By: Dr. Ashraf Ramelah | Voice of the Copts

The three-day Conference on Human Fraternity was an event recently held on February 3 in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, where seven hundred religious leaders from around the world gathered to hear the speeches of Pope Francis and Grand Imam Al Tayeb. Two of the world’s three leaders of the Abrahamic faiths gave speeches and signed the newly created Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together. 

Historically, there has been no relationship between the Vatican, head of the Catholic Christians, and the Al-Ahzar Institute, head of the Sunni Muslims. However, prior to this month’s historic declaration, two visits were made between them within months of each other in 2018 — one at the Vatican in Rome and one at the Institute in Cairo – for undeclared reasons. Their meetings paved the way to this conference.

Emphasizing the importance of the role of religions in the construction of world peace, the Document on Human Fraternity states that it upholds the protection of places of worship – synagogues, mosques, and churches. Although the latter two were represented on the platform, there was no Jewish representative present to speak or sign the document. Due to the apparent significance of this conference and document, the absence of the Jewish faith from the stage is an enigma.

The “Apostolic Journey” of Pope Francis

No pope has ever before walked on the soil of a country located in the Arabian Peninsula in spite of the fact that the first Catholic Church was established in the United Arab Emirates in 1965. The UAE is an Islamic country unique in the matter of freedom of religion. It respects and enforces religious tolerance. There are 76 temples and churches where followers practice freely without any interference. The UAE demonstrates to the world that civil law can usurp religious law in an Islamic country if it is the will of the state.

In general, the UAE abides by the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights with Article 32 of the country’s constitution providing “the liberty to perform religious services in accordance with established local customs.” Pope Francis intended his visit to this Islamic nation to be “a cornerstone for a new chapter in the history of relations between the two religions.” The goal of his visit would be to close the gap between Catholics and Muslims – meaning all of Christianity.  

The Pope Speaks

In his speech, the pope invited Muslims and Christians to enter the virtual Ark of Brotherhood to be protected from the mighty waves of today’s violence. Emphasizing the need for peace, the pope stressed the need for unity with Muslims. However, in the subsequent speech made by the grand imam, it was not at all evident that the head of the largest sect of Muslims around the world is interested in reforms to the doctrine connected to the lethal violence issuing from Islam on the world stage in order to bring about peace. 

To this, we must ask how the pope plans to protect the sheep from the wolves inside the fraternity ark. It is certainly foolish to invite into an alliance for peace those whose roots of violence remain unexamined and unrebuked.

The Document on Human Fraternity for which the pope used the metaphor of the Ark of Brotherhood casts a wide net for one humanity of believers to unite and work together to advance a culture of mutual respect “in the awareness of the great divine grace that makes all human beings brothers and sisters.”

However, Christians consider only those within the body of Christ to be brothers and sisters, and, therefore, this represents heresy. 

Pope Francis ignores the validity of certain Koranic verses that justify hatred and violence. In his speech, he warns that “there is no religious justification for any kind of violence: hate, blind extremism, killing, oppression or acts of terrorism,” and yet we know there is for Muslims.

The pope cautions against profaning God by using His name to commit acts of hate against another human or kill another brother, and we know that such glorifies the god of Islam. Unfortunately, the pope does not seem to mind if his message is received and considered before seeking the imam’s signature to bind with him in brotherhood. 

For Christians, the idea behind this lofty Document on Human Fraternity is quite a stretch because any Christian serving the God of the Most High knows well that Muslims serve another god and that brotherhood is not possible in a spiritual or moral sense. The Ark of Brotherhood, therefore, is an absurd illusion.

In order to achieve it, the pope pitches the banner of Humanism to his audience of religious leaders, the umbrella under which we all reside according to him (“God is the origin of the human family” and “sons of the same humanity”) to sell his grand scheme of “harmonious co-existence.” 

The Grand Imam Speaks

For his part, the Grand Imam Al-Tayeb fashioned his words to agree with the importance of the fraternity document as an important call for a culture of peace and respect. At the same time, the tone of his voice and chosen language echoed an Islamic Calipha addressing his warriors – arrogant and supreme.

