was plagued by financial difficulties. He died in New York City on July 4, 1831. He has been ranked in the aggregate by scholars as the 16th most successful president.

Revolutionary War service

Monroe wounded in battle of Trenton, Revolutionary War, and cited for bravery

In early 1776, about a year and a half after his enrollment, Monroe dropped out of college and joined the 3rd Virginia Regiment in the Continental Army.[8] As the fledgling army valued literacy in its officers, Monroe was commissioned with the rank of lieutenant, serving under Captain William Washington. After months of training, Monroe and seven hundred Virginia infantrymen were called north to serve in the New York and New Jersey campaign. Shortly after the Virginians arrived, Washington led the army in a retreat from New York City into New Jersey and then across the Delaware River into Pennsylvania. In December, Monroe took part in a surprise attack on a Hessian encampment. Though the attack was successful, Monroe suffered a severed artery in the battle and nearly died. In the aftermath of the battle, Washington cited Monroe and Washington for their bravery, and promoted Monroe to the rank of captain. After his wounds healed, Monroe returned to Virginia to recruit his own company of soldiers.[9] Monroe’s participation in the battle was memorialized in John Trumbull‘s painting, The Capture of the Hessians at Trenton, December 26, 1776, as well as Emanuel Leutze‘s Washington Crossing the Delaware.[10]

Monroe Doctrine

After the Napoleonic wars (which ended in 1815), almost all of Spain’s and Portugal’s colonies in Latin America revolted and declared independence. Americans welcomed this development as a validation of the spirit of Republicanism. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams suggested delaying formal recognition until Florida was secured. The problem of imperial invasion was intensified by a Russian claim to the Pacific coast down to the fifty-first parallel and simultaneous European pressure to have all of Latin America returned to its colonial status.[citation needed]

Monroe informed Congress in March 1822 that permanent stable governments had been established in the United Provinces of the River Plate (the core of present-day Argentina), Colombia, Chile, and Mexico. Adams, under Monroe’s supervision, wrote the instructions for the ministers (ambassadors) to these new countries. They declared that the policy of the United States was to uphold republican institutions and to seek treaties of commerce on a most-favored-nation basis. The United States would support inter-American congresses dedicated to the development of economic and political institutions fundamentally differing from those prevailing in Europe. The articulation of an “American system” distinct from that of Europe was a basic tenet of Monroe’s policy toward Latin America. Monroe took pride as the United States was the first nation to extend recognition and to set an example to the rest of the world for its support of the “cause of liberty and humanity”.[citation needed]

Monroe formally announced in his message to Congress on December 2, 1823, what was later called the Monroe Doctrine. He proclaimed that the Americas should be free from future European colonization and free from European interference in sovereign countries’ affairs. It further stated the United States’ intention to stay neutral in wars amongst European powers and their colonies, but to consider new colonies or interference with independent countries in the Americas as hostile acts toward the United States.[b]

Although it is Monroe’s most famous contribution to history, the speech was written by Adams, who designed the doctrine in cooperation with Britain.[79] Monroe and Adams realized that American recognition would not protect the new countries against military intervention to restore Spain’s power. In October 1823, Richard Rush, the American minister in London, advised that Foreign Secretary George Canning was proposing that the U.S. and Britain jointly declare their opposition to European intervention. Britain, with its powerful navy, also opposed re-conquest of Latin America and suggested that the United States join in proclaiming a “hands off” policy. Galvanized by the British initiative, Monroe consulted with American leaders and then formulated a plan with Adams. Ex-Presidents Jefferson and Madison counseled Monroe to accept the offer, but Adams advised, “It would be more candid … to avow our principles explicitly to Russia and France, than to come in as a cock-boat in the wake of the British man-of-war.” Monroe accepted Adams’ advice. Not only must Latin America be left alone, he warned, but also Russia must not encroach southward on the Pacific coast. “the American continents,” he stated, “by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European Power.”[citation needed]

The Monroe Doctrine at the time of its adoption thus pertained more to the Russians in North America than to the former Spanish colonies. The result was a system of American isolationism under the sponsorship of the British navy. The Monroe Doctrine held that the United States considered the Western Hemisphere as no longer a place for European colonization; that any future effort to gain further political control in the hemisphere or to violate the independence of existing states would be treated as an act of hostility; and finally that there existed two different and incompatible political systems in the world. The United States, therefore, promised to refrain from intervention in European affairs and demanded Europe to abstain from interfering with American matters. There were few serious European attempts at intervention.[

More about James Monroe

 

History Facts: Book Review—Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates

History Facts:

Book Review—Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates

Thomas Jefferson and the Tripoli Pirates

The forgotten Barbary War that changed American history

Brian Kilmeade and Don Yaeger

To my dad, who died way too young, and my mom, who worked way too hard. They taught me from day one that being born in America was like winning the lottery. This story is yet more proof that they were 100 percent right. ~Brian Kilmeade

 

When Thomas Jefferson became president in 1801, America was deeply in debt, with its economy and dignity under attack. Pirates from North Africa’s Barbary Coast routinely captured American merchant ships and held the sailors as slaves, demanding ransom and tribute payments far beyond what the new country could afford.

