Credit:
Getty
Rather Expose Them Christian News Blog
A WordPress Blog-THE CHURCH MILITANT Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse. ALL CONTENT FROM HTTPS://RATHEREXPOSETHEM.BLOGSPOT.COM MOVED TO THIS NEW BLOG, MAY 2020
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Barnabas Aid finally obtained figures proving that the UN
has only recommended tiny token numbers of Syrian Christians, Yazidis
and other minorities for resettlement in the UK. The overwhelming
majority of refugees recommended by the UN have been Sunni Muslims
This gross neglect of peaceful Christians and other minorities has
been long discussed, but without any steps being taken to remedy the
injustice. Instead, the UK and other Western nations have turned their
backs on the most needy groups, who are not only victims of war, but
have been persecuted at the hands of jihadists.
The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, declared that “politically correct officials were institutionally biased against Christian refugees” in the UK; in the U.S., of the 10,801 Syrian refugees who came to the US under Obama in 2016, only 56 were Christian.
Trump once promised that the US would prioritize Christian refugees, but to date, there has been no follow-up.
Most disturbing about the UK was that “ UK officials tried to prevent
the release of this information” about its discrimination against
Christian refugees, but “Barnabas Aid submitted a freedom of Information
request to the UK Home Office” and discovered the ugly truth.
Christians have been abandoned, not only by Western governments but
also by the largest Christian organizations globally, which have
remained strangely silent. Even the Pope promised to take in Christian
refugees in Italy, but then took only Muslims instead; he even called Muslim migrants “warriors of hope”.
Vice President Pence recently offered some hope in a speech
when he announced that President Trump had ordered the State Department
to stop funding UN relief efforts and “support directly persecuted
communities through USAID.” Results are now awaited.
“UK government discriminates against Christian refugees from Syria”, Barnabas Aid, November 2, 2017:
THE UK government and the UN are discriminating against
Christians and other minorities in their refugee programmes according to
new Home Office statistics, seen by Barnabas Aid an aid agency which
works for persecuted Christians.Last week Barnabas Aid finally obtained figures proving that the UN
has only recommended tiny token numbers of Syrian Christians, Yazidis
and other minorities for resettlement in the UK. The overwhelming
majority of refugees recommended by the UN have been Sunni Muslims who
form the majority in Syria. But Christians, and other minorities have
been repeatedly targeted for attack by Islamist groups such as IS.The new statistics, obtained in a Freedom of Information Request to
the Home Office by Barnabas Aid, of the religious background of Syrian
asylum seekers recommended by the UNHCR for resettlement in the UK
revealed:o In 2015 out of 2,637 refugees there were only 43 Christians, just
13 Yazidis and only one Shia Muslim. In 2016 the statistics were even
worse. Out of 7,499 refugees there were only 27 Christians, five Yazidis
and 13, Shia Muslims.o It is widely accepted that Christians made up 10 per cent of
Syria’s pre-war population and Shia’s around 1.5 per cent while there
are estimated to have been 70,000 Yazidis in Syria.Disturbingly, UK officials tried to prevent the release of this
information. Barnabas Aid submitted a freedom of Information request to
the UK Home Office in February. And in spite of being legally required
to release it within 28 days, officials failed to do so and repeatedly
stalled or simply did not answer correspondence.Eventually, Barnabas Aid lodged a formal complaint with the
Information Commissioner’s office. On 19 September the Information
Commissioner issued a formal notice requiring the Home Office to release
this information within 35 calendar days or face contempt of court
proceedings.Even then, the information was only released at the very last minute
after Barnabas Aid had contacted the immigration minister’s office,
alerting him to the situation and asking him personally to ensure civil
servants complied with the order.“This is shocking behaviour by both UN and UK officials. In 2005 the
UN formally adopted the responsibility of states to protect citizens
from genocide and crimes against humanity. These statistics show that
the UN has itself failed miserably and inexcusably in this respect,”
said Martin Parsons, Head of Research at Barnabas Aid.“Christians and other minorities in the Middle East have been treated
shamefully by the UN. And the UK government has abjectly outsourced its
own responsibilities to the victims of genocide in spite of repeated
representations,” he added.Barnabas Aid obtained these figures just as US Vice President Mike
Pence announced that the US government would now directly help
persecuted Christians ……
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
“The term ‘moderate Islam’ is being lathered up again. The patent of
moderate Islam belongs to the West. There is no moderate or immoderate
Islam; Islam is one. The aim of using such terms is to weaken Islam.”
