Arizona Colorado Hawaii New Mexico Oregon Home For USA Veterans Culture Index Notes About POLICE FACTOR
BLM10 ACT For America Letters
IN THE BLM SECTION   -BLM1 Refutation     -BLM2 What is wrong with Black Lives Matter      -BLM7 Resources     -BLM4 Old Black Panthers movement     -BLM5  How to counter the BLM/anti-American Info Wars     BLM6 Portland, Oregon Riots 2020    -BLM3 Riots Across Nation-BLM     -BLM8 Black-Centric Media                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                -BLM9 Starkes Material on BLM   -BLM10 ACT Letters (here) BLM11  Resources on Islamic Extremism, etc.     Marxist leaders in American government BLM12 Likely Marxists in American government Map of BLM Protests 2020     Jews/Israelis -Warning about their possible biases in news articles   2020/09/21 An Argument for Filling Ginsburg’s Seat Immediately By Frank Salvato In the aftermath of the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, tensions on both sides of the aisle are high. With a hotly contested General Election just weeks away, some in the pundit/activist spheres, conditioned by the acceptance of civil unrest in our urban areas, are calling for acts of violence should President Trump nominate his pick to fill the vacancy on the bench. The problem with this, besides the obvious, is that Mr. Trump has no choice but to deliver his nomination to the Senate for confirmation unless he is to be irresponsible to the nation’s needs and the Constitution’s mandates. In an array of tweets, several self-important personalities issued violent threats against the country should the President and the Senate actually do their constitutional duties:   “If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f-----g thing down” and “Over our dead bodies. Literally,” tweeted Reza Aslan, an Iranian-born CNN host, born-again Islamist, and author.   “F--k no. Burn it all down,” tweeted Aaron Gouveia, author of Raising Boys To Be Good Men: A Parent's Guide to Bringing Up Happy Sons in a World Filled with Toxic Masculinity and Father who defended his 5-year old son’s right to wear fingernail polish.   “We’re shutting this country down if Trump and McConnell try to ram through an appointment before the election,” tweeted Beau Willimon, a former aid to John Dean’s failed Senate bid and screenwriter who pilfered the idea for House of Cards from the British version.   “Burn Congress down before letting Trump try to appoint anyone to SCOTUS,” tweeted Emmett Macfarlane, a Canadian professor at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada.   If you are disturbed by the level of hatred, aggression, and complete disregard to the rule of law and the US Constitution then you haven’t been paying attention to what has been going on in the whole of America’s urban centers for the past six months. But what both the foreign nationals and the US citizens noted above do not understand, for their constitutional illiteracy, is that there are two pressing reasons why Justice Ginsburg’s seat needs to be filled before the November election. First and foremost, the country needs a full compliment on the US Supreme Court should there be any contest to the election results this November the likes of Bush v. Gore in 2000. A deadlocked 4-to-4 decision regarding the election of a president would send a fireball of violence into the streets of our nation, not to mention dismantle continuity of government. With our nation as divided as it is, we would almost assuredly devolve into a Second US Civil War. But more important is that the President and the US Senate are mandated by the US Constitution to execute the workings of government. The moment a vacancy is created it is mandated that the process of filling that vacancy begin. The bad precedent that politicians have set in elongating this process is just that: bad precedent. Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution states, in part:   “[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law...”   As you can see, nowhere in this Article, or anywhere else in the US Constitution, does it call for a period of mourning, an exception in an election year, or a hiatus due to an impending election. The US Constitution simple vests the authority and mandates its execution. Just as when the vice president is immediately sworn in as president when a president is tragically taken from us, so too is it necessary to immediately begin the process of filling vacancies in every other constitutional branch of office and especially in the face of a critical national election. The execution of these constitutional duties is not a sign of disrespect for the recently passed, it's a mandated exercise in continuity of government, and that is government's obligation to its people. Politicians would love to drag out the filling of Justice Ginsburg's seat on the bench for political reasons; to suit their political agendas. Activists, Marxists revolutionaries, and ideologues would relish the elongation of the process in hopes that Mr. Trump loses his re-election bid so that Biden (or Harris) might nominate someone approved by the group-think, oligarchic elite of the Marxist-Progressive Left, the cabal that controls all things Democrat. But politics is not government. Let me say that again. Politics is not government. We all have gotten so used to mistaking political acts for acts of government that we have become accepting of the falsehood that the political parties have any legitimacy in the execution of government. We have been duped into believing that politics is government, but politics is not -- and never should have been -- a component of government. The shrieks of the political class who threaten retribution are the sounds of ideologues threatening the US Constitution. Politics and political operatives hold no sway over the mandates of the US Constitution. And while the Sen. Schumers and Speaker Pelosis of the Left talk about a period of mourning, that mourning must happen simultaneously with the execution of government, which means the seating of a ninth US Supreme Court justice prior to a national election. President Washington warned us in his farewell address that politics would be the ruin of the Republic. So far, his warning has been both spot on and ignored. Where some would say the enemy is inside the gates, I put it to you that the enemy is, in fact, elected to office. 