“Unplanned” Movie Review


UNPLANNED is the incredible, powerful true story of Abby, a young woman who gets drawn into working for Planned Parenthood because she thinks that their goal is to help prevent pregnancies.

The movie starts with Abby, now the director of the local Planned Parenthood office, being asked to go where she’s never gone before, into the operation room to hold the ultrasound device so the doctor can suck out the baby. She runs to the bathroom and throws up.

Cut to Abby as a young woman at Texas A&M. She comes from a very Christian family that’s very pro-life, but when she stops by a volunteer fair during her junior year, one of the booths is operated by a Planned Parenthood representative who talks her into volunteering. Her job as a volunteer escort is to go outside and guide the women into Planned Parenthood before all the protestors talk the women out of getting an abortion. She does such a good job that soon she’s working for Planned Parenthood.

Abby gets married quickly, and quickly divorced. Her parents put up with her being at Planned Parenthood, but don’t like it. Eventually, she finds a man who loves her. He is also a Christian and pro-life, but puts up with her working at Planned Parenthood like her parents do.

Slowly, Abby starts not just selling birth control, but also pitching young women about having an abortion. When the director takes her to the room where they keep the dead baby body parts, she isn’t upset at all. So, the director suggests that she should become the next director. One young girl starts bleeding badly after her abortion. Also, Abby gets pregnant and takes the ru-486 abortive pill, which causes her to lose the baby and bleed at home with cramps and pain.

Over time, Abby rises through the ranks of Planned Parenthood, continuing to tell herself that she’s helping people. She even tells the staff to be nicer to the protestors who don’t understand what they’re saying.

Finally, we come back to the opening scene, where she’s asked to go into the operating room and hold the ultrasound wand. Suddenly, the reality that this is a baby who’s trying to avoid the doctors painful tools becomes clear to her, but now she’s in trouble with Planned Parenthood, and they take her to court for leaving her job and for rejecting their cause to have more and more abortions.

Will Planned Parenthood win in court? Will people be transformed? When will the killing stop?

UNPLANNED is extremely well made. It’s a movie that anyone can watch and be caught up no matter what their point of view. It’s structured so powerfully that, by the end, it brings a torrent of tears. It’s a very hard movie to tell people that they should watch. You must have caution for the young girl who’s bleeding after the abortion, and for Abby whose bleeding after the abortive drug. It is amazing that it took Abby so long to come to her senses, and for that reason alone, everyone should see UNPLANNED.

Review by Movie Guide (www.movieguide.org)


By Carol Rushton

On January 30, 2019, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam created a firestorm when he advocated for a child that was born to be allowed to die if the mother decided she did not want the baby.

Governor Northam was defending a bill presented in Virginia’s state legislature that would allow third trimester abortions. Northam said that abortions are performed in the third trimester “in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s nonviable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother (Devan Cole, January 31, 2019, CNN, “Virginia Governor Faces Backlash Over Comments Supporting Late-Term Abortion Bill,” https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/31/politics/ralph-northam-third-trimester-abortion/, accessed April 8, 2019).

The same CNN article reported the defense of the governor by his spokesperson, Ofirah Yheskel.

No woman seeks a third trimester abortion except in the case of tragic or difficult circumstances, such as a nonviable pregnancy or in the event of severe fetal abnormalities, and the governor’s comments were limited to the actions physicians would take in the event that a woman in those circumstances went into labor . . . Attempts to extrapolate these comments otherwise is in bad faith and underscores exactly why the governor believes physicians and women, not legislators, should make these difficult and deeply personal medical decisions.”

While many found it shocking that a governor of a state in the U.S. would openly support infanticide, what is even more stunning is that the governor and his administration would maintain the lie that a woman actually consults with a physician or doctor before she decides to abort her baby.

Unplanned is the movie that tells the story of Abby Johnson, the youngest director of an abortion clinic in the history of Planned Parenthood, and how she became pro-life when she saw a baby try to avoid a doctor’s attempt to kill it in the womb during an actual abortion. Abby Johnson has since become a powerful advocate of life, refuting the propaganda dispensed by Planned Parenthood.

Before Unplanned was released, the state legislature in Kentucky was considering SB9, a bill that would ban abortions after a baby’s heartbeat can be detected in the womb. Planned Parenthood and the ACLU trotted out their advocates who spouted the same lie that they have deceived women with for years: a baby is not a baby, it’s just a mass of cells, women have the right to choose, there are no exceptions in the bill for women who have become pregnant due to rape or incest, blah, blah, blah. I say this with all due respect.

Abby was then allowed to speak. She quickly pointed out that even if exceptions in SB9 for women to have an abortion in cases of rape or incest had been included, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU would not support the bill and that they were being intellectually dishonest by even bringing it up.

Abby then described what actually happens at a Planned Parenthood clinic during an abortion. First, an ultrasound is performed but only for the purpose of seeing how far the baby has developed so Planned Parenthood will know how much to charge the woman for the abortion.

The ultrasound machine is rolled away, and a doctor enters the room. Abby continues. “The doctor comes in, who, by the way, has no conversation with the woman before the abortion. The fact that many people say, ‘Abortion should be a decision made between a woman and her doctor’ is laughable. There is never a time where the abortion doctor goes in, sits down with the woman, and goes over risks, alternatives, and benefits to abortion. It does not happen. The doctor starts performing the abortion” (“Abby Johnson of Movie Unplanned DESTROYS Abortion Arguments at Hearing,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCnZOvjJgwo, accessed April 8, 2019, emphasis mine).

In the hearing, Abby makes it very clear that abortion is never a safe procedure because in order for an abortion to be successful, it must result in the death of another human being, the death of the baby in the womb. An abortion can never be safe for that baby.

Abby’s conclusion was compelling and forceful. “Our history tells us, time and time again, that it is unjust to take the life of an innocent human being. It was unjust to dehumanize an entire segment of people when we were working to abolish slavery. It was unjust to dehumanize an entire group of Jewish people in the Holocaust. But those two examples that I just gave you only exist because our society was willing to turn a blind eye, look a human person in the face, and say, ‘That is not a human being.’ That is not scientific . . . Now we are living in such depravity that there are people, like the people that oppose this bill, that are willing to say, ‘I know it’s a human being, I know it has a heartbeat, I know there is life there, and I know it is innocent, and I’m willing to kill it.’ We have sunk to a new low in our society, and it is time for us to rectify what we have done . . . Abortion is not normal. Taking the life of an innocent human being that is your own flesh and blood and your own DNA is not normal.”

The bill easily passed.

I could only quote a small portion of Abby’s testimony, so I encourage you to go to YouTube and watch it yourself. I don’t think you’ll ever be the same.

