republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

Let’s see. A million and a half Armenians killed. Not genocide, insists Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu. A million Greeks killed. Not genocide, insists Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu. The jihad conquests of the Byzantine Empire, Eastern Europe, and more. Not colonialism, insists Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu. And indeed, the Ottoman Empire didn’t create colonies out of the conquered territories; the Ottomans just created colonial subjects within the empire: the dhimmis, the Jews and Christians who were subjugated under Islamic law, and who had to pay a special tax and suffer institutionalized discrimination and harassment. The Ottoman’s Empire’s bloody record is abundantly documented from primary sources in The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS, but Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu is counting on his hearers not knowing this history, and he is largely correct.

“No genocide, colonialism in Turkey’s history: FM Çavuşoğlu,” Hürriyet Daily News, April 15, 2019:
Turks are proud of their history because they have not committed any genocide or partaken in colonialism, Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu has said, vowing the Turkish government will not stay silent against “some countries trying to lecture Turkey on history,” in reference to France and Italy’s recognition of the 1915 killings of Armenians as genocide.
“We are proud of our history because our history has never had any genocides. And no colonialism exists in our history,” Minister Çavuşoğlu addressed an event at Selçuk University in the Central Anatolian province of Konya on April 15.
Turkey will never take history lessons from those who have forgotten the history of their own countries and will not hesitate to give a lesson to those who dare question Turkey’s history, Çavuşoğlu said, indirectly recalling a quarrel he had with a French parliamentarian last week in the southern province of Antalya on the sidelines of a NATO parliamentary meeting.
“France is the last country which can lecture Turkey on genocide and history,” Çavuşoğlu had said, in response to a statement by French deputy Sonia Krimi. “France should mind its own dark history in Rwanda and Algeria,” he added….


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The Mormon Church is full of self-correction. Although the Christian religion, which is by nature intrinsically anchored to Sacred Writing, the Mormon faith is tethered to a human hierarchy consisting of a President and Prophet, First Counselor, Second Counselor, and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. All Scriptural interpretation, doctrinal belief, and theological interpretation is therefore subjected to changing human interpretation.
Mormon Church history is full of policy reversals, supposedly by the will of God, handed down by their presidents and prophets. Last year, the LDS officially scuttled their name Mormon, scrubbing it from all official literature and advertising as a part of a decades-long plan to merge their faith into the perceived mainstream of Christianity (they’ve even changed the name of their famous Mormon Tabernacle Choir to accommodate the re-branding. Until 1978, black men were prohibited from the priesthood and both black men and women were forbidden from receiving the ordinances. In 2012, the LDS Church un-banned caffeinated soda products (caffeine is still banned in hot drinks like tea or coffee). And most famously, the LDS church conveniently abandoned polygamy in 1890, which happened to coincide with Utah’s entrance into the Union, which required their abandonment of polygamy (God seems to speak through his prophets when it’s politically expedient).
The traditionally super-conservative Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is rapidly changing their policies on LGBTQXYZLMNOP issues.
In a major change that came a week ago, the LDS headquarters announced that God again had changed his mind on an important social issue. Although the Mormons had banned people in ‘gay marriages’ as “apostates,” they reversed that decision on April 4.
Most drastically, dropping the ‘apostate’ label on gay Mormons will allow their children to be baptized and ‘blessed’ prior to their adulthood. The church will now put their seal of approval on children adopted, artificially conceived, or trafficked into gay marriages.  President Dallin Oaks said that the decision of the LDS church was to “reduce the hate and contention so common today.”
In reality, the decision is probably due to nearly 1 thousand gay or gay-supporting Mormons who recently showed up in Salt Lake City to resign their membership in the church out of protest of the church’s stance against LGBTQXYZLMNOP marriages.
As good Continuationists (those who believe the Apostolic Sign Gifts like prophecy have continued into the church age, such as charismatics, Pentecostals, the Assemblies of God and lots of confused Baptists), the LDS press release announced that the changes to policy were due to a changing understanding of revelation from God.