2020/09/18 Sabra v. Maricopa County Comm. College Dist. Excerpt from letter A WIN directly below: The fact that CAIR is taken seriously as a Muslim "human rights " or "civil rights" group by such media outlets as the New York Times and the Washington Post as well as the ACLU and many Democratic lawmakers is a slap in the face to authentic human rights groups. CAIR was created in 1994 to be a part of a Muslim Brotherhood-run Hamas support network, and it was named an un-indicted co-conspirator in the Hamas money laundering trials of the top officials of the Holy Land Foundation. It has a long record of supporting and rationalizing Islamic terrorism as well as making anti-Semitic comments. A WIN FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH AGAINST ISLAMIC “CANCEL CULTURE” by Steven Emerson IPT News Long before the term "cancel culture" was ever coined, Islamist groups in the United States and elsewhere in the West had embarked on a massive campaign to suppress freedom of speech on campus, in the media, in Hollywood, and in the book publishing industry by claiming that any mention of the term radical Islam or any of its evil concepts was a "racist slur" against the Islamic religion. But something happened to the successful campaign of intimidation by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). A federal judge last month dismissed CAIR's latest attempt to censor discussion of links between Islamic doctrine and terrorism at Arizona's Scottsdale Community College (SCC). As we reported in June, the lawsuit sought "an injunction against the Maricopa Community College District, which SCC is part of, and Professor Nicholas Damask to block use of course materials deemed to 'have the primary effect of disapproving of Islam.'" Even if this were an accurate summary of Professor Damask's course materials, which it was not, it is not illegal in the United States to disapprove of Islam or any other religion. Yet SCC student Mohamed Sabra took exception to these three questions on one of Damask's exams, and CAIR wanted to block the use of such material. The offending questions and answers were: Q. Who do terrorists strive to emulate? A. Mohammed Q. Where is terrorism encouraged in Islamic doctrine and law? A. The Medina verses [i.e., the portion of the Qur'an traditionally understood as having been revealed later in Muhammad's prophetic career] Q. Terrorism is _______ in Islam. A. justified within the context of jihad. Sabra's lawsuit asserted that "the only objectively reasonable construction of Damask's actions is that his primary message is the disapproval of Islam. Damask's module quiz forced Sabra to agree to his radical interpretation of Islam. When Sabra did not, he was penalized by getting the questions wrong and impacted his grade." These questions and answers cannot reasonably be construed as denigrating Islam, as the fact that Islamic terrorists refer to their understanding of Islamic teachings to justify their particular actions is widely known, and nowhere does Damask assert that this is the only possible understanding of Islamic teachings, or that all Muslims believe the same things. The lawsuit was an attempt to stigmatize any discussion of how terrorists use Islamic texts, and to foreclose upon any possibility of understanding their perspectives, motives and goals. Defining Jihad The lawsuit also took issue with Damask's use of terrorism and Middle East expert Walid Phares's book, Future Jihad. Phares, according to the lawsuit, is an "Islamophobe" and should not be taught. "Within this mandatory reading assignment," the lawsuit states, "Phares explains that jihad is not a 'spiritual phenomenon that would be and was abused by extremist ideologies,' but rather a call for physical action. Damask failed to articulate that other more acceptable, and in fact 'mainstream' views of jihad have nothing to do with violence, but instead he improperly urged students to accept his personal opinions." Phares, however, pointed out that "the [Muslim] Brotherhood scholars read terrorism differently than the U.S. The Brotherhood and CAIR [are] trying to impose a vision of their own on all Muslims in America." In fact, numerous Islamist scholars and leaders, including Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al Banna, Osama bin Laden mentor Abdallah Azzam, and 13th century scholar Ibn Taymiyya have insisted that there is only one meaning to jihad – "fighting" to impose Islam. According to al Banna: "In [Muslim] Tradition, there is a clear indication of the obligation to fight the People of the Book [that is, Jews and Christians], and of the fact that God doubles the reward of those who fight them. Jihad is not against polytheists alone, but against all who do not embrace Islam." "It has become an individual obligation, which there is no evading, on every Muslim to prepare his equipment, to make up his mind to engage in jihad, and to get ready for it until the opportunity is ripe and God decrees a matter which is sure to be accomplished." Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328) directed that "since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God's entirely and God's word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought." During a visit to Brooklyn in the late 1980s, the leader and founder of the Afghan Jihad Abdallah Azzam stated, "The word jihad has a special meaning, every time it is mentioned in the Quran and Sunna. That meaning is fighting." CAIR's lawsuit failed. On Aug. 18, UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh broke the news about U.S. District Court Judge Susan M. Brnovich's ruling, which Volokh hailed as "an important victory for academic freedom; professors, including those at public colleges, have to be able to speak freely about religious belief systems (whether Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or anything else), no less than other belief systems." The College Fix, which had provided excellent coverage of the entire controversy from the beginning, reported that Brnovich "used the Lemon test to determine the course did not violate First Amendment provisions on free exercise or the establishment of religion. The test states that government actions toward religion are only lawful if they have a secular purpose, do not advance or inhibit a religion, and do not become excessively entangled with religion in any way." In her ruling, Brnovich observed that "this case tests the limits of the First Amendment's Religion Clauses." It is hard to understand CAIR's claim that this course had anything to do with the First Amendment at all: that amendment does not specify the content of any religious belief. But CAIR and Sabra claimed that Damask's course crossed a Constitutional line by saying that Islam "'mandates' terrorism and the killing of non-Muslims." Because of that, Sabra claimed that Damask's course forced him to choose between giving the answer Damask considered correct, and thereby denouncing his own religion, or getting a lower grade. No Coercion But Brnovich found that Sabra only had to "demonstrate an understanding of the material taught." She said that it was "simply not correct" that Sabra would have gotten a lower grade for affirming his Islamic faith. Neither was Sabra required to agree with the authors whom Damask cited. All Sabra had to do, Brnovich wrote, was "demonstrate an understanding of the material taught." The judge also concluded that Damask's course didn't prevent Sabra from exercising his religion. All it did was expose Sabra to "attitudes and outlooks at odds" with his own understanding of Islam. That is not a violation of the First Amendment. Brnovich also pointed out that CAIR and Sabra had misstated the function of Phares's work in Damask's course. CAIR and Sabra had claimed that students were forced to adopt Phares's view of Islam. But the work "merely asks students to identify the opinion of Walid Phares regarding Islam," Brnovich found, "not to adopt his position on Islam." This case marks the latest in a long line of CAIR efforts to remove material it considers derogatory against Islam. It entered into a formal partnership in 2010 with the 57-nation global Organization of Islamic Cooperation's (OIC) Islamic Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO) to "redress the image of Islam and Muslims in textbooks." Like CAIR, the OIC condemns connecting Islamic doctrine and terrorism in the minds of Westerners, claiming that such a connection is "unfair" and that it has "created an unfair misinterpretation of the Islamic message in the Western and Non Muslim worlds." "Education and engagement are key to challenging the growing phenomenon of Islamophobia," CAIR co-founder and Executive Director Nihad Awad said at the 2010 OIC conference. The SCC lawsuit, however, demonstrates the baseless foundations of these Islamophobia claims: apparently Awad and his cohorts see any material they find objectionable as "Islamophobic" and demand their removal from curricula. The fact that CAIR is taken seriously as a Muslim "human rights " or "civil rights" group by such media outlets as the New York Times and the Washington Post as well as the ACLU and many Democratic lawmakers is a slap in the face to authentic human rights groups. CAIR was created in 1994 to be a part of a Muslim Brotherhood-run Hamas support network, and it was named an un-indicted co-conspirator in the Hamas money laundering trials of the top officials of the Holy Land Foundation. It has a long record of supporting and rationalizing Islamic terrorism as well as making anti-Semitic comments. Those who value academic freedom can only hope that Brnovich's ruling in Sabra v. Maricopa County Comm. College Dist. becomes an important and oft-cited precedent. -------------- TELL CONGRESS DO NOT SUPPORT MAIL-IN VOTING Note From PF:  Police Factor does not necessarily endorse ACT For America (a few small donations to say thank you for the information they have sent) - keep your objectivity.  They have sent information which seems informative, timely and there have been times they sent material that would have gone missing or been delayed without them. This is what they say about themselves:  ACT For America is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We do not receive any government funding or grants so that we are not muzzled from speaking the truth. We rely on the generosity of patriots who believe in the importance of our work so we can continue exposing America's enemies foreign or domestic and mobilizing Americans to stand up and defend freedom. We would be so grateful for your support. ---------------- DEFEND THE POLICE, DON’T DEFUND THEM! What happened to George Floyd is horrible and should have never happened. The 4 police officers on the scene should be brought to justice and punished accordingly to the law -- no exceptions. However, the recent calls from the left to DEFUND the police would throw our country into chaos! We should absolutely be looking at policies that can be enacted to prevent any form of police brutality against anyone, but defunding the people who are the first and last line of defense is not the solution. The radical Left is turning our communities and cities into smoke, ashes and rubble. We need law and order now more than ever and our police need the support of the American people to keep our communities safe. To send an email to your local elected officials, letting them know you DO NOT support defunding the police, fill out the required fields below and click continue. -------------- [Note From PF:  Police Factor agrees with Act for America and others:  Mail-In Voting is indeed a security risk.  