Thursday, June 29, 2017

The Pontifical Academy for Life, Under Paglia the Pervert, Just Condemned Baby Charlie Gard to Death

Charlie Gard, and his parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates

No, the controversies currently swirling in the Church of Francis are not just about abstract doctrine. They're also directly about life and death for real people.

Like baby Charlie Gard.

The Pontifical Academy for Life is led by a pervert. We also now know he has murder in his heart.

If writing "Dear Charlie" on what is tantamount to a death note, isn't enough to condemn Archbishop Paglia to hell, nothing is.

From Vatican Radio:
The Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life has issued a statement regarding the case of the terminally-ill English baby, Charlie Gard. 
On Tuesday the European Court of Human Rights rejected a plea from the baby’s parents to be allowed to move him to the United States for experimental medical treatment. 
10-month old Charlie was born with a rare genetic condition called mitochondrial depletion syndrome, which causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage. 
He is being kept alive on a life support system, but Britain’s Supreme Court also ruled earlier in June that it was not in the baby’s interest to move him or continue treatment. Specialists at London’s Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital believe Charlie has no chance of survival. 
Limits of medicine 
In a statement, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life says the interests of the patient must be paramount, but adds “we must also accept the limits of medicine and […..] avoid aggressive medical procedures that are disproportionate to any expected results or excessively burdensome to the patient or the family. 
Pain of the parents 
Quoting comments from the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, the Vatican statement speaks of the “complexity of the situation, the heartrending pain of the parents, and the efforts of so many to determine what is best for Charlie”. 
It reaffirms that “we should never act with the deliberate intention to end a human life, including the removal of nutrition and hydration” but adds that “we do, sometimes, however, have to recognize the limitations of what can be done, while always acting humanely in the service of the sick person until the time of natural death occurs.” 
Risks of ideological manipulation 
Warning of the risks of ideological or political manipulation, as well as media sensationalism, the statement stresses that “the wishes of parents must be heard and respected, but they too must be helped to understand the unique difficulty of their situation and not be left to face their painful decisions alone”. 
Please see below the full statement from the Pontifical Academy for Life 
The matter of the English baby Charlie Gard and his parents has meant both pain and hope for all of us. We feel close to him, to his mother, his father, and all those who have cared for him and struggled together with him until now. For them, and for those who are called to decide their future, we raise to the Lord of Life our prayers, knowing that “in the Lord our labor will not be in vain.” (1 Cor. 15:58) 
The Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales issued a statement today that recognizes above all the complexity of the situation, the heartrending pain of the parents, and the efforts of so many to determine what is best for Charlie. The Bishops’ statement also reaffirms that “we should never act with the deliberate intention to end a human life, including the removal of nutrition and hydration, so that death might be achieved” but that “we do, sometimes, however, have to recognize the limitations of what can be done, while always acting humanely in the service of the sick person until the time of natural death occurs.” 
The proper question to be raised in this and in any other unfortunately similar case is this: what are the best interests of the patient? We must do what advances the health of the patient, but we must also accept the limits of medicine and, as stated in paragraph 65 of the Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, avoid aggressive medical procedures that are disproportionate to any expected results or excessively burdensome to the patient or the family. Likewise, the wishes of parents must heard and respected, but they too must be helped to understand the unique difficulty of their situation and not be left to face their painful decisions alone. If the relationship between doctor and patient (or parents as in Charlie’s case) is interfered with, everything becomes more difficult and legal action becomes a last resort, with the accompanying risk of ideological or political manipulation, which is always to be avoided, or of media sensationalism, which can be sadly superficial. 
Dear Charlie, dear parents Chris Gard and Connie Yates, we are praying for you and with you. 
✠ Vincenzo Paglia President

Friday, June 23, 2017

Stephen Walford on Amoris Laetitia - The Case of the Missing Ellipsis

Steve Skojec just wrote a post at OnePeterFive, Is Amoris Laetitia an Expression of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, where he critiques an article of a few months ago on Amoris Laetitia. The original article in Vatican Insider, The Magisterium of Pope Francis: His Predecessors Come to His Defence by Stephen Walford, was little noticed at the time, but yesterday on Twitter, Pope Francis apologist Austin Ivereigh threw down a sort of late gauntlet to prominent opponents of Amoris Laetitia, daring them to refute the article.

Essentially, Walford argues that papal exercises of the ordinary magisterium - papal teaching authority expressed at a lower level of authority than infallible ex-cathedra pronouncements - still demand our assent. Or to put it another way, when a pope intends to teach as pope on a question of faith and morals, he cannot err, even when speaking non-infallibly. Walford argues that the statements of previous popes support this, in sources as varied as private letters, public audiences and encyclicals. Thus, the claims of Amoris Laetitia - among them, that communion should now sometimes be allowed for people living in irregular marital situations - must be accepted.

