Britain’s Labour Party is demanding the UK government impose an imperialistic diktat upon the predominantly black citizens of Bermuda for refusing to adhere to the liberal-left’s same-sex marriage demands.

Helen Goodman — Labour’s shadow Foreign Office minister — said the devolved, democratic decision taken by Bermuda to repeal gay marriage laws — “turns same-sex couples into second class citizens”, implying force should be used to impose gay marriage laws.

“For that to happen anyone in the world would be shameful. For it to happen in a British territory, for the legislation signed by a British governor and permitted by a British foreign secretary makes us complicit in something which this House has repeatedly voted against,” she argued.

Apparently imperialism is fine, but only in the pursuit of leftist goals like those of the LGBTQII++ lobby, in a mostly Christian nation.

The British government called Bermuda’s decision “disappointing” but resisted getting involved despite the island’s status as a British Overseas Territory. It’s almost as if the Brits retain some knowledge about holding together an empire. If Bermuda were in the European Union, there’d have probably been some kind of sanctions, or perhaps a gay-migrant quota by now.

Renowned mastermind (click it) David Lammy MP somehow managed to invoke slavery into his pro-imperialist arguments:

“The first slaves we brought to Bermuda in 1620, oppressed, segregated, discriminated against… And that is why leaders like Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu and Barack Obama have not just fought for race rights, but they have fought for rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people.

“This country has been one of the world  leaders on this subject – so if this is not the issue on which to refuse assent I don’t know which is.”

The Green Party’s Caroline Lucas called it an “absolute scandal” that Britain was not willing to enforce LGBT ideals on another nation.

The rights of gay couples remain the same as those of straight married couples in Bermuda, but only the verbiage applied to each type of partnership is different.

In 2016, over 60 per cent of Bermudans rejected both same sex marriages and same sex civil unions in a plebiscite held on the same day as Britain’s Brexit referendum. The votes were not binding as they did not pass the 50 per cent turnout threshold. Nevertheless the government sought to compromise on the matter, protecting LGBT rights and attempting to respect the will of the people vis a vis marriage as an institution.

The new rules — to add further irony — were drafted and passed by the Progressive Labour Party government in Bermuda, a nation of just over 60,000 people.

Walton Brown, Bermuda’s Minister of Home Affairs, said this week he was pleased with the decision as Governor John Rankin signed it into law.

Here’s the icing on the forcibly-baked-by-threat-of-imprisonment-same-sex marriage cake: Rankin is a 30+ year career diplomat from the British government, propelled into high office by Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government in 2003 when he became Britain’s Consul-General in Boston. He has since served in Sri Lanka and the Maldives, Nepal, and now in Bermuda.

Raheem Kassam is the editor in chief of Breitbart London

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Saturday accused the Democrats of playing politics with classified information, asserting that their memo countering GOP allegations about the conduct of the FBI’s Russia probe was a trap meant to “blame the White House for lack of transparency.”

Citing national security concerns, the White House notified the House Intelligence Committee on Friday that the president was “unable” to declassify the Democratic memo. White House counsel Don McGahn said in a letter to the committee that the memo contains “numerous properly classified and especially sensitive passages” and asked the committee to revise it with the help of the Justice Department.

He said Trump was still “inclined” to release the memo in the interest of transparency if revisions are made.

Trump weighed in with a tweet on Saturday.

“The Democrats sent a very political and long response memo which they knew, because of sources and methods (and more), would have to be heavily redacted, whereupon they would blame the White House for lack of transparency,” he tweeted. The meaning of the “(and more)” was not immediately clear.

The Democrats sent a very political and long response memo which they knew, because of sources and methods (and more), would have to be heavily redacted, whereupon they would blame the White House for lack of transparency. Told them to re-do and send back in proper form!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 10, 2018

Trump urged the Democrats to “re-do and send back in proper form!”

The president’s rejection of the Democratic memo was in contrast to his enthusiastic embrace of releasing the Republican document, which accuses the FBI and Justice Department of abusing their surveillance powers in obtaining a secret warrant to monitor former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page.

Even before reading the GOP document, Trump pledged to make it public. It was published in full a week ago over the objections of the Justice Department.

The Intelligence Committee’s top Democrat, California Rep. Adam Schiff, criticized Trump for treating the two documents differently, saying the president is now seeking revisions by the same committee that produced the original Republican memo. Still, Schiff said, Democrats “look forward to conferring with the agencies to determine how we can properly inform the American people about the misleading attack on law enforcement by the GOP.”