Time to Stand Up to the Intimidation

For fifteen years, America had tried to work with the four Muslim powers (Tripoli, Tunis, Algiers, and Morocco) driving the piracy, but negotiation proved impossible. Realizing it was time to stand up to the intimidation, Jefferson decided to move beyond diplomacy. He sent the U.S. Navy and Marines to blockade Tripoli—launching the Barbary Wars and beginning America’s journey toward future superpower status.

Few today remember these men and other heroes who inspired the Marine Corps hymn: “From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli, we fight our country’s battles in the air, on land and sea.” Thomas Jefferson and the Tripoli Pirates recaptures this forgotten war that changed American history with a real-life drama of intrigue, bravery, and battle on the high seas.

Part of the reason Jefferson was motivated to shock the world by sending warships to the North African coast was that he understood in human terms the cost of piracy.

[I]n Jefferson’s time and after, Jefferson’s tough-minded approach  to securing the safety of Americans abroad prevailed—and changed the course of history. The British, Dutch, and French, who all possessed of vastly larger navies and had greater resources than the young United States, had flinched when faced with the Islamic threat, but they now followed the lead of the new nation.

The growing confidence in the nation’s military strength fueled national policy. The United States had successfully rejected the Old World’s model of complying with the pirates off the coast of Europe and Africa, and it was now bold enough to reject European interference with life on its own side of the Atlantic. 210

Monroe Doctrine

Military strength made possible an unprecedented assertion by President Monroe in his annual message of 1823. The Monroe Doctrine, as the principle he introduced came to be called, warned the European powers not to trespass on North or South American shores. Monroe vowed that any attempt to interfere with the destiny of nations in the American hemisphere would be regarded “as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.” 214-215

Many men and women suffered in captivity before America’s intervention rid the world of North African piracy, but their suffering was not in vain. After centuries of piracy along the Barbary Coast, only the exercise of military strength had succeeded in ending the state-sanctioned practice of terror on the high seas. The lesson was not lost on America. The young nation gained from this chapter the courage to exercise its strength in the world, and it would remember that lesson in the future when other innocent lives were at stake. ~Brian Kilmeade, 215

Today, the war’s military legacy cannot be ignored. It saw the emergence of the U.S. Navy as a force to be reckoned with in foreign seas. It saw the American flag planted for the first time in victory on terrain outside the Western Hemisphere. So great was the war’s significance for the Marines that their hymn refers to “the shores of Tripoli,” and the Corps adopted the Mameluke sword as part of its officers’ uniforms in 1825.

Most important, here in the twenty-first century, the broader story—the great confrontation between the United States and militant Islamic states—has a new significance. 203

Teaching Youth their Biblical Heritage  Click Here

 

History facts: Booker T. Washington, Leader in Education

History Facts:

Booker T. Washington, Leader in Education

keyBooker T. Washington was a “famous African American educator—one of the most significant of all black educators. Not only did he head the famous Tuskegee Institute but he also started a Bible college to improve education for Gospel ministers in black churches.
“His students from Tuskegee became leaders and educators across the nation. Washington’s own practice was to spend time in the Bible every day, and he incorporated religious exercises into the academic studies at Tuskegee. In fact, tuskegee students not only received religious and moral lessons during the course of their regular academic studies but they were also required to attend chapel services, where Booker T. himself delivered lessons and sermons.” (David Barton, Four Centuries of American Education, p.41)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
220px-Booker_T_WashingtonBooker Taliaferro Washington (April 5, 1856 – November 14, 1915) was an African-American educator, author, orator, and advisor to presidents of the United States. Between 1890 and 1915, Washington was the dominant leader in the African-American community.
Washington was of the last generation of black American leaders born into slavery and became the leading voice of the former slaves and their descendants, who were newly oppressed by disfranchisement and the Jim Crow discriminatory laws enacted in the post-Reconstruction Southern states in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In 1895 his Atlanta compromise called for avoiding confrontation over segregation and instead putting more reliance on long-term educational and economic advancement in the black community.
His base was the Tuskegee Institute, a historically black college in Alabama. As lynchings in the South reached a peak in 1895, Washington gave a speech in Atlanta that made him nationally famous. The speech called for black progress through education and entrepreneurship. His message was that it was not the time to challenge Jim Crow segregation and the disfranchisement of black voters in the South. Washington mobilized a nationwide coalition of middle-class blacks, church leaders, and white philanthropists and politicians, with a long-term goal of building the community’s economic strength and pride by a focus on self-help and schooling. Secretly, he supported court challenges to segregation.[1] Black militants in the North, led by W.E.B. DuBois, at first supported the Atlanta Compromise but after 1909 they set up the NAACP and tried with little success to challenge Washington’s political machine for leadership in the black community.[2] Decades after Washington’s death in 1915, the Civil Rights movement generally moved away from his policies to take the more militant NAACP approach.
Booker T. Washington mastered the nuances of the political arena in the late 19th century which enabled him to manipulate the media, raise money, strategize, network, pressure, reward friends and distribute funds while punishing those who opposed his plans for uplifting blacks. His long-term goal was to end the disfranchisement of the vast majority of African Americans living in southern states, where most of the millions of black Americans still lived.[3]
Overview
Washington was born a slave in Virginia. After emancipation, his family resettled in West Virginia. He worked his way through Hampton Normal and Agricultural Institute (now Hampton University) and attended college at Wayland Seminary (now Virginia Union University). In 1881 he was named as the first leader of the new Tuskegee Institute in Alabama.
Washington attained national prominence for his Atlanta Address of 1895, which attracted the attention of politicians and the public, making him a popular spokesperson for African-American citizens. He built a nationwide network of supporters in many black communities, with black ministers, educators and businessmen composing his core supporters. Washington played a dominant role in black politics, winning wide support in the black community of the South and among more liberal whites (especially rich Northern whites). He gained access to top national leaders in politics, philanthropy and education. Washington’s efforts included cooperating with white people and enlisting the support of wealthy philanthropists, helping to raise funds to establish and operate thousands of small community schools and institutions of higher education for the betterment of blacks throughout the South. This work continued for many years after his death. Washington argued that the surest way for blacks to gain equal social rights was to demonstrate “industry, thrift, intelligence and property.”
Northern critics called Washington’s widespread organization the “Tuskegee Machine”.