“These policy changes come after an extended period of counseling with our brethren in the Quorum the Twelve Apostles after fervent, united prayer to understand the will of the Lord,”
In other words, the revelation from God has not changed, but it has been misunderstood and only now is being rightfully interpreted by the church.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Are you packing to church? If you’re trained, you should be.
A movie trailer for Emanuel, the film about the 2015 shooting at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, was released several days ago. The mass shooter [name purposefully withheld] walked into the church’s Bible study and open fired, killing 9 church members. The film which is produced by NBA star, Stephen Curry, highlights the tragedy and interviews the families of those affected.
Along with the graphic and awful footage released from the New Zealand Mosque shooting several weeks ago, we are reminded that places of worship are often targets of devilish people who are looking for easy targets.
The best thing you can do, in case of such an event, is to have pre-planned the response scenario and have engaged in active shooter training.
This video from the United States Concealed Carry Association (of which I am a card-carrying member) gives some valuable advice to church-goers in relation to active shooter situations.
Try these tips:
  1. Your church needs a security team.
  2. Conceal carry a firearm when you go to church (“no metal detectors, no problem,” as they say).
  3. Talk to your family about an active-shooter situation. It’s important to tell everyone in the church that if they’re not intending to stop the shooter, to get down. This way, if everyone else is down, those who are armed can more easily acquire the target that needs to be eliminated (as shooters typically stand).
  4. Be thinking ahead of time about target-acquisition and line-of-sight issues from where you’re sitting and entrances where gunmen may approach.
And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy oneLuke 22:36
To join the USCAA and receive more updates about protecting your houses of worship, click here.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Tim Keller, at the TGC19 Panel, Lauding a Romanist Who Blames the Reformation for ‘Secularization’ that stands in the way fo their Jesuit-Marxist Social Justice Worldview
The Gospel Coalition’s annual conference was held earlier this month and produced many sessions and panels, one of which especially stood out in promoting one of the primary influences in the ideology and ministry philosophy of TGC co-founder and Vice President Dr. Tim Keller, who was one of the four panelists.
TGC Senior Editor, Collin Hansen moderated, with fellow TGC Senior Editor, Brett McCracken and author, Jen Pollack Michel rounding out the panel. The discussion centered around the survival of Christianity in this secular age based on the book titled “Our Secular Age: Ten Years of Reading and Applying Charles Taylor,” produced by TGC and contributed to by Hanson, Alastair Roberts, Carl Trueman, Michael Horton, Alan Noble, and more ‘woke’ Social Justice advocates.
Because the panel discussion focused on the book regarding Charles Taylor, it benefits those of us in the proletariat cheap-seats to ask the question as to who exactly this character is, who draws so much attention and appreciation from the Evangelical Intelligentsia.
You can watch the panel discussion below, but it might be wise to skip to the summary below for the sake of time. You won’t want to miss it.
Dr. Charles Margrave Taylor was a Roman Catholic and communitarian philosopher, and his biographers list the greatest influences on Taylor’s thinking as Aristotle, Plato, Hegel, and Karl Marx
Com-mu-ni-tar-i-an  adjective kə-ˌmyü-nə-ˈter-ē-ən  of or relating to social organization in small cooperative partially collectivist communities
Col·lec·tiv·ism   noun the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.
Synonyms for communitarianism (which is what Russell Moore is according to sources) includes collectivism, socialism, Sovietism, Bolshevism, Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, and Maoism.
Taylor’s magnum opus, A Secular Age, is a massive 896 pages that best demonstrates his religious philosophy, as summarized below:
Taylor believes that a movement of Reform in Christianity, aiming to raise everyone up to the highest levels of religious devotion and practice, caused the move to secularization. The disciplined Reformed-self replaced the porous-self, vulnerable to external forces, spirits and demons, with a new buffered-self, or a disciplined and free agent living in a progressively disenchanted world of expressive individualism.”
According to Taylor, the success of Reform and the propagation of successful disciplined individuals leads to a disciplinary society that starts to take action against rowdiness and indiscipline.
