Sixty-Nine Percent of U.S. TB Cases in 2017 Were Diagnosed in Foreign-Born Residents

Sixty-Nine Percent of U.S. TB Cases in 2017 Were Diagnosed in Foreign-Born Residents



Sixty-nine percent of all tuberculosis (TB) cases reported in the United States in 2017 were diagnosed in foreign-born residents, according to a report released earlier this month by the Centers for Disease Control.

This was the highest percentage ever, marking a steady three decade rise from 1986, when only 22 percent of all TB cases reported in the United States were diagnosed in foreign born residents. Last year, in 2016, 68 percent of TB cases were foreign-born.

For the country as a whole, the absolute number of TB cases and the rate per 100,000 declined for the second consecutive year.

9,093 cases were reported in 2017, down from 9,272 in 2016.

“Since 1993, tuberculosis (TB) case counts and rates have declined in the United States. As the number of cases decreases overall, an increasing percentage of cases occurs among non–U.S.-born persons. Disparities also exist within racial, ethnic, and social groups among U.S.-born persons with TB,” the CDC report stated, adding:

In 2017, a total of 9,093 new cases of tuberculosis (TB) were provisionally* reported in the United States, representing an incidence rate of 2.8 cases per 100,000 population. The case count decreased by 1.8% from 2016 to 2017, and the rate declined by 2.5% over the same period. These decreases are consistent with the slight decline in TB seen over the past several years. This report summarizes provisional TB surveillance data reported to CDC’s National Tuberculosis Surveillance System for 2017 and in the last decade. The rate of TB among non–U.S.-born persons in 2017 was 15 times the rate among U.S.-born persons. Among non–U.S.-born persons, the highest TB rate among all racial/ethnic groups was among Asians (27.0 per 100,000 persons), followed by non-Hispanic blacks (blacks; 22.0). Among U.S.-born persons, most TB cases were reported among blacks (37.1%), followed by non-Hispanic whites (whites; 29.5%). Previous studies have shown that the majority of TB cases in the United States are attributed to reactivation of latent TB infection (LTBI).

 

In terms of absolute number of cases, the number of cases diagnosed in foreign born residents remained essentially the same, going from 6,351 in 2016 (68.7 percent) to 6,346 in 2017 (69.8 percent). The number of cases diagnosed in native born residents declined from 2,901 in 2016 to 2,698 in 2017.

“State-specific TB rates (cases per 100,000 persons) ranged from 0.3 in Montana to 8.1 in Hawaii with a median state TB rate of 1.8. As has been the case for the past decade, four states (California, Florida, New York, and Texas) reported half of the total TB cases in the United States in 2017,” the CDC  reported:

The annual percent change in rate in recent years has slowed from an average decline of 5.3% during 2010–2013 to an average decline of 2.0% during 2014–2017. In 2017, a total of 6,346 (69.8%) of U.S. TB cases occurred among non–U.S.-born persons, 2,698 (29.7%) cases occurred among U.S.-born persons, and 49 (0.5%) occurred among persons with no reported national origin. The TB rate among non–U.S.-born persons (14.6) was 15 times the rate among U.S.-born persons (1.0). Although these rates represent decreases among both groups in 2017 compared with 2016, the rate among U.S.-born persons declined 7.0%, whereas that among non–U.S.-born persons declined 0.9%.

Among non–U.S.-born persons, the highest TB rate among all racial/ethnic groups occurred among Asians (27.0 per 100,000 persons), followed by blacks (22.0) (Table 2). As in previous years, in 2017, the top five countries of birth of non–U.S.-born persons with TB were Mexico (1,204; 19.0% of all non–U.S.-born persons with TB), Philippines (783; 12.3%), India (595; 9.4%), Vietnam (526; 8.3%), and China (400; 6.3%). Persons who received a diagnosis of TB ≥10 years after arriving in the United States accounted for 2,854 (45.0%) of all TB cases among non–U.S.-born persons.

As Breitbart News has reported extensively, high rates of latent TB infection in the estimated two million foreign-born refugees who have been resettled in the United States since 1986 is one reason why the percentage of TB cases among foreign-born residents has increased dramatically over the past three decades.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.breitbart.com

The Christian Origins of America’s Constitutional Republic

As one billion Christians around the world gather on Easter Sunday to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the foundational event of the Christian faith, it is worth reminding every American about the Christian origins of our constitutional republic.

Three key theological concepts from the Protestant Reformation of the 16th and 17th centuries–congregational self governance, the covenantal nature of the relationship between man and God, and the free will of individuals to choose–eventually found expression in political philosophy and formed the basis for notions of popular sovereignty and self governance that our founders used in writing and approving the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Constitution between 1787 and 1789.

When Catholic Queen Mary ascended to the throne of England in 1553, a group of Protestant theologians and scholars, fearing for their lives, fled to Geneva, Switzerland.

There, under the protection of Protestant Reformation leader John Calvin, they labored several years to produce the first widely available English version of the Bible.

Published in 1660, the Geneva Bible gained widespread popularity in England, especially because Protestant Elizabeth I succeeded Mary in 1558.

The translation was a giant leap ahead of earlier versions, but of particular interest were the annotations offered by the English translators, which tended to promote a more republican view of governance, as opposed to the sort of absolute monarchy that was emerging across Europe.

“Englishmen who had previously thought little about the relationship between the individual and the state now had reason to contemplate what God had to say on the matter,” as I wrote in my 2012 book, Covenant of Liberty: The Ideological Origins of the Tea Party Movement.

