So, he’s in support of the Government that is involved with the deaths of almost 3,000 that day, 9/11/2001, and a great deal more since, including FDNY and NYPD. How much money is he getting from Saudi Arabia for his support?
9/11 survivors blast Adams for OKing Saudi golf tournament
Mayor Adams is taking heat for allowing the Trump Organization to hold a Saudi-backed golf tournament at Bronx course (main photo) in October. Adams’ spokesman said the city is obligated by contract to allow the event.
By Larry Mcshane and Chris Sommerfeldt New York Daily News
Former President Donald Trump’s company has gotten the green light to host a golf tournament in the Bronx sponsored by the Saudi Arabian government, infuriating relatives of 9/11 victims already fuming over a similar event held at a Trump course in New Jersey last month.
The Trump Organization recently secured the permit from Mayor Adams’ administration to hold the women’s tournament at its Ferry Point course in Throgs Neck this October, a city official familiar with the matter confirmed to the Daily News on Friday, speaking on condition of anonymity. The permit was first reported by The New York Times.
The Aramco Team Series tournament is in part bankrolled by the Saudi government. The event’s title sponsor, Aramco, is the kingdom’s state-owned oil producer.
Word of the Ferry Point permit comes on the heels of Trump drawing a barrage of criticism from 9/11 families for hosting the LIV Golf Series, another Saudi-tied golf tournament, at his course in Bedminster, N.J., in July.
U.S. intelligence has determined that Saudi government funding paved the way for the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks on the World Trade Center, and Brett Eagleson, founder of 9/11 Justice, said both Trump and Adams should be ashamed if the Aramco event moves ahead.
“As far as we’re concerned, we’re telling Mayor Adams not to bother to come to Ground Zero if he does not cancel this event, not to bother showing up to any Ground Zero or memorial events,” Eagleson, whose father died in the 9/11 attacks, told The News.
But Nick Paolucci, a spokesman for the city Law Department, said the city had no choice but to approve the Ferry Point permit due to the terms of its contract with the Trump Organization.
“The city is obligated to follow the terms of the Trump Ferry license agreement and cannot unreasonably withhold approval of this tournament,” Paolucci said.
That explanation was cold comfort for Eagleson.
“If they can’t legally stop it, make a public statement they don’t support it,” he said. “This is just egregious and in your face in New York City.”
Asked for a response to Eagleson’s rebuke, Adams spokesman Fabien Levy said, “While we disagree with the values of the Trump Organization, we cannot legally block their application.”
The Trump Organization’s application for the Aramco golf tournament permit was reviewed by the top echelons of Adams’ administration. Frank Carone, Adams’ chief of staff, held meetings about the matter on April 25 and May 4, according to records released by the city in response to a Freedom of Information Law request.
Levy said Carone’s meetings on the Trump permit were “internal” and only involved other city government officials.
Dennis McGinley, whose brother died on the 89th floor of the South Tower when the terrorists crashed into the downtown Manhattan skyscrapers, said he felt a depressing sense of deja vu upon hearing of October’s Trump tournament in the Bronx.
“Here we go again,” McGinley said. “It’s even closer to Ground Zero than Bedminster was. Another punch to the gut. The hits keep coming. Is anyone listening?”
A spokeswoman for the Trump Organization did not return a request for comment Friday.
The Trump Organization’s control of the Ferry Point course became a flash point last year, when former Mayor Bill de Blasio moved to terminate all city contracts with the ex-president’s company, citing his incitement of the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
But a judge ruled this past April that the city had wrongfully terminated the Trump Organization’s contract and allowed the company to keep running the golf course. De Blasio succeeded in terminating several other Trump contracts in the city, though, including the company’s longtime management of the Wollman ice skating rink in Central Park.
European Union chief negotiator Maros Sefcovic. Picture by AP Photo/Geert Vanden Wijngaert
23 August, 2022 03:00
Unionist are opposed to the Northern Ireland Protocol. Picture by Liam McBurney/PA Wire
A GROUP representing a broad range of business sectors across the north has urged the British government and EU to agree a compromise on the protocol.
