The Front Page Cover
~ Featuring ~
An Open Letter to Senator Bernie Sanders
by Minister Michael Brown
.
Top Headlines
Surprise setback for Britain's conservatives as May wins, but lacks majority in Parliament. (CNS News)
President Trump's lower-court nominees are as good as his SCOTUS pick. (The Federalist)
Trump's reversal allowing amnesty for Dreamers enrages conservative base. (The Washington Times)
Trey Gowdy picked to lead House Oversight Committee. (Fox News)
One in five terrorist attacks against West carried out by foreign fighters. (The Washington Free Beacon)
DOJ: Two U.S. citizens arrested for ties to Hezbollah. (NBC News)
Former official: liar-nObama administration "systematically disbanded" units investigating Iran's terrorism financing networks. (The Washington Free Beacon)
Bernie Sanders doesn't think Christians are fit for public office. (The Federalist)
The IRS can seize your money based on a hunch. This bill will bring that to an end. (The Daily Signal)
Policy: Fossil fuels' benefits far higher than social cost, study finds. (Inside Sources)
Policy: The debt ceiling is not the problem. The debt is. (Conservative Review)
Humor: Comey hearing confirms whatever you already wanted to believe. (The Babylon Bee) ~The Patriot Post
.
.
The Mueller-Comey
Tag Team is Out to Get Trump
by JANET LEVY
{familysecuritymatters.org} ~ The fact that Robert Mueller, the former FBI head who "bungled" the post-9/11 anthrax attack, is leading the "Russia-gate" investigation should be a matter of grave concern for Americans... Comey, a close friend of Mueller, covered for the erstwhile director in the Amerithrax affair and the upcoming inquiry could very well be a quid pro quo transaction. The convoluted logic that led Mueller to target a "right-wing" government scientist when the infamous anthrax letters contained the imprimatur of Islamic extremists - "Death to America," "Death to Israel," Allah is G-d" - is more than mildly troublesome for a high level government official. Recall that Mueller met with Nihad Awad, executive director of Hamas doing business as CAIR, as well as senior leadership of the Islamic Institute, the American Muslim Council and the Muslim Public Affairs Council all Muslim Brotherhood affiliates in 2002 at FBI headquarters... http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-mueller-comey-tag-team-is-out-to-get-trump?f=must_readsby JANET LEVY
.
U.S. Taxpayers Fund Takeover
of Colombia by Marxist Terrorists
by Alex Newman
{thenewamerican.com} ~ Thanks to Congress and the liar-nObama administration, American taxpayers are expected to pour millions of dollars into a ruthless Marxist terrorist group known as the FARC... the Spanish acronym for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. Among other crimes, the Castro-backed terror group has slaughtered and tortured hundreds of thousands of civilians, pumped unfathomable amounts of cocaine into the United States, kidnapped and raped children, and much more. If establishment forces in Washington, D.C., and Bogota get their way, however, U.S. taxpayers will help finance not only the FARC itself, but the communist takeover of Colombia as well. Under liar-nObama, whose political career literally began in the home of a Castro-backed terrorist, U.S. taxpayers were put on the hook for almost half of a billion dollars to Colombia last year. Much of that money was supposed to be used to pursue the fraudulent “peace” deal that will literally put mass-murdering FARC terrorists in Congress — without serving a single day in jail for their 50 years of mass murder and war crimes. liar-nObama promised even more cash, and the GOP Congress approved it... https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/south-america/item/26220-u-s-taxpayers-fund-takeover-of-colombia-by-marxist-terrorists.
Tehran Terror Attacks
Underscore ISIS Depth in Iran
by Marie Donovan and Frederick W. Kagan
{criticalthreats.org} ~ The horrific Tehran terror attacks revealed a surprising reality: there is a well-resourced and well-prepared ISIS cell and support structure in the Islamic Republic... The regime is trying to downplay the significance of the attack and redirect public attention and anger toward the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. That response is troublesome because it suggests that the Islamic Republic will respond to this tragedy by escalating the regional conflict. The attack was complex and sophisticated. Its success was the more remarkable in that Iran is one of the most securitized states in the world. Multiple security services pervade Iran’s cities and towns, the Islamic Republic has established one of the most thorough regimes of internet and cellphone censorship and monitoring in the world, and the regime has demonstrated its willingness to subordinate civil liberties completely to the mission of preserving itself in power. ORGANIZATION ISIS The greatest evil of our time has taken root in Iraq and Syr...ISIS nevertheless managed to pull off a challenging operation. Two attacks began within 30 minutes of one another at locations about 10 miles apart... https://www.criticalthreats.org/analysis/tehran-terror-attacks-underscore-isis-depth-in-iran?utm_source=paramount&utm_medium=email&utm_content=
AEITODAY&utm_campaign=060917
.