Following Calvin’s thinking, the Geneva Bible made the concept of a covenant–a solemn agreement between God, who promised eternal salvation, and man, who promised obedience–now seem relevant and applicable to other relationships, such as the individual and the state, and the individual and his local church. . .

In his magnum opus, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin described his system of Protestant theology, including the covenantal relationship between the church and civil governance. The Institutes provided a biblical justification for Christian resistance to the rule of tyrannical monarchs. It also laid the framework for the establishment of a biblically based civil government, as practiced in Geneva, then a city of 20,000. Its republican form of government tolerated but a single theological perspective: Calvinism. Under the five theological points of Calvinism–the total depravity of man, unconditional election of the saints, limited atonement given only to the predestined saints, God’s irresistible grace and total sovereignty, and the perseverance of the saints–only the predestined “elect” who were members of the established Presbyterian church enjoyed full civil rights.

Calvin’s predestination theology was at odds with later Christian theologies that emphasized “free will” and made no distinction between the “saved” and the “doomed,” such as those of Arminius, Grotius, and Roger Williams. All men had the potential to be saved, they argued, and it was that potential that formed their original natural rights.

When Elizabeth I died in 1603, she was succeeded by James I, a proponent of an aggressive absolute monarchy expressed in the doctrine of “the divine right of kings.” It was precisely the kind of doctrine the voluminous side annotations found in the Geneva Bible warned against.

Tired of the challenges to his absolute authority implicit in the annotations found in the Geneva Bible, James I convened a group of clerics and instructed them to produce a new English translation, which was finally published in 1611 as the King James version of the Bible, which eventually supplanted the Geneva Bible, both in England and the colonies in British North America.

Puritans–English Protestants who adhered to a Calvinist interpretation of Christianity–were in constant conflict with James I and his successor Charles I over their absolutist–some called it tyrannical–approach to governance. These Puritans also experienced internal conflicts, with some adhering strictly to Calvinist principles, while others began to reject notions of predestination with the more hopeful notion of individual free will.

When Charles I dismissed Parliament in 1629, he began an eleven year period of personal rule in which Parliament did not meet at all. English Puritans reacted strongly to what they perceived as another unsupportable action by an increasingly tyrannical monarch:

One group, led by John Winthrop, determined to leave England and establish a Christian Bible-state that could be a “city upon an hill” and an example to all Christians of the proper godly way to organize and manage a country. From 1629 to 1640, an estimated forty thousand Puritans made the trek to Massachusetts, where Winthrop and other elders established the first Christian theocracy in the new world–the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

The English Puritans, who fully embraced concepts of congregational self governance–limited as it was to those “elect” Christians who were pre-destined for salvation in the Calvinist theology–and the covenantal relationship between man and God soon established Christian theocratic Bible-states in Massachusetts (from 1630 to the early 1690s) and England (the Cromwellian republic from about 1647 to 1660).

These early attempts to establish a Christian theocracy based on narrow Calvinist principles, however, soon ran into opposition from developing Christian notions of free will.

In England, the champion of that movement was John Lilburne, whose imprisonment by Charles I in 1638 for distributing Christian literature and subsequent “Star Chamber” show trial, made him a national figure. Released from prison in 1641, Lilburne went on to become a founder of the Leveller movement, a group that applied their Christian faith to the civil realm and advocated for popular sovereignty and covenantal acceptance by the people of the constitutionally limited rules of governance.

In 1647, with Cromwell’s military challenge to Charles I succeeding, the Levellers proposed those rules for governance in a 900 word document called An Agreement of the People. Though never adopted, the document was seen as the first model for our American Constitution, as Justice Hugo Black wrote in his dissenting opinion in the case Goldberg v. Kelly in the 1970:

The goal of a written constitution with fixed limits on governmental power had long been desired. Prior to our colonial constitutions, the closest man had come to realizing this goal was the political movement of the Levellers in England in the 1640s.. In 1647, the Levellers proposed the adoption of An Agreement of the People which set forth written limitations on the English Government. This proposal contained many of the ideas which were later incorporated in the constitutions of this Nation.

In British North America, Lilburne’s friend, Roger Williams, pursued notions of free will, popular sovereignty, and a covenantal agreement fully entered into when he migrated from England to the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 1630s.

An ardent Christian who took the idea of the great commission seriously–he learned several Native American languages and spent much of his time promoting the Gospel and converting Native Americans in New England to Christianity–Williams also believed that every person must live by the dictates of his or her conscience. He studied the Bible in great detail, and held views that many in the Massachusetts Bay Colony considered heretical.

In 1636 he was expelled, and fled south to what is now Rhode Island, where he was soon followed by a small number of similar outcasts from Massachusetts. He ultimately received a royal charter to establish a new colony there, one which guaranteed freedom of religion. In 1680, another Christian who believed in freedom of religion, the Quaker William Penn, secured a royal charter for the colony of Pennsylvania.

A decade later, the disastrous Salem Witch trials marked the end of the liberty-limiting theocracy of the original Massachusetts Bay Colony.

By the 1770s, the generation of Colonial leaders who fought the American Revolution and passed and ratified the Constitution embraced the concepts of popular sovereignty, individual free choice, and need for covenantal agreements–expressed in writing and clearly understood by all to either accept or reject–that Roger Williams and John Lilburne had first advanced more than a century before as natural continuations of their Christian faith to the civil realm.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.breitbart.com

CNN Gives Crooked Comey His Own Town Hall to Promote Book

The latest in CNN’s series of “Town Hall” farces will be a free infomercial featuring former FBI director James Comey where he will promote his new book as well as respond to the usual series of scripted questions from an audience that will be carefully chosen to only represent one view and that view will be hating on President Trump.