The response from pro-lifers and Christians to Governor Northam’s support of infanticide was to hold a “Day of Mourning” on April 6 in Richmond, Virginia. No word or response from Governor Northam or his office about the movie Unplanned or the Day of Mourning.

For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: My substance was not from thee, when I was made in secret . . . Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them – Psalm 139:13-16


By Carol Rushton

No one can accuse President Trump of being the most Christian or religious president we have ever had. However, no one can argue that our president has a deep respect for Christian values and the religious heritage and founding of our country, more so than recent presidents in the late 20th and early 21st century. This includes the biblical promises concerning Israel. This has never clearer than the decisions U.S. President Donald J. Trump has made concerning the State of Israel since taking the oath of office in January 2017.

Less than one year later, on December 6, 2017, President Trump announced that the United States officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and would be moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The following May 14, 2018, 70 years to the day that David Ben Gurion announced the establishment of the modern State of Israel in 1948, the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem official opened.

President Trump had to defy almost all the other countries the world, the United Nations, the Arab-Muslim countries who threatened to riot and create havoc, the phony “Palestinians” who claim Jerusalem should be the capital of their terrorist nation, and even some of his own advisors. In one fell swoop the president re-established the United States as a strongly pro-Israel nation, a position that presidents Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama had grotesquely and seriously undermined over the last 25 years, something that many of us who love Israel and Jerusalem had given up ever happening. President Trump sent a clear message to the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups that the position of the United States that he would not tolerate any nonsense from them concerning attacks on Israel and the Jews, verbal or otherwise.

For those of us who love Israel and Jerusalem, this was more than just an answer to our prayers. President Trump, probably without realizing it, is helping to establish the fulfillment of the ancient prophecies of Isaiah and Micah concerning Jerusalem that will occur during the Millennium.

In case you think this is over-the-top rhetoric, the Lord has made His position concerning Israel and Jerusalem crystal clear in the pages of Scripture. According to Baker’s Dictionary, Jerusalem is specifically mentioned by name 806 times in the Bible, 660 times in the Old Testament and 146 times in the New Testament, with additional references to the city as Zion, the holy city, or the city of the great King, just to name a few. Below are just a few of the verses in the Bible that predict what is in store for Jerusalem in what we hope is in the near future.

And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem – Isaiah 2:3

And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem – Micah 4:2

And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee. . .therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night. . .For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish. . .and they shall call thee, The city of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel. . .I will make thee an eternal excellency, a joy of many generations. . .Violence shall no more be heard in thy land, wasting nor destruction within thy borders; but thou shalt call thy walls Salvation, and thy gates Praise – Isaiah 60

President Trump did not rest on the laurels of being the first U.S. president to fulfill the promise that almost every other American president has made for the last 70 years. On March 25, 2019, the president made the astonishing declaration that the United States recognized the Golan Heights, the ancient biblical land of Bashan, was officially part of the State of Israel. The president went against decades of United Nations resolutions and official international law, not to mention the expected outrage of Syria and all the Arab/Muslim countries.

Even the great Ronald Reagan, who conservatives and Christians deeply revere, never even came close to doing something so fundamentally earthshattering.

As I discussed in my book, Understanding Israel and the Middle East, my parents were very strongly pro-Israel. They always believed that God had blessed our land because we supported Israel and the Jews, and that when we turned our back on Israel, God would turn His back on us. Very few can know or understand the depths of despair, pain, and heartache I have experienced in seeing American presidents betray the only Jewish nation in the history of the world. It is thrilling beyond words to see President Trump reverse the years of damage our previous presidents have done and restoring the pro-Israel stance our country had for so many years.

President Donald Trump has done more to help the modern State of Israel and the Jews than any other president in American history. Period.

God bless you, President Donald J. Trump. And now I can honestly say once again, may God bless America.


by Tom Luongo

During most of the RussiaGate investigation against Donald Trump I kept saying that all roads lead to Hillary Clinton.

Anyone with three working brain cells knew this, including ‘Miss’ Maddow, whose tears of disappointment are particularly delicious.

Robert Mueller’s investigation was designed from the beginning to create something out of nothing. It did this admirably.

It was so effective it paralyzed the country for more than two years, just like Europe has been held hostage by Brexit. And all of this because, in the end, the elites I call The Davos Crowd refused to accept that the people no longer believed their lies about the benefits of their neoliberal, globalist agenda.

Hillary Clinton’s ascension to the Presidency was to be their apotheosis along with the Brexit vote. These were meant to lay to rest, once and for all time, the vaguely libertarian notion that people should rule themselves and not be ruled by philosopher kings in some distant land.

Hillary’s failure was enormous. And the RussiaGate gambit to destroy Trump served a laundry list of purposes to cover it:

  1. Undermine his legitimacy before he even takes office.
  2. Accuse him of what Hillary actually did: collude with Russians and Ukrainians to effect the outcome of the election
  3. Paralyze Trump on his foreign policy desires to scale back the Empire
  4. Give aid and comfort to hurting progressives and radicalize them further undermining our political system
  5. Polarize the electorate over the false choice of Trump’s guilt.
  6. Paralyze the Dept. of Justice and Congress so that they would not uncover the massive corruption in the intelligence agencies in the U.S. and the U.K.
  7. Isolate Trump and take away every ally or potential ally he could have by turning them against him through prosecutor overreach.

Hillary should have been thrown to the wolves after she failed. When you fail the people she failed and cost them the money she cost them, you lose more than just your funding. What this tells you is that Hillary has so much dirt on everyone involved, once this thing started everyone went along with it lest she burn them down as well.


Hillary is the epitome of envy. Envy is the destructive sin of coveting someone else’s life so much they are obsessed with destroying it. It’s the sin of Cain

She envies what Trump has, the Presidency.

And she was willing to tear it down to keep him from having it no matter how much damage it would do. She’s worse than the Joker from The Dark Knight.

Because while the Joker is unfathomable to someone with a conscience there’s little stopping us from excising him from the community completely., even though Batman refuses.

Hillary hates us for who we are and what we won’t give her. And that animus drove her to blackmail the world while putting on the face of its savior.

And that’s what makes what comes next so obvious to me. RussiaGate was never a sustainable narrative. It was ludicrous from the beginning. And now that it has ended with a whimper there are a lot of angry, confused and scared people out there.

Mueller thought all he had to do was lean on corrupt people and threaten them with everything. They would turn on Trump. He would resign in disgrace from the public outcry.

It didn’t work. In the end Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen and Roger Stone all held their ground or perjured themselves into the whole thing falling apart.