“Lathered up”: good phrase, Tayyip!
Doesn’t Erdogan know that “Islam is not a monolith”? He must be a racist, bigoted “Islamophobe”!
“The term ‘moderate Islam’ aims to weaken the religion, Erdoğan says,” Daily Sabah, November 10, 2017 (thanks to Lookmann):
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan lashed out at the term
“moderate Islam” on Friday, saying the term’s only aim is to weaken the
religion itself rather than distance it from extremists.In a clear reference to Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin
Salman’s remarks, Erdoğan said that the origin of the term lies in the
Western world.“The term ‘moderate Islam’ is being lathered up again. The patent of
moderate Islam belongs to the West. There is no moderate or immoderate
Islam; Islam is one. The aim of using such terms is to weaken Islam,”
Erdoğan said.“They say we will return to moderate Islam, but they still don’t give
women the right to drive. Is there such a thing in Islam? I guess they
will give this right when they turn to the moderate one,” he added.Erdoğan’s words came at a women’s entrepreneurship event held for the
Organization Islamic Cooperation’s (OIC) Women’s Advisory Council at
the Presidential Palace complex in Ankara.In his speech, Erdoğan also criticized discrimination against Muslim
women. “Headscarves are gradually being banned in EU states with the
public – personal space trick, attempting to bar Muslim women from
entering social life. Attempts to incarcerate Muslim women in their
homes is spreading like a virus,” Erdoğan said.“Today, most EU countries actively restrict Muslim women from working
and getting access to education. Those who are teaching us lessons on
human rights are unfortunately applauding as the most basic human rights
are being trampled in their countries.”…
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
One of senatorial candidate Roy Moore’s accusers is
apparently a fervent Democrat who has worked for the DNC as a sign
language interpreter for Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, a revelation
which the Washington Post never included in its original report.
The accuser, Debbie Gibson, had also publically supported Moore’s opponent Doug Jones before the accusations came to light.
Interestingly, when attacking Moore ally Steve Bannon for suggesting
the Washington Post was politically motivated in its reporting, the
newspaper implied that Gibson wasn’t “down with Democratic propaganda,” a
statement which seemingly conflicts with Gibson’s political activism:
Now go back and look at the photos again.
The Post also reported:
“According to campaign reports, none of the women has donated to or
worked for Moore’s Democratic opponent, Doug Jones, or his rivals in the
Republican primary…”
But notice the precise wording; it’s lawyer-speak. It might very
well be true that Gibson didn’t donate or work for Doug Jones, but
according to her Facebook profile, she did actively campaign for him,
which doesn’t help her credibility and it should have been reported –
yet the Washington Post conveniently left it out.
And remember, the Post did endorse Jones on Oct. 23.
If the Washington Post was as objective as it claims to be, you’d
wouldn’t have to come to Infowars.com to find the rest of the story to
make up your own mind as to whether the accusations carry weight.
And as Infowars reported earlier, there’s a claim spreading on social media that a reporter was taped while reportedly offering a woman $1000 to accuse Senate candidate Roy Moore of sexual improprieties.
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RealKitDaniels
Twitter: Follow @KitDaniels1776
MORE Videos: Resistance News
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
After last week’s vicious assault upon U.S. Senator Rand Paul of
Kentucky by his next-door neighbor Rene Boucher (initially dismissed in
the media as a “trivial” dispute over landscaping issues, non-political,
and involving only “minor injuries”), several of Rand Paul’s neighbors
and Paul’s attorney have challenged those assertions.
Doug Stafford, Paul’s lawyer, told CNN on Thursday that the assault
was a “serious criminal matter involving serious injury. This was not a
fight. It was a blindside, violent attack by a disturbed person. Anyone
claiming otherwise is either uninformed or seeking media attention.”
Boucher, an anesthesiologist and Paul’s next-door neighbor of 17
years, has been charged with a misdemeanor, fourth-degree assault in the
attack, which reportedly occurred while Paul was mowing his yard in
Bowling Green, Kentucky. Paul was using earplugs, and was completely
unaware of Boucher until he tackled him behind, breaking six of Paul’s
ribs.
Paul is also suffering from excess fluid around his lungs, and there
are reports that his recovery may take months. With the Democrats and
Republicans so closely divided in the Senate, this could have serious
political implications for tax reform and other parts of the Republican
agenda. Paul is rated the most conservative member of the Senate by the “Freedom Index” of The New American (which
grades members of Congress on their fidelity to the Constitution);
Boucher, Paul’s alleged assailant, has a well-established reputation as
strongly anti-Republican and anti-conservative.