After 1909, Washington was criticized by the leaders of the new NAACP, especially W. E. B. Du Bois, who demanded a stronger tone of protest for advancement of civil rights needs. [Note: DuBois was a strong believer in socialistic principles.]Washington replied that confrontation would lead to disaster for the outnumbered blacks in society, and that cooperation with supportive whites was the only way to overcome pervasive racism in the long run. At the same time, he secretly funded litigation for civil rights cases, such as challenges to southern constitutions and laws that disfranchised blacks.[1][4][page needed] Washington was on close terms with national Republican Party leaders, and often was asked for political advice by presidents Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft.[5]
In addition to his contributions in education, Washington wrote 14 books; his autobiography, Up From Slavery, [This is an excellent book to read] first published in 1901, is still widely read today. During a difficult period of transition, he did much to improve the working relationship between the races. His work greatly helped blacks to achieve higher education, financial power and understanding of the U.S. legal system. This contributed to blacks’ attaining the skills to create and support the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, leading to the passage of important federal civil rights laws.

Read more about Booker T. Washington

 

History Facts: World War 1 Heroes, American Exceptionalism in History honored by United States Congress

History Facts:

World War 1 Heroes, American Exceptionalism in History honored by United States Congress

Embracing the American’s Creed

By Paul S. Gardiner

It’s a safe bet that most Americans do not know that year 2018 was the 100th anniversary of the adoption of the American’s Creed by the United States Congress (House of Representatives).  In April of 1918, the Congress accepted the words composed in 1917 by William Tyler Page during World War I as the official American’s Creed.

Referring to the Creed, Page said: “It is the summary of the fundamental principles of the American political faith as set forth in its greatest documents, its worthiest traditions, and its greatest leaders.”  His wording of the Creed includes passages and phrases from the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, and Daniel Webster’s reply to Robert Y. Hayne in the Senate in 1830.  The Creed reads as follows:

I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a Republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect Union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes. I therefore believe it is my duty to my Country to love it; to support its Constitution; to obey its laws; to respect its flag; and to defend it against all enemies.

If today’s politicians, at all levels of government but especially members of the United States Congress, strongly embraced and let the American’s Creed guide their daily actions and decisions, this would certainly be in the best interest of America.  Such a lifestyle should help overcome, hopefully in a major way, the terribly bitter and divisive political environment that presently exists in America.  Americans of all backgrounds and situations need to unite under the banner of the American’s Creed!

Paul S. Gardiner is an avid lover of America living in Hoschton, Ga.  He is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, University of Alabama, and Army War College.

US Constitution Series 15: Free Market and Business Economy

US Constitution Series 15: Free market Business Economy

 

keyThe practical application of this book review of Skousen’s educated wisdom is to leverage “We, The People’s” knowledge of the Constitution, to expose ignorance, anarchy and tyranny, and hold the government accountable.

 

From The 5,000 Year Leap—A Miracle that Changed the World

By W. Cleon Skousen

ThomasJeffersonThe Highest Level of Prosperity Occurs when there is a Free-market Business Economy and a Minimum of Government Regulations

The Founding Fathers built the political and social structure based on natural law, and were looking for a foundation for economics. In 1776 Adam Smith published a set of five books called The Wealth of Nations.

Thomas Jefferson wrote: “In political economy, I think Smith’s Wealth of Nations is the best book extant.”

 

 

adamsmithwlthofnationsAdam Smith’s Free-enterprise Economics Tried First in America

Adam Smith’s formula includes the following:

   1. Specialized production—let each person or corporation of persons do what they do best.

    2. Exchange of goods takes place in a free-market environment without governmental interference in production, prices, or wages.

3. The free market provides the needs of the people on the basis of supply and demand, with no government-imposed monopolies.

4. Prices are regulated by competition on the basis of supply and demand.

5. Profits are looked upon as the means by which production of goods and services is made worthwhile.

6. Competition is looked upon as the means by which quality is improved, quantity is increased, and prices are reduced.

 

free-enterprise-capitalismThe Four Laws of Economic Freedom

Prosperity also depends on a climate of wholesome stimulation protected by law. There are four laws of economic freedom which a nation must maintain if its people are to prosper at the maximum level.