London Style Terrorists Attack In
Washington D.C., Muslim Rammed Truck Into Police
by William Smith
{gopthedailydose.com} ~ HEAVY Two Washington D.C. patrol officers riding bicycles, an employee of the District Department of Transportation and two pedestrians were injured after a pickup truck hit them in Adams Morgan on June 8... The incident occurred at Columbia Road and 18th Street NW, and one of the patrol officers is listed in critical condition at an area hospital. The other officer and the DOT employee, who’s believed to be an air traffic controller, have been listed in serious condition, ABC 7 in Washington D.C. reported. The suspected driver of the truck and a passenger were apprehended by responding officers and taken into custody. https://gopthedailydose.com/2017/06/10/breaking-london-style-terrorists-attack-in-washington-d-c-muslim-rammed-truck-into-police-video/
.5
Lawless Comey Took Instructions
From liar-Clinton, Betrayed His Oath
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Lou Dobbs interviews Judicial Watch’s Chris Farrell on the Comey testimony, saying, “Let’s start with the bombshell that Loretta Lynch ordered the Director of the FBI... to refer to an investigation as ‘a matter.’ What in the world are these people playing at?” Farrell replies, “Well, it’s clear the FBI Director was taking instructions from liar-Hillary Clinton’s campaign, because clearly, the Attorney General was giving him talking points and he literally adopted them. This admission today is stunning. I would argue that Mr. Comey’s notes are property of the United States government and that he has absconded with them.” “Frankly,” says Farrell, “if I were Attorney General, about twenty minutes after his confession today in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Deputy US Marshalls would have raided his home and office, as well as that of Mr. Richmond at Columbia Law School. Those records and documents must be recovered, Mr. Comey had no business releasing them, it’s an extraordinary admission on his part; it’s lawless.”... http://rickwells.us/dobbs-farrell-lawless-comey-took-instructions-clinton-betrayed-oath/
VIDEO at the site
.
.
by Minister Michael Brown
{townhall.com} ~ Dear Senator Sanders,
I write this letter to you with respect and concern. Respect because of your years of service to our country and your terrific campaign last year. Concern because of your grilling of Russell Vought, President Trump’s nominee for Deputy Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, earlier this week.
Frankly, sir, I found your exchange with Mr. Vought to be quite alarming, not to mention downright un-American.
May I have your ear for a moment, Mr. Senator?
Although I am registered as an independent rather than a Republican, I am strongly conservative, and so, in fundamental disagreement with much of your ideology. Yet when you rose to such national prominence last year, I found much to like about you.
You were unafraid to put your beliefs on the table. You were plainspoken rather than rhetorical. You had a great following among the younger generation. You had no history of ugly scandals in your past. And you had great passion and vision, in particular for a man in his 70s.
All this was impressive to me, and, in candor, I felt that the election was stacked against you and in favor of Mrs. liar-Clinton.
So, I bear no ill will towards you and I believe that you want what is best for America, as do I.
What concerns me is that you voted against Mr. Vought because of his mainstream, historic, Christian beliefs. You even stated that someone who holds to these values “is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.”
With all respect, Mr. Senator, are you aware that Mr. Vought’s beliefs are far closer to those of many of our Founding Fathers than yours would be? And didn’t our Founders put in our Constitution that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Yet you applied a religious test to Mr. Vought. On what basis?
Are you aware, sir, that his beliefs mirror those of some of our past presidents and Supreme Court justices, along with the beliefs of some of your esteemed colleagues in Congress? Most importantly, are you aware that Mr. Vought’s beliefs are taken straight from the New Testament?
You took exception to his quite orthodox statement that, “Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned.”
Is it possible you misunderstood the meaning of these words? Could it be that you took them to mean something that Mr. Vought never intended?
After asking him if he felt he was statement was “Islamophobic,” which, of course, he did not, you asked him, “Do you believe people in the Muslim religion stand condemned?” This was followed by, “What about Jews? Do they stand condemned too? . . . do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?”