Comey’s book “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies & Leadership” was already near the top of best seller lists weeks before its release, likely due to bulk purchases and advance orders by activists and Obama loyalists who are still dug in deeper than Alabama ticks at the politicized FBI.

The tall man is as slick as greased owl shit and the primary purpose of his promotional tour which will receive saturation coverage will be to put a spin on what has been described as an explosive report from DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz that is said to contain details on systemic abuse of the department for political means as well as providing fraudulent information to FISA courts to procure surveillance warrants against the Trump campaign.

Comey ran the FBI at the time and the CNN event is a signal that the media will construct an impenetrable force field around him to defend him from any inconvenient details within that report.

Via The Daily Wire “Comey Gets The Red Carpet From CNN: A Full Town Hall Event To Mark Book Launch”:

On Wednesday, CNN announced that it would host a townhall event with former FBI Director James Comey on April 25 to launch his new book, A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies & Leadership. According to the press release, the townhall event will take place at William & Mary College in Virginia, and Anderson Cooper will moderate.

Now, Comey’s book will certainly be newsworthy — although Cooper should certainly ask Comey why he hasn’t just come out with information vital to America’s future without launching a book to earn some quick cash. But there’s something more disturbing here: leaving aside townhall events with politicians, during which the questions are biased enough, CNN’s history of issue-oriented townhall events skews toward one particular side of the aisle.

Most recently, of course, CNN hosted an Orwellian Two Minutes Hate townhall event in Parkland, Florida, where student survivors of a mass shooting proceeded to label Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and the NRA’s Dana Loesch murderers with blood on their hands, while the crowd screamed its approval. In November, CNN hosted a townhall discussion on sexual harassment in America featuring Anita Hill, who testified against Clarence Thomas in highly questionable fashion. In January 2016, CNN held a townhall event on guns, featuring President Obama.

When it comes to issue-oriented townhall events, CNN has never done an event specifically on the risks of illegal immigration or the problem of abortion. But they’ll always make room for the most “important” issues of the day, so long as those issues tend toward benefitting Democrats.

Comey will likely be given the red carpet treatment by Cooper; Cooper’s only tough questions will probably be about Comey’s treatment of Hillary Clinton during the last election cycle. And Comey knows that: Michael Wolff has already proved that confirmation bias will guarantee a bestseller. So prepare for hysterical headlines and breathless reportage of news we likely already know.

If CNN is the standard for American media then you would expect to receive less biased coverage in Kim Jong-un’s dictatorial North Korea.

What a farce.

via Downtrend.com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://downtrend.com

The Most Amazing Special Forces Fighters You’ve Never Heard Of

On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorists horrifically attacked the United States, killing 2,996 people, injuring over 6,000, and causing $10 billion in infrastructure damage.  President George W. Bush in addressing the nation stated how “these acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.”  This was no more evident than when U.S. Special Forces teams were deployed as a first response to what happened on 9/11.  A recent movie, 12 Strong, based on the book by Doug Stanton, Horse Soldiers, documents those soldiers’ stories.


A former Green Beret, Scott Neil was part of a specialized direct action unit assigned to infiltrate Afghanistan.  He was one of the select few, from the U.S. Army’s 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne), to put America’s first “boots on THE ground” in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.



Neil told American Thinker, “We have always been the silent warriors, deploying around the world.  In this case, we felt vengefulness, pride, and wanted justice.  Our mission was to kill or capture al-Qaeda and Taliban senior leadership.  There was a military-centric focus, which unfortunately has now morphed to provide stability to the Afghan government and infrastructure.  Back then we tried not to appear as American soldiers and used transportation similar to what the tribes used.  Today, the infiltration is a twelve-vehicle convoy that wear uniforms alien to the environment.  When we first went in, we used a low-visibility footprint, integrating with the population, with the Afghans as the primary force.  We were there to train, advise, and assist.”


This small band of Green Berets was the strategy chosen by Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, instead of a large conventional force.  Stanton wanted to show through the movie and book how “the Special Forces are skilled in language and will use the cultural and religious aspects of that community to their advantage.  They are able to react quickly to a changing environment that has a lot of variables.”  Neil concurs: “We brought together these warring tribal factions to support our objective, and used surprise, speed, and energy.”


Using the model of blending in with the insurgency, they fought alongside those fighting the Taliban.  There, tribes, whom Stanton calls “the resistance fighters, were known as the Northern Alliance.  I think Afghanistan is really a state and not a nation, with many autonomous regions that are divided up along ethnic lines.  Within months, the Green Berets, along with the tribes and air support, were able to destroy the Taliban and chase bin Laden into Pakistan.  Part of the reason for their success was using unconventional warfare and direct action.  They were covert, grew beards to blend in with the force they are fighting alongside.”


These special warriors were not subjected to the disastrous rules of engagement of the Obama days.  Instead, they were given the authority to make unconventional decisions.  Stanton wrote how “the captain was able to make pretty big decisions on the part of the U.S. along with his counterpart, the Afghan general, who actually participated in the battle instead of sitting on the sidelines.  One decision made was to ride alongside their Afghan counterparts on horses.   These horse soldiers combined cavalry warfare with twenty-first-century aerial bombardment technology to defeat the enemy.”


Neil explained, “Those that did ride had no cavalry training.  The only one who knew how to ride a horse was the captain, who had a rodeo scholarship at the University of Kansas.  The others learned on the spot, as they ate what the Afghans ate, fought as they fought, and used the horses as a form of transportation as they did.  All of us who went into Afghanistan during the early days, the ‘horsemen’ and those of us who did not ride horses, were a very small, highly trained, and highly skilled group that was given a very broad mission with limited technologies.”