As head of Sunni Muslim clerics and believers around the world, the grand imam saw fit to implicate forces outside his control and lay blame on lack of world intervention for violence and war, presumably alluding to Islamic forces in Syria and Iraq conflicts. He noted the expansion of Arab-Muslim terrorism in the West for the past four decades. In this opportune moment, the imam could have taken responsibility — using his powerful position — to promise to curtail future terrorism by treating its source through reforming interpretations of Koranic verses.

He directed blame at Western media for labeling Islamic terrorism “Muslim terror” and not “criminal,” denying a truth he could be admitting and addressing; instead, he chose a cover-up.  

Fighting for Islam’s superiority from the fraternity podium, Al-Tayeb highlighted the necessity of Islamic religious roles in the political and civil daily life of people in the West in order to improve morality and bad behavior and urged Muslims living in the West to legally counter any local laws contradicting Islamic Sharia. This outrageous declaration alone should have halted the signing of the fraternity document.

With this, the entire pageantry must be called into question by those of us watching. Are we seeing a struggle between the two religious leaders where the grand imam is expected to submit to the pope, or rather a staging by the two leaders to bring about a mutually agreed upon end? Either way, the worldwide interfaith movement — intending to join all religions together as one under the universal banner of Humanism — is bolstered by it.

This Ark of Brotherhood will not be a boat most of us will want to jump in no matter how turbulent the seas. Christian doctrine forbids Christians to yoke together with enemies of Christianity. The Document on Human Fraternity and the interfaith initiative it serves requires the risk of being in one boat with those intolerant of other faiths and opposed to Western freedoms. A greater enemy thereby emerges requiring nothing short of our political and spiritual demise. 

By: Lloyd Marcus

Watching this portion of president Trump’s State of the Union speech, I thought, “This destroys Democrats’, Hollywood and fake news media’s lie that says Trump is racist.” And yet, I knew these leftists would continue their evil divisive Trump-is-racist deception.

With the TV cameras on Alice Johnson, a tearful black woman, Trump said he was deeply moved by her story. In 1997, Alice was sentenced to life in prison as a first time nonviolent drug offender. Over the next 22 years, Alice became a prison minister. She greatly impacted many lives in prison and beyond; inspiring others to make better choices.

Trump said, 

“Alice’s story underscores the disparity and unfairness that can exist in criminal sentencing and the need to remedy this total injustice.” “In June, I commuted Alice’s sentence. When I saw Alice’s beautiful family greet her at the prison gate hugging and kissing, crying and laughing, I knew I did something right.” 

Continue reading →

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Of particular note is during the peaceful transfer of power from Obama to Trump, Obama told Trump the number one threat to the United States and her interests is North Korea. Notice that Obama never made any declaration regarding North Korea. Notice too that under Obama, the Sinaola Cartel, the narco-terror organization that killed thousands in Mexico and many in the United States, was not part of any declaration. But… Obama did declare a national emergency due to the socialist revolution in Venezuela and hence that has caused 3 million Venezuelans to flee.

Oh yeah… nothing from Obama either regarding the Islamic State and Syria or Iraq… or Russia considering Moscow’s intrusion into our 2016 election systems.

***

According to the Federal Register, 58 national emergencies have been declared since the National Emergency Act of 1976 was signed into law by President Gerald Ford.

And 31 have been annually renewed and are currently still in effect, as listed in the Federal Register.

Here’s a list of the presidents who declared still ongoing national emergencies.

President Jimmy Carter

Nov 14, 1979: The National Emergency With Respect to Iran, in response to the Iran hostage crisis.

President Bill Clinton

Nov 14, 1994: The National Emergency With Respect to the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, that combined two previous national emergencies focused on weapons of mass destruction.

Jan. 2, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process placed economic sanctions in response to the Jerusalem bombing.

March 15, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources was an effort to prevent potential deals between oil companies.

October 21, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers Centered in Colombia was declared after increased reports of drug cartels laundering money through American companies.