Calvinists and Puritans were by nature industrious and disciplined. With such men a safe, well-ordered society can be built (p. 106), so Taylor argued, but the success of the project encouraged an anthropocentrism (human-centeredness) that opened the gates for a godless humanism (p. 130). Humans, therefore the arguing goes, are individuals no longer embedded in society, God is no longer embedded in the cosmos, and the notion of human flourishing becomes transformed into “salvation which takes us beyond what we usually understand as human flourishing” (p. 152).
Taylor argues that the Reformation was essentially a bad thing because its congruent entanglement with the Enlightenment caused “people started using reason and science instead of religion and superstition” (p. 273) to explain the world.
To argue for his theistic (but still terribly flawed outlook) unbelief, Taylor presents a selection of recent spiritual conversions or “epiphanic” experiences among Romanist artists and writers.
In summary and according to the Roman Catholic and communitarian philosopher, Charles Margrave Taylor, everything in the world was basically fine until the Reformers – led by Luther and Calvin – and the consequence of the Reformation was a rise in secularism. Taylor insists that the long road from the religious bliss of The Dark Ages to the secular doom of today started with The Protestant Reformation, and will only end when we go back to The Dark Ages.
No, seriously. That anti-Reformation theology is what’s being promoted at “The Gospel Coalition.”
Taylor recommends mystical, sensual experiences that provide a rich variety of paths to God, as well as a new approach to issues of sexuality, thereby promoting unity in the church. Not surprisingly, Taylor is a constant presence in Keller’s sermons, speeches, and books. This is a panel discussion on what they’ve learned from Taylor and the need to implement his philosophy in the church!
Charles Taylor is lauded by The Gospel Coalition for attacking the “secularism” of the Protestant Reformation (because The Gospel Coalition’s Jesuit-Marxist Liberation Theology stands opposed to Lockean concepts of personal liberty that came out of the Reformation and formed English Common Law and civil liberties). Another liberal organization, Huffington Post, had equally glowing things to say about Taylor if that tells you anything.
According to the HuffPo:
Taylor is of global influence as a Catholic thinker, a leader on the social democratic left and a spokesperson for combining rather than opposing liberalism and defense of community.
It should be apparent by now that The Gospel Coalition is an ideological change-agent for the political left in American evangelicalism.
[Contributed by Toni Brown]


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational 
and research purposes:
Pro-abortion activists gathered to celebrate the Constitutional 
Court’s overturning the current ban on abortion

Thursday South Korea’s constitutional court ruled the decades old ban on abortion is unconstitutional. The current law criminalizes abortion. Pro-abortion activists were elated and gathered near the courthouse in what they’re calling a victorious court ruling.

Although South Korea is one of the few remaining countries to criminalize infantacide (except for rape, incest, severe genetic anomalies or when the mother’s life is in jeopardy). As the current law stands, physicians who perform abortions can be imprisoned for up to two years and women who terminate their pregnancy (let us be straightforward, murder their unborn child) can receive a maximum of one-year sentence or can be fined up to 2m won (approximately $1,760).
This is seen as a historic court ruling as abortion has been illegal since 1953. The nine-member panel ruled 7-2 that the 66 year old abortion law is unconstitutional and new legislation must be written by South Korean legislators. 
In the decision the court stated:
The abortion ban limits women’s rights to pursue their own destinies, and violates their rights to health by limiting their access to safe and timely procedures.[…] Embryos completely depend on the mother’s body for their survival and development, so it cannot be concluded that they are separate, independent living beings entitled to the right to life.
The debuty Asia director of Human Rights Watch, a human rights organization stated:
It’s about time South Korea heeded the voices of the majority of South Korean women who have today won the right to determine what happens with their bodies and their lives. Now the National Assembly needs to move without delay to revise the law in line with this far-reaching court verdict and ensure women’s rights are protected in law.
The current law is still in effect, however in the Constitutional Court ruling it stated that legislators must rewrite the law based on their ruling by the end of this year.
Anti-abortion activists that had also gather outside the courthouse are deeply saddened by the court’s decision. One of those protesters, Joon Il-kim, a mathematics professor at Yonsei University in Seoul, said:
I feel very sad. […] I do not agree with the decision. There’s a discrepancy between women’s rights and [an unborn] baby’s rights — it is a small human on its own.