Or to put it even more simply or directly: What Pope Francis says in Amoris Laetitia must be true because he, the Pope, said it. Previous popes would agree.

Skojec does a great job of demolishing Walford's argument, and, thus, meeting Ivereigh's challenge. If you haven't already read both pieces - Walford's original and Skojec's response - I highly recommend doing so. Not only is the debate obviously relevant to Amoris Laetitia - the most contentious papal document in at least two generations - but it is also useful in understanding the general question of papal authority. Can a pope ever be wrong? Under what conditions? What is the ordinary (or universal) magisterium? And so on.

One problem is that while Walford's argument can be literally summarized in a tweet, the counter-argument cannot. And this is annoying.

Or worse than annoying. Some would argue that throwing dust is how the devil often operates. By the time you put together a complex refutation of his mix of lies, half truths and, yes, truths, your audience has fallen asleep, or stopped listening because the whole thing is too complicated to follow.

Not that Walford is the devil. For all I know, he's a fine fellow. But he's literally doing the devil's work here, whether he's aware of it or not.

Skojec summarizes the problem with Walford's argument in the final paragraph of his post. The summary is a bit longer than a tweet:
That the Church’s ordinary magisterium is infallible is indisputable. That Amoris Laetitia is an expression of it — particularly where it contradicts or calls into question the magisterial teaching that came before it — is anything but.
That's exactly right, of course, and as good a summary as any.

My contribution to the discussion - a sort of footnote - will be to make one observation about Walford's disingenuous use of sources that Skojec didn't point out (he couldn't point out everything - his post was quite long, as it is). It's the first thing that I noticed, and, indeed, the only thing that I noticed before I stopped looking, after Skojec had published.

Walford begins by using a quote from John Paul II, given at a general audience on March 17, 1993:
St. John Paul II described it as the “charism of special assistance” explaining further: “This signifies the Holy Spirit’s continual help in the whole exercise of the teaching mission, meant to explain revealed truth and its consequences in human life. For this reason the Second Vatican Council states that all the Pope’s teaching should be listened to and accepted, even when it is not given ex cathedra” [1].
My translation says, "heard and welcomed" as opposed to "listened to and accepted," but no matter. More to the point is how the excerpt ends. Due to the fact that in this instance Walford seems to have a preference for Chicago style (which eschews ellipses in certain cases) over MLA style (which requires them in those cases), it's not clear that the excerpt actually ends in mid-sentence. Let's re-do the last part in MLA style:
"For this reason the Second Vatican Council states that all the Pope’s teaching should be listened to and accepted, even when it is not given ex cathedra..." [1].
It turns out that the part that follows our ellipsis is actually crucial for understanding John Paul II's claim. Unfortunately, Walford breaks off the excerpt in the middle of a sentence. I wonder why.

Here's the second part of the sentence that he does not quote:
...but is proposed in the ordinary exercise of the magisterium with a clear intention to enunciate, recall, reiterate Faithful doctrine.
And now, the full sentence from John Paul II:
For this reason the Second Vatican Council states that all the Pope’s teaching should be listened to and accepted, even when it is not given ex cathedra, but is proposed in the ordinary exercise of the magisterium with a clear intention to enunciate, recall, reiterate Faithful doctrine.
Are you still awake?

There's the rub. Whether or not Francis had a "clear intention to enunciate, recall (or) reiterate Faithful doctrine" is the question. Since many have argued persuasively that the controversial passages of Amoris Laetitia actually contradict Church doctrine, including Church doctrine as reiterated by John Paul II himself in Familiaris consortio and Veritatis Splendor, among other places, we cannot reasonably say that he did. That he will not "answer the dubia," affirming that he did, is indeed, good evidence that he did not.

I take back some of what I said about Walford. He's a man with an agenda, and nothing will stop him from trying to persuade people of the truth of that agenda, even if it's cutting sainted popes off in mid sentence to further his case. That's not exactly innocent. Yes, what he did was dishonest. And that's merely what happens in his second paragraph with his first source. It doesn't bode well.

But in fairness to Walford, he's not unique. Defenses of Amoris Laetitia are riddled with this type of thing. Indeed, Amoris Laetitia itself is riddled with this type of thing, selectively quoting documents from, say, John Paul II or Benedict XVI to attempt to bolster the case, even when in some instances, other parts of the documents or even other parts of the same sections or even paragraphs in those documents contradict the case.

But Walford takes the cake by doing it within a sentence.

Give them their due. They have chutzpa.