The Northern Ireland Business Brexit Working Group, which includes sectoral bodies from manufacturing, retailing, hospitality and logistics, said the rate of inflation’s 40-year high should spur London and Brussels to “redouble their efforts to resolve their differences”.
“For too long this issue has been dominated by inflexibility and intransigence but Northern Ireland is now facing into the most difficult of winters,” a statement from the umbrella group said.
“It is our view that the scale of the current economic challenge is such that it demands a swift resolution to the impasse.”
The group also warned the British government about the potential “myriad of reputational, legal and commercial risks” that would arise with the dual regulatory regime envisaged in the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill.
Have centuries of historical scholarship and eyewitness accounts conspired to mislead us about Cromwell? GETTY IMAGES
On this day, August 13, 1649, Oliver Cromwell set sail for Ireland to launch his notoriously brutal conquest of Ireland, persecuting Catholics and taking most of their land, but is he unfairly remembered?
Generations of scholars deliberately maligned Oliver Cromwell. For centuries, propagandistic church officials denounced him erroneously.
Reilly grew up in the shadow of the walls Cromwell’s New Model Army once famously attacked, and he has come to a novel conclusion about the despised English leader that is certain to provoke his neighbors – we owe Cromwell an apology.
“I feel he was much maligned and I think we should apologize to him posthumously and to his family for accusing him of war crimes,” Reilly tells the Irish Voice, IrishCentral’s sister publication.
“We blamed him for killing the ordinary men, women, and children of Ireland. But only two individuals from 1649 and for the next 11 years make that allegation, and those two are unreliable. It didn’t happen.”
By making this explosive claim Reilly is letting Cromwell off the hook for the massacre in Drogheda in a way that no historian ever has before.
An artist’s rendition of Oliver Cromwell storming Drogheda (Getty Images)
“My book is a challenge. I’m an amateur, this is what I’ve found,” Reilly says.
“If any historian can prove what they’re teaching Irish children today in the history books is wrong then go and prove it. I believe that Cromwell is innocent of war crimes. He’s not guilty.”
Most historians agree that at the siege of Drogheda in September 1649, Cromwell’s troops killed nearly 3,500 people after the town’s capture – comprising around 2,700 Royalist soldiers and all the men in the town reportedly carrying arms, including some civilians, prisoners, and Catholic priests.
Cromwell himself, ardently believing he was doing God’s work, wrote of the carnage afterward that: “I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches…”
In his first letter back to the Council of State Cromwell also wrote: “I believe we put to the sword the whole number of the defendants. I do not think 30 of the whole number escaped with their lives.”
There you have it from the horse’s mouth. Not 30 people in the entire town escaped the bloodshed.
“Those who promote the view of Cromwell as a war criminal perpetuate the idea that he simply lost his moral compass in Ireland and returned to his old self on his return to England. This is an inaccurate portrayal.”
Reilly admits he’s an unlikely champion of the Puritan parliamentarian. For a start, he failed history at school.
“That’s a significant point. I was never interested in history when I was in school. But I became curious to know why Cromwell killed all my ancestors. That was what I was I was taught,” he says.
To research his explosive claims Reilly went to the local municipal records and also checked out the Drogheda corporation records. There he realized that there were hundreds of names of people who were very much alive before the siege and after it.
So if the entire population wasn’t killed how true was any of it, he asked himself.
“I read voraciously. Mostly English biographies in the first instance, 19th and 20toh century work. I began to realize the English had a completely different attitude to him. He was actually voted for in the top 10 Britons in history.”
Well, they would say that though, wouldn’t they? From their perspective, standing in their shoes, Cromwell had dispatched a tyrannical king. He was the first Republican and an advocate for democracy.
“There was a huge contradiction between the Cromwell that they wrote about, not just in his military and political achievements, but also the man – with the Irish telling. That’s what made me look into it.”