Both the movie and book chronicle how dangerous it was for the American forces, considering they did not always know who the bad guys were and who the good guys were.  A quote from Horse Soldiers hammers the point home: “[t]he teams were now surrounded by the very soldiers whom minutes earlier, they had been planning to kill.”


Both book and movie account for how the Taliban is pure evil.  Taliban fighters forced youngsters to fight for them by threatening to kill their families.  General Abdul Rashid Dostum, from the Afghan Northern Alliance, refused “to live in a country where a man can’t drink vodka and where women can’t wear skirts or go to school.  The Taliban had marched into the city of Mazar, laid waste, killing an estimated 4,000 to 5,000 people.”


Unfortunately, these silent warriors never get the recognition they so rightly deserve.  Stanton captured this problem with a scene in the book, where one of the Special Forces soldiers, Ben Milo, is dropped off late at night in the middle of a U.S. park and has to call his wife to pick him up.  He wants Americans to understand that these silent Special Forces “never received a bona fide public homecoming celebration like the kind the guys in the regular Army got.  There are no parades for these quiet professionals.”


The author writes for American Thinker.  She has done book reviews and author interviews and has written a number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles.










On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorists horrifically attacked the United States, killing 2,996 people, injuring over 6,000, and causing $10 billion in infrastructure damage.  President George W. Bush in addressing the nation stated how “these acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.”  This was no more evident than when U.S. Special Forces teams were deployed as a first response to what happened on 9/11.  A recent movie, 12 Strong, based on the book by Doug Stanton, Horse Soldiers, documents those soldiers’ stories.


A former Green Beret, Scott Neil was part of a specialized direct action unit assigned to infiltrate Afghanistan.  He was one of the select few, from the U.S. Army’s 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne), to put America’s first “boots on THE ground” in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.


Neil told American Thinker, “We have always been the silent warriors, deploying around the world.  In this case, we felt vengefulness, pride, and wanted justice.  Our mission was to kill or capture al-Qaeda and Taliban senior leadership.  There was a military-centric focus, which unfortunately has now morphed to provide stability to the Afghan government and infrastructure.  Back then we tried not to appear as American soldiers and used transportation similar to what the tribes used.  Today, the infiltration is a twelve-vehicle convoy that wear uniforms alien to the environment.  When we first went in, we used a low-visibility footprint, integrating with the population, with the Afghans as the primary force.  We were there to train, advise, and assist.”


This small band of Green Berets was the strategy chosen by Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, instead of a large conventional force.  Stanton wanted to show through the movie and book how “the Special Forces are skilled in language and will use the cultural and religious aspects of that community to their advantage.  They are able to react quickly to a changing environment that has a lot of variables.”  Neil concurs: “We brought together these warring tribal factions to support our objective, and used surprise, speed, and energy.”


Using the model of blending in with the insurgency, they fought alongside those fighting the Taliban.  There, tribes, whom Stanton calls “the resistance fighters, were known as the Northern Alliance.  I think Afghanistan is really a state and not a nation, with many autonomous regions that are divided up along ethnic lines.  Within months, the Green Berets, along with the tribes and air support, were able to destroy the Taliban and chase bin Laden into Pakistan.  Part of the reason for their success was using unconventional warfare and direct action.  They were covert, grew beards to blend in with the force they are fighting alongside.”


These special warriors were not subjected to the disastrous rules of engagement of the Obama days.  Instead, they were given the authority to make unconventional decisions.  Stanton wrote how “the captain was able to make pretty big decisions on the part of the U.S. along with his counterpart, the Afghan general, who actually participated in the battle instead of sitting on the sidelines.  One decision made was to ride alongside their Afghan counterparts on horses.   These horse soldiers combined cavalry warfare with twenty-first-century aerial bombardment technology to defeat the enemy.”


Neil explained, “Those that did ride had no cavalry training.  The only one who knew how to ride a horse was the captain, who had a rodeo scholarship at the University of Kansas.  The others learned on the spot, as they ate what the Afghans ate, fought as they fought, and used the horses as a form of transportation as they did.  All of us who went into Afghanistan during the early days, the ‘horsemen’ and those of us who did not ride horses, were a very small, highly trained, and highly skilled group that was given a very broad mission with limited technologies.”


Both the movie and book chronicle how dangerous it was for the American forces, considering they did not always know who the bad guys were and who the good guys were.  A quote from Horse Soldiers hammers the point home: “[t]he teams were now surrounded by the very soldiers whom minutes earlier, they had been planning to kill.”


Both book and movie account for how the Taliban is pure evil.  Taliban fighters forced youngsters to fight for them by threatening to kill their families.  General Abdul Rashid Dostum, from the Afghan Northern Alliance, refused “to live in a country where a man can’t drink vodka and where women can’t wear skirts or go to school.  The Taliban had marched into the city of Mazar, laid waste, killing an estimated 4,000 to 5,000 people.”


Unfortunately, these silent warriors never get the recognition they so rightly deserve.  Stanton captured this problem with a scene in the book, where one of the Special Forces soldiers, Ben Milo, is dropped off late at night in the middle of a U.S. park and has to call his wife to pick him up.  He wants Americans to understand that these silent Special Forces “never received a bona fide public homecoming celebration like the kind the guys in the regular Army got.  There are no parades for these quiet professionals.”