The answer for any Bible-believing Christian is simple. Yes, every human being stands condemned before God and in need of a Savior. That’s why God sent Jesus to die for our sins, and that’s why we send missionaries around the world to declare this message of salvation. May I give you the biblical context for this belief?
I imagine that, somewhere in your lifetime, you’ve heard the most famous verse in the New Testament: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).
Does that sound familiar? These are the verses that comes next: “For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (John 3:17-19, my emphasis).
Did you note those words, Mr. Senator? The New Testament is stating clearly that all human beings stand condemned in God’s sight because we have chosen our ways rather than His. For that reason, He sent Jesus into the world, not to condemn us but to save us.
That means that you, too, stand condemned before God, no matter how much good you have done. But you are not alone. Billions of others find themselves in the same predicament. The good news is that the same solution applies to all: trusting the Savior to forgive our sins and change our hearts.
Are you saying, then, that anyone who subscribes to these historic Christian beliefs is not fit to serve our country, even as Deputy Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget? Does that not strike you as standing in fundamental violation of the very principles on which our nations was founded? Isn’t this a classic example of advocating for freedom from religion rather than freedom of religion?
By your logic, not only would Mr. Vought and as mentioned, quite a few of your colleagues not be fit to serve, but a devout Muslim could not serve either, since Muslims believe that Jews, Christians, Hindus, and others must become Muslims to be saved. And what about an Orthodox Jew who believes that you, a non-observant Jew, are guilty of violating Torah and thereby sinning against God? Should that Orthodox Jew not be allowed to serve?
What if Mr. Vought had answered your questions by quoting the words of Jesus? What if he said, “Sir, I believe in Jesus Christ, who said, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.’” (John 14:6) Would you have replied, “Well, if you believe what Jesus said, you can’t serve our country.” Really?
As a Christian, Mr. Vought would be duty bound to treat everyone with kindness, respect, and fairness, regardless of their religious beliefs. And as someone who loves God, he would expected to love his neighbor as himself. This too is part of his faith.
Yet you voted against him solely based on his standard, orthodox beliefs in the exclusivity of salvation through Jesus, stating, to repeat, he “is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.”
To the contrary, sir, he is what this country has been about since the days of our first settlers. And it is people like him – people of robust faith who genuinely care about others – who this country needs today.
Perhaps, by now, one of your staff members has suggested to you that you misunderstood Mr. Vought’s statement and that, perhaps, you treated him unfairly.
If not, I do hope you will take to heart what I’ve written here, humble yourself and apologize, and then evaluate this candidate based on his overall qualifications.
If, however, you fully understood what Mr. Vought believed and for that very reason found him unfit to serve, then my concern is greatly intensified. You would then be advocating for an American that would become tyrannical and oppressive. And you would be declaring war on some of our most precious and fundamental freedoms.
Is that really the America that you want, Mr. Senator?
An Open Letter to Senator Bernie Sanders
{townhall.com} ~ Dear Senator Sanders,
I write this letter to you with respect and concern. Respect because of your years of service to our country and your terrific campaign last year. Concern because of your grilling of Russell Vought, President Trump’s nominee for Deputy Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, earlier this week.
Frankly, sir, I found your exchange with Mr. Vought to be quite alarming, not to mention downright un-American.
May I have your ear for a moment, Mr. Senator?
Although I am registered as an independent rather than a Republican, I am strongly conservative, and so, in fundamental disagreement with much of your ideology. Yet when you rose to such national prominence last year, I found much to like about you.
You were unafraid to put your beliefs on the table. You were plainspoken rather than rhetorical. You had a great following among the younger generation. You had no history of ugly scandals in your past. And you had great passion and vision, in particular for a man in his 70s.
All this was impressive to me, and, in candor, I felt that the election was stacked against you and in favor of Mrs. liar-Clinton.
So, I bear no ill will towards you and I believe that you want what is best for America, as do I.
What concerns me is that you voted against Mr. Vought because of his mainstream, historic, Christian beliefs. You even stated that someone who holds to these values “is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.”
With all respect, Mr. Senator, are you aware that Mr. Vought’s beliefs are far closer to those of many of our Founding Fathers than yours would be? And didn’t our Founders put in our Constitution that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Yet you applied a religious test to Mr. Vought. On what basis?
Are you aware, sir, that his beliefs mirror those of some of our past presidents and Supreme Court justices, along with the beliefs of some of your esteemed colleagues in Congress? Most importantly, are you aware that Mr. Vought’s beliefs are taken straight from the New Testament?