March 1, 1996: The National Emergency With Respect to Regulations of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba was after civilian planes were shot down near Cuba

November 3, 1997: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan implemented economic and trade sanctions.

President George W. Bush

June 26, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans imposed sanctions on those aiding Albanian insurgents in Macedonia

Aug 17, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Export Control Regulations renewed presidential power to control exports in a national emergency since the Export Administration Act of 1979 lapsed.

Sept 14, 2001: The National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks was in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

Sept 23, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism was in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

March 6, 2003: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe was an effort to punish associates of Robert Mugabe.

May 22, 2003: The National Emergency With Respect to Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq has an Interest was issued following the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

May 11, 2004: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria was in response to Syria supporting terrorist activity in Iraq.

June 16, 2006: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus was in response to charges of fraud in the Belarus presidential election.

Oct 27, 2006: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was in response to violence around the Congolese presidential election runoff.

Aug 1, 2007: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon was in response to a breakdown of the rule of law in Lebanon.

June 26, 2008: The National Emergency With Respect to Continuing Certain Restrictions with Respect to North Korea cited the risk of proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material. President Trump renewed this June 22, 2018 citing the “existence and risk of proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material on the Korean Peninsula and the actions and policies of the Government of North Korea continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat.”

President Barack Obama

April 12, 2010: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia was in respect to threats posed by Somali pirates.

February 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya froze the assets of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

July 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Transnational Criminals was in response to the rise in crime by specific organizations: Los Zetas (Mexico), The Brothers’ Circle (former Soviet Union countries), the Yakuza (Japan), and the Camorra (Italy).

May 16, 2012: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen addressed political unrest within the Yemen government.

March 16, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine was in response to the Russian invasion of Crimea.

April 3, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan was in response to the ongoing civil war.

May 12, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic was in response to violence towards humanitarian aid workers.

March 8, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela was in response to human rights violations.

April 1, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities was in response to Chinese cyber attacks on the U.S.

Nov 23, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi was declared after a failed coup.

President Donald Trump

Dec 20, 2017: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption imposed sanctions on the Myanmar general for his role persecuting Rohingya Muslims.

Sept 12, 2018: The National Emergency With Respect to Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election attempted to prevent any meddling with the 2018 midterm elections amid the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Nov 27, 2018: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua was declared by President Trump in response to violence and the Ortega regime’s “systematic dismantling and undermining of democratic institutions and the rule of law” that constitutes an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”

By: Trevor Loudon | The Epoch Times

There is no issue that will more decisively spell the end of American liberty than that of amnesty for this country’s millions of illegal aliens.

Illegal immigration and the societal changes it will bring with it are more than an economic issue, a public health issue, a law enforcement issue, or even a national security problem — it is an existential threat to the survival of the United States as a constitutional republic.

It comes down to simple math.

For years, the generally accepted estimate of illegal aliens living in the United States has been around 11 million.

A study released by MIT’s Mohammad Fazel-Zarandi, a senior lecturer in the operations research and statistics group, and his colleagues, Edward Kaplan and Jonathan Feinstein, both from Yale School of Management, in September 2018 gave cause to re-visit that figure.

According to MIT’s Sloan School: “The research found that the number of undocumented immigrants living in the country is about 22.1 million, nearly twice the most prominent current estimate of 11.3 million. Even using extremely conservative parameters, the study estimates a population of 16.7 million undocumented immigrants, nearly 50 percent higher than the widely accepted population figure.”

If given citizenship and voting rights (which Hillary Clinton promised to initiate within a hundred days of taking office), 11 to 22 million eventual new voters will have a huge impact on future U.S. elections.

This fact is not lost on the left-wing activists in the United States, who seek to use the illegal alien population to secure a “permanent progressive majority” for the Democratic Party and their allies.

More Voters

Communist Party USA (CPUSA) leader Emile Schepers wrote a paper on immigration amnesty for the party’s 2014 national Convention in Chicago.

“For decades, the CPUSA has been involved in the struggle for the rights of immigrant workers and their families. … A central focus has been gaining legal rights for the 11 million undocumented,” Schepers wrote.