Anti-abortion activists declared that they will continue to fight for the right to life for unborn children.
[Editor’s Note: HT Alex Reid]



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
UPDATE: Here’s a video preview of Peaceful Death Threats, along with some commentary by me on my proof copy of the book.
My Introduction to my new book, Peaceful Death Threats:
If I didn’t draw Mohammad cartoons, Muslims would be peaceful?
Some Muslims actually believe that, and they act as if my “terrorism”, (yes, they call my cartoons “terrorism”, as you’ll see in the pages ahead) must be responded to in kind, with terrorism, even though they’re “peaceful”.
If you want to maintain your illusions that “Islam means peace” and that “99.9% of Muslims are peace-loving”, then this book is not for you, as you’re either a Muslim or you might as well make it official and become one. If you can’t imagine threatening to murder cartoonists over cartoons, then this book is for you.
Islam wasn’t “hijacked” by jihadists, peace was hijacked by Muslims. In my acceptance speech after I won the Mohammad cartoon contest, I asked the audience, “Why do you think we have this kind of security?”, and as the audience started to applaud, and even laugh, as they had a good idea where I was going with it, I said that it was because Islam did not mean peace. The Only reason any of us are talking about Islam is because it doesn’t mean peace. Islam hasn’t given us any reason to talk about it outside of our concern over it.
When a lone evil scumbag goes on a shooting spree in America, the “national conversation” is that it has something to do with America, that it says something about us, and that we all have to answer for it in some way. Only self-loathing leftists would define America by a small minority of evil scumbags. Yet when daily atrocities are committed by Muslims across the world, the “national conversation” crowd tells us that it “has nothing to do with Islam”, while also saying that we had it coming. They live for a chance to condemn America for things it’s not responsible for, and to exonerate Islam for things it is responsible for. These “national conversationalists” don’t want a conversation about Islam, about jihad, or about the truth. And the “national conversation” that needs to take place is about Islam and its calls for violence against non-Muslims.
As for “nice Muslims”, especially those in the West, they embody Western values that they fancifully attribute to Islam, and it’s left to “mean” people like me to have to point that fact out. The reason why many of us choose to define Islam by the behavior of its least devout Muslims is because devout Muslims are monsters. But of course, in this increasingly truthless world we’re living in, merely pointing that fact out makes me a monster.
I got a wave of death threats a few months ago from Muslims the likes of which I’ve never experienced, and my life has not been the same. Thousands of Muslims from across the world, with many from Pakistan, threatened to murder me after I was announced as the judge for a new Mohammad cartoon contest that Geert Wilders announced in the summer of 2018. Many of the threats were monotonous and I couldn’t keep up with all of them, as they came from all corners of the internet, from social media, email, YouTube, my blog, and I even got audio death threats in Facebook messenger. So the threats in this book are the “best” 400 of them.
Since I’ve been called “the most dangerous man in comics”, this book has the potential to be my most “dangerous” one yet, as it will make it more difficult for some among us to maintain their illusions about Islam and its “peaceful” followers. My “co-writers” in this book are average, everyday Muslims who think it’s normal to threaten to rape and murder a cartoonist over Mohammad cartoons. They and their culture are not to be “understood”, but condemned. This book is a good document to show that Islamic culture, at large, is a problem, and that Muslims at large want cartoonists who draw Mohammad to be murdered, by their hand, or by the hands of their more devout co-religionists. All of the thousands of Muslims who wrote me death threats want me dead, and those who didn’t write me would likely celebrate if I were murdered, or at “best”, would “understand” why I had to die. “Not all Muslims”? Not One Muslim wrote me to say, “I may not like what you do, and I may even hate it, but you have the right to draw whatever you want, and you shouldn’t be threatened or killed over it.”
Not one.
When the Muslims who’ve threatened me hear of this book, what do you think their response would be that their threats were published, and that they inspired 60 new Mohammad cartoons by me? More threats.
The threats in this book are from Muslim students, doctors, engineers, musicians, etc., and I think that will be a revelation for some, for those who still cling to the idea that it’s only “extremists” who are the problem, because seeing is believing. Seeing death threats along with the names and pictures of average Muslims might open some eyes.