The author writes for American Thinker.  She has done book reviews and author interviews and has written a number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles.





via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/

The Resurrection of Jesus: An Inconvenient Fact

This Sunday, Christians around the world will celebrate Easter.  Some prefer to call it Resurrection Day.  Now most Christians – whether nominal or serious – just accept the holiday without much thought. But if they would examine the claims, most Christians would be shocked.


The basic premise behind Christianity is that humanity, and also by extension the universe, is flawed – the theological term is fallen – so flawed that there is no way any human could set himself right with a just, perfect, and holy Creator.  If humanity is to be reconciled to the Creator, it must be the effort of the Creator Himself, since only the Creator is capable of effecting  such as massive work.



Christianity’s claim is that the Creator did come down to Earth, with the purpose of reconciling God to man, in the person of Jesus Christ, who is both man and God.  His human nature would be the Son of God through a virgin; his divine nature would be God incarnate.


Jesus would absorb all the wrongs of mankind in Himself to clear out the account.  The classic wording for this is that He (Jesus) paid the penalty for our sins.  If one is more modern, and eschews the concept of retributive justice, then one could say Jesus absorbed within Himself all the consequences of man’s wrongs, with the idea of setting it right.


Now, the idea of suffering on someone else’s behalf is not new, but Christianity takes the concept a large step forward and makes this claim: death would not be able to hold Jesus, and He would come out of the grave.  And this resurrection would be the signature that Christ indeed set things right between God and man.  Indeed, He would more than pay the price for man’s transgressions.


Many of us, who came out of nominal Christian homes, of whatever denomination, gave it little thought and just accepted it sort of vaguely – but if true, such a resurrection should stop us in our tracks.


No other religion makes this claim.


Mohammed did not claim to die for our sins, nor did he resurrect.  In fact, Mohammed admitted that he had his own sins.


Hinduism offers mankind just the possibility of setting things right by endless reincarnations, with the idea that over time, we will finally arrive at perfection ourselves.  The problem is that even if humans arrive at perfection, it does not do away with the bad karma accumulated from prior reincarnations.  In fact, the hidden flaw of Hinduism is that each reincarnation only makes our problems worse with an endless accretion of bad karma.


Buddhism, which is an outgrowth of Hinduism, has the same fatal flaw.


But what about this Jesus?  Was He like other humans in being sinful?  Christianity addresses the problem by stating that Jesus was unique in His sinlessness, by virtue of the fact that He is God, and therefore He, Jesus, did not have our sinful nature.  He is a rather unique case.


This is further amplified by an Old Testament (Tenach) prophecy, where it is stated that Jesus would bear the sins of others, not his own.


He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

Surely He has borne our griefs

And carried our sorrows;

Yet we esteemed Him stricken,

Smitten by God, and afflicted.

But He was wounded for our transgressions,

He was bruised for our iniquities;

The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,

And by His stripes we are healed. …


And He bore the sin of many,

And made intercession for the transgressors.


This is the famous “suffering servant” passage of Isaiah 53.  Some have claimed that the passage refers to Israel (the Jewish people themselves); however, verse 3 notes that “[w]e [the Jewish people] did not esteem Him.”  Now, if the suffering servant were Israel, then it means that the Jewish people did not esteem themselves.  Whatever the many virtues and flaws of the Jewish people, they do not generally lack for self-esteem.  Without such self-esteem, they would not have survived the diaspora, but would have merged into the other nations.  No, this passage is referring to an individual who would die for the sins of others.


The whole process is conditioned on this person coming out of the grave.  If He did not resurrect, He would have been as sinful as the rest of us, deserving of death, and unable to pay for anyone else’s sins.  But, if He were the Son of God, He would be infinite in value, and His sacrifice could atone for whoever accepted it.


The fact is that if Jesus did not come out of that grave, then Christianity is pointless, despite what liberal preachers say.  Christianity is not positive thinking or a good attitude.  Either Christ came out of that grave or the whole religion is a fraud.


As Paul wrote, “[a]nd if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty” (1 Cor. 15:14).


But if Jesus did come out of that grave,  then all of history changes.  The ramifications are immense.


  1. Islam is false.
  2. Hinduism is false.
  3. Buddhism is false.
  4. Rabbinic Judaism – which rejects Christ – is incomplete.


If He came out of that grave, then He is the only way to God.  Think about it: if we could save ourselves, why would God have even sent Jesus to die for us and then resurrect?  We can’t earn our way back to Heaven.  Our good deeds will not save us.


Christianity, though producing a tolerant civilization, makes a unique claim.  Not only is there only one God – both Judaism and Islam agree on that point – but the only way to approach that God is through His Son – which both Islam and Rabbinic Judaism deny.


I am not going to go into other points such as the Trinity, denominational doctrines, etc.


The first thing you have to do – if you have not decided it already – is settle once and for all: did Jesus come out of that grave?


If He did, then that is a very inconvenient fact for much of the world, including merely nominal Christians – but it is also the central drama of history.


Mike Konrad is the pen name of an American who wishes he had availed himself more fully of the opportunity to learn Spanish better in high school, lo those many decades ago.  He runs a website about the Arab community in South America at http://latinarabia.com.










This Sunday, Christians around the world will celebrate Easter.  Some prefer to call it Resurrection Day.  Now most Christians – whether nominal or serious – just accept the holiday without much thought. But if they would examine the claims, most Christians would be shocked.


The basic premise behind Christianity is that humanity, and also by extension the universe, is flawed – the theological term is fallen – so flawed that there is no way any human could set himself right with a just, perfect, and holy Creator.  If humanity is to be reconciled to the Creator, it must be the effort of the Creator Himself, since only the Creator is capable of effecting  such as massive work.