Thursday, June 22, 2017

James Martin on Funeral Rites for LGBT Couples

Today, James Martin, SJ, now a consultant to the Vatican's Secretariat for Communications and ubiquitous member of the Jesuit twitterati, tweeted out a message in seven successive tweets. For ease of reading, I put the tweets together:
If bishops ban members of same-sex couples from funeral rites, they must also ban divorced and remarried Catholics without annulments, women who have children out of wedlock, members of straight couples living together before marriage [and] anyone using birth control, for these are all similarly against "church teaching" on sexuality. Moreover, they must ban anyone who has gone against the church's teaching on caring for the poor and on caring for the environment. More basically, they must ban anyone who hasn't been forgiving, or merciful, or loving. That last category are the teachings of Jesus's, the most basic of "church teachings." To focus only on LGBT people, even those in same-sex marriages, without a similar focus on the sexual or moral behavior of straight people is in the words of the "Catechism" a "sign of unjust discrimination" (2358).
Buried amidst various errors and obfuscations, there is a valid point. All things being equal, it would be unreasonable and perhaps unjust for the Church to "single out" any category of notorious and unrepentant grave sinners for the denial of funeral rites. And, yes, that would include people involved in "LGBT" relationships.

But Martin falsely frames the problem. The Catholic Church has never argued that funeral rites should be denied to sinners or even grave sinners. Obviously, it it did so, funerals would largely be confined to the deaths of recently baptized infants. Rather, the Church has traditionally argued that funeral rites may (or more accurately, must) be denied to those notorious sinners who steadfastly refused to repent or reconcile themselves to the Church, and where there is no evidence or likelihood that they did so, even at the point of death.

Here is how the Code of Canon Law states it:
Can. 1183 §1. When it concerns funerals, catechumens must be counted among the Christian faithful.
§2. The local ordinary can permit children whom the parents intended to baptize but who died before baptism to be given ecclesiastical funerals.
§3. In the prudent judgment of the local ordinary, ecclesiastical funerals can be granted to baptized persons who are enrolled in a non-Catholic Church or ecclesial community unless their intention is evidently to the contrary and provided that their own minister is not available.
Can. 1184 §1. Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals:
1/ notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics;
2/ those who chose the cremation of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith;
3/ other manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful.
§2. If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed.
Can. 1185 Any funeral Mass must also be denied a person who is excluded from ecclesiastical funerals.
The Catholic site Fisheaters summarizes it this way:
Catholic funerals are denied to the unbaptized (note that catechumens, including infants whose parents planned on having them baptized, are baptized by desire, and that martyrs are baptized by blood); infidels; heretics; suicides (unless they were of unsound mind or showed signs of repentance); notorious, unrepentant sinners; the excommunicated; the schismatic; those under ecclesiastical censure; and those who, without remorse, have openly held the sacraments in contempt; and those who, for anti-Christian motives, choose to be cremated.
That, especially in contemporary times, some priests and bishops have often ignored Canon Law and tradition on funeral rites is true but beside the point. If they did so, they were in error. I have no doubt that Fr. Martin would rewrite Canon Law and much of Catholic theology were it within his power, but he has, of course, not done so.

Martin mentions all sorts of different categories of sin that people, including faithful Catholics engage in every day. Who has not failed to always be loving or merciful or forgiving? But these are the sorts of things that one confesses to regularly, or at least tries to, if one can even remember all of the instances. That's part of the meaning and practice of being Catholic. Catholic funeral rites are precisely for such people, though I suppose one might imagine an extreme hypothetical case where such activities might put one outside the Church at the moment of death - one of sound mind tells the priest giving last rights that he utterly refuses to forgive so and so for doing such and such because so and so was such a jerk, and if that means he'll go to hell for saying it, then so be it, the love of Christ be damned - but one presumes that that sort of example is rare.

Then there are the "political" sins, which Martin is so fond of. Speaking for myself, I'm sure I'm on his list of "sinners," as I oppose much of the current quasi-socialist and environmentalist movements. But I do so not because I sadistically want to see the poor dying in the streets or much of the earth fried to a cinder or whatever but because I simply disagree with the empirical claims of the agenda. Among other things, I believe that many government programs actually make things worse for the poor, and global warming legislation will have either no positive effect or a net negative effect on the earth and the lives of its inhabitants. If I am a sinner (which I am) it's not because I oppose the global warming agenda. The same goes for millions of other Catholics, of course.

Of more relevance is the Catholic position on the sexual sins in general, as well as the issue of divorce. The faithful Catholic is always invited to repent of such things, from inappropriate behavior at a bar up to and including extra-marital sex or even abortion. And again, it's possible, to imagine the hypothetical case of someone, of sound mind and fully informed, steadfastly refusing to ask forgiveness for such activities, even at the point of death.

In this, I suppose, Fr. Martin is correct that a member of an "LGBT" couple might be in some ways be in a similar position to a divorced and "remarried" person. The Church hopes that the dying person would be repentant in the end, to which, the presence of a priest would be, at the least, helpful.

Unless of course, one were confronted in one's last hours with Fr. Martin or his like. It's very clear that Martin does not really believe that gay sex or out-of-wedlock sex in general is sinful. So, it's doubtful that the issue would be pressed, presented or would even be "live" in any way, so to speak.