After years of getting death threats, they’ve become white noise to me, in a way. They’re meant to scare me into silence and inaction, but I’m more likely to laugh at them than be terrified. But I do pause at times, at the casual, decadent evil of it all, and the mass support that it gets from far more Muslims than many would like to believe. What did Muslims do after the massacre of Charlie Hebdo? They callously ran over the dead bodies of the murdered innocents to defend Mohammad, who murdered innocents. Islam didn’t teach them to live and let live, despite whatever criticism came their way, Islam taught them that the answer to criticism is murder. That the first, natural, Islamic response is murder.
Regarding my new Mohammad cartoons in this book: I think it’s important to show Mohammad, the murderous figure who inspires Muslims to murder, alongside screenshots of the death threats over my Mohammad cartoons, which inspired even more Mohammad cartoons by me.
And to those who’ve dismissed me when I say that Hitler is Islam’s favorite Infidel, there were endless Muslims who expressed their admiration for Hitler to me, and I have a page of the “best” ones in this book, where I draw Hitler as Mohammad.
I’m well aware that most of these threats are just talk, however obscene that talk is, but unlike members of other groups, Muslims are more prone to back up their threats with violent action, and so I take their threats more seriously than I do the threats of others. And some of them get very specific and personal.
It’s one thing for Muslims to have their prohibitions, but it’s quite another thing for them to try to force their prohibitions on us. Since 9/11, we’ve waged war the way Muslims wage peace, and we’re gong to have to learn how to wage war, in order to have peace.
-Bosch Fawstin, February 2019
Here’s where I will be signing the book, on the opening page, first page, title page.
You can order Peaceful Death Threats at


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
“He said that the reason he shot these individuals is because in God’s eyes, it was all right for him to deal with someone in this manner who had been involved in adultery, extramarital affairs.” Apparently Smith was trying to cleanse his family’s honor, which is done by killing the offender. And there will be much, much more of this in America: Muslims commit 91 percent of honor killings worldwide. The Palestinian Authority gives pardons or suspended sentences for honor murders. Iraqi women have asked for tougher sentences for Islamic honor murderers, who get off lightly now. Syria in 2009 scrapped a law limiting the length of sentences for honor killings, but “the new law says a man can still benefit from extenuating circumstances in crimes of passion or honour ‘provided he serves a prison term of no less than two years in the case of killing.’” And in 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted down on Islamic grounds a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honor killings. Al-Jazeera reported that “Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values.”
Until the encouragement Islamic law gives to honor killing is acknowledged and confronted, more women will suffer.
“Suspect in west Phoenix shooting said ‘God told him to shoot his wife,'” by Brent Corrado, FOX 10, April 11, 2019 (thanks to Dane):
PHOENIX (FOX 10/AP) – Phoenix police say a man has been arrested on suspicion of killing his wife, his two young daughters and a man who the suspect thought was romantically involved with his wife.
According to police, the man, identified Friday afternoon as 30-year-old Austin Smith, killed his wife, 29-year-old Dasia Patterson. Smith is also accused of killing two young children, identified as five-year-old Nasha Smith and seven-year-old Mayan Smith, and fatally shooting 46-year-old Ron Freeman on Thursday night Continue reading below
The couple’s three-year-old daughter was not hurt and was found hiding under a bed when police arrived at the scene. According to court documents released Friday evening, the youngest daughter was not killed because she reminded Smith of himself.
Police say the suspect killed his family at their home near 75th Avenue and Camelback before going to another location near 67th Avenue and Osborn and fatally shooting the man because he believed was having an affair with his wife.
Sgt. Thompson says the suspect was arrested while driving away from an apartment complex where the man had been shot dead and two others were shot and wounded. The suspect made an appearance in front of a judge Friday evening.
Neighbors say Smith was always very friendly, but the rest of the family kept to themselves.
“Helped the neighbors, ‘hey amigo, you need something’,” said Carmen Gallego. “He even gave my husband some jump started cables on Sunday for his truck.”
