6. From the early reports, though, as in all atrocities, tragedy, and violence, there were the helpers, the heroes, the selfless who came to aid and save. [Always look for the helpers]
7. The shooter has been identified, and has died from gunshots fired by Steve Scalise's security detail. [From Belleville, Illinois]
This vote only requires you to forward it to someone else for it to be counted.
''YES" OR "NO"As many of you are aware, the Knights of Columbus submitted congress that the words "Under God" should be added
To our pledge of allegiance.
Both Houses of Congress passed the law and it was signed by President Eisenhower in 1954.
The information below was based on a poll taken by NBC on what percentage should keep the words in our pledge versusThe percent who want it removed.
If you read this and agree that "under God" should be left in the pledge, then just forward it to others and you have voted for itTo be left in.
If you delete it and don't forward it you are voting NO to "under God."Easy, huh?
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Shock to NBC
This is not sent for discussion.
If you agree, forward it, If you don't, delete it.
I don't want to know one way or the other.
By my forwarding it, you know how I feel.
86% to keep God in the Pledge of Allegiance and 14% against.
That is a pretty commanding' public response.
I was asked to send this on, if I agreed or delete if I didn't.
Now it is your turn.
It is said that 86% of Americans believe the word God should stay.
Therefore, I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a mess about having God in the Pledge of Allegiance
A system of government where the least capable of leading are elected by the least capable of producing,
Where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves are rewarded with goods and services confiscated from a diminishing number of citizens that are actually productive
And to think Martha Stewart went to prison and Bernie Madoff is still there.
Ex-FBI Director James Comey said flatly that President Trump did not tell him to drop his investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 election; did not try to obstruct justice in his opinion. Watch live on Fox News Channel, FoxNews.com
In his sworn testimony before the Senate, James Comey just testified that Barack Obama’s Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, tried to get James Comey to downplay the investigation into Hillary Clinton. She tried to get him to refer to it as a “matter” and not as an “investigation.”
Look for much of the media to ignore this point today as they focus on Trump and claim that is old news. But it puts the Democrats in an amazingly hypocritical position to claim President Trump was trying to obstruct justice when Loretta Lynch did that.
This comes on the heels of Comey saying he largely scrapped the Clinton investigation because of Lynch’s private meeting with Bill Clinton. That sounds way more like obstruction of justice than Trump just asking Comey if he might wind down the Flynn investigation when Comey did not do so afterwards.
A source close to James Comey tells Fox News the former FBI director’s Senate testimony has been “closely coordinated” with Robert Mueller, whom the Justice Department appointed as special counsel to oversee the Russia investigation.
I do not understand how living in a country with its democracy established over 200 years ago, and now, for the first time in history, suddenly we have one of our former presidents set up a group called "Organizing for Action" - (OFA).
OFA - 30,000 strong working to disrupt everything that our current president is trying to do. This goes against our Democracy, it is an operation that will destroy our way of governing. It goes against our Constitution, our laws, and the processes established over 200 years ago. If this is allowed to proceed then we will be living in chaos very much like third world countries are run. What good is it to have an established government if it is not going to be respected and allowed to follow our laws? If this does not scare you, then we are in worse trouble than you know.
It is explained below. Do your part: read it and at least pass this on so others will know what we are up against. We are losing our country and we are so compliant. We are becoming a "PERFECT TARGET" for our enemy! Article from the New York Post - If you had an army some 30,000 strong and a court system stacked over the decades with judges who would allow you to break the laws, how much damage could you do to a country? We are about to find out in America!
The ex-president said he was going to stay involved through community organizing and speak out on the issues and that appears to be one post-administration promise he intends to keep. He has moved many of his administration's top dogs over to an organization called Organizing for Action (OFA). OFA is behind the strategic and tactical implementation of the resistance we are seeing across America, and politically active courts are providing the leverage for this revolution.
OFA is dedicated to organizing communities for "progressive" change. Issues are gun control, socialist healthcare, abortion, sexual equality, climate change, and of course, immigration reform. OFA members were propped up by the ex-president's message from the shadows: "Organizing is the building block of everything great we've accomplished. Organizers around the country are fighting for change in their communities - and OFA is one of the groups on the front lines. Commit to this work in 2016 and beyond."
OFA's website says it obtained its "digital" assets from the ex-president's re-election effort and that he inspired the movement. In short, it's the shadow government organization aimed at resisting and tearing down the Constitutional Republic - AMERICA
Paul Sperry, writing for the New York Post, says OFA will fight President Donald Trump at every turn of his presidency and the ex-president "will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House." Sperry writes that the ex-president is setting up a shadow government to sabotage the incoming administration through a network of non-profits led by OFA, which is growing its war chest (more than $40 million) and has some 250 offices nationwide. OFA IRS filings, according to Sperry, indicate OFA has 32,525 volunteers nationwide. The ex-president and his wife will oversee the operation from their home/ office near the White House.
Think about how this work - for example: Trump issues an immigration executive order; OFA signals for protests and statements from pro-immigrant groups; ACLU lawyers file lawsuits in jurisdictions where activist judges obstruct the laws; volunteers are called to protest at airports and Congressional town hall meetings; the leftist media springs to action; the twitter sphere lights up with social media; violence follows - all emanating from the ex-president's signal that he is heartened by the protests.
If Barack Obama did not do enough to destroy this country in the 8 years he was in office, it appears his future plans are to destroy the foundation on which this country has operated on for the last 241 years.
The Forever War Against Radical IslamPatrick J .Buchanan
USA – -(Ammoland.com)- On May 22 2017, Salman Abedi, 22, waiting at the entrance of the Arianna Grande pop concert in Manchester, blew himself up, killing almost two dozen people, among them parents waiting to pick up their children.