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said the move is “part of a dangerous and desperate pattern of cover-up on the part of the president.” California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has read the classified information both memos are based on. She tweeted that Trump’s blocking the memo is “hypocrisy at its worst.”

The head of the House committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., who produced the GOP memo, encouraged Democrats to accept the Justice Department’s recommendations and “make the appropriate technical changes and redactions.”

Trump has said the GOP memo “vindicates” him in the ongoing Russia investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller. But Democrats and Republicans, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., who helped draft the GOP memo, have said it shouldn’t be used to undermine the special counsel.

The House Intelligence Committee voted Monday to release the Democratic memo. Republicans backed the release, but several said they thought it should be redacted. Ryan also said he thought the Democratic document should be released.

In declining to declassify the document, the White House also sent lawmakers a letter signed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray, as well as a marked-up copy of the memo, laying out portions it considers too sensitive to make public. Among those passages are some that the Justice Departments says could compromise intelligence sources and methods, ongoing investigations and national security if disclosed.

The White House message caps off a week in which Republicans and Democrats on the committee have publicly fought, with the panel now erecting a wall to separate feuding Republican and Democratic staffers who had long sat side by side.

The disagreements have escalated over the last year as Democrats have charged that Republicans aren’t taking the panel’s investigation into Russian election meddling seriously enough. They say the GOP memo is designed as a distraction from the probe, which is looking into whether Trump’s campaign was in any way connected to the Russian interference.

Trump declassified the GOP-authored memo over the objections of the FBI, which said it had “grave concerns” about the document’s accuracy.

In the Nunes’ memo, Republicans took aim at the FBI and the Justice Department over the use of information from former British spy Christopher Steele in obtaining a warrant to monitor Page under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. The main allegation was that the FBI and Justice Department didn’t tell the court enough about Steele’s anti-Trump bias or that his work was funded in part by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

They argued that the reliance on Steele’s material amounted to an improper politicization of the government’s surveillance powers.

Democrats have countered that the GOP memo was inaccurate and a misleading collection of “cherry-picked” details.

They noted that federal law enforcement officials had informed the court about the political origins of Steele’s work and that some of the former spy’s information was corroborated by the FBI. They also noted that there was other evidence presented to the court besides Steele’s information, though they have not provided details.

The Democratic memo is believed to elaborate on these points.

TEL AVIV — On Saturday, an Apache helicopter operated by the Israeli Air Force successfully intercepted and destroyed Iranian unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that took off from Syrian territory and infiltrated Israel.

Watch Israel Defense Forces (IDF) footage of the Iranian drone being intercepted below:

The IDF released the following statement about today’s operations:

The aircraft was identified by the Aerial Defense Systems early on and was under surveillance until the interception. In response, IDF attacked the Iranian aircraft’s launch components in Syrian territory.

Later, also in response to the Iranian UAV that was launched at Israeli territory and was intercepted by the IDF, Israeli Air Force (IAF) aircraft targeted 12 targets in Syria, including three aerial defense batteries and four Iranian targets that are part of Iran’s military establishment in Syria.

During the attack, multiple anti-aircraft missiles were fired at IAF aircraft. The two pilots of an F-16 jet ejected from the aircraft as per procedure, one of whom was seriously injured and taken to the hospital for medical treatment.

Lt. Col. Jonathan Conricus, chief of the IDF’s international media desk, stated, “The Syrians and the Iranians, from our point of view, are playing with fire. The Syrians are playing with fire when they allow the Iranians to attack Israel from their soil. We are willing, prepared, and capable to exact a heavy price on anyone that attacks us. However, we are not looking to escalate the situation.”

A general statement from the IDF added that Israel will “continue to act against any attempt to infiltrate Israeli airspace and will act with determination to prevent any breach of Israeli sovereignty.”

 

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 may have some earmarks unpopular with fiscal conservatives, but the new law contains a victory for religious liberty in the United States.

One provision of the budget ends discrimination against churches, mosques, temples, synagogues, and other houses of worship by banning them from receiving federal aid after a natural disaster through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) —  a policy put in place by the Barack Obama administration.

Banning religious institutions from receiving federal aid following a flood, hurricane, or other natural disaster also hampers such institutions from their mission of helping disaster victims generally.