The suspect said his religion was a factor in committing the crimes.
“He said that the reason he shot these individuals is because in God’s eyes, it was all right for him to deal with someone in this manner who had been involved in adultery, extramarital affairs,” said Phoenix Police Sergeant Tommy Thompson.
Smith also told police he killed his seven-year-old daughter because she was “weeping for the wicked”.
“Muslims don’t move like that either, so that’s an excuse,” said Patterson’s cousin, who did not want to be identified. “Muslims don’t move like that. They’re kids.”…


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
President Donald Trump’s proposal to ship immigration detainees to so-called sanctuary cities –which are Democrat strongholds— is a political masterstroke, if the Left’s wounded animal-like howling is any indication.
With this politically brilliant tactic, the likes of which would never have come from a President Jeb Bush or a President Mitt Romney, Trump continues to demonstrate that he is one of the few Republican presidents in modern American history who actually knows how to fight the Left. He is giving leftists a well-deserved taste of their own medicine.
And what better place to send illegal aliens than to sanctuary jurisdictions? They claim to welcome illegals and provide services for them. Their sanctuary policies, by which they harbor and shield illegals from U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE), are magnets for illegals, giving them incentives to sneak across the border or overstay visas.
The president’s plan only gives sanctuary cities more of what they claim to want.
“We’ll bring them to sanctuary city areas and let that particular area take care of it,” Trump said April 12 at the White House. “They say, ‘we have open arms,’ they’re always saying they have open arms, let’s see if they have open arms.”
The same day Trump tweeted: “Due to the fact that Democrats are unwilling to change our very dangerous immigration laws, we are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing Illegal Immigrants in Sanctuary Cities only....”
“Sanctuary cities that release known criminal aliens put all Americans at risk,” Trump told the National Association of Attorneys General on March 4.
“In the last two years, ICE officers made 266,000 arrests of aliens with criminal records, including those charged or convicted of approximately 100,000 assaults — and these are new numbers, hard to believe — 30,000 sex crimes, and 4,000 murders.”
California leftists loudly rejected Trump’s plan, which is not all that surprising because the Golden State gave birth to the sanctuary movement. Los Angeles became the first U.S. sanctuary city in 1979 when its police department issued Special Order 40, a document that forbids police officers from inquiring about the immigration status of individuals not suspected of crimes.
California’s new governor, Gavin Newsom (D), a former mayor of San Francisco, has pledged to make his home state “a sanctuary to all who seek it” in defiance of President Trump’s drive to secure the nation’s border with Mexico and enforce U.S. immigration laws. The state already has unprecedented sanctuary laws on its books that shelter its 2.4 million illegal aliens from ICE. Those dubious statutes are under attack in a lawsuit filed by the Trump administration.
Newsom was one step away from the funny farm Friday as he experienced an adjective-rich mental breakdown while describing his opposition to the plan to CBS News.
Newsom said Trump’s proposal was “unserious,” “illegal,” “immoral,” “asinine,” “sophomoric,” “ludicrous,” “petulant,” “un-American,” and “rather pathetic.”
“To use immigrants as pawns — to put them in difficult and trying circumstances as political theater shows how low a human being can go. And this human being happens to be sadly and tragically the president of the United States,” Newsom added.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, another California Democrat whose home town of San Francisco is a sanctuary city, attacked the Trump administration for its “cynicism and cruelty” in “using human beings … as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants.”
San Francisco’s current mayor, London Breed, said the plan “is just another in a long line of scare tactics and half-baked ideas.”
Oakland, California Mayor Libby Schaaf, called the plan “an outrageous abuse of power — using human beings to settle political scores.”
Schaaf has tipped off illegal aliens about approaching ICE raids to applause from the mainstream media. Schaaf piously insists her actions have not endangered ICE officers. “How can it be dangerous and illegal simply to tell people what the law is, what their rights are, what their resources are?” she said disingenuously. “That’s all I did.”
Except that Newsom, Pelosi, Breed, Schaaf, and their fellow Democrats have been using immigrants, or more precisely, illegal aliens, as pawns for decades in an effort to import an electorate more to their liking in what stubbornly remains a more or less right-of-center country.