Andrew Weissman’s resignation last month was your tell there was nothing. Mueller would pursue this to the limit of his personal reputation and no further.

Just like so many other politicians.


With respect to Brexit I’ve been convinced that it would come down to reputations.

Would the British MP’s vote against their own personal best interests to do the bidding of the EU?

Would Theresa May eventually realize her historical reputation would be destroyed if she caves to Brussels and betrays Brexit in the end?

Always bet on the fecklessness of politicians. They will always act selfishly when put to the test. While leading RussiaGate, Mueller was always headed here if he couldn’t get someone to betray Trump.

And now his report is in. There are no new indictments. And by doing so he is saving his reputation for the future. And that is your biggest tell that Hillary’s blackmail is now worthless.

They don’t fear her anymore because RussiaGate outed her as the architect. Anything else she has is irrelevant in the face of trying to oust a sitting president from power.

The progressives that were convinced of Trump’s treason are bereft; their false hope stripped away like standing in front of a sandblaster. They will be raw, angry and looking for blood after they get over their denial.

Everyone else who was blackmailed into going along with this lunacy will begin cutting deals to save their skins. The outrage over this will not end. Trump will be President when he stands for re-election.


The Democrats do not have a chance against him as of right now. When he was caving on everything back in December it looked like he was done. That there was enough meat on the RussiaGate bones to make Nancy Pelosi brave.

Then she backed off on impeachment talk. Oops.

But the Democrats have a sincere problem. Their candidates have no solutions other than to embrace the crazy and go full Bolshevik. That is not a winning position.

Trump will kill them on ‘socialism.’

The Deep State and The Davos Crowd stand revealed and reviled.

If they don’t do something dramatic then the anger from the rest of the country will also be palpable come election time. Justice is not done simply by saying, “No evidence of collusion.”

It’s clear that RussiaGate is a failure of monumental proportions. Heads will have to roll. But who will be willing to fall on their sword at this point?

Comey? No. McCabe? No.

There is only one answer. And Obama’s people are still in place to protect him. I said last fall that “Hillary would indict herself.” And I meant it. Eventually her blackmail and drive to burn it all down led to this moment.

The circumstances are different than I expected back then, Trump didn’t win the mid-terms. But the end result was always the same. If there is no collusion, if RussiaGate is a scam, then all roads lead back to Hillary as the sacrificial lamb.

Because the bigger project, the erection of a transnational superstate, is bigger than any one person. Hillary is expendable.Lies are expensive to maintain. The truth is cheap to defend. Think of the billions in opportunity costs associated with this. Once the costs rise above the benefits, change happens fast.

If there is any hope of salvaging the center of this country for the Democrats, the ones that voted against Hillary in 2016, then there is no reason anymore not to indict Hillary as the architect of RussiaGate.

We all know it’s the truth. So, the cheapest way out of this mess for them is to give the MAGApedes what they want, Hillary.

And hope that is enough bread and circuses to distract from the real storm ahead of us.


By Carol Rushton

On Thursday, March 14, 2019, the United States Senate joined the House Representatives in passing a resolution preventing President Donald Trump from using the National Emergencies Act to build a security wall on our southern border to stop the invasion of illegals, drugs, thugs, murderers, gang members, terrorists, and OTMs (Other Than Mexicans) crossing into our country from Mexico every day. The following day, President Trump promptly vetoed it, the first veto of his presidency.  

In order to override a president’s veto, Congress must pass the legislation again with a two-thirds majority in each house. Neither the House or the Senate has the votes to override the president’s veto.

It’s no surprise that liberal Republicans like Susan Collins (ME) and Lisa Murkowski (AK) were on board with voting against the president. They don’t like him anyway, so this was an easy vote for them. But it is somewhat disconcerting that other Republicans like Rand Paul voted for the resolution as well.

Paul, Ted Cruz, and other Republicans have expressed concern that President Trump using the National Emergencies Act to stop non-citizens from pouring into our country is a “constitutional crisis,” a violation of the separation of powers laid out in our Constitution, and therefore unconstitutional.

NPR reported Rand Paul’s statement on why he was voting for the resolution. “I can’t vote to give extra-Constitutional powers to the president . . . I can’t vote to give the president the power to spend money that hasn’t been appropriated by Congress. We may want more money for border security, but Congress didn’t authorize it. If we take away those checks and balances, it’s a dangerous thing” (Francesca Paris, March 3, 2019, “Rand Paul Says He’ll Vote Against Trump’s Border Emergency, Likely Forcing A Veto,” NPR, https://www.npr.org/2019/03/03/699835862/rand-paul-says-hell-vote-against-trump-s-border-emergency-likely-forcing-a-veto, accessed March 4, 2019).

This is the same Rand Paul who could vote for President Barack Obama’s cabinet nominees and not see any conflict with constitutional principles. “I voted for John Kerry and I agree with nothing he represents, but I voted for him because I thought there was a level of at least basic human decency and honesty that exists there . . . and that the president has the prerogative to determine political appointees . . . I see Hagel and Brennan and [Treasury nominee Jack] Lew kind of the same way. I don’t agree with much of their policies with any of them . . .They’re going to be Obama appointees” (Maggie Haberman, February 25, 2013, “Paul: I’d let Obama make his picks,” Politico, https://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/rand-paul-obama-has-prerogative-on-appointees-088071, accessed March 4, 2019).

Paul’s charge that President Trump will be using money that has not been allocated to build a border wall is false. The money has already been allocated. The president can use emergency funds that have already been allocated for the Pentagon and the Army Corps of Engineers to build the wall without the express approval of Congress (h/t Mark Levin, The Mark Levin Show, March 4, 2019, http://www.marklevinshow.com/audio-rewind/, accessed March 5, 2019).

The National Emergencies Act was passed by Congress in 1976, over forty years ago. Numerous presidents, both Democrat and Republican, have invoked this act for various reasons over the years, including George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Over 30 of these emergencies are still in force today. I don’t recall any member of Congress wringing their hands and becoming hysterical about any president invoking the National Emergencies Act until now, including Rand Paul.

Most of our representatives in Congress vote for unconstitutional bills every day, bills that clearly violate our Constitution and the separation of powers, without it ever bothering their consciences. Now  they are concerned about an unconstitutional precedent that may be set by President Trump wanting to secure our borders and protect American citizens by using a presidential power granted by Congress???

If the National Emergencies Act is truly dangerous, if it is truly extra-Constitutional or unconstitutional, then Congress needs to pass a bill revoking it so that no president, Democrat or Republican, can use it. That is where the checks and balances of our Constitution come into play. But to vote to prevent President Trump from using a presidential power that was passed by Congress over forty years ago that other presidents have used is beyond hypocritical, especially when the same congressmen and congresswomen have never expressed any concerns before about it being used.