And that is, of course, the problem. The Church has always acknowledged that culpability for sin may often be lessoned due to various factors, including lack of knowledge. On the other hand, it has also proclaimed the very real effects of people being mislead to the point where they will be damned because of it. Jesus is explicit on this point in the Gospels.

Technically, Martin, a notorious public heretic, as well as, arguably, someone who holds the sacraments in contempt, should also be denied the funeral rites of the Church (given the usual caveat of last-minute repentance). Up to a few generations ago, he would have been.

And, of course, the faithful Catholic should pray for Martin and those like him. But he should also pray for those who are being mislead by them. If Catholic teachings are true, then false and anti-Catholic teachings can have real effects, including the worst real effect imaginable - that of being permanently separated from God.

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Last Police Station in Stockholm's Muslim Controlled No-Go Zone, to Close

Blazing Cat Fur titled its link to this Breitbart story, "Fort Apache - Sweden."

Most readers are aware that commentators have argued about whether there really are Muslim controlled "No-Go Zones" in many Western European cities. This news item makes it difficult to deny the proposition. If you can't even have a quasi-fortified police station in the neighborhood because everyone associated with it, from the police to the support help to the construction workers, are afraid to work there, then if it's not a No-Go Zone, the term has no meaning.

Occupied territory is another term that comes to mind.

And, of course, the story also confirms the bizarre disconnect in Sweden between the reality on the ground and the official propaganda that Muslim immigration is good for Sweden.

It's also useful to evaluate the reality against the propaganda emanating from another Western European source:

Of course, the boundaries of the Zone are still open for an inflow of more "refugees" - many of them returning soldiers from ISIS and other Muslim militias - as well as money from the Swedish welfare state.

Why this has been allowed or, rather, encouraged to happen is still a conundrum. But with every passing day, explaining it via some sort of mass insanity, hysteria or willful blindness seems more and more plausible. And so we get out our dusty history books and read about civilizations perishing due to irrational-seeming "cycles," based on "exhaustion" or "decadence" or whatever. As a younger student of philosophy, those theories always seemed silly to me. Why would people actually behave that way? Or if they did, surely, things are different now.
Last Remaining Police Station in Migrant-Dominated Swedish Suburbs Forced to Close 
The last remaining station in the troubled Järva area will most likely have to close, police sources have said, due to lack of staff. 
The police station in Kista is the only one still open in the Järva area, in which lie the suburbs of Rinkeby, Tensta, and Husby — migrant-dominated neighbourhoods classed by Sweden’s National Police Operations Department (NOA) as “vulnerable”. 
According to police sources, the move to close the station has already begun, and there are no plans for it to be reopened. Officers who work at Kista station will be moved to police headquarters in Solna. 
Leading terror researcher Magnus Ranstorp called the decision to close Kista’s police station a “disaster”, tweeting, “They should open four more instead!” 
Approached for comment, Stockholm area regional police chief Ulf Johansson said he was not “fully up to date” with details regarding the station’s closure, but told SVT “the premises in Kista left a lot to be desired when it comes to the work environment”. 
In March, plans to replace Rinkeby’s police station, which closed in 2014, were put on hold because construction companies feared for the safety of their workforce in the majority migrant suburb, which is notorious for gang and gun crime. 
Last year Breitbart London reported how Sweden’s police were facing a “major crisis”, with up to three officers quitting each day and 80 per cent of the force considering switching careers due to the danger they face in the field. 
“The violence against us in the police and the paramedics and firefighters, has become much worse. We’re talking about stone throwing, violence, fires. It has become much worse in recent years,” Swedish police Sergeant Peter Larsson told Norwegian state broadcaster NRK. 
Police officers, who wished to remain anonymous, slammed the move, saying it will have a negative effect on residents. 
“It is terrible that we can’t be close to the citizens, and sad and shameful to move the police station,” a source told SVT. 
“It hurts to know that residents will not be able to get the help and support they need,” said a police source. “This station has been important to the area.” 
Lamenting how police are “moving further and further away from citizens”, another source said it is a shame the station will be closed, noting: “Officers gained a lot of local knowledge working in Kista, and residents had confidence in us. We lose all that now.” 
Describing the station’s closure as “embarrassing”, another officer who works in Kista said staff “have lost all hope in the idea that our politicians are going to spend money on the police”. 
“Look at how the results have been, it’s terrible,” added the source, alluding to a report leaked last week which showed the number of neighbourhoods classed as “vulnerable” by Swedish police has risen from 15 to 23 in just two years. 
Police forces “find it difficult to carry out [their] mission” in neighbourhoods classed as “vulnerable”, according to NOA’s research, for a number of reasons which include “an unwillingness of the population to participate in legal proceedings”.