Thomas Woods, an eyewitness of the Drogheda siege, should not be believed, says Reilly.
An artist’s rendition of the storming of Drogheda (Getty Images)
“His account could have been interfered with by a lot of people. We can go back to Cromwell’s own account from 1649, but we can’t do that with Woods because it’s written so long after the fact,” Reilly says.
“A lot of people sit on the fence about him. I absolutely believe that on the date in question most of the population were not even in the town.”
Where would they have gone? It would be no small undertaking even today for the population of Drogheda to up sticks.
“I think they vamoosed,” says Reilly. “I think they moved to the local monastery.”
The entire population retreated to a monastery?
“Yes, most of them. Outside the walls. The policy was when a town was being besieged, they would fill the town with soldiers, ensure there were victuals for a certain amount of time, and get all the superfluous people out so they didn’t take up the food.”
There’s further evidence, Reilly says. The Duke of Ormond, Cromwell’s adversary, is documented as saying he had ordered the population out of the town. The dean of St. Peter’s Church also documented that his children and wife were sent out of the town.
There isn’t more documentary evidence from the people of the town because unfortunately not enough of them wrote.
“My feeling is that most of the people of the town were gone,” says Reilly. But he can’t prove it.
“No, not from this distance and very few people can. But if they were in the town or they weren’t in the town it’s immaterial.”
If they were in the town they’d have been more likely to be put to the sword, wouldn’t they?
“No. Absolutely not. Cromwell’s orders were very, very clear. He told every man in his army not to do any violence to anyone unless they actually bore arms.”
But isn’t that the kind of thing canny military leaders say before they pound a place into the ground? Trust us. Imperial powers often lose their moral compass in the heat of warfare.
Look at Abu Ghraib. Look at Bloody Sunday. Does Reilly believe that happened to Cromwell, who thought he was on a mission from God?
“No. You really have to look at the evidence. The evidence is really insubstantial. There were lots of English commanders who came to Ireland and lost the run of themselves. Cromwell was not one of them. He’s been labeled the greatest ogre in Irish history. It’s not true.”
How do the locals in Drogheda respond to his findings?
“They don’t like it. There’s a local historical society, and when they heard about my latest book I felt like a pariah. But they don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.”
Reilly says it astonishes him how people with political inclinations can make it color their view of history.
“I could take Sinn Fein councilors back in a time machine and show them what happened in the siege of Drogheda and they’re still not going to believe it. That’s what’s wrong with the country.”
A statue of Oliver Cromwell outside British Parliament (Getty Images)
Love Irish history? Share your favorite stories with other history buffs in the IrishCentral History Facebook group.
Does Reilly have his own pieties?
“No, I’m an atheist, I’m apolitical, I’m sailing through life and hopefully I’m going to make some kind of impact on it.”
Reilly has written that in Ireland “Cromwell unequivocally blames the Catholic clergy for the 1,641 massacres of innocent Protestant settlers and outlines his revulsion of such behavior in no uncertain terms in the above-mentioned declaration.”
The phrase “innocent Protestant settlers” catches the eye, because in fact, they were colonists who had purloined the land from the native Irish. How innocent could those settlers be really?
“That’s true, I get that. The problem with this date is that we cannot judge the political, religious and economic world of the 17th century. It may as well have happened on another planet,” Reilly says.
“Cromwell categorically blames the Catholic Church for the 1641 Rising. You can see why he had the high moral ground.”
Had Cromwell the high moral ground?
“You think about the Inquisition. Think about the Cathars in France. Looks at the nepotism. Look at the indulgences they sold, all of the terrible things the Catholic Church did throughout Europe,” Reilly argues.
“All Cromwell has on his side is God. He’s coming into a time when the Catholic Church is a cesspit of depravity and he believes that they rose up and murdered Protestant settlers who bought their land within the law.”
What’s his response to the Great Hunger? Will that be exposed in his next book?