Former President Obama even went further, sending busloads of migrants to law-and-order conservative cities that did not want them, to punish those jurisdictions for not being sanctuary cities, as Monica Showalter notes at American Thinker.
President Trump has tried to crack down on sanctuary cities.
An Obama-appointed San Francisco judge, U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick III, issued a permanent nationwide injunction against President Trump’s Executive Order 13768, which would have withheld federal funding from sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with ICE. That injunction remains in force.
Congressional Republicans have serially betrayed conservatives and handed Democrats victories over President Trump by refusing to cut off funding for sanctuary cities.
The sanctuary movement gave illegal aliens permission to rob, rape, and murder Americans by, among other things, stigmatizing immigration enforcement. Some left-wingers call sanctuary jurisdictions “civil liberties safe zones” to blur the distinction between citizens and non-citizens by implying illegal aliens somehow possess a civil right to be present in the U.S. Leftists also like to refer to all migrants, including illegal aliens, simply as “immigrants” in order to further muddy the waters. This helps the Left portray conservatives, who are generally not anti-immigrant –they’re anti-illegal immigration— as xenophobic bigots.
Sanctuary cities should be called traitor cities because they are in open rebellion against the United States just as much as the Confederate Army was when it opened fire on Fort Sumter.
President Trump, unlike Democrats and many in his own party, understands how dangerous sanctuary policies are.
And the Left’s extended freak-out over Trump’s new proposal suggests the president is on to something.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
After insulting the memory of the thousands who lost their lives on 9/11, Ilhan Omar now plays the victim card. This is such a routine, overplayed tactic of Islamic supremacists that one wonders how it can be that many Westerners still haven’t caught on.
Omar says in response to the justified outrage over her remarks: “This is dangerous incitement, given the death threats I face. I hope leaders of both parties will join me in condemning it.”
This is Omar’s call for dhimmis to join her in accepting that Americans were wrong to be outraged over her abhorrent comments she made, and for the leaders of both parties to help her further undermine the security of the U.S. and the freedom of speech.
More on this story. “Ilhan Omar complains about outrage over her 9/11 comments,” by Mark Moore, New York Post, April 10, 2019:
Rep. Ilhan Omar went on Twitter Wednesday to complain that outrage over her comments describing the Sept. 11 attacks as “some people did something” was creating an unsafe situation for her.
“This is dangerous incitement, given the death threats I face. I hope leaders of both parties will join me in condemning it,” the Minnesota Democrat wrote on her account. “My love and commitment to our country and that of my colleagues should never be in question. We are ALL Americans!”
In her posting, she linked to comments made by Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw and Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade.
Crenshaw, a former Navy SEAL who lost an eye while fighting in Afghanistan, blasted Omar for her comments trivializing the terror attacks to a Muslim rights group.
“First Member of Congress to ever describe terrorists who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11 as ‘some people who did something,’” Crenshaw wrote Tuesday. “Unbelievable.”
During a segment of “Fox & Friends” about Omar’s speech, Kilmeade said: “Really? Some people did something? You have to wonder if she’s an American first.”
“As a Muslim American you should be more outraged because they sullied your religion,” Kilmeade continued. “In the name of religion they kill Americans and still do it on a daily basis.”….




republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Prophecy News Watch April 15, 2019
By Michael Snyder/Economic Collapse Blog
Most U.S. churches are shrinking, and more than 100 die every week.  In a day and age where pastors are judged by attendance numbers and budget levels, scaring people away is bad for business.
With all that in mind, the results from a recent Barna survey shouldn’t be surprising at all…
We wanted to know if pastors felt limited or pressured when it comes to speaking about controversial topics. Half of Christian pastors says they frequently (11%) or occasionally (39%) feel limited in their ability to speak out on moral and social issues because people will take offense. The other half of pastors say they only rarely (30%) or never (20%) feel limited in this way. 
When asked to identify the source of the concerns, pastors are much more likely to say that they feel limited by those inside the church than those outside. In other words, the reactions of those in the pews are most on the minds of today’s pastors.