Thursday, June 15, 2017

My Hometown is Gone: Loretta Brady on the Islamization of Utica, NY

Utica, NY: A Methodist church becomes a mosque

The Islamization of American towns and cities is not nearly as close to the tipping point as it is in, say, Great Britain or France. But there are few smaller communities where it's gone pretty far.

This has gone somewhat under the radar, partly due to the relentless "anti-racism" blackout of the mainstream media, but also partly due to the fact that the hardest hit locations are often smaller communities in economically "declining" areas.

One of them is Utica, New York, where the author of the following post, estimates the Muslim population is now at least 25%.

Lawyer and writer Loretta Brady's account is fascinating and depressing, primarily due to its description of a formerly "all-American" town in the process of being occupied by an alien and anti-American culture and ideology, but also because of the snapshots we are given of a former era where the town was largely composed of a thriving Catholic working and middle-class.

It seems like a sort of Golden Age, though, I'm sure few realized it at the time:
I loved living in Utica because there were lots of families on my block, big Catholic families with lots of kids. You could yard-hop, checking out who was available for play. You could bike around the neighborhood. There were block parties in the summer. My grandmother lived up the street. Life was good.
That's now almost completely gone. Not just in Utica, but across the country, whether Muslims have moved in to fill the vacuum or not.

And, of course, the post-Vatican II Church itself is largely responsible for this. Today, traditionalist Catholics try to simulate it in small social islands, while being harassed and persecuted by their own Church. What was one normal is now "extreme" or "fanatic."

Particularly poignant is Brady's description of her new home in North Carolina in a community that is (so far) largely free of Muslims:
The local Walmart (in Utica) is full of headscarves and burkas. I cried when I went into my first Walmart in North Carolina and all I saw were Americans...
North Carolina is like Heaven. People are so much happier here. I thank God every day we got here. I consider it a “free zone”, and I want it to stay free.
Of course, the natural liberal reaction to Brady's article would be to call her a racist. She doesn't like people who are different or have brown skin or wear funny clothes or whatever.

That's not how I see it. I would call her a Catholic, and an American.