Earlier reports indicated that the two were almost friendly, even walking their dogs together, despite holding sharply different political views. However, Stafford
disputed the assertion that they were on friendly terms. Although the
two men are next-door neighbors, Stafford said they had not spoken to
each other for years.
Several of Paul’s neighbors have now weighed in, challenging the
narrative that the attack was the result of a landscaping dispute, which
left the implication that Paul did not properly maintain his property.
“The Pauls are and always have been great neighbors and friends. They
take pride in their property and maintain it accordingly,” neighbor
Travis Creed told Breitbart.
Creed added, “Rand has enjoyed working on and maintaining his lawn
for as long as I have known him. He was attacked on his property for no
apparent reason and suffered serious injury.”
A registered nurse who works with Boucher told the Washington Post
that Boucher’s politics are “liberal,” and that he was “active” on
social media expounding on those views. For example, Boucher posted on
Facebook, “May Robert Mueller fry Trump’s gonads,” and “Impeach Trump,
Impeach Pence, and Keep Impeaching.”
Another neighbor, Alicia Stivers, defended Paul’s character. “I have
never heard Sen. Paul speak an unkind word about anyone, let alone
become physically violent. Which makes it all the more shocking that a
next-door neighbor of many years who has not so much as exchanged an
email or spoken word with Rand in several years, would race downhill and
pummel Rand from behind.”
Stivers, who has been part of the neighborhood association for four
years, added that Paul was “attacked from behind with no warning.”
While a political motivation for the attack may not be proven, it
would appear that the initial reports that it was all about some leaves
is highly unlikely.
This attack, combined with the shooting of House Republican Whip
Steve Scalise in June, raises some serious questions. Scalise was shot
in Alexandria, Virginia, by James Hodgkinson, a strong supporter of
Senator Bernie Sanders, while practicing for the congressional baseball
game. Before opening fire, Hodgkinson asked another congressman present
what political party they were all in. When told “Republican,”
Hodgkinson began shooting, almost killing Scalise.
Now, a conservative Republican U.S. senator, simply mowing his lawn,
has been attacked by yet another known left-winger. Can one imagine the
response of the media if a Democratic Party member of Congress was targeted in a shooting by a known backer of, say, Senator Ted Cruz? If a Democratic Party
senator was struck so hard that it broke six ribs, and the assailant
was revealed to be a well-known conservative activist, would the media
have dismissed it all as a dispute over tree leaves?
Yet, Boucher’s lawyer argued on Monday that the dispute was “trivial.”
When Paul’s attorney, Doug Stafford, mentioned that the charges
against Boucher involved “state and federal authorities,” CNN’s report
said that Stafford “did not clarify why federal law enforcement would be
involved in the matter.” Perhaps it is because an assault on a U.S.
congressman is considered a federal offense.
It is to be hoped that Senator Paul will make a quick and full
recovery, and that attacks upon Republican members of Congress by
violent left-wing supporters of the Democratic Party and its progressive
agenda will not become common events.
______________________________________________________
SEE OUR PREVIOUS POST:
https://ratherexposethem.org/2017/11/socialist-neighbor-assaults-senator.html
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The California Hawaii NAACP last week began visiting state
legislators’ offices in the California state capitol to distribute
copies of two resolutions that the organization passed at its state
conference in October. One urges Congress to rescind “one of the most
racist, pro-slavery, anti-black songs in the American lexicon”: the
national anthem. The other expresses support for former San Francisco
49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who was the first major professional
athlete to kneel when “The Star-Spangled Banner” was played before
games last season. His form of protest was copied by other NFL players
during this year’s NFL season and has become a highly publicized source
of controversy that even attracted the attention of President Trump.
“We owe a lot of it to Kaepernick,” said California Hawaii NAACP President Alice Huffman, as quoted by the Sacramento Bee. “I think all this controversy about the knee will go away once the song is removed.”
It was Huffman who proposed the idea of the resolutions at a recent
NAACP state convention. “We’re not trying to protest the flag at all,”
Huffman said. “We’re protesting this racist song that has caused so much
controversy in America, and we’re just trying to get it removed. So,
whatever comes out in the future as a national anthem, we can all stand
proudly and sing it.”