Christianity’s claim is that the Creator did come down to Earth, with the purpose of reconciling God to man, in the person of Jesus Christ, who is both man and God.  His human nature would be the Son of God through a virgin; his divine nature would be God incarnate.


Jesus would absorb all the wrongs of mankind in Himself to clear out the account.  The classic wording for this is that He (Jesus) paid the penalty for our sins.  If one is more modern, and eschews the concept of retributive justice, then one could say Jesus absorbed within Himself all the consequences of man’s wrongs, with the idea of setting it right.


Now, the idea of suffering on someone else’s behalf is not new, but Christianity takes the concept a large step forward and makes this claim: death would not be able to hold Jesus, and He would come out of the grave.  And this resurrection would be the signature that Christ indeed set things right between God and man.  Indeed, He would more than pay the price for man’s transgressions.


Many of us, who came out of nominal Christian homes, of whatever denomination, gave it little thought and just accepted it sort of vaguely – but if true, such a resurrection should stop us in our tracks.


No other religion makes this claim.


Mohammed did not claim to die for our sins, nor did he resurrect.  In fact, Mohammed admitted that he had his own sins.


Hinduism offers mankind just the possibility of setting things right by endless reincarnations, with the idea that over time, we will finally arrive at perfection ourselves.  The problem is that even if humans arrive at perfection, it does not do away with the bad karma accumulated from prior reincarnations.  In fact, the hidden flaw of Hinduism is that each reincarnation only makes our problems worse with an endless accretion of bad karma.


Buddhism, which is an outgrowth of Hinduism, has the same fatal flaw.


But what about this Jesus?  Was He like other humans in being sinful?  Christianity addresses the problem by stating that Jesus was unique in His sinlessness, by virtue of the fact that He is God, and therefore He, Jesus, did not have our sinful nature.  He is a rather unique case.


This is further amplified by an Old Testament (Tenach) prophecy, where it is stated that Jesus would bear the sins of others, not his own.


He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

Surely He has borne our griefs

And carried our sorrows;

Yet we esteemed Him stricken,

Smitten by God, and afflicted.

But He was wounded for our transgressions,

He was bruised for our iniquities;

The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,

And by His stripes we are healed. …


And He bore the sin of many,

And made intercession for the transgressors.


This is the famous “suffering servant” passage of Isaiah 53.  Some have claimed that the passage refers to Israel (the Jewish people themselves); however, verse 3 notes that “[w]e [the Jewish people] did not esteem Him.”  Now, if the suffering servant were Israel, then it means that the Jewish people did not esteem themselves.  Whatever the many virtues and flaws of the Jewish people, they do not generally lack for self-esteem.  Without such self-esteem, they would not have survived the diaspora, but would have merged into the other nations.  No, this passage is referring to an individual who would die for the sins of others.


The whole process is conditioned on this person coming out of the grave.  If He did not resurrect, He would have been as sinful as the rest of us, deserving of death, and unable to pay for anyone else’s sins.  But, if He were the Son of God, He would be infinite in value, and His sacrifice could atone for whoever accepted it.


The fact is that if Jesus did not come out of that grave, then Christianity is pointless, despite what liberal preachers say.  Christianity is not positive thinking or a good attitude.  Either Christ came out of that grave or the whole religion is a fraud.


As Paul wrote, “[a]nd if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty” (1 Cor. 15:14).


But if Jesus did come out of that grave,  then all of history changes.  The ramifications are immense.


  1. Islam is false.
  2. Hinduism is false.
  3. Buddhism is false.
  4. Rabbinic Judaism – which rejects Christ – is incomplete.


If He came out of that grave, then He is the only way to God.  Think about it: if we could save ourselves, why would God have even sent Jesus to die for us and then resurrect?  We can’t earn our way back to Heaven.  Our good deeds will not save us.


Christianity, though producing a tolerant civilization, makes a unique claim.  Not only is there only one God – both Judaism and Islam agree on that point – but the only way to approach that God is through His Son – which both Islam and Rabbinic Judaism deny.


I am not going to go into other points such as the Trinity, denominational doctrines, etc.


The first thing you have to do – if you have not decided it already – is settle once and for all: did Jesus come out of that grave?


If He did, then that is a very inconvenient fact for much of the world, including merely nominal Christians – but it is also the central drama of history.


Mike Konrad is the pen name of an American who wishes he had availed himself more fully of the opportunity to learn Spanish better in high school, lo those many decades ago.  He runs a website about the Arab community in South America at http://latinarabia.com.





via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/

Parkland Survivor Has Finally Had Enough, EXPLODES On Brownshirt Hogg For His “Nasty” Behavior

I’m not talking about Kyle Kashuv, by the way.

………………………………… ……………………………………………………. ………………………………………………….. ……………………

………………………………… ……………………………………………………. ………………………………………………….. ……………………

Stoneman Douglas High School mass shooting survivor Patrick Petty, 17, whose sister, Alaina, 14, perished during the tragic Parkland mass shooting last month, has had enough of fellow survivor David Hogg’s brownshirt-esque war against anyone who disagrees with him.

In a tweet posted Thursday afternoon, hours after Hogg announced that he would not accept Fox News host Laura Ingraham’s apology for having mildly criticized him, Petty tore into the power-hungry urchin over his own oftentimes foul behavior and rhetoric.

“I find it funny that @davidhogg111 wants people to show him love while being nasty and vile to others,” the teen wrote.

Indeed. Thus far Hogg has labeled the NRA an organization of “child murderers,” likened Sen. Marco Rubio to the Parkland shooter and even obnoxiously suggested he and his band of demagogues “will outlive our opponents because they’re old.”