You took exception to his quite orthodox statement that, “Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned.”
Is it possible you misunderstood the meaning of these words? Could it be that you took them to mean something that Mr. Vought never intended?
After asking him if he felt he was statement was “Islamophobic,” which, of course, he did not, you asked him, “Do you believe people in the Muslim religion stand condemned?” This was followed by, “What about Jews? Do they stand condemned too? . . . do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?”
The answer for any Bible-believing Christian is simple. Yes, every human being stands condemned before God and in need of a Savior. That’s why God sent Jesus to die for our sins, and that’s why we send missionaries around the world to declare this message of salvation. May I give you the biblical context for this belief?
I imagine that, somewhere in your lifetime, you’ve heard the most famous verse in the New Testament: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).
Does that sound familiar? These are the verses that comes next: “For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (John 3:17-19, my emphasis).
Did you note those words, Mr. Senator? The New Testament is stating clearly that all human beings stand condemned in God’s sight because we have chosen our ways rather than His. For that reason, He sent Jesus into the world, not to condemn us but to save us.
That means that you, too, stand condemned before God, no matter how much good you have done. But you are not alone. Billions of others find themselves in the same predicament. The good news is that the same solution applies to all: trusting the Savior to forgive our sins and change our hearts.
Are you saying, then, that anyone who subscribes to these historic Christian beliefs is not fit to serve our country, even as Deputy Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget? Does that not strike you as standing in fundamental violation of the very principles on which our nations was founded? Isn’t this a classic example of advocating for freedom from religion rather than freedom of religion?
By your logic, not only would Mr. Vought and as mentioned, quite a few of your colleagues not be fit to serve, but a devout Muslim could not serve either, since Muslims believe that Jews, Christians, Hindus, and others must become Muslims to be saved. And what about an Orthodox Jew who believes that you, a non-observant Jew, are guilty of violating Torah and thereby sinning against God? Should that Orthodox Jew not be allowed to serve?
What if Mr. Vought had answered your questions by quoting the words of Jesus? What if he said, “Sir, I believe in Jesus Christ, who said, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.’” (John 14:6) Would you have replied, “Well, if you believe what Jesus said, you can’t serve our country.” Really?
As a Christian, Mr. Vought would be duty bound to treat everyone with kindness, respect, and fairness, regardless of their religious beliefs. And as someone who loves God, he would expected to love his neighbor as himself. This too is part of his faith.
Yet you voted against him solely based on his standard, orthodox beliefs in the exclusivity of salvation through Jesus, stating, to repeat, he “is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.”
To the contrary, sir, he is what this country has been about since the days of our first settlers. And it is people like him – people of robust faith who genuinely care about others – who this country needs today.
Perhaps, by now, one of your staff members has suggested to you that you misunderstood Mr. Vought’s statement and that, perhaps, you treated him unfairly.
If not, I do hope you will take to heart what I’ve written here, humble yourself and apologize, and then evaluate this candidate based on his overall qualifications.
If, however, you fully understood what Mr. Vought believed and for that very reason found him unfit to serve, then my concern is greatly intensified. You would then be advocating for an American that would become tyrannical and oppressive. And you would be declaring war on some of our most precious and fundamental freedoms.
Is that really the America that you want, Mr. Senator?
Comments
Waldemar
So true and I can't disagree. Did you haven't to see or heard his comments at the People's Summit? This what he stated, 'He calls for Fundamental changed of the Democrat Part to communism'. Boy that would be a bigger down fall for the Dem party for sure.
Although I agree with most of this rhetorical letter to Sanders, I do not share his compliments towards him. Sander's postmodernist ideology and subsequent legislation support mirror those that have decimated western democracies abroad. He has been a disaster for his state of Vermont and would be a disaster for our country as President. Does Minister Brown know any of Mr. Sanders actual background? Like his first job was when he was 40 years old! or that his wife took a dean position at a university in Vermont and ran it into the ground financially, going bankrupt, but not before taking a hefty bonus for herself before walking out the door. A never-ending list of anti-American, anti-Christian statements he's put out there. Now this is just a tid-bit of a long laundry list of questionable behaviors with old-man Bernie, and he wants to run the country?!?!?!? PPPLLEEEEEAASSSEEE...There is NOTHING NOBLE about socialists, postmodernists or communists