The only reason these representatives in Congress voted for this bill is because they do not like this president. They do not want him to be successful. They do not want him to be re-elected in 2020. These include almost all the Republicans who are voting for this resolution.

It has been said that the Christian army is the only army in the world that leaves its wounded on the battlefield. The same can be said of Republicans. They would rather lose elections, claiming they are defending the Constitution, than to protect our country. What a shame. And what a tragedy for our country.


By Carol Rushton

In the 1790s and early 1800s, the United States was a very young, very small, and very weak country compared to its counterparts in Europe. Despite defeating the British military, the greatest military in the world at that time, the U.S. found itself broke and in debt. It had no army and no navy. Although the fledgling nation had just replaced the deficient Articles of Confederation with a new constitution and had elected a president and Congress – something not done in the entire history of the world up to that time. – the U. S. was in no position to defend itself in case of attack, much less challenge any other country militarily, on land or at sea.

The new country desperately needed to establish itself in the world in order to grow and prosper financially, and trading with other countries was an important way to do that. Even though American businessmen had already done a certain amount of that before the War of Independence, they needed to increase their business with other countries, and that meant sending more ships to countries across the world – to Europe, Africa, and Asia.

Besides the natural perils of sailing ships in the 18th and 19th Centuries, Americans ships faced an additional danger – being seized by Islamic nations in North Africa, more commonly referred to as the Barbary Coast.

The seizure of American ships by Muslim rulers in the Mediterranean had been going on for some years. In American history, it was mentioned as early as 1778 in the Treaty of Amity and Commerce brokered by Benjamin Franklin with France in which the new U.S. ally was supposed to employ his good Offices and Interposition with the King or Emperor of Morocco or Fez, the Regencies of Algier, Tunis and Tripoli, or with any of them, and also with every other Prince, State or Power of the Coast of Barbary in Africa, and the Subjects of the said King Emperor, States and Powers, and each of them; in order to provide as fully and efficaciously as possible for the Benefit, Conveniency and Safety of the said United States, and each of them, their Subjects, People, and Inhabitants, and their Vessels and Effects, against all Violence, Insult, Attacks, or Depredations on the Part of the said Princes and States of Barbary, or their Subjects.

Europe had experienced worse at the hand of the Barbary pirates, as they were sometimes called. For more than 100 years, Muslims had terrorized European nations, seizing men, women, and children from ships and selling them into slavery. Some even ventured to sail to England to kidnap Christians. White Gold by Giles Milton relates the harrowing tales of how some British citizens were brutally tortured to try to force them to convert to Islam. Some were beaten until they died; others were dismembered while they were still alive. Still others were shipped off to slave markets for sale. Rarely were the white slaves ever recovered. Rarer still did anyone escape and live to tell about it.

The Islamic rulers of North Africa were experts at extorting tribute from European countries so their ships would not be seized and their citizens kidnapped. These ruthless despots did not always keep their word and sometimes would break a treaty if they felt they were not paid enough, returning to their plundering ways if they felt it was more lucrative.

For some years, the United States also complied, paying annual protection money to be left alone. But of course, the Muslims did not always keep their end of the bargain. Fed up with paying bribe money and still having ships and Americans brazenly snatched, Thomas Jefferson resolved to do something about this situation when he became president.

The first Barbary War lasted four years, 1801-1805 and bought the United States a temporary respite from the Muslims pirates. But it did not last, and President James Madison had to send an American naval force in 1815 to finally end the Islamic terrorism that continued to plague American ships and citizens. In order to keep the Islamic rulers honest and prevent the U.S. having to fight any more wars with them, President Madison thought it wise to keep an American naval force in the Mediterranean to make sure no one bothered American ships in that part of the world again. Recognizing the instability in that part of the world, the U.S. has kept Navy ships in the Mediterranean continuously for 200 years.

What was the result of all this? According to The End of Barbary Terror: America’s 1815 War Against the Pirates of North Africa by Frederick C. Leiner, “The Mediterranean squadron kept watch, but the Algerines never seized an American ship or seaman again . . . The American 1815 campaign against Algiers demonstrated that the rising republic across the Atlantic was willing to act to protect its trade and people.” Leiner continues:

Having survived its second “war of independence” against Britain, [the United States] proved able to defend its far-flung interests. The interests were both mercantile and nationalist. A vague contempt for America had arisen in Europe and North Africa as a land of calculating “Jonathans,” good traders and merchants, but imbued either with Quaker principles or those of the counting house, calculating that paying tribute was cheaper than fighting. The Algerine corsairs expected to nab American merchant shipping and seamen, selling the vessels and extorting bribes to release the sailors. Algiers made fundamental miscalculations about Americans’ willingness to put aside their commercial culture and fight (Frederick C. Leiner, The End of Barbary Terror: America’s 1815 War Against the Pirates of North Africa, Oxford University Press, 2006, pgs, 173-174),

What did the United States do to provoke these attacks by Muslims in North Africa? Nothing – nothing at all. How did the United States threaten these Islamic states? The U.S. did not threaten them at all. The U.S. was too weak and too far away – thousands of miles away in fact – to threaten them. All the United States wanted to do was to peacefully trade with other countries. All the Muslims wanted to do was to steal, rob, enslave, torture, blackmail, and murder.

In the 20th and 21st Centuries, some things have changed. It doesn’t take months to reach a destination thousands of miles away in large sailing ships. It only takes a few hours by plane. In the 18th Century, the most powerful weapon a man could arm himself with was either a musket or a rifle. Today, it would only take a few hours to engulf the world in a nuclear conflagration.

But some things have not changed. The desire of some men and nations to want to attack and enslave others is still very much alive and well.

In the past, former Texas congressman Ron Paul has questioned whether the United States should fight terrorism in far-flung places of the world, thousands of miles away from our shores. Why should we have to be the world’s policeman? The people we are supposedly fighting will never come here and bother us.

The U.S. is also trillions of dollars in debt. Not only is it too expensive and we can no longer afford to do this, it is morally wrong as well. We should not be interfering in other affairs of other countries. We should close our more than 700 military bases and installations around the world and save a lot of money.

In an appearance on Face The Nation in November 2011, Ron Paul said the following:

I believe we can defend ourselves with submarines and all our troops back at home. This whole idea that we have to be in 130 countries and 900 bases . . . is an old fashioned idea. It makes no sense at all. Besides, we’re bankrupt – we can’t afford it any longer . . . Besides, those troops overseas aggravate our enemies, motivate our enemies. I think it’s a danger to our national defense. (Tim Mak, November 20, 2011, “Ron Paul: Close Foreign Military Bases,” Politico, https://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-now/2011/11/ron-paul-close-foreign-military-bases-040970, accessed February 28, 2019).