“Worse than that, he and his friends have not said a word to me since the shooting, considering my sister died on 2/14 don’t you think it would’ve been loving to reach out to me?” Petty added.

But Hogg isn’t really loving, is he? He’s a pompous, egotistical brat drunk on power, fame and influence. He is, in many respects, a veritable brownshirt, as brilliantly noted this week by Cheryl K. Chumley at The Washington Times:

David Hogg, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas high-schooler who seems to have set himself up as Laura Ingraham’s arch nemesis, has been making national television rounds of late, pretty much calling for adults to step aside and let the teenagers rule — because hey, who knows better how to run a country than a kid.

And now he’s demanding Ingraham of Fox News denounce her network — her employer — else he’ll keep up his call for advertisers to boycott.

Hogg would’ve made a pretty decent brownshirt back in the pre-World War II day. Those are the National Socialist party people who ran around Germany strong-arming and bullying and intimidating the general populace into accepting the goals of the Nazi organization. Not saying Hogg’s one now — goodness, no. There are advertisers to consider, of course.

Just saying his demeanor, his rhetoric, his whiney demands, his illogical views of the Second Amendment, his refusal to consider facts and historical truths over emotionally charged screams — all that, added up and considered, suggests he may have missed his calling by a few decades, and an Atlantic Ocean.

Indeed.

And as a veritable brownshirt, Hogg is far too busy “strong-arming and bullying and intimidating the general populace into accepting” his gun control dogma — via the help of the mainstream media, I might add — to care about Patrick Petty and his deceased sister.

But no worries, Patrick, because the rest of us DO CARE:

R.I.P. Alaina Petty.

Personal Note: Due to a pay cut at Downtrend.com spurred by Adolf Zuckerberg’s war on conservative thought, I could use your help. If interested, please check out my Patreon account here. And a sincere THANK YOU to those who’ve subscribed!

H/T Twitchy

via Downtrend.com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://downtrend.com

Fordham Punishes Coffee Shop Manager for Kicking Out Pro-Trump Students

Fordham Punishes Coffee Shop Manager for Kicking Out Pro-Trump Students



Fordham University in New York City is disciplining a student coffee shop manager after she kicked out a group of students for wearing Donald Trump hats.

Breitbart News reported on the incident in December after Fordham coffee shop manager, student Kristal Ho, kicked a group of students out for their pro-Trump apparel. The incident was captured on video.

“You are threatening the integrity of our club. This is a community standard — you are wearing hats that completely violate safe space policy,” she continued. “You have to take it off or you have to go.” She told the students that the “Make America Great Again” hats represented “fascism” and “Nazis.”

“We went there because we wanted to test the unwritten rule that conservatives were banned from that coffee shop,” one of the students who was thrown out said after the incident. “We went there and just started doing some homework and studying. Then we were asked to leave.

“We are tuition-paying students, therefore we should be able to use any building on campus that we want,” he argued. “This school is over $70,000 a year in tuition, therefore I feel that I have the right to go into all of the buildings that other students are allowed to go into. I also have the right to wear what I want to wear and express my own political views.”

Now, Ho, as well as one of the students she kicked out, have been disciplined by the university as a result of their participation in the altercation. Ho was disciplined for violating the campus’ “Disorderly Conduct” policy. Sebastian Balasov, the conservative student behind the camera, was disciplined for filming the altercation and publishing it online. Balasov is also prohibited from returning to the coffee shop.

The students involved claim that the disciplinary process was long because the incident took place in mid-December, the end of a semester. Administrators were not able to investigate the incident until classes resumed in January.

 

 

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.breitbart.com

Nearly 100 MS-13 Gang Members Arrested in Sting Were Resettled Across U.S. as ‘Unaccompanied Minors’

Nearly 100 MS-13 Gang Members Arrested in Sting Were Resettled Across U.S. as ‘Unaccompanied Minors’



Nearly 100 recently arrested MS-13 gang members arrived in the United States by crossing through the U.S.-Mexico border as “unaccompanied minors” and then getting resettled throughout the country by the federal government.

About 475 gang members have been arrested by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency’s “Operation Matador” sting, with 99 of those gang members arrested having arrived in the U.S. as “unaccompanied minors.”

Of the 99 MS-13 gang members who entered the country as unaccompanied minors, 64 of them were granted Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJ), which acts as a quasi-amnesty program for young illegal aliens who cross the southern border.

An ICE agent arrests a gang member in New York. (Photo courtesy of ICE)

Of the 475 gang members arrested by ICE in this operation, 65 of them had been allowed to be released into the U.S. by an immigration judge, while four were re-arrested on criminal charges after they were released.

Unaccompanied minors who cross the southern border have continued to be resettled across the U.S. despite a direct correlation of the quasi-amnesty program — known as the Unaccompanied Minor Childrens (UAC) program — with the proliferation of the MS-13 gang in regions of the country like Nassau County and Suffolk County in New York.

Under President Trump’s administration, the UAC program has continued. For example, in Fiscal Year 2018 thus far, nearly 200 unaccompanied minors have been resettled in Suffolk County, along with almost 280 in Queens County, and more than 115 in Nassau County, despite the regions’ issues with the MS-13 gang.

Miami-Dade County also struggling with a massive illegal alien population, has had to take in nearly 400 unaccompanied minors thus far in Fiscal Year 2018, as well as Palm Beach County, which has had more than 33o unaccompanied minors resettled in the region.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.breitbart.com

Guess Who Just Returned From Obscurity To Tell Hogg, And I Quote, “SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN!”