1. The Freedom to try.

2. The Freedom to buy.

3. The Freedom to sell.

4. The Freedom to fail.

 

The Role of Government in Economics

The Founding Fathers agreed with Adam Smith that the greatest threat to economic prosperity is the arbitrary intervention of the government into the economic affairs of private business and the buying public.

Historically, this has usually involved fixing prices, fixing wages, controlling production, controlling distribution, granting monopolies, or subsidizing certain products.

 

The government is supposed to prevent:

  1. ILLEGAL FORCE in the market place to compel purchase or sale of products.
  2. FRAUD in misrepresenting the quality, location, or ownership of the item being sold or bought.
  3. MONOPOLY which eliminates competition and results in restraint of trade.
  4. DEBAUCHERY of cultural standards and moral fiber society by commercial exploitation of vice—pornography, obscenity, drugs, liquor, prostitution, or commercial gambling.

 

NOTE: Today, the government is supposed to PREVENT all of the above abuses. Instead, it is guilty of the very things it is supposed to prevent. ~C.D.

After 1900 Adam Smith Got Lost in the Shuffle

At this time a new Populist movement in which certain agriculture and labor groups were demanding that the government get involved in the redistribution of the wealth. People began clamoring for a “new system” would involve extensive government regulation if not outright expropriation of major industries and natural resources.

It was in this climate that Adam Smith and the free-market economy fell out of favor. Collectivism, socialism, government ownership of industry, subsidy of the farmers, and a whole spectrum of similar ideas were permeating the country when World War I broke out. (Skousen, 182-183)

By the 1920s, the debunking of the Founding Fathers was in full swing. The ideas of Adam Smith were considered archaic.

barrymarxAdam Smith Out, Karl Marx In

Now, in colleges everywhere, professors are defending Marx, and trashing liberty. The Left continues to gin up hatred for the private sector, the internet, health care, and anyone or anything that preserves our liberty.

 

US Constitution Series 14: Property is Key to Liberty

https://dinnertopics.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/us-constitution-series-14-property-is-key-to-liberty/

Socialism Explained: Socialism Fails at Political Equality—It is about Tyrannical Power

Socialism Explained:

Socialism Fails at Political Equality—It is about Tyrannical Power

Socialism  is “a fervid but false solicitude [compassion] for the unfortunate over whom they thus gain mastery, and then enslave them.” ~David O. McKay

 

 

Socialism is about Tyrannical Power, not Political Equality

The White House February 19, 2019

“We know that socialism is not about justice. It’s not about equality; it’s not about lifting up the poor,” President Trump said yesterday. “Socialism is about one thing only: power for the ruling class. And the more power they get, the more they crave . . . All of us here today know that there is nothing less democratic than socialism.” ~President Donald J. Trump

 

 

More A.F. Branco cartoons at FlagAnd Cross.com here 

A crowd of Venezuelan Americans stood before President Donald J. Trump in Miami yesterday, cheering as he put America squarely on the side of those fighting for freedom. “We’re here to proclaim a new day is coming in Latin America,” he said. “In Venezuela and across the western hemisphere, socialism is dying and liberty, prosperity, and democracy are being reborn.”

His message to Nicolas Maduro: “Let your people go.”

American leadership is making the difference. The United States and more than 50 countries across the world have recognized the rightful government of Venezuela. “Within 30 minutes, the United States was proud to be the first nation in the world to recognize President [Juan] Guaido” as the country’s interim leader, President Trump said.

Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua offer a lesson to the world:

Thanks to A.F. Branco at Comically Incorrect  for his great cartoon

Socialism always promises unity but delivers division and hatred. It promises a better future—and inevitably returns to the darkest chapters of the past. Not long ago, Venezuela was the richest country in South America. Today, after its tyrannical government nationalized industries and took over private business, nearly 90 percent of Venezuelans live in poverty.  

Americans know this history well, having witnessed socialism destroy countries throughout the 20th century.

 Nearly three-fifths of Americans have an unfavorable view of socialism; a majority have a favorable view of capitalism. Support for far-left schemes such as Medicare-for-All has plummeted as voters learn more about what’s in it. The extremist “Green New Deal” is beginning to suffer the same fate.

“We know that socialism is not about justice. It’s not about equality; it’s not about lifting up the poor,” President Trump said yesterday. “Socialism is about one thing only: power for the ruling class. And the more power they get, the more they crave . . . All of us here today know that there is nothing less democratic than socialism.”

Inoculate your Children against Socialism and Atheism HERE

Abuse of Power report: Robert Mueller Gestapo Tactics destroy Innocent Man Roger Stone and family

Abuse of Power:

Robert Mueller Gestapo Tactics destroy Innocent Man Roger Stone and family

Hat Tip: Suzanne Eovaldi

Ed.  This letter was written by Mrs. Roger Stone on the day she and her husband were assaulted by 29 armed FBI Swat team members. I’ve included the requests for contributions as I believe it your decision to donate.

Roger Stone and his wife were victims of the police state tactics of power hungry thugs Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein.

By now I’m sure you have heard about the terrifying pre-dawn raid on the house in Ft Lauderdale where I live with my husband Roger Stone.