Ron Paul also said he opposed sanctions on Iran on the grounds that they were “the initial step to war.”

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, Ron Paul’s son, has been a strong supporter of President Trump’s decision to pull American troops out of the Middle East. In a 2014 interview with Reason, a libertarian organization, Senator Paul gave some interesting answers to foreign policy questions.

When asked about fighting ISIS and his strategy for winning the war against that terrorist group, Paul equated defending our interests with defending our embassies. “I see the airstrikes really as defending vital American interests and that would be our embassy in Baghdad as well as our consulate in Erbil.” Paul reiterated this view throughout the interview. While it is certainly in our interests to defend our embassies, this is not the only way of defending our interests around the world. Paul never explained his strategy for winning a war against ISIS or against terrorism.

Paul could not explain his conflicting positions about the war on terror not being over while at the same time asserting that we could not sustain perpetual war. He also concluded that while part of the reason Arabs/Muslims hate the United States is because “they have an aberrant and bizarre notion of religion that hates people” (which is correct) he also included his father’s reason that “they dislike us for our policy and our presence there” (which is not correct). (Matt Welch, October 28, 2014, “Rand Paul: Conservative Realist?”, Reason, http://reason.com/archives/2014/10/28/rand-paul-conservative-realist/, accessed on February 28, 2019).

According to the Global Research website, the United States has at least 1,000 military bases around the world (https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases-2/5564, accessed January 7, 2019). While I will admit having 1,000 or more military bases in countries other than our own seems excessive and we could probably close some of these military installations without any negative effects, we cannot close all of them. To do so would be very short-sighted.

Evil never rests. Evil never takes a holiday. Evil never takes a vacation. Evil never retreats willingly. Evil is never satisfied. Evil is insatiable, always wanting more and more and more. Evil is always on the march.

Let’s consider Communist China, for instance. China has become a major threat to the United States and the world. They are spending millions every year on their military, constantly developing and upgrading it, trying to expand their territory and ruthlessly bullying their neighbors to the extent that even Vietnam, itself a communist country, has begged the United States for protection.

If the United States closed our military base in Japan and other military installations throughout Asia and pulled our fleet from the Pacific, do you think China would dismantle its military and destroy its nuclear weapons? Would China’s Dictator Xi Jinping think, “Oh, the Americans have left, we don’t have continue to seize islands. We can reduce our military and not have to bully our neighbors anymore”? Would Chinese computer hackers paid by their government stop launching cyberattacks against us? Would China stop expanding their influence around the world?

Iran is a major state sponsor of terrorist groups throughout the world. They have made no secret of their nuclear ambitions and how they plan to use nuclear weapons to destroy Israel and the United States. How do you think Iran would react if we pulled our battleships and carriers from the Straits of Hormuz, which the Iranians control and could close at any time. Do you think the Ayatollah would stop constructing military bases in Syria and turn over the regions in Iraq they have seized and return them to the Kurds? Do you think they would tell the Houthis in Yemen to stop threatening Saudi Arabia and leave, or stop funding Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups?

The answer to all the above is: Not on your life.

I could give more examples, but I think you get the idea. Evil men will not leave us alone simply because we choose to leave them alone.

As far as saving money is concerned, I can think of a quick way to save billions. For 200 years, the United States somehow managed to survive without a Department of Energy, Department of Education, and an Environmental Protection Agency. These were all created in the 1970s. We don’t need them and can get along very well without them. I’m sure if I really thought hard about I could come up with more places to cut in the federal budget without too much trouble.

Certainly, the United States does not need to embroil itself in every conflict or war in the world, or any for that matter. But we do need to have a certain amount of military assets strategically placed around the world, not so that we can interfere in other countries and nations, not so that we can be the world’s policeman, but so that we can protect our interests in an increasingly dangerous and evil world. We had to do this in the 1800s with the Islamic nations in North Africa. It is more imperative than ever to do this today.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” This quote has been attributed to both Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. President Ronald Reagan put it another way: “Peace through strength.” Whether we like it or not, we must be pro-active in making sure evil men and the countries they rule stay as far away from our shores as possible. After all, they’re only seven thousand miles away.


By Carol Rushton

In the past month, the Democrats have started competing against one another to see who can be the most radical, leftist in the Democrat Party. When one Democrat comes up with a proposal that leaves you scratching your head and thinking, “Surely it can’t become any kookier than this,” lo and behold, another Democrat pops up with an idea that is more bizarre than the last Democrat.

I know what you are thinking. “It can’t get any worse.” Let me lay your fears to rest. Yes, it can.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez along with her sidekick Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey, well-known for his pushing the Climate Change agenda for years, made their announcement, proud that at least 60 Democrats had already signed on to their proposal. Right now all their proposals are just that: proposals wrapped up in a resolution. But Markey and Ocasio-Cortez endgame is that the resolution will eventually become individual laws that will completely restructure the United States of America as we know it.

Quartz.com gives a breakdown of just some of what these two Climate Change warriors want to accomplish in the United States during the next 10 years (you can read the entire 14-page proposal at https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729033-Green-New-Deal-FINAL). Below are just a few of the things that kooky Ocasio-Cortez and the Democrats want to do:

Use only wind and solar power for the entire energy of the United States, which would mean eliminating petroleum, natural gas, and nuclear power sources

Upgrade all buildings in the U.S. to match energy efficiency standards – Yes, even yours

Have Americans travel by bus or high-speed rail – which would mean taking cars away from almost all Americans

Included in the proposal is a guarantee of jobs, a living wage for all Americans, as well as healthcare, “affordable housing,” and food (https://qz.com/1545082/read-in-full-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal-is-here/, accessed February 11, 2019).

If this last part sounds familiar, it should – it was part of the constitution of the USSR in 1936. That worked out well, didn’t it?

AOC (Ocasio-Cortez’s new acronym) and her Green Deal supporters claim this will create new jobs and revolutionize our country for the better. Most Americans don’t realize that one country has already tried the Green New Deal and it had disastrous results.

Spain embarked on an ambitious green energy program in 2007. Spain was going to show Europe and the world how to become a prosperous country by replacing petroleum and coal energy sources with “renewables.” Spain was so energetic and so committed to their new green energy program President Barack Obama cited them in 2009 as being a “worldwide leader” in alternative energy programs (American Enterprise Institute, February 15, 2011, Kenneth Green, “The Myth of Green Energy Jobs: the European Experience, http://www.aei.org/publication/the-myth-of-green-energy-jobs-the-european-experience/, accessed February 18, 2019).