Saturday, three Islamic terrorists committed “suicide-by-cop,” using a van to run down pedestrians on London Bridge, and then slashing and stabbing patrons of pubs and diners in the nearby Borough Market.
By all accounts, the killers bore no special grudge against those they murdered. They appear not even to have known their victims.
Why, then, did they kill these strangers, and themselves?
A BBC eyewitness suggests a motive: “They shouted, ‘This is for Allah', as they stabbed indiscriminately.”
The murderers were Muslims. The rationale for their crimes lies in the belief that their bloody deeds would inscribe them in a book of martyrs, and Allah would reward them with instant ascension into the paradise that awaits all good Muslims.
Ideas have consequences. And where might these crazed killers have gotten an idea like that?
Is there a strain of Islam, the basis of which can be found in the Quran, that would justify what the murderers did at London Bridge?
On Palm Sunday, an explosion in Tanta, 56 miles north of Cairo, killed 29 and injured 71 Copts as they prayed at the Mar Girgis church. A second blast at a church in Alexandria killed 18 and wounded 35.
On May 26, masked gunmen stopped two buses carrying Coptic Christians to Saint Samuel the Confessor Monastery in Egypt, and opened fire, killing 26 and wounding 25.
“I call on Egyptians to unite in the face of this brutal terrorism,” said Ahmed el-Tayeb, the grand imam of al-Azhar, Egypt's 1,000-year-old center of Islamic learning.
Yet, years of such atrocities have effected a near-complete cleansing of Christianity from its cradle provinces in the Holy Land.
If these persecutors and killers of Christians are apostates to Islam, headed to hell for their savageries, why have not all the imams of the world, Shiite and Sunni, risen together to condemn them as heretics?
Clearly, from the suicide bombings and shootings of civilians in the Middle East, now across the West, there is a belief among some Muslims that what the killers are doing is moral and meritorious — taking the martyr's path to salvation.
When have the imams of Saudi Arabia, the Middle East, and West ever stood as one to condemn all such acts as against the tenets of Islam?
In condemning the London Bridge attack, Prime Minister Theresa May said that recent atrocities across England were “bound together by the single evil ideology of Islamist extremism.”
Correct. There is an extremist school of Islam that needs to be purged from the West, even as this school of fanatics is seeking to purge Christianity from the East.
We are at war. And the imams of Islam need to answer the question: “Whose side are you on?”
Are honor killings of girls and women caught in adultery justified? Are lashings and executions of Christian converts justified?
Do people who hold such beliefs really belong in the United States or in the West during this long war with Islamist extremism?
Other questions need answering as well.
Is our commitment to diversity broad enough to embrace people with Islamist beliefs? Is our First Amendment freedom of speech and of religion extensive enough to cover the sermons of imams who use mosques to preach in favor of expelling Christians from the Middle East and an eventual takeover of the West for an Islam where Sharia replaces constitutional law?
Are such Islamist beliefs not intolerable and perilous for our republic?
Clearly, the West is in a civilizational struggle, with the outcome in some doubt.
Four years after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese empire had ceased to exist. Japan was smoldering ruins, its navy at the bottom of the Pacific. An American proconsul, Douglas MacArthur, was dictating to the Japanese from the Dai-Ichi building.
Today we are in the 16th year of a war begun on 9/11. We are mired down in Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Our victory in Afghanistan is being reversed by the Taliban.
While the ISIS caliphate is being eradicated in Raqqa and Mosul, its elements are in two dozen countries of the Mideast. Muslim migrants and refugees, ISIS and al-Qaida among them, are moving into Europe.
Terrorist attacks in the West grow in number and lethality every year. The new normal. Now, second-generation Muslims within Europe seem to be converting to a violent version of Islam.
To fight them, we are being forced to circumscribe our sovereignty and empower police and intelligence agencies of which free men were once taught to be wary.
Wars, it is said, are the death of republics. And we now seem to be caught up in an endless war.
Although there has been hard-right anti-Semitism for decades, the bigotry of the hard-left is far more prevalent and influential on many university campuses. Those on the left, who support left-wing anti-Semites try to downplay, ignore or deny that those they support are really anti-Semites. "They are anti-Zionist" is the excuse du jour. Those on the right do essentially the same: "they are nationalists." Neither side would accept such transparent and hollow justifications if the shoe were on the other foot.
Linda Sarsour supports Islamic religious law, Sharia. If taken literally, this would presumably mean that she also supports punishing homosexuality by death; amputation for theft; death by stoning for "adultery" (which can include being raped); women being valued at half the worth of a man, being flogged for drinking alcohol, and above all, slavery.
The growing tolerance for anti-Semitism by both the extreme left and right is quickly becoming mainstream. That is why it is so dangerous and must be exposed for what it is: complicity in, and encouragement of, the oldest form of bigotry. People on both sides of the aisle must have the same zero tolerance for anti-Semitism as they do for sexism, racism and homophobia.
Members of the National Socialist Movement (NSM) march across the City Hall lawn in Los Angeles, California, on April 17, 2010. (Photo by David McNew/Getty Images)
All over the world anti-Semites are becoming mainstreamed. It is no longer disqualifying to be outed as a Jew hater. This is especially so if the anti-Semite uses the cover of rabid hatred for the nation-state of the Jewish people. These bigots succeed in becoming accepted -- even praised -- not because of their anti-Semitism, but despite it. Increasingly, they are given a pass on their Jew-hatred because those who support them admire or share other aspects of what they represent. This implicit tolerance of anti-Semitism -- as long as it comes from someone whose other views are acceptable -- represents a dangerous new trend from both the right and left.