“No. I’m not a maverick or a contrarian in any shape or form. I believe I have found something that historians have missed.”
Meanwhile, Reilly has no doubt about the history we have been taught.
“It’s propaganda we were taught by de Valera’s Ireland. It’s an accelerant that damaged Anglo Irish relations over the years, it’s bloody inflammatory. This stops now.”
* Originally published in July 2014. Updated in August 2022.
First Catholic church in B’klyn, now a cathedral, marks anniversary
A special Mass on Sunday will commemorate the 200th anniversary of what became the Cathedral Basilica of St. James (both photos) in Brooklyn.
By Leonard Greene New York Daily News
Before the first Catholic church was built in Brooklyn 200 years ago, residents who wanted to attend Mass had to board a ferry and travel to Manhattan.
There were no bridges connecting the two shores of the East River. Brooklyn was just a village, still municipally part of Long Island, which had no established Catholic church to call its own.
Weary of the commute, and seeking a more spiritual connection of their own, Long Island residents broke ground on what would years later be the Cathedral Basilica of St. James, the cradle of Catholic Christianity for two dioceses and 388 parishes.
“The same Holy Spirit 200 years ago inspired a generation of people to want to build up the church,” said the Most Rev. Robert Brennan, bishop of the Brooklyn Diocese. “The same Holy Spirit works in the hearts of men and women today.”
Brennan will be the principal speaker at a special Mass on Sunday to commemorate the 200th anniversary of St. James, the first Catholic church to be built on all of Long Island.
Back then, in 1822, Long Island consisted of Brooklyn and Queens, Nassau and Suffolk counties. Although all the counties are still physically part of the same island, Brooklyn and Queens have since been consolidated as part of New York City.
The Brooklyn church was constructed in response to the request of 70 laymen who petitioned the New York Archdiocese for a parish in the village.
“In the first place, we want our children instructed in the principles of Holy Religion,” Peter Turner wrote in a letter on behalf of the laymen. “We want more convenience in hearing the Word of God ourselves. In fact, we want a Church, a Pastor, and a place of Interment.”
A memorial bust of Turner, who died in 1863, sits on a pedestal in the St. James churchyard.
The Rev. Bryan Patterson, St James’ current rector, said he has always been inspired by the church’s history.
“It wasn’t a group of priests,” Patterson said about the original church petitioners. “It was regular people who decided they wanted their own church and to raise their children in the faith and a place to bury their people. They needed to have a safe place to celebrate the faith.”
From there, other churches began to pop up, first in Jamaica, Queens, then in Hempstead, L.I., until Catholics were celebrating Mass and receiving Communion way out in Montauk.
“Somebody had to be the first,” Patterson said.
In 1853, Long Island established its own diocese in Brooklyn, and continued to expand. More than 100 years later, in 1957, the Diocese of Rockville Centre on Long lsland was established, splitting off from Brooklyn and Queens.
The grand cathedral that stands today at Jay St. and Cathedral Place was built in 1903 to replace the parish church, which was severely damaged by a series of fires.
Among the highlights of the church was an unscheduled stop there in 1979 by Pope John Paul II during his first visit to the U.S.
The pontiff’s motorcade stopped in front of the cathedral, and he got out of his car to greet the crowd.
Legend has it that the steady rain briefly stopped during the pope’s five-minute visit.
The quick stop is told in greater detail in a new documentary, “The Story of the Cathedral Basilica of St. James,” which will premiere on NET-TV on Sunday at 5 p.m.
“This church has seen a lot of things,” said Patterson, who was ordained at St. James. “Even the parish was part of the Underground Railroad. This space and this church and this community have seen the development of New York from an agricultural society to where we are now.”
Mahatma Gandhi was a Hindu, and he was a nationalist. It would’ve been wrong, however, to describe him as a Hindu nationalist. Indeed, that was the label given to the extremist who assassinated the leader in 1948.