Blueandgreentomorrow.com in “Has Spain Learned Its Renewable Energy Lesson?” published on February 3, 2017 gives some interesting details about what happened in Spain after their commitment to radically change their country the same way AOC and the Democrats want to radically change ours.

According to the article, Spain “had just opened [the] world’s first commercial solar thermal polar plant opened close to Saville. And on top of that, the government was offering generous subsidies, promising above market rates for green energy producers to help ensure that more people would invest in renewables. And invest they did – there was a huge development of both wind and solar farms.”

Sounds great! So how did this work out?

The problem was that this subsidy scheme was appallingly badly structured and Spain began to have an insurmountable deficit between the amount utilities companies were paying to green energy providers, and the amount those companies were getting from their customers.

Much of this was due to the fact that the costs were not passed on to customers, so as the cost of supply went up, the prices for the energy remained very low. At its peak in 2012, Spain lost 7.3 billion euros and has reached debts of 26 billion euros . . . 2.2 jobs were lost for every job that the green energy industry created. And each green job that was created is estimated to have cost Spanish taxpayers an eye-watering $770,000 (and only one in ten of those jobs were permanent).

(https://blueandgreentomorrow.com/features/spain-learned-renewable-energy-lesson/, accessed February 18, 2019).

The American Enterprise Institute not only confirms what happened in Spain but gives even more details about the country’s green deal disaster in Kenneth Green’s, “The Myth of Green Energy Jobs: The European Experience” cited earlier in this article.

  1. Since 2000, Spain spent 571,138 euros on each green job, including subsidies of more than 1 million euros per job in the wind industry.

  2. The programs creating those jobs destroyed nearly 110,500 jobs elsewhere in the economy.

  3. The high cost of electricity mainly affects production costs and levels of employment in metallurgy, nonmetallic mining and food processing, and beverage and tobacco industries.

  4. Each “green” megawatt installed destroys 5.28 jobs elsewhere in the economy on average.

  5. These costs do not reflect Spain’s particular approach but rather the nature of schemes to promote renewable energy sources.

Spain is not the only country to have their “green dream” go bust. Germany has also had a less than positive experience with their drive to go green. Howard Green’s, “Germany’s Green Energy Disaster: A Cautionary Tale For World Leaders” published by Forbes on March 14, 2013 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/03/14/germanys-green-energy-disaster-a-cautionary-tale-for-world-leaders/#982eff754e96, accessed February 18, 2019) gives another glimpse of what is in store for the United States if the Democrats have their way.

What makes this even worse is that Germany decided to shut down all their nuclear power plants after the Fukushima nuclear power plant meltdown, expecting their green energy sector to make up the difference.

In 2000 Germany passed a major green initiative which forced providers to purchase renewable energy at exorbitant fixed prices and feed that power through their grids for a period of twenty years . . . Merkel has doubled down on Germany’s renewable energy push in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan – ramping up government’s plan to phase in renewables while taking the country’s nuclear power industry offline . . . The problem? Despite heavy government subsidization, renewable energies simply aren’t filling the void . . .

Merkel’s energy plan called for the addition of 25,000 megawatts of sea-based wind turbine power by 2030. However, through the first six months of 2012 only 45 megawatts had been added to Germany’s existing 200-megawatt supply . . . despite massive subsidies funded by a household energy surcharge (which currently comprises 14 percent of German power bills), major wind projects in the North Sea are being delayed or canceled due to skittish investors.

The basic problem? Wind farms are notoriously unreliable as a power source. Not only that, they take up vast amounts of space and kill tens of thousands of birds annually . . .

A typical 20-turbine wind farm occupies an area of 250 acres. So in order for Merkel to achieve her objective, she would have to cover an area six times the size of New York City with turbines.

The cost alone, not even considering the space it would take to build all these wind farms, in the words of the article, will be “astronomical.” In 2013, at the time this article was written, Germany’s environmental minister was quoted as saying, “The costs of our energy reform and restructuring of energy provision could amount to around one trillion euros by then end of the 2030s.”

Because Merkel is shutting down all their nuclear power plants and their green energy sources are not filling the void, Germany started to build coal plants to meet the country’s energy needs.”

Most of these facilities will burn lignite, too, which is strip-mined and emits nearly 30 percent more carbon dioxide than hard coal. In other words Germany is dirtying the planet in the name of clean energy – and sticking its citizens with an ever-escalating tab so it can subsidize an energy source which will never generate sufficient power. This is the cautionary tale of command energy economics – one other nations would be wise to heed.

The U.S. government also has flirted with the green revolution. During President Barack Obama’s tenure, our government poured millions of taxpayer dollars into “green” companies that failed. Solyndra, Evergreen Solar, SunPower, First Solar, Fisker Automotive, and SpectraWatt are just a few on the list of 34 companies that were supposed to create great new jobs for Americans but that bit the dust, leaving American taxpayers to repay the debt owed by these companies and our fiscally-irresponsible government.

Are we completely insane? Are we going to go down the same failed road as Spain and Germany, a road that has already failed in our country once, albeit on a limited scale? It is certainly telling that AOC and her colleagues have never mentioned the results that Spain, Germany, or any other country had from trying to “green” their economy.

What government created the car? The airplane? The telephone? Electricity? Microwave ovens? Dishwashers? Computers? Did the Soviet Union create all these wonders? How about Sweden? Venezuela? Libya? Iran? North Korea?

Today, we cannot imagine a world without cellphones or computers, washers and dryers, vacuum cleaners, and airplanes. All these modern innovations and more were created by individuals in a country that allowed them the freedom to pursue their own interests and take risks which in turn benefited others, not only in their own country, but the world.

Governments cannot create jobs. A government doesn’t produce goods or services; it is an ever-growing leviathan that consumes more and more of the citizens’ incomes. The larger it becomes, the more inefficient and burdensome it becomes until liberty is gone and the people are completely enslaved.

The Austrian economist Frederick von Hayek wrote in his great book, The Road to Serfdom, “The more the state ‘plans’ the more difficult planning becomes for the individual.” The Green New Deal has been proven to be a boondoggle and a disaster in Europe. It will be a disaster in the U.S. as well if AOC and the Democrats have their way.


by Paula Schnittger

The word just jumped into my mind during devotions this morning – COMPASSION.

I have been reading through the history of the beginning of an organization (called Overseas Christian Servicemen Centers – now called Cadence) that God used to bring me to Christ back in 1964 in the Philippines where my father was stationed in the military. My family were church goers, which was a constant wherever we were stationed. But, while in the Philippines, the denominational churches we had attended were no longer there. There was the chapel with the variety of chaplains that ministered but we were drawn to a home off-base that welcomed servicemen of all ages, backgrounds and status. Most were single enlisted men but there were a few families like us that came to Friday night Bible studies – Victory Hour – as it was called.