Following the devastation of Hurricane Harvey in August, First Liberty Institute, a legal group working to preserve religious liberty, represented Trinity Church, Church on the Rock Katy and Grace Community Church (“Clients”) in the Houston area, which were suffering from the devastating impact of the hurricane. First Liberty wrote a letter to President Donald Trump asking him to rescind the policy.

The letter said, in part:

These entities withstood displacement, human suffering, and millions of dollars in flood damage. And, like the neighborhoods and communities they serve, they need immediate aid and relief. However, under the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide (“PA Policy Guide”), churches and other religious organizations, including our clients, are ineligible for disaster relief simply because they are churches. President Trump may be the only means by which churches and religious organizations in Texas and Florida obtain the disaster relief they so urgently need.

The PA Policy is not new, and has been re-issued under previous administrations, including two revisions under President Obama’s FEMA Assistant Administrator. But President Trump has publicly declared that churches and religious organizations should be entitled to disaster relief on equal terms as non-religious organizations. And with the stroke of a pen, the Trump Administration can make this a reality, providing much-needed disaster relief to hundreds of religious organizations—who themselves continue to provide relief to tens of thousands of affected citizens throughout Texas and Florida.

On behalf of our clients, First Liberty Institute requests the Trump administration immediately rescind the unconstitutional religious ban; specify that churches and religious nonprofit organizations, including our Clients, are eligible to apply for and receive Public Assistance on the same terms as their non-religious neighbors.

In January, Trump announced his administration would end the religious ban and allow religious entities to apply for FEMA relief, consistent with federal law, according to First Liberty.

“Today’s announcement by the White House allows our clients to continue to be the bedrocks of their hurricane-ravaged communities,” Chelsey Youman, Counsel for First Liberty, said of the decision.

“Thanks to the Trump administration, thousands of houses of worship are again eligible for FEMA relief just like everyone else and can start the process of rebuilding,” Youman said.

And now, the 2018 budget act makes the new FEMA policy law.

“It’s a great victory for equal protection and treatment of churches as valuable institutions as well as providers of critical services to the community in times of need,” Dave Welch, executive director of the Houston Area Pastor Council, said.

Follow Penny Starr on Twitter

One year ago, the Supreme Court of the British territory of Bermuda ruled to legalize same-sex marriages. Now, officials are rolling back that decision.

Bermuda’s Governor, John Rankin, signed the Domestic Partnership Act into law on Wednesday, The Washington Times reported. The act gives same-sex couples similar rights to traditional one man-one woman couples, but does not recognize same-sex relationships as “marriage.”

This is a historic move and unprecedented move.

“The act is intended to strike a fair balance between two currently irreconcilable groups in Bermuda, by restating that marriage must be between a male and a female while at the same time recognizing and protecting the rights of same-sex couples,” said Bermuda minister of home affairs, Walton Brown.

The act passed with wide margins in both Bermuda’s House and Senate.

TRENDING: Hunters Learn Painful Lesson After Kicking “Dead” Wolf

This act was in response to the whopping 69 percent of people living in Bermuda who oppose same-sex marriages.

Of course, liberal Britain opposed the measure. However, while they did oppose it, they didn’t intervene to block the legislation.

A spokesman for the British Prime Minister Theresa May said the bill, “has been democratically passed by the Parliament of Bermuda, and our relationship with the overseas territories is based on partnership and respect for their right to democratic self-government.”

However, he mentioned that May wasn’t too thrilled with the legislation, saying she was “seriously disappointed” in the bill.

But then again, this is the same lady who threw a fit when Trump posted anti-terrorism videos on his Twitter account.

Gay rights groups are saying this is a step in the wrong direction.

In a statement sent to NBC news, Ty Cobb, who is the director of Human Rights Campaign Global said that this legislation, “strips loving same-sex couples of the right to marry and jeopardizes Bermuda’s international reputation and economy.”

“Despite this deplorable action, the fight for marriage equality in Bermuda will continue until the day when every Bermudian is afforded the right to marry the person they love,” he continued.

RELATED: Openly Gay Olympian Gives Pence Disgraceful Treatment

NBC reported that some think that this decision will hurt the tourism industry. Let’s be honest, though. It’s Bermuda. People are still going to go and enjoy the beauty of the island, despite what it says on same-sex marriage. In fact, many people will appreciate that this nation recognizes traditional marriage and refuses to redefine it.

So, good for Bermuda for listening to the will of the people. A government for the people, by the people is always a step in the right direction.

Please like and share this story on Facebook and Twitter and let us know what you think of this decision by Bermuda.