Its U.S. equivalent, Christian nationalism/nationalist, has similarly been identified with extremism, but these days is being embraced by high-profile right-wingers. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is one. “I am being attacked by the godless left because I said I’m a proud Christian nationalist,” she tweeted recently.
Americans generally, though, have tended to be somewhat uncomfortable with the identification of a particular religion or denomination with the nation.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.
The County Tyrone-born Archbishop John Hughes, the first head of the Catholic Church in New York, said “It is… out of place, and altogether untrue, to assert or assume that this is a Protestant country or a Catholic country. It is neither. It is a land of religious freedom and equality.”
Of course, cynics might say that Dagger John would have taken a different stance if Catholics were the majority. The bishops in independent Ireland in the next century really liked the idea of Catholicism being the state religion, just as it was in Spain under General Franco, whom they enthusiastically backed from afar.
They had to be content with Eamon De Valera’s Constitution of 1937, which recognized the “special position” of the Catholic Church. In Dev’s neat solution all religions were created equal, but one religion was more equal than the others.
America has tended to insist more than Europe on the separation of church and state as a matter of principle and agreement. Lately, however, this has not been the case, especially on the more conservative side of the aisle. Rep. Taylor Greene’s colleague Rep. Lauren Boebert said she’s “tired of this junk about the separation of church and state.”
Given that she has spoken of the possibility of mandatory “biblical citizenship training,” and has claimed “the church is supposed to direct the government,” Molly Olmstead predicted in Slate in recent days that it can’t be too long before Boebert explicitly labels herself a Christian nationalist, and that some others would likely follow her.
Olmstead’s piece reported that what was once taboo is now acceptable in certain circles. In the aftermath of Jan. 6, 2022, Al Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, called Christian nationalism “idolatrous” and, Olmstead said, “pushed back on the idea that evangelical Christianity was linked to what had happened at the Capitol.”
He said in mid-January 2021, “Nationalism is always a clear and present danger” and linking “American evangelical Christianity” to that was an “accusation.”
By the summer of 2022, Mohler had done something of a U-turn. Olmstead summarized the change, “Speaking on his podcast on June 15, the theologian said: ‘We have the left routinely speaking of me and of others as Christian nationalists, as if we’re supposed to be running from that.’ He added: ‘I’m not about to run from that.’”
But what is Christian nationalism? The Slate writer said, “Christian nationalism is an academic term that encompasses different degrees of intensity. It includes more harmless, everyday God-and-country white evangelicals who believe politicians and courts should eliminate barriers separating church and state—perhaps by allowing for prayer in schools or other public spaces—as well as those with a ‘dominionist’ perspective, compelled to bring the nation’s institutions under control of people who will enforce God’s law.
“It also includes violent extremists willing to tear down democratic processes to bring about their vision of a white Christian nation,” she added. “And while the vast majority of people who could be categorized as Christian nationalists fall into the first two camps, experts worry that the idea of a self-identified label could bring different kinds of Christian nationalists more closely together.”
Olmstead consulted several experts who’ve been following the trend, but one in particular rang some alarm bells and is among those who employ the term “Christo-fascist” to cover certain categories of Christian nationalist.
Olmstead writes, “Phil Gorski, a Yale professor who studies white Christian nationalism, said he thought ‘Christo-fascism’ could apply both to the white nationalist groups that have begun strategically using Christian language as a cover to make their racist aims more palatable, as well as to the extreme Christian nationalists who openly embrace the idea of using violence to achieve their ends.
“‘That’s the most worrisome development I see,’ Gorski said. ‘More overlap in some cases with militia groups, more of this gun fetishism.’
“Right now, there’s some debate as to whether ‘Christo-fascism’ more accurately describes the danger posed by this increasingly emboldened segment of the Christian right—or if, conversely, it lets self-identifying Christian nationalists (and other evangelical Christians) off the hook for tacitly supporting extremism.”
The Olmstead piece ended with “‘A hallmark of fascism is this idea of regeneration through violence,’ Gorski said. ‘And that’s something they’re always talking around the edges of.’”