A little before 6 am twenty nine assault weapon wielding FBI agents in full tactical gear and wearing night vision goggles surrounded our home because I am hearing impaired and I was sleeping I did not hear the commotion when an FBI agent pounded on the door demanding my husband open it and I did not know he had been handcuffed and taken into custody.

I woke up only when two FBI agents burst into our bedroom and demanded that I get out of bed at gunpoint. I was marched out to the street in front of our house wearing only a night gown and in bare feet. I was instructed to stand next to my husband who was handcuffed and also barefooted. I am not charged with any crime.

This has to be the most terrifying thing I have ever experienced as FBI agents swarmed into our home after announcing they had a search warrant.

My husband has no previous criminal record, not even a speeding ticket. He is charged and pled not guilty to seven non violent process crimes. We do not own a gun and my husband’s passport had actually expired. The idea that he is a danger to anyone or a flight risk was disproved hours later when a federal magistrate released him on a surety bond.

The FBI used twenty nine agents, seventeen vehicles including two armored vehicles, a helicopter and two amphibious units because our rented home backs onto a canal. Every agent was carrying an AK-47 as well as a sidearm. This is a much larger force than used to capture and kill Bin Laden or arrest El Chapo. It must have cost U.S. taxpayers a half a million dollars.

Even more humiliating, for some odd reason, A CNN camera crew had arrived at our home only fifty minutes before the FBI strike force and was allowed to film the assault on our home and my husband’s arrest. If my husband was considered “dangerous” why was a CNN film crew in position 10 yards from our front door? How convenient that the CNN producer at our home is a former special assistant to FBI director James Comey!

Cuba police state

My parents came from Cuba. I can understand how these kind of police state tactics can happen in a communist country but it is hard to believe that the FBI Director and acting Attorney General would allow this kind of brutal assault on a U.S. citizen with no prior criminal record and charged only with non-violent process crimes here in the United States.

After the FBI took my husband away, I was allowed to dress under the supervision of a woman FBI agent who even had to watch me while I used the bathroom. I was not allowed to touch my cell phone even though I could see that my children and grandchildren were calling to see if I was alright. FBI agents tore through every square inch of our home and removed my husbands computers and iPads. They also took my computer which means they got many beautiful pictures of my grandchildren.

I wasn’t allowed to turn on the television so I did not see the angry and hateful mob that gathered outside the federal courthouse in Ft Lauderdale where I later learned that my husband was placed in hand and foot shackles and held in a holding cell after being fingerprinted and having his mug shot photos taken. The FBI spent seven hours tearing through our house as well as raiding a storage facility nearby where they also took a computer and went through financial records that are at least fifteen years old.

Although you would never know it from the fake news media, my husband, Roger Stone is not charged with Russian collusion, Wikileaks collaboration or any other crime associated with the 2016 election. All the charges against him have been fabricated in an obvious effort to pressure him to turn on President Trump who has been our friend for forty years and who attended our wedding in Washington D.C. 27 years ago. I remember how he danced with my mother.

As my husband has made clear, he simple refuses to make up stories about the President or bear false witness against him in order to please Mr. Mueller who wants to undo the results of the 2016 election and remove our President.

Two years of constant intense investigation into every aspect of our family as well as two years of constant leaks from the special councils office have destroyed our family income.

In December I cancelled our health and life insurance policies because we could not longer pay the premiums. My husband sold his car even though it was a 2006 model and we didn’t get much for it. We burned through a small fund we had put aside from the sale of my husband’s books that was supposed to pay for the college education of our grandchildren.

Now we are facing a two million dollar cost for lawyers In order to fight the bogus charges against my husband who at 66 years old is facing a potential 45 year prison sentence for crimes he did not commit.

Every day brings death threats, late night anonymous phone calls threatening to kill us and it’s gotten so I can’t even go to the grocery store without somebody screaming at me and accusing us of being Russian spys — which is funny because my parents fled Cuba and the brutal regime of Fidel Castro while my husband’s family members were mowed down my Russian tanks in Budapest in 1956.

While Mueller has unlimited tax dollars and a platoon of vicious left wing Ivy League prosecutors to try my husband we can only depend on people like you to help fund Roger’s legal defense.

Won’t you please send a contribution of $25, $50, $100, $250, $500 or $1000 to the Stone Defense Fund today? No amount is too small or too big.

You have been so generous in the past and I hesitate to ask but frankly I have no one else to turn to.

You can contribute now by going here.

We deeply appreciate the thousands of Americans who are praying for us and supporting our fight against a run-away federal prosecutor bent on destroying my husband simply because he supported Donald Trump for President and helped defeat Hillary Clinton.

I have to begin packing everything we own because we must move into a small apartment which is less expensive and has better security so the days ahead will be busy for me.

The same Obama appointed judge who put Paul Manafort in solitary confinement prior to his being convicted of any crime is now considering issuing a gag order so that my husband can no longer publicly raise money for his legal defense- that’s why it is important that you rush me your answer today.

God bless you

NYDIA

Mrs. Roger Stone

P.S. you can see fake news stories online that say my husband and I are wealthy and worth millions of dollars. This is totally false. Roger says these stories are planted in order to make it harder for us to raise money for his legal defense. We urgently need your help again today.