Do you applaud Bermuda’s decision? Scroll down to comment below!

A teacher in England is out of a job for a stunning reason: She’s a Christian, and was honest about her beliefs when asked.

According to LifeSiteNews, an experienced educator named Svetlana Powell was fired from an academy for high school age students in Bristol. Not only that, but she was also reported as a “radicalization threat” to a government group that deals with counter-terrorism tips.

The problem began when Powell was asked to “sub” for another teacher. As often happens, some students decided to challenge the temporary teacher and purposely steered the classroom discussion toward her religion. One student in particular kept being disruptive.

“After the lunch break, the student continued talking while producing minimum work, so was asked to move away to the opposite end of the classroom,” LifeSite reported.

“The student objected, and then started to be argumentative about the tutor’s faith, asking her first a question about her personal beliefs on evolution.”

TRENDING: Freaky: Chinese Tanker Was Filled With Body Parts of Dead Americans

The rest of the class seemed interested in the discussion, so the teacher did what many good educators do: She tried to use the existing topic to create a learning opportunity.

“I decided to use the students’ interest in the subject and to have a discussion to accommodate the activities included in the lesson plan,” Powell explained. “I considered the topic appropriate, as the discussion about Christian views would contribute in raising cultural issues of our day and awareness of the religion of this country.”

It’s a fair point. Considering that Christianity is one of the largest religions in the United Kingdom and throughout the world, having a general understanding of what its followers believe is valuable if only from a cultural awareness perspective, just as understanding what the adherents of Judaism or Hindu believe can be culturally educational.

“The student who had originally been warned about his behaviour then asked the tutor for her personal views on homosexuality,” said LifeSite. “She replied by saying that as a Christian, she ‘personally’ believed the Bible says that homosexual activity was against God’s will, but that God still loves every person regardless of what they did, or who they were.”

This is the key point: The teacher did not set out to lecture the students or push her views, but honestly answered a question posed by the class about her beliefs.

Apparently trying to “bait” the teacher into saying something controversial, the disruptive student who had sparked the discussion singled out a lesbian classmate.

“The same student then said that another student in the group was a lesbian, to which the tutor replied that God loved her,” LifeSite reported.

“The tutor was then asked whether the lesbian student would ‘go to hell’, to which the tutor replied with the historic Christian view that for everyone who repents (turns to God), God has provided a way of salvation to us through His son, Jesus Christ. The tutor said nothing about ‘hell.’”

RELATED: Libs Throw a Fit After Broadcaster Gives Christian Response to Eagles QB’s Remarks

That interaction was apparently enough to end the teacher’s employment. The next day, Powell was told that students had made a complaint, and she was called in to a hearing by school administrators and made to explain and defend the explanation of her faith that she had told to the class.

When it was all over, Powell was out of a job — and more shockingly, later discovered that she had been referred to “Prevent,” a government anti-terrorist group that investigates reports of radicalism. Who knew “God loves you” was so threatening?

Now, the teacher is suing the school with the assistance of the Christian Legal Centre, based on the view that she was dismissed essentially for being a Christian.

“We are seeing a worrying trend of cases such as this,” said Andrea Williams, an attorney for CLC. “The fact that Svetlana was reported to Prevent for holding Christian views is a sign of our times. It shows how Prevent will be used to punish innocent and soft targets. A radical rethink is required.”

Freedom of religion is supposed to mean that a person’s faith alone cannot be used as the basis for discrimination. It would be one thing of a teacher used her position to try to convert students or brow-beat them with personal views — but Powell did nothing of the sort.

Instead, she simply told the truth when high school-aged students asked about her faith and the tenants of her religion. She didn’t repeat anything hateful, but apparently shared her belief in love. That is shocking and controversial?

Consider for a moment if this teacher had different beliefs. What if she were Sikh or Muslim or atheist? A classroom inquisitively asking a Sikh to explain their religion — or an atheist to explain how they arrived at their views — would be seen as culturally educational.

It’s hard to imagine a teacher of any other faith being dragged in front of a review panel and then shown the door for merely answering questions about their faith. Yet this is happening to Christians with alarming frequency.

Once again, those who talk about “tolerance” turn out to be incredibly intolerant when it comes to conservative or Christian views. America should pay attention, because this growing issue is not isolated to just Britain.

Please press “Share on Facebook” if you’re concerned about this trend!

How would you respond to this school? Scroll down to comment below!