“This song is wrong; it shouldn’t have been there, we didn’t have it
’til 1931, so it won’t kill us if it goes away,” Huffman insisted, as
quoted by TV station CBS 13 in Sacramento.
The CBS report noted that Colin Kaepernick started the NFL protests
to bring attention to what he regarded as “systemic racial injustice in
the country.” But Huffman alleges that Kaepernick’s message was lost
when it turned into a debate about the flag. “The message got distorted,
the real intentions got overlooked, it became something that’s dividing
us, and I’m looking for something to bring us back together,” she said.
Huffman told CBS that the NFL protests led her to look at the lyrics
of the “Star Spangled Banner,” especially the parts of the anthem we
don’t typically sing, such as beyond the first stanza. “It’s racist; it
doesn’t represent our community, it’s anti-black,” she alleged.
Interestingly, Kaepernick never cited the words that Huffman says are
offensive to black Americans as a reason for kneeling during the
playing of the “Star Spangled Banner.”
During a 2016 interview with NFL Media, Kaepernick made this
statement explaining his reason fro refusing to stand for our national
anthem:
In an op-ed piece in the New York Times on September 25,
Kaepernick’s former teammate, San Francisco 49ers safety Eric Reid,
wrote: “Why Colin Kaepernick and I Decided to Take a Knee.” He wrote:
Reid approached Kaepernick and the two of them discussed “how we
could make a more powerful and positive impact on the social justice
movement.” He continued:
Kaepernick’s and Reid’s allegations that our nation’s police officers
regularly engage in shooting unarmed black people are contrary to the
facts. As just one example disputing Reid’s allegations, an article in
the Washington Times on April 21, 2015 stated: “An analysis
released last week shows that more white people died at the hands of law
enforcement than those of any other race in the last two years, even as
the Justice Department, social-justice groups and media coverage focus
on black victims of police force.” Another report from the Federalist
Papers Project the following day cited Peter Moskos, an assistant
professor at New York City University’s John Jay College of Criminal
Justice, who concluded that during the period ranging from May 2013 to
April of 2015 that roughly 49 percent of those killed by law-enforcement
officers were white, while only 30 percent were black.
While the numbers still seem to substantiate Kaepernick’s claims of
unethical targeting of blacks by police (since blacks only make up 13
percent of the U.S. populace), it must be remembered that, as Wall Street Journal
editor Jason Riley, who happens to be black, noted: “Blacks commit
seven to 10 times more violent crimes in this country than whites do.”
So if anyone were to complain about police targeting, it should be
whites.
These figures do not address another significant point, however: Even
if Kaepernick’s and Reid’s allegations about disproportionate police
violence against black citizens had some basis in fact, does publicly
showing disrespect for our national anthem do anything to solve the
problem?
Returning to the statements made by Huffman, pointing to Kaepernick’s
kneeling during the national anthem as evidence that the long-revered
song is racist and the cause of controversy, there simply is no
connection. Kaepernick never said he was objecting to the anthem and did
not mention any words in the song to which he was taking issue. His
protest was strictly against what he perceived to be law enforcement’s
treatment of black citizens. He never objected to the anthem itself.
Yet, the NAACP proposal is not intended to disrespect the flag,
Huffman said. “We’re not trying to protest the flag at all,” she said.
“We’re protesting this racist song that has caused so much controversy
in America, and we’re just trying to get it removed. So, whatever comes
out in the future as a national anthem, we can all stand proudly and
sing it.”
Even that statement belies reality. The lyrics to which Huffman
objects are found in the rarely sung third stanza of the anthem.
Furthermore, if we are to infer that Francis Scott Key was being
derogatory to blacks, we would also have to assume that he also hated
“hirelings,” who are mentioned in the same stanza — not likely. In
truth, the objectionable lyrics in question are impossible to interpret
and are left to conjecture, unless we can bring Francis Scott Key back
from the dead so he can explain their meaning to us. We offer the words
below, and challenge anyone to tell us exactly what Key’s intentions
were:
As an interesting aside, there were reputedly black British troops at the fort, called the Corps of Colonial Marines, who could have been the objects of the song.
Deciphering the meaning of these words would make an interesting
exercise in an English literature class, but no person without an agenda
would say they warrant the wholesale scrapping of our national anthem.
But then again, the NAACP always has an agenda.
Related articles:
NAACP Releases Report on Tea Party Racism
NAACP Set to Release Report on Tea Party Racism