I'm excerpting most of the post, here, with a hat tip to Creeping Sharia, who also excerpted much of it. But go to the original blog, Thermidor, for the full post, as well as other essays and posts by Brady and others.
My Hometown is Gone
...So I would like to tell you what it is like living in an area where the major city is about 25% (or more) refugee, mainly Muslim
I was born in Utica, a “faded industrial town” along the Mohawk River/Erie Canal corridor, and lived there until I was 8-years-old when my family moved to a nearby small college town. I loved living in Utica because there were lots of families on my block, big Catholic families with lots of kids. You could yard-hop, checking out who was available for play. You could bike around the neighborhood. There were block parties in the summer. My grandmother lived up the street. Life was good.
My father and his father were born and lived in Utica, NY. My father was a judge in Utica, like his father before him. The Catholic school my father attended is now a community center for refugees. After I moved back to the Utica area as an adult I used to recite “Full fathom five” to the children as we drove by my father’s former Catholic school. (Nothing of him that doth fade,/But doth suffer a sea change/Into something rich and strange.)
When I had my first child I was living in New York City. Her father and I divorced when she was a baby, and when she was two-years-old, I beat a hasty retreat back home to Upstate NY. There I met my husband. We got married, we had babies (in that order, ahem), and we settled down outside of Utica.
When I moved back home one of the first things I noticed was that an old Methodist church was being converted into a bright shiny white new mosque. The local paper touted this as immense progress and featured a local woman who had attended the church as a child and was positively brimming with joy it was being turned into a mosque. If that is the general sentiment, then it’s odd that my county went for Trump, right? There are at least two mosques in the city now. They just built another.
Where do I start? Utica had always been “the city that loves refugees” but under Obama things accelerated. Muslim immigrants were suddenly in these local bureaucratic positions where they had power over you. This, in what is probably one of the most corrupt states in the union, where the power of the state is everything.
The social worker at my daughter’s school was a Muslim immigrant. I looked for her profile on the school website, I googled her, I could not find information on her background, resume, qualifications, or educational attainments.
When I began to homeschool my daughter the administrator to whom I had to submit paperwork was a Muslim immigrant. To homeschool in New York State you must submit detailed quarterly reports to an administrator at your local school district. I googled the administrator. He also worked at the local Board of Cooperative Educational Services, but I could not find any other information on his background, resume, qualifications, or educational attainments.
I was friends with the wife of the Orthodox priest at our church, and she told me that this administrator found some problems with her paperwork and challenged her. It turned out she was right about the issue, and he backed down. Comfy little situation, right?
Right before we moved I went to the ER. The nurse practitioner was a Muslim immigrant (Bosnia), and the doctor she worked under was a Muslim immigrant (Pakistan). I remember how during the visit I suddenly became very aware of the cross I always wear around my neck.
In 2012 on the way home from my daughter’s piano lesson, I left my children in the car, ran into the supermarket for ten minutes, and came out to find a man outside my car who informed me he had called the police. I called my husband and my parents and together we waited for the police officer who eventually arrived and arrested me. Lenore Skenazy wrote an account of the incident in the Wall Street Journal. It is pretty accurate except that it wasn’t a suburb, it was a village of less than 2,000 people.
It was a terrible thing to do, but it was not hot (we’re about two hours from the Canadian border), it was the small safe village where I grew up (I think I was the only arrest that week), and I spent half my childhood hanging out in the car with my brother while my mother did errands. My friend sent me a Salon article (I don’t read Salon) about a mom who did the same thing, and she like me was in her hometown where she grew up, and so automatically just living by the rules she grew up with. My mother never got arrested. It didn’t occur to me I would be arrested. That’s my only arrest. So far. But anyway, the point of this story is I was then investigated (and cleared which I hope should be obvious) by CPS. 
The CPS worker who investigated me was Muslim.
So let me just summarize: the social worker at the school is Muslim, the administrator who ok’s homeschooling is Muslim, the CPS worker is Muslim, the nurse practitioner at the ER is Muslim, the doctor at the ER is Muslim. These are positions of authority that wield a lot of power.
Are you starting to get the picture?
The spring before we moved Utica made national news because of a federal grant to the local community college (two million dollars) for a (Muslim immigrant) professor to teach teenage (Muslim) refugees how to build drones. The grant didn’t mention explicitly that the drones would be equipped with bombs or anything, so it was all aboveboard. This was going on like down the road from us. My husband assured me he could shoot any drone out of the sky, and I’m sure he could, but curiously enough that didn’t assuage my anxiety, but only exacerbated it. The last thing I needed was my husband getting arrested on federal charges for taking down a drone.
I looked up the Muslim immigrant professor on Linked In. It was an odd career trajectory. It looked like he had been a soccer coach a few years before. It wasn’t exactly clear to me how he had landed his present job where he was getting federal money to train Muslims to build drones, but, hey, that’s the Obama era for you.
In 2015, a 26-year-old Bosnian refugee in Utica was arrested for supporting ISIS. The local paper reported that in his spare time when he wasn’t supporting ISIS, he enjoyed mixed martial arts fighting at the local gym. Local law enforcement complained they hadn’t been informed of the investigation. You know and I know that if anything happens, local law enforcement are the first responders.
I went to a couple Trump rallies and meetings in Upstate NY before we moved. When I mentioned the arrest of this ISIS supporter to a local businessman at one of the meetings, he got a very serious look and said Utica was full of ISIS and the local police were really worried. The Trump meetings were emotional. The organizer picked a donut shop whose owner was friendly to the Trump platform so we could talk. Everyone went around the table and introduced themselves. Two of the women cried. New York State is not doing well.
Don’t believe the Start-Up NY commercials. Potemkin Village.
My husband lost two jobs in three years in Upstate NY. Not by any fault of his own- he is a very skilled, dedicated, experienced, hard worker- but because his bosses went out of business. His first boss moved to North Carolina. His second boss had to close up shop, which seemed linked to a downturn in the stock market. A lot of the middle class in Upstate NY are boomer retirees, and when the stock market goes down, they get nervous and cut back on renovation and building. My husband is a carpenter.
The Upstate New York economy is one of the worst in the country. That’s why it’s a good place to resettle refugees.
After the second time my husband lost his job, I applied for food stamps for the family. When I moved back home I had tried to find a job as a lawyer, I could not. I finally found a job processing letters of credit for an investment bank. My salary was $27,000 a year. I actually got paid an extra $2,000 higher than starting salary for my translation skills. After I had my second child, most of my pay after taxes would have gone to childcare. The New York State tax system penalizes low-income people who work. So I stayed home. My parents helped us with bills.
So my husband was unemployed, I was unemployed, we have four children, we certainly qualified for food stamps, and I felt stupid and irresponsible for not applying when we qualified for them, so I applied. The local Department of Social Services does not answer their phone. You can go there and wait in line. It is a very very long line, and a very uncomfortable place to be. By tacit agreement, the white people stick together in the waiting area. The Department of Social Services rejected my application several times without reason. I knew we qualified, so it became for me this bureaucratic challenge that I had to vanquish. It took a lot of wrangling and some certified sign-for-delivery mailings which were expensive. I managed to get us a month of food stamps. It was about $50 a week, I think, for a family of six. I don’t know if that’s average or not.
Want to know why my application was rejected several times even though we qualified? Want to know why it was so difficult to get food stamps? The Department of Social Services in my area is swamped because of the refugees. 25% of the city are refugees. Virtually all of the refugees are on welfare. And when they apply for welfare, they don’t do so as an independent entity, as I did. They go through their refugee resettlement agency who deals with the Department of Social Services for them. So basically Americans get the short shrift, and refugees get taken care of. And that’s America. This is why so many Democrats voted for Trump. Americans are getting squeezed out by non-Americans at multiple levels.
The local Walmart is full of headscarves and burkas. I cried when I went into my first Walmart in North Carolina and all I saw were Americans.
The nice lady who asked me to give a talk a couple months ago on my hometown asked me if there were any refugees who were an “asset to the community”. I replied that they do not consider themselves part of your community, so if they are going to be an asset to any community, it is not going to be yours.
I hope I’ve presented an idea of why I’m so opposed to refugee resettlement. I couldn’t write this blog post where I’m from. I’d be scared that someone would target my house. I’d be scared of the authorities. I had to wait to get to higher ground to speak more openly.
North Carolina is like Heaven. People are so much happier here. I thank God every day we got here. I consider it a “free zone”, and I want it to stay free...