“We call for progressive legislation which legalizes as many people as possible as quickly as possible. … We are for ease of access to U.S. citizenship.”

Former Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez was — for more than 20 years — the main champion of illegal alien amnesty in the House of Representatives. He is a former leader of the Marxist–Leninist Puerto Rican Socialist Party (PRSP) and an ally of both the United States’ largest Marxist organization — the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) — and the pro-China League of Revolutionary Struggle (LRS).

In July 2015, Rep. Gutierrez addressed the House of Representatives on the power of the Latino vote and the political left.

“If millions of people naturalize, become citizens, and if we add to that the million Latino citizens who this year will turn 18, plus all our allies in the African-American community, LGBT voters and younger voters, environmental voters, women voters, Asian voters, union voters … constitute a majority of Americans. Together, we are the New American Coalition that will dominate politics for decades to come.”

Gutierrez’s good friend, former SEIU International Executive Vice President Eliseo Medina, is the undisputed leader of the “amnesty” movement in this country. Medina is a long-time member of the DSA, a CPUSA ally, and was an informal adviser to former President Barack Obama on immigration and amnesty issues.

At the America’s Future Now! conference in Washington, D.C. on June 2, 2009, Medina addressed “progressive” attendees on the need for urgent illegal alien amnesty.

Speaking of Latino voters, Medina said: “When they [Latinos] voted in November, they voted overwhelmingly for progressive candidates. Barack Obama got two out of every three voters that showed up. …

“If we are to expand this electorate to win, the progressive community needs to solidly be on the side of immigrants. That we’ll solidify and expand the progressive coalition for the future. …

“[If] we reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters. Can you imagine if we have, even the same ratio, two out of three?

“If we have 8 million new voters who care about …. and will be voting. We will be creating a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle.”

Medina exhibits no compassion for the plight of illegal aliens or sympathy for families being torn asunder. Medina does not speak of a “nation of immigrants” or the “American Dream.”

This is all about hard numbers and raw power.

It’s very clear that the left wants illegal immigrant amnesty for one reason only — votes.

One-Party State

The 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney lost his election by around 2.5 million votes. President Donald Trump actually lost the popular vote by around 3 million ballots. He won by about 200,000 votes through the Electoral College. Thank God for the wisdom of the Founding Fathers who gave America a system to temper the dangers of raw “majority rule” and political dominance by large population centers and ethnic or religious blocs.

Many states with high illegal alien populations, such as Arizona, Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina are only marginally inside the Republican camp. Illegal alien amnesty would almost certainly send those states permanently “blue.” Virginia — once “red” — would also be lost for the Republicans. Even Republican-stronghold Texas is very vulnerable. Losing only one or two of these states would doom the Republican Party to minority party status, and eventual oblivion.

How can the Republicans hope to counter 10 to 20 million new Democrat voters, possibly as soon as the 2022 election cycle?

Today’s Democratic Party is no longer the party of Harry Truman or John F. Kennedy. It is now a party of the far-left. At least 30 percent of the current Democratic senators and Congress members have ties to the CPUSA, DSA, Freedom Road Socialist Organization, Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, or other revolutionary organizations. Many Congress members also have ties to China, Iran, Venezuela, and especially Cuba.

Illegal alien amnesty would give the Democrats permanent control of the United States. This means a “one-party state” soon to be dominated by the far-left. Think California nationwide, with no hope of a turnaround.

No political party should ever be given permanent unchallenged power.

As British history statesman Lord Acton famously said: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” “Amnesty” would give the far-left in the United States the absolute power they have so long craved.

Illegal alien amnesty is the left’s road to the American “one-party state.” For the sake of our children and grand-children, for the sake of the remaining free world, this cannot be allowed to happen. It must be fought with every fiber of our being by those who love liberty.

America, you must say no to amnesty.

Trevor Loudon is an author, filmmaker and public speaker from New Zealand. For more than 30 years, he has researched radical left, Marxist and terrorist movements and their covert influence on mainstream politics.