 

https://thecoachsteam.wordpress.com/2019/02/09/my-husband-roger/

 

History Facts: What the Constitution Really says about race and Slavery

History Facts:

What the Constitution Really says about race and Slavery

David Azarrad

Daily Signal, Heritage Foundation

keyIn no way can the Constitution be said to be pro-slavery. The principles of natural right undergirding it are resolutely anti-slavery. Its language conveys disapproval of slavery. Contrary to a popular misconception, the Constitution also does not say that only white males who owned property could vote.

lincoln-statueOne hundred and fifty years ago this month, the 13th Amendment officially was ratified, and with it, slavery finally was abolished in America. The New York World hailed it as “one of the most important reforms ever accomplished by voluntary human agency.”

The newspaper said the amendment “takes out of politics, and consigns to history, an institution incongruous to our political system, inconsistent with justice and repugnant to the humane sentiments fostered by Christian civilization.”

With the passage of the 13th Amendment—which states that “[n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction”—the central contradiction at the heart of the Founding was resolved.

constitution1Eighty-nine years after the Declaration of Independence had proclaimed all men to be free and equal, race-based chattel slavery would be no more in the United States.

While all today recognize this momentous accomplishment, many remain confused about the status of slavery under the original Constitution. Textbooks and history books routinely dismiss the Constitution as racist and pro-slavery. The New York Times, among others, continues to casually assert that the Constitution affirmed African-Americans to be worth only three-fifths of a human being.

Ironically, many Americans who are resolutely opposed to racism unwittingly agree with Chief Justice Roger Taney’s claim in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) that the Founders’ Constitution regarded blacks as “so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.” In this view, the worst Supreme Court case decision in American history was actually correctly decided.

The argument that the Constitution is racist suffers from one fatal flaw: the concept of race does not exist in the Constitution.

Such arguments have unsettling implications for the health of our republic. They teach citizens to despise their founding charter and to be ashamed of their country’s origins. They make the Constitution an object of contempt rather than reverence. And they foster alienation and resentment among African-American citizens by excluding them from our Constitution.

The received wisdom in this case is wrong. If we turn to the actual text of the Constitution and the debates that gave rise to it, a different picture emerges. The case for a racist, pro-slavery Constitution collapses under closer scrutiny.

Race and the Constitution

The argument that the Constitution is racist suffers from one fatal flaw: the concept of race does not exist in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution—or in the Declaration of Independence, for that matter—are human beings classified according to race, skin color, or ethnicity (nor, one should add, sex, religion, or any other of the left’s favored groupings). Our founding principles are colorblind (although our history, regrettably, has not been).

The Constitution speaks of people, citizens, persons, other persons (a euphemism for slaves) and Indians not taxed (in which case, it is their tax-exempt status, and not their skin color, that matters). The first references to “race” and “color” occur in the 15th Amendment’s guarantee of the right to vote, ratified in 1870.

The infamous three-fifths clause, which more nonsense has been written than any other clause, does not declare that a black person is worth 60 percent of a white person. It says that for purposes of determining the number of representatives for each state in the House (and direct taxes), the government would count only three-fifths of the slaves, and not all of them, as the Southern states, who wanted to gain more seats, had insisted. The 60,000 or so free blacks in the North and the South were counted on par with whites.

Contrary to a popular misconception, the Constitution also does not say that only white males who owned property could vote. The Constitution defers to the states to determine who shall be eligible to vote (Article I, Section 2, Clause 1). It is a little known fact of American history that black citizens were voting in perhaps as many as 10 states at the time of the founding (the precise number is unclear, but only Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia explicitly restricted suffrage to whites).

Slavery and the Constitution

Not only does the Constitution not mention blacks or whites, but it also doesn’t mention slaves or slavery. Throughout the document, slaves are referred to as persons to underscore their humanity. As James Madison remarked during the constitutional convention, it was “wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.”

The Constitution refers to slaves using three different formulations: “other persons” (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3), “such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1), and a “person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof” (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3).

Although these circumlocutions may not have done much to improve the lot of slaves, they are important, as they denied constitutional legitimacy to the institution of slavery. The practice remained legal, but slaveholders could not invoke the supreme law of the land to defend its legitimacy. These formulations make clear that slavery is a state institution that is tolerated—but not sanctioned—by the national government and the Constitution.

Reading the original Constitution, a visitor from a foreign land would simply have no way of knowing that race-based slavery existed in America. As Abraham Lincoln would later explain:

Thus, the thing is hid away, in the Constitution, just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death.

Frederick Douglass (1818-1895), former slave and abolitionist broke whites' stereotypes about African Americans in the decades prior to the U.S. Civil War. His literary and oratorical excellence, and his dignified bearing, converted many to support the abolition of slavery in the United States. 1855 portrait. (Newscom TagID: evhistorypix007462.jpg) [Photo via Newscom]

Frederick Douglass (1818-1895), former slave and abolitionist broke whites’ stereotypes about African Americans in the decades prior to the U.S. Civil War. His literary and oratorical excellence, and his dignified bearing, converted many to support the abolition of slavery in the United States. 1855 portrait. (Newscom TagID: evhistorypix007462.jpg) [Photo via Newscom]

One could go even further and argue, as Frederick Douglass did in the lead-up to the Civil War, that none of the clauses of the Constitution should be interpreted as applying to slaves. The “language of the law must be construed strictly in favor of justice and liberty,” he argued.