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Alexandria Shooter had Bernie Sanders Image and Slogan as his Facebook Profile Pic

The Facebook account of this morning's Alexandria, VA shooter is filled with pro-Bernie Sanders posts and anti-Trump hate. James T. Hodgkinson used a picture of Sanders as his profile picture along with the slogan:
Democratic Socialism Explained in 3 Words: "We The People."
A post a few months ago was headlined: 
Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It's Time to Destroy Trump & Co.

A few hours ago, after allegedly confirming that a practicing baseball team was that of the House and Senate Republicans, Hodgkinson opened fire at an Alexandria baseball diamond, wounding House Majority Whip Steve Scales and four others. The shooting attack lasted for up to ten minutes as Hodgkinson advanced, with a long gun and a pistol, on those who had fled the field and were hiding in a dugout. All of the injured are expected to recover. But if it weren't for the fact that Scalise had a security detail with him, who returned fire and ultimately brought the shooter down, it is likely that the results would have been far worse. Indeed, it probably would have been a massacre, due to the fact that none of the Congressmen were armed.

Okay, are Bernie Sanders and the left, including, say, well-known liberal commentators such as Rachel Maddow and Bill Maher, both of whom were featured on the shooter's page of "likes" - responsible for this?

Of course not. I'm sure Sanders wouldn't hurt a fly. Maddow's aggression peaks at sighing and shaking her head and Maher slings only offensive jokes. But the attack is yet another example of how the "climate of hate and violence" that we are constantly being told has arisen due to the election of Donald Trump is very real.

It's a climate of hate and violence against Trump and his supporters.

Hodgkinson's "likes"
Hodgkinson's Facebook timeline was no different from a million other anti-Trump accounts. I suppose there will always be people whose anger against a particular political side, perhaps coupled with personal problems or issues, leads them to explode into murderous violence. 

But let's just say the atmosphere of real and staged violence against Trump and his supporters, not strong or even angry opposition but violence, ranging from the actions of Antifa and BLM street thugs to simulated beheadings on Twitter or stabbings in Central Park, isn't helping.

And now the bastards are tweeting about gun control.

Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Since London Bridge Attack, London Police Arrest More People For "Hate Crimes" Than for Terrorism

Police "Hate Crime" Table, June, 2016

The London Metropolitan Police announced today that they had arrested 25 people for "hate crimes" since the London Bridge attack. That's far more than they have arrested for terrorism.

Indeed, they state that they have "increased the number of officers on the streets and in communities" for the purpose of identifying hate crimes, as well as directing more resources to encourage mosques and other Muslim bodies to report them.

They do not state the nature of these hate crimes, nor do they confirm that they were all or mostly directed at Muslims. Logically, they could be anything from yelling a racial slur at someone before beating them up to making a Muslim/goat joke on Facebook, or even merely claiming in public that, say, Islam is a dangerous and wicked ideology - the official position of this blog, by the way.

A few days after the Manchester attack, police broke up a garden party. A policewomen called in reinforcements (including a helicopter) after hearing an anti-Osama Bin Laden played on the stereo. Not an anti-Muslim song, but an anti-Bin Laded song.

Needless to say, this is more evidence that the official response to the recent terror attacks in the UK is more of the same thinking that brought on the bloody crisis in the first place - coddling hostile Muslim communities while attacking those who rightly perceive Islam as a threat.