It’s the return of the mack, ladies and gentlemen.

………………………………… ……………………………………………………. ………………………………………………….. ……………………

………………………………… ……………………………………………………. ………………………………………………….. ……………………

Remember C.J. Pearson, the precocious black teen who rose to Internet stardom a couple years back but then blew it all by manufacturing a lie about then-President Barack Obama? After being busted, the kid suddenly kicked the GOP to the curb and transformed into a Bernie Sanders supporter.

I suspected at the time that Pearson, now 15, left the Republican Party to protect himself from growing criticism from the hateful left. And it seems clear now that my suspicions were correct. After Sanders dropped out of the 2016 presidential election, Pearson abruptly signed on as the national chairman of Teens for Trump. And now, two years later, the young conservative champ has returned to the political scene full-time with a vengeance.

In a video posted to social media Wednesday, Pearson specifically aimed his newfound ire at Stoneman Douglas High School mass shooting survivor turned gun control zealot David Hogg, blasting the punk kid for his pitiful reaction to Fox News host Laura Ingraham’s relatively mild criticism regarding his recent college woes.

“David Hogg is the self-appointed voice of my generation. An individual that put himself at the forefront of the gun control debate just a few weeks ago and continues to do so. This is a man who has chosen to live in the public light, and he can’t take criticism?” Pearson asked.

How utterly pathetic, especially in light of how much unadulterated leftist rage Pearson must contend with daily as a young, black conservative:

You know, I’m fifteen years old. I’m young, I’m black and Republican. I’m literally three things that make liberals lose sleep at night. They hate me. They hate me because I buck every single narrative that they would like the American people to believe.

“Oh, if you’re young, you gotta vote Democrat.”

I say, “No.”

“Oh, if you’re black, you gotta be a Democrat.”

I say, “No.”

They hate me, and because they hate me they call me things like “Uncle Tom,” “House Negro,” “sellout” —  all these hateful, deplorable things.

But guess what? I turn the other cheek. Why? Because these people can tweet at me and criticize me all day long, but I fight for what I believe and I will continue to do so regardless of anything that I’m called.

Pearson further suggested that, instead of whining like a little bitch, Hogg should “go on [Ingraham’s] show and talk about the issues that you so faithfully believe in.”

“Oh, you won’t do that, will you? Because you are scared. So David, grow up or get out of the kitchen if it’s too hot for you. And, all I got to say is just sit down and shut up if you can’t handle it. Sorry, but not sorry,” Pearson ruthlessly added.

Listen:

*round of applause*

The kid truly nailed it. Hogg wants to start all this shit with Fox News, the National Rifle Association and practically every gun-toting Republican in America, yet he refuses to accept — let alone address — any criticism lodged his way.

It’s pathetic and childish. And like Pearson noted, Hogg should either grow up or “sit down and shut up.”

Or, assuming the arrogant possesses the ability to read, pick up a book like “Words That Sting: How To Handle Destructive Criticism Like Jesus” and perhaps LEARN something!

Personal Note: Due to a pay cut at Downtrend.com spurred by Adolf Zuckerberg’s war on conservative thought, I could use your help. If interested, please check out my Patreon account here. And a sincere THANK YOU to those who’ve subscribed!

H/T Mad World News

via Downtrend.com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://downtrend.com

My How Times Have Changed… Trump Admin Looking to Penalize Immigrants on Welfare

It wasn’t that long ago that the Obama Administration  used a Spanish soap opera format to push food stamps to illegal immigrants and Spanish-speaking Americans:

This was despite the fact that most U.S. families headed by illegal immigrants already used taxpayer-funded welfare programs on behalf of their American-born anchor babies.

The Obama USDA was working with Mexico to increase participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or food stamp program.

Obama also encouraged illegal aliens to come to America – and live off of the taxpayer dime!

But there’s a new sheriff in town.

The Trump administration is looking at penalizing immigrants for taking benefits when they come to America.

Nick Miroff at the Washington Post reported:

Immigrants who accept almost any form of welfare or public benefit, even popular tax deductions, could be denied legal U.S. residency under a proposal awaiting approval by the Trump administration.

According to a draft of the proposal obtained by the Washington Post, immigration caseworkers would be required to consider a much broader range of factors when determining whether immigrants or their U.S.-citizen children are using public benefits or may likely do so.

Current rules penalize immigrants who receive cash welfare payments, considering them a “public charge.” But the proposed changes from the Department of Homeland Security would widen the government’s definition of benefits to include the widely used Earned Income Tax Credit as well as health insurance subsidies and other “non-cash public benefits.”

The changes would apply to those seeking immigration visas, or legal permanent residency, such as a foreigner with an expiring work visa. While it would make little difference to those living illegally in the shadows, it could affect immigrants protected by the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals program – whose termination has been blocked by federal courts – if they attempt to file for full legal residency.

Immigrants and their families facing a short-term crisis could potentially have to forgo help to avoid jeopardizing their U.S. residency status. The proposal would also require more immigrants to post cash bonds if they have a higher probability of needing or accepting public benefits. The minimum bond amount would be $10,000, according to the DHS proposal, but the amount could be set higher if an applicant is deemed at greater risk of neediness.

DHS officials say the proposal is not finalized. But the overhaul is part of the Trump administration’s broader effort to curb legal immigration to the U.S., and groups favoring a more restrictive approach have long insisted that immigrants are a drag on federal budgets and a siphon on American prosperity.

The post My How Times Have Changed… Trump Admin Looking to Penalize Immigrants on Welfare appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com