After several meetings, I came to realize that all the church attending and the many Bible stories that I knew weren’t enough to get me to heaven. On one of the retreats that we attended, I came to understand that John 3:16 was for ME – I was included in the sacrifice that the Lord Jesus made on the cross. It wasn’t just for the “terrible” sins of bank robbers and murderers – it was for ME. My father encouraged me to speak to the man who had spoken that night but as a thirteen year old I was a little shy about that. I received Christ in my closet as I changed my clothes for bed, leaving wet spots on my pajamas where the tears of joy and relief fell.

COMPASSION – all the leaders and missionaries that I met there in the Philippines could be characterized by this word. It was the characteristic of the first Christians I became associated with at as a young teenager. They genuinely loved me and wanted me to grow in the Lord. They went out of their way to help me – even starting a Bible class in the school I attended on the base so I could invite friends to hear the gospel and grow in Christ. These missionaries genuinely loved the Lord and His people. They trusted the Lord to supply their needs. They served gladly with COMPASSION.

Why does this word stand out to me? Because today we see many believers that just want their view to be accepted but they present it without COMPASSION. There are many with knowledge but without COMPASSION. It seems that points have to be made and arguments won at the expense of COMPASSION.

It is COMPASSION that opens homes, offers a listening ear, puts an arm around the hurting or takes the hand of a child. It is COMPASSION that unbelievers see in believers that draws them to Christ, the all compassionate One. It is COMPASSION that makes an officer in the army like my father open his home for enlisted men who never saw that kind of COMPASSION in others.

During my high school years, our home was made open to any who wanted to stay a weekend with us and go to church with us. Enlisted men were in awe of the tall army colonel who looked like a cross between Andy Griffith and Fess Parker and his wife. To think that he would invite enlisted men to their home! Not only were the enlisted men invited but also ROKs (Republic of Korea marines) came when they were picked up by my father. Why? Because of COMPASSION.

I am reminded that Christ had COMPASSION for the multitude that came to Him (i.e., Mt. 9:36).  Now, I can’t heal or forgive sins, but I can show COMPASSION that will draw others to know Him. May that be your quest in this uncompassionate world.


By Carol Rushton

With so much going on in our country right now, it is hard to keep up with everything. This is why you might have missed that two Muslim women elected to the House of Representatives, one in Minnesota and one in Michigan. Both are Democrats, both are unabashedly anti-Semitic Muslims, and both are very proud of it.

Rashida Tliab was elected in Michigan’s 13 congressional district, and Ilhan Omar is representing Minnesota’s heavily Jewish 5th congressional district. Yes, that’s right – a very heavily Jewish district in Minnesota. True, Tliab and Omar are not exactly household names right now, but you need to know who they are and what they believe.


In a wide-ranging interview given to In These Times in 2018, Tliab openly proclaimed herself a Democratic Socialist – which is just the new way of saying you’re a Socialist. Among advocating for universal healthcare, opposing ICE, wanting to abolish our military on the premise that the Defense Department is “a cesspool for corporations to make money,” and stating Americans were dying from famine – I’m not kidding – Tliab had no problem with revealing her hatred for Israel and her support of the BDS Movement – Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction.

The following are some of her anti-Semitic comments in the article, “Rashida Tlaib on Democrat Socialism and Why She Supports the Palestinian Right of Return” published by the In These Times website on August 14, 2018 (http://inthesetimes.com/article/21383/rashida-tlaib-democratic-socialism-palestine-israel-michigan, accessed February 11, 2019).

On accepting campaign donations from J Street, a very anti-Israel organization:

“I knew we weren’t going to agree on a number of stances. They didn’t ask me to waver once.

“Americans should not be aiding any country that doesn’t support human rights. I’ve been very clear. I will not support racist countries that pick and choose who gets access to justice. My grandmother shouldn’t be denied access or considered less human because she is Palestinian . . . Seeing the unequal treatment in Israel, in the different colored license plates for Palestinians . . . My social justice and passion for human rights was birthed in Palestine. My grandfather was shot 11 times – and he survived.

.” . . Many [Israelis] are marching, saying no to Netanyahu’s apartheid policies . . . I do not support aid to a Netanyahu Israel and I’m pro-humanity. I think that’s why J street [supported me].”

As I stated in my book, Understanding Israel and the Middle East, and in numerous articles, Israel is not guilty of apartheid. Arabs in Israel have Israeli citizenship, have the right to own and operate businesses, own property, vote, for political parties and run in general elections, serve in the Israeli military and in local police departments, and have freedom of religion, rights that Jews in hostile Arab/Muslim countries do not have. One thing that is not talked about very much is that in Israel Arabs have the freedom to sell their property to anyone – including a Jew – while the PLO, Hamas, and other groups have made selling property to a Jew a crime punishable by death.

As far as Tliab’s grandfather is concerned, she doesn’t discuss the circumstances in which he was shot 11 times. Was he standing innocently on a street corner, minding his own business when an Israeli soldier came up and shot him? Was her grandfather throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers or in the middle of committing a terrorist attack when he was shot? We don’t know because Tliab doesn’t provide any of the details, but the implication that she makes is very clear – her grandfather was shot by the Israeli military unjustly.

On the Right of Return for “Palestinians”:

“I support right of return absolutely. I have family that left [Palestine] in 1967. They left, took their keys with them. They thought they could come back, and they’ve never been back. My uncle would tear up because he couldn’t believe he couldn’t go back. He had to raise his kids in Jordan.

“You don’t have equal access. Separate but equal does not work.”

Again, Tliab doesn’t provide any details of the exact situation of her family members. Did they live in Jerusalem? In Judea and Samaria (West Bank)? Why did they leave? Why couldn’t they come back?

Notice that Tliab is not talking about 1948-1949 in which Arab leaders told Israeli Arabs to leave Israel because they would be back in a few days after they wiped the fledgling Jewish state off the earth. She says her family members left in 1967, presumably during or immediately after the Six Day War. Tliab also fails to point out the numerous Arab cities in Judea and Samaria, like Ramallah, Nablus, Qalqilya or more that her family members could have settled in without relocating all the way to Jordan.

Her last statement doesn’t make sense. Arabs have access to any place they want to go to in Israel. I have no idea what she is talking about.

On the BDS Movement:

“I’m an ACLU card member. I stand by the rights of people who support BDS. Allow the students to be a part of the movement. I am so proud of the Center for Constitutional Rights in support of student movements for BDS. If you don’t support freedom of speech, you’re in the wrong country.”