It's as if after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt had bragged about how many people he had arrested for harboring anti-Japanese thoughts.
Statement from Chief Superintendent Dave Stringer, Head of Community Engagement for the Metropolitan Police, about hate crime in the Capital:
“The Met is committed to tackling hate crime in all its forms.
“Year on year we are seeing an increase in all areas of hate crime. This is due to a range of factors - a growing willingness of victims to report hate crime, an overall improved awareness of staff in identifying these offences, and work with partners to support victims. However, we also know world events can also contribute to a rise in hate crime.
“Since Saturday evening's attacks, we have increased the number of officers on the streets and in communities to reassure local people that they are able to go about their daily lives in peace and without fear of harassment or intimidation. Dedicated ward officers have also made contact with their local places of worship to encourage them to report hate crimes and to reassure those who congregate there that the police will take these crimes seriously. The Metropolitan Police has made 25 arrests for hate crime offences since Saturday. 
“Following the terrorist incidents in Europe in recent years, we have anticipated that similar incidents in the UK may lead to a greater need to support those communities that are more vulnerable to becoming victims of hate crime, and we have taken action accordingly.
“We have increased the number of hate crime liaison officers who are a single point of contact for all those who need support after reporting a hate crime and we have introduced an Online Hate Crime Hub to tackle hate crime on social media.
“All hate crimes are reviewed by a Detective Inspector and the MPS has also increased specialist investigators within the 32 London borough community safety units by 30 per cent, with more than 900 specialist members of staff dedicated to investigating all hate crime and domestic abuse crimes.
“We have long since recognised the impact of hate crime on communities and the hidden nature of this crime, which remains largely under-reported. The MPS stands together with policing partners, colleagues and groups to investigate all hate crime allegations, support victims and their families, and bring perpetrators to justice.
“We would appeal to anyone who witnesses or suffers any hate of any type to immediately report it so that action can quickly be taken and catch those responsible.”
Hate Crime can be reported through 999 in an emergency, by dialling 101 in a non-emergency, directly at a police station, through the MOPAC Hate Crime app or through community reporting methods such as Tell MAMA, Galop, or the CST.

BREAKING: ISIS Terror Siege at Tehran Parliament Building Ends - 12 Dead, 35 Wounded

A child is passed to safety from a window of Tehran's parliament building

This morning, terrorists launched coordinated attacks against Iran's parliament building and the Ayatollah Khomeini mausoleum in Tehran. It is being reported that at least 12 people died and 35 were injured.

From the Daily Mail:
ISIS carries out its first strike in Iran: Burka-clad gunmen are shot dead after taking hostages at parliament as suicide bomber blows himself up at Ayatollah Khomeini's mausoleum
  • ISIS claimed its first attack in Iran after fighters stormed parliament and shrine
  • At least 12 people died and 35 were wounded in the assault, state media said 
  • Four parliament attackers filmed themselves in the building with a dead body
  • 'Female suicide bomber' detonated at shrine while another was shot dead
ISIS has claimed its first attack in Iran as at least 12 people were killed and 35 wounded in joint raids on parliament and Ayatollah Kohmeini's shrine on Wednesday. 
The terror group says fighters armed with AK47s and pistols stormed parliament through the civilian entrance while disguising themselves as women by wearing burkas, shooting security guards before detonating a suicide bomb, killing at least five and wounding 25. 
Meanwhile two more suicide bombers attacked a shrine to Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of modern-day Iran, as it was reported a woman blew herself up, killing at least two and injuring another 10. 
Anti-terror police said they exchanged fire with militants in the northern part of parliament before a bomb detonated on the fourth floor. 
Video purporting to be from inside the building showed a fighter armed with an AK47 moving between rooms as a dead body lay on the floor. 
Security forces said a second attacker at the shrine had been shot dead after the first blew up, while another two people were arrested. 
Tourists at the mausoleum had been locked inside to keep them safe. 
State news channels sought to downplay the attacks, saying that parliament had resumed session shortly after the first reports of gunfire. 
Other TV channels either stopped reporting on the attacks shortly after they began, or failed to mention them altogether. 
The unusual attacks prompted the interior ministry to call for an urgent security meeting, according to the state-run IRNA news agency. 
Iranian state media said police helicopters were circling over the parliament building and that all mobile phone lines from inside were disconnected. 
The semi-official ISNA news agency said all entrance and exit gates at parliament were closed and that politicians and reporters had been ordered to stay inside the chamber, where a session had been in progress. 
It quoted politician Elias Hazrati as saying the attackers were armed with Kalashnikov assault rifles. 
It described the shrine attackers as 'terrorists' and said one carried out a suicide bombing, without providing further details. 
The raids, the first in some time in Tehran, come during the holy month of Ramadan and shortly after President Hassan Rouhani was reelected. 
Thomas Erdbrink, bureau chief for the New York Times, reports that the attacks will come as a personal embarrassment to Rouhani, who ran on his security record. 
He also reports that the shrine is largely used by foreign tourists, and that security was lax when he visited last month. 
The mausoleum is in southern Tehran, around 20 kilometres (12 miles) from the parliament building. 
Shia Iran has been singled out as a target by Sunni jihadists, including the Islamic State group, but has largely escaped attacks within its urban centres.
Iran provides key ground forces against IS and other rebel groups in Syria and Iraq. 
The Kremlin said that an attack on two targets in Tehran by armed men underlined the need for countries to pool their efforts to fight against terrorism, something it said meant working closely with Muslim nations.