We cannot trust the federal posting system in current times.  It has been largely compromised.] Due to the CoronaVirus pandemic sweeping the globe, Members of Congress have been clamoring for Mail-In-Voting policies this November 2020. In order to protect the integrity of our elections, the United States cannot have national Mail-In-Voting -- it's a recipe for ballot harvesting and voter fraud! It's our job as active and engaged American citizens to let our elected officials know we DO NOT support the idea of national mail-in voting. If we can practice social distancing at the grocery store, we can practice social distancing at the polls. ---------------------------------- AGENDA OF BLACK LIVES MATTER IS FAR DIFFERENT FROM SLOGAN 2020/09/14-15 email sent from ACT: The Agenda of Black Lives Matter Is Far Different From the Slogan Commentary by Mike Gonzalez and Andrew Olivastro The Heritage Foundation Many see the slogan Black Lives Matter as a plea to secure the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans, especially historically wronged African Americans. They add the BLM hashtag to their social-media profiles, carry BLM signs at protests, and make financial donations. Tragically, when they do donate, they are likely to bankroll a number of radical organizations, founded by committed Marxists whose goals aren’t to make the American Dream a reality for everyone—but to transform America completely. This might be unknown to some of the world’s best-known companies, which have jumped on the BLM bandwagon. Brands like Airbnb and Spanx have promised direct donations. True, others like Nike and Netflix have shrewdly channeled their donations elsewhere, like the NAACP and other organizations that have led the struggle for civil rights for decades. These companies are likely aware of BLM’s ­extreme agenda and recoil from bankrolling destructive ideas. But it requires sleuthing to learn this. Companies that don’t do this hard work are providing air cover for a destructive movement and compelling their employees, shareowners and customers to endorse the same. Just ask BLM leaders Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi. In a revealing 2015 interview, Cullors said, “Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists.” That same year, Tometi was hobnobbing with Venezuela’s Marxist dictator Nicolás Maduro, of whose regime she wrote: “In these last 17 years, we have witnessed the Bolivarian Revolution champion participatory democracy and construct a fair, transparent election system recognized as among the best in the world.” Millions of Venezuelans suffering under Maduro’s murderous misrule presumably couldn’t be reached for comment. Visit the Black Lives Matter website, and the first frame you get is a large crowd with fists raised and the slogan “Now We Transform.” Read the list of demands, and you get a sense of how deep a transformation they seek. One proclaims: “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear-family-structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another.” A partner organization, the Movement for Black Lives, or M4BL, calls for abolishing all police and all prisons. It also calls for a “progressive restructuring of tax codes at the local, state and federal levels to ensure a radical and sustainable redistribution of wealth.” Another M4BL demand is “the retroactive decriminalization, immediate release and record ­expungement of all drug- related offenses and prostitution and reparations for the devastating impact of the ‘war on drugs’ and criminalization of prostitution.” This agenda isn’t what most people signed up for when they bought their Spanx or registered for Airbnb. Nor is it what most people understood when they ­expressed sympathy with the slogan that Black Lives Matter. Garza first coined the phrase in a July 14, 2013, Facebook post the day George Zimmerman was acquitted of murdering Trayvon Martin. Her friend Cullors put the hashtag in front and joined the words, so it could travel through social media. Tometi thought of creating an ­actual digital platform, BlackLivesMatter.com. The group became a self-styled global network in 2014 and a “fiscally sponsored project” of a separate progressive nonprofit in 2016, according to Robert Stilson of the Capital Research Center. This evolution has helped embolden an agenda vastly more ambitious than just #DefundthePolice. The goals of the Black Lives Matter organization go far beyond what most people think. But they are hiding in plain sight, there for the world to see, if only we read beyond the slogans and the innocuous-sounding media accounts of the movement. The group’s radical Marxist agenda would supplant the basic building block of society—the family—with the state and destroy the economic system that has lifted more people from poverty than any other. Black lives, and all lives, would be harmed. Theirs is a blueprint for misery, not justice. It must be rejected. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Updates 2020/09/18
Index Index