The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement is a very anti-Israel movement, especially popular on American college and university campuses. Boycott means pressuring individuals and groups, especially famous music groups, musicians, actors, and artists in any field to not perform or even visit the Jewish state. Divestment advocates individuals, companies, corporations, churches, ministries, groups, and anyone who supports Israel or has any business ties to Israel to divest themselves of their investments and/or business ties in order to hurt Israel financially. Sanctions means supporting laws, resolutions – like UN resolutions, and any other avenue to punish Israel for basically daring to have the right to exist.

You can tell where I stand on this issue.

On whether Tliab supports a two-state solution:

“One state. It has to be one state. Separate but equal does not work. I’m only 42 years old but my teachers were of that generation that marched with Martin Luther King. This whole idea of a two-state solution, it doesn’t work. Even though we continue the struggle in the United States, we have a better chance to integrate. My grandfather said, ‘I don’t understand, we were doing so good. My neighborhood, Arab-Jew. We picked olives together. Why now do they want to be over me?’ ‘You did nothing wrong,’ I told him.”

I feel the same way. Equality isn’t based on faith.

The United States is a safe haven for anyone who needs to be protected. I can see Israel moving in that direction. The only way to feel safe is when you look across the table and say they deserve to feel safe in their own country,

When Tliab talks about a one-state solution, she is advocating for an Arab state from Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea. There is no Israel, and there are no Jews. As for the rest of it, it is incoherent dribble. In Israel, Muslims are just as equally protected under the law as are the Jews and Christians in Israel who have citizenship. No one in Israel advocates Muslims who were born in Israel having to convert to Judaism to obtain Israeli citizenship.


Ilhan Omar is no better. The website for the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz revealed Omar’s support for the BDS Movement, something she successfully hid from the Jews who voted for. “Muslim Trailblazer Ilhan Omar Admits She Backs BDS – Now That Election Is Over” published on November 14, 2018 cited the website MuslimGirl as the source for Omar’s support of the BDS Movement.

MuslimGirl.com article about Omar does not give an exact date for its publication, only that it was published 3 months ago as of February 11, 2019 (http://muslimgirl.com/50283/ilhan-omar-why-advocating-for-palestine-is-not-anti-semitic/). “Ilhan Omar: Why Advocating for Palestine Is Not Anti-Semitic” by Azmia states that Omar’s campaign admitted that Omar “believes in and supports the BDS movement, and has fought to make sure people’s right to support it isn’t criminalized. She does however, have reservations on the effectiveness of the movement in accomplishing a lasting solution.” The article goes on to say:

Her campaign confirmed that Congresswoman-elect Omar voted against an anti-BDS bill in Minnesota. At the time, she spoke passionately about how BDS worked in South Africa, as told to her by her grandfather. Of her vote, Omar said, “I don’t want to be part of a vote that limits the ability of people to fight towards that justice and peace.”

Prior to the November 2018 election, Omar had participated in a primary debate at the Beit El Synagogue at which she said that the BDS Movement was “not helpful in getting that two-state solution” (November 14, 2018, “Muslim Trailblazer Ilhan Omar Admits She Backs BDS – Now That Election Is over,” Haaretz.com, https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/muslim-trailblazer-ilhan-omar-admits-she-backs-bds-1.6654634, accessed February 11, 2019).

The same Ha’aretz article reported that when Omar was confronted with these opposing statements by Lonny Goldsmith, editor of a TC Jewfolk, a Minnesota Jewish News organization, Omar responded:

“My position has always been the same. I believe and support the BDS movement, and have fought to make sure people’s right to support it isn’t criminalized, re: my vote against the Anti-BDS bill. I do however, have reservations on effectiveness of the movement in accomplishing a lasting solution. Which is what I believe I said at the forum.”

The MuslimGirl website also published some of Omar’s previous tweets about Israel, which everyone should find very interesting. This is one of her tweets from November 16, 2012. “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doing of Israel. #Gaza # Palestine #Israel”

And then there is this little gem from May 31, 2018, responding to someone who called her a Jew hater. “Drawing attention to the apartheid Israeli regime is far from hating Jews. You are a hateful sad man, I pray to Allah you get the help you need and find happiness.”

The reaction of Omar’s new Jewish constituents in Minnesota has been mixed. Some have called her comments “troubling” while others have supported her. I lived in Minnesota for 6 years between 1985 and 1991 and found it very, very liberal politically. It has only become even more liberal since that time. Because of this, I confidently predict no matter what she says or does, Omar will be reelected in 2020 by her Jewish constituents.

I wish I could say that the elections of such openly, radical anti-Semites as Tliab and Omar were anomalies. But judging from the elections of other far-left radicals such as Alexandria Ocasia-Cortez in 2018, every pro-Israel American should be very concerned about the future of the United States and its support of Israel.


by David Schnittger

My first 15 years of formal education was in the public school.  I attended public school during my elementary and secondary years.  I also attended a public college for my first two years of advanced education.  I have many happy memories of my years in public school and had many fine teachers during those years, which stretched from 1957-1972.  However, things have changed dramatically since then.  How do I know?  During two periods of time in recent years, I had occasion to serve as a substitute in public schools, from Pre-K thru the 12th grade.  It has been my general impression from those experiences that there has been a radical increase in the regimentation of “acceptable views” allowed in the public school.  I would characterize that regimentation in terms of “atheistic,” “statist” and “socialistic.”  I believe that this regimentation could be considered “domestic terrorism.”  Let me give an example.

On one occasion, while substituting in the Prince William, Virginia public schools, I substituted in a kindergarten class.  It was the first day of the winter-spring semester.  As such, the new kindergarten students attended an opening assembly with the Vice-Principal of the school.  The Vice-Principal was a middle age lady who seemed to have a pleasant disposition.  She smilingly warned the new students that they did not want to receive a particular “piece of paper.”   She calmly explained that this piece of paper (apparently for some unexplained misbehavior) would result in the student being expelled from school.  This expulsion would require their parents to “miss work” (on the obvious assumption that both parents work outside the home).  This absence from work would result in the parents being “fired from their jobs,” and that, consequently, the kindergarten student would “starve to death.”

At no time did this smiling administrator give any hint as to the nature of the offense that would result in the life-ending piece of paper being given to the recalcitrant five year old.  However, the nature of this unnamed capital offense was so grave that she warned repeatedly that, at all cost, the student did not want to receive this piece of paper.  With this murderous threat smilingly delivered she welcomed the new students (to the gulag) and dismissed them back to class.  I repeat: “Public education is domestic terrorism.”