Because the Constitution does not explicitly recognize slavery and does not therefore admit that slaves were property, all the protections it affords to persons could be applied to slaves. “Anyone of these provisions in the hands of abolition statesmen, and backed up by a right moral sentiment, would put an end to slavery in America,” Douglass concluded.

Those who want to see what a racist and pro-slavery Constitution would look like should turn to the Confederate Constitution of 1861. Though it largely mimics the Constitution, it is replete with references to “the institution of negro slavery,” “negroes of the African race,” and “negro slaves.” It specifically forbids the Confederate Congress from passing any “law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves.”

Contrary to a popular misconception, the Constitution also does not say that only white males who owned property could vote.

One can readily imagine any number of clauses that could have been added to our Constitution to enshrine slavery. The manumission of slaves could have been prohibited. A national right to bring one’s slaves to any state could have been recognized. Congress could have been barred from interfering in any way with the transatlantic slave trade.

It is true that the Constitution of 1787 failed to abolish slavery. The constitutional convention was convened not to free the slaves, but to amend the Articles of Confederation. The slave-holding states would have never consented to a new Constitution that struck a blow at their peculiar institution. The Constitution did, however, empower Congress to prevent its spread and set it on a course of extinction, while leaving the states free to abolish it within their own territory at any time.

Regrettably, early Congresses did not pursue a consistent anti-slavery policy. This, however, is not an indictment of the Constitution itself. As Frederick Douglass explained: “A chart is one thing, the course of a vessel is another. The Constitution may be right, the government wrong.”

Congress and the Slave Trade

ThomasJeffersonIn his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson called the African slave trade an “execrable commerce” and an affront “against human nature itself.” Because of a concession to slave-holding interests, the Constitution stipulates that it may not be abolished “prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1).

In the meantime, Congress could discourage the importation of slaves from abroad by imposing a duty “not exceeding 10 dollars on each person” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1). Although early Congresses considered such measures, they were never enacted.

Early Congresses did, however, regulate the transatlantic slave trade, pursuant to their power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). In 1794, 1800, and 1803, statutes were passed that severely restricted American participation in it. No American shipyard could be used to build ships that would engage in the slave trade, nor could any ship sailing from an American port traffic in slaves abroad. Americans were also prohibited from investing in the slave trade.

Finally, on the very first day on which it was constitutionally permissible to do so—Jan. 1, 1808—the slave trade was abolished by law.

The law, which President Thomas Jefferson signed, stipulated stiff penalties for any American convicted of participating in the slave trade: up to $10,000 in fines and five to 10 years in prison. In 1823, a new law was passed that punished slave-trading with death.

Congress and the Expansion of Slavery

Banning the importation of slaves would not by itself put an end to slavery in the United States. Slavery would grow naturally even if no new slaves were brought into the country.

Although Congress could not prevent this, it could prevent slavery from spreading geographically to the territories from which new states would eventually be created.

Congress has the power “to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States” (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2), to forbid the migration of slaves into the new territories (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1), and to stipulate conditions for statehood (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2).

In no way could the Constitution be said to be pro-slavery. The principles of natural right undergirding it are resolutely anti-slavery. Its language conveys disapproval of slavery.

Regrettably, early Congresses did not prevent the spread of slavery. Between 1798 and 1822, Congress enacted 10 territorial acts. Only half excluded slavery.

As a result, seven slaveholding states and five free states were admitted into the union. The seeds of what Abraham Lincoln would later call the crisis of the house divided were sown.

Slavery in the Existing States

As for the existing slaveholding states that had ratified the Constitution, what could Congress do to restrict the growth of slavery within their borders? Here Congress had more limited options. After 1808, “the migration” of slaves across state lines could have been prohibited (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1). This was never done.

In principle, slavery could have been taxed out of existence. However, the requirement that direct taxes be apportioned among the states made it impossible to exclusively target slaveholders. A capitation or head tax, for example, even though it would have been more costly for Southerners, would also impose a heavy burden on Northerners.

While one could perhaps have circumvented the apportionment requirement by calling for an indirect tax on slaves—as Sen. Charles Sumner, R-Mass., would later do during the Civil War—such arguments were not made in the early republic.

There was one clause in the original Constitution that required cooperation with slaveholders and protected the institution of slavery. Slaves who escaped to freedom were to “be delivered up” to their masters (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3). The motion to include a fugitive slave clause at the constitutional convention passed unanimously and without debate. This would seem to indicate that all knew it would be futile to try to oppose such a measure.

James Madison

James Madison

The debate instead focused on the wording. Whereas the original draft had referred to a “person legally held to service or labor in one state,” the final version instead refers to a “person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof.” This change, Madison explains in his notes, was to comply “with the wish of some who thought the term legal equivocal,” as it gave the impression “that slavery was legal in a moral view,” rather than merely permissible under the law.

This remark by Madison captures the Constitution’s stance vis-à-vis slavery: permissible, but not moral. Legal, but not legitimate.

In no way can the Constitution be said to be pro-slavery. The principles of natural right undergirding it are resolutely anti-slavery. Its language conveys disapproval of slavery. And it contains within it several provisions that could have been and were at times used to prevent the spread of slavery.

This may not make it an anti-slavery Constitution. But even before the 13th Amendment, it was a Constitution that, if placed in the right hands, could be made to serve the cause of freedom.

 

http://dailysignal.com/2015/12/28/what-the-constitution-really-says-about-race-and-slavery/

Abuse of Power Report: Socialist Ocasio-Cortez promises lead to Robert Mueller Gestapo Tactics, Communism and Socialism Dictatorship, Genocide

Abuse of Power Report:

History Facts

Socialist Ocasio-Cortez promises lead to Robert Mueller Gestapo Tactics, Communism and Socialism Dictatorship, Genocide

You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.  What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

Left-wing Policies: ” [A] fervid but false solicitude [compassion] for the unfortunate over whom they thus gain mastery, and then enslave them. ~David O. McKay

 

faith-and-freedomInoculate your Children against Socialism and Atheism HERE

Ben Stein: Stalin, Hitler ‘Came to Power Promising Same Things Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Promising’

“We have a society in which there are an awful lot of people who have no idea that Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung all came to power promising the same kinds of things that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is promising. And it led to mass murder, it led to dictatorship, it led to genocide.” ~Ben Stein

By Craig Bannister |

Hitler and Stalin, Kissing Cousins

Democrat Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is promisng Americans the same thing brutal dictators promised, and those promises are never realized, Ben Stein explained in a Fox News Channel interview this week.

Stein, an economist, lawyer and writer, warned that, when politicians promising to punish success in the name of equality obtain power, their policies invariably have terrifying results:

“We have a society in which there are an awful lot of people who have no idea that Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung all came to power promising the same kinds of things that Miss Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is promising.

“That led to mass murder, led to dictatorship, and led to genocide.

“These promises are old promises, and they invariably lead to bad things. The promise of saying to the people do what you can within the law to make your life better and your family’s life better that system works extremely well. Capitalism is a system that allows people to make something of themselves instead of oppressing other people.”

American society works because people are free to succeed – but, communism and socialism lead only to oppression, violence, corruption – and broken promises – Stein concluded:

“Making money is one of the most of harmless things there is to do in the whole world. And, that’s what our society is about. It’s not about ordering people around, putting them concentration camps. What do you do if there is a richer or poorer person? What do you do? Do you take him away and shoot him?

“Well, that was what the communists tried; it didn’t work out very well for them. And, at the end of the day we wound with Russia with one of the most unequal societies there’s ever been in the world.

“In Vietnam, we were promised all these things and we wound up with one of the most of corrupt countries in the world. In Venezuela, I don’t know how corrupt it is, but people say it’s one of the most corrupt countries in the world.

“We don’t wind up with the promises people made.”

CNSNews: Ben Stein: Stalin, Hitler ‘Came to Power Promising Same Things Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Promising’

Robert Mueller’s police-state Gestapo tactics

Roger Stone’s SWAT team arrest: Are we even America anymore?

By Patricia McCarthy

After news broke of the pre-dawn raid on Roger Stone’s home Friday morning in Florida by twenty-nine heavily-armed agents in nineteen vehicles, lights flashing, CNN serendipitously on hand to film the raid, millions of us realized once and for all that we are no longer living in the America we knew and loved.

Those same millions of us have known for over two years that the Mueller “probe” is a huge and well orchestrated cover-up.  There are now at least two books, Gregg Jarrett’s and Dan Bongino’s, and well researched investigative articles that prove this beyond doubt.

Mueller was appointed by Rod Rosenstein not to investigate Trump collusion with Russia.  The principals all knew that was not remotely true.  He was appointed to conceal and obliterate the volumes of evidence of crimes committed by Hillary Clinton; her campaign; and a group of higher-ups in the FBI, DOJ, and CIA, all of whom were involved in a scheme to prevent Trump from being elected.  All of them have lied under oath and before Congress.  Mueller himself was involved in the Clinton scheme to sell 20% of U.S. uranium to Russia.

All of these felons are walking free; their homes are not being raided in the wee small hours of the morning, but their crimes are far more serious than anything Roger Stone or Paul Manafort might have committed.

That such an aggressive show of force could be visited upon a non-violent person accused of alleged verbal crimes is truly frightening.  That so many in the media are celebrating the use of such a Gestapo tactic is horrifying.  Suddenly, it is catastrophically clear that America is no longer a constitutional republic, a nation of laws and justice.  An unelected, tangential officer of the DOJ has for two years abused his position of power to destroy many lives in the cruelest of ways with impunity.  No one is stopping him and his band of legal bullies.

Roger Stone’s SWAT team arrest: Are we even America anymore?
Jan 26, 2019 01:00 am
As a nation, we are in the throes of self-destruction.

faith-and-freedomInoculate your Children against Socialism and Atheism HERE

Exclusive: Joseph Farah wants FBI chief held accountable for raid on Stone home

Chris Wray needs to be held to account for this, too. After James Comey, the FBI needs a major housecleaning, not more unaccountable rogue activity at the top.
https://www.wnd.com/2019/01/muellers-gestapo-police-state-tactics/

Muslim congresswoman ‘lied big-time’ about residency

Rashida Tlaib registered at false address to run for office

https://www.wnd.com/2019/02/muslim-congresswoman-lied-big-time-about-residency/