And remember, these numbers just show the percentage of pastors that are willing to admit that they are afraid to speak out about controversial issues.
In reality, the percentage of U.S. pastors that actually hit the hard issues on a consistent basis is exceedingly low.
Not offending people is obviously a strategy that can work, because many of America’s largest churches today are pathetically shallow.  In fact, one of America’s most famous pastors absolutely refuses to ever use the word “sin” because it might offend someone.
But eventually people get tired of superficial religion that doesn’t have any substance, and nobody can deny that there has been a mass exodus from the Christian faith in this country.  In fact, the number of Americans with “no religion” has risen by 266 percent over the last three decades.
In particular, young people crave authenticity, and they can spot a fake a mile away.  They are leaving America’s churches faster than anyone else, and that is incredibly sad.
Some churches are attempting to reverse this trend, and many of them seem to think that being “hip” and “trendy” is the key to winning young people back.  For example, the following comes from a profile on C3 Church in New York City by Topic Magazine…
Have you ever been to a church where the Jesus music is so loud that some congregants–young, hip urbanites all–wear earplugs? Where the Christian pop-rock stirs people into such rapture that they jump up and down, both feet leaving earth, both hands raised ecstatically skyward, as if in a mild-mannered mosh pit? Where half the pastors, band members, and congregants have nose piercings and the other half have forearm tattoos, and a teeny-tiny beanie is the accessory du jour?
There is certainly nothing wrong with having good music and a modern presentation, but it must also be accompanied by truth if it is going to do any good.
In the profile, the reporter for Topic Magazine asked “Pastor Josh” about his stand on one of the most controversial issues of our day, and he did his very best to dance around it…
But Pastor Josh knows that some of his congregants are gay–or, in his words, “would say they’re gay”–and he’s happy to tell them where he feels “the truth lands on the issue.” He just doesn’t want “the conversation” to end the moment someone reads on C3’s website that gay marriage is an affront to God. 
“To me, that’s a shame,” he says. “I’m trying to show, ‘Hey, I’m not judging anyone. I’m not condemning anyone.’ We’ve all got our views and attractions and all those kinds of things.” He knows that young people, especially, inhabit a complicated, alienating world.
“I think every one of us is searching for love,” Pastor Josh says. “Even though we might disagree on where the best place to look for love is.”
I have read that quote several times, and I still don’t understand what he is trying to say.
Whether people agree with it or not, Pastor Josh owes it to all of us to tell us directly what he really believes.
Of course there are thousands upon thousands of other ministers just like “Pastor Josh” in America today.
The church business has become all about making people feel good, and in this type of spiritual environment even Kanye West can start a church…
Imagine stumbling into a church you’ve never seen on Sunday morning. As you approach you hear rapper DMX praying, “I have special privileges. I am God’s favored child.” In front of you sit Katy Perry and Orlando Bloom, who were both raised Christian but now consider themselves “spiritual.”
The prayer ends, and a gospel choir in matching Yeezy merchandise belts out rapper Kid Cudi’s “Reborn.” Presiding over it all is Pastor Kanye West.
It isn’t a dream. Kanye reportedly started his own church on the first Sunday of the year, and since then, he’s attracted celebrities to his entertaining, religion-laced gatherings.
Of course not all is lost.  There are some pastors out there that are doing a fantastic job, and all over the world God is raising up a Remnant.  But overall, the institutional church in America is failing to influence the culture because pastors are deathly afraid of scaring their customers away.
All that it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
And right now a whole lot of good men are doing precisely that.
(Publisher’s comments: This article misses another issue that some of us raised back in 1982 when we learned of the restrictions of the non-profit 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) contract that limits the stand that churches can take in the moral/political arena that has all but silenced most preachers for fear of losing their tax-exempt status. The church members have become so dependent on the tax-deductible gift that they actually believe it is embedded as a constitutional right. In my opinion there are two clear scriptures that describe these preachers. The first is found at 2Ti 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
The next is found at Mt 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
I personally don’t believe that the Lord means by these words that these ministers are not true believers, I believe he means the word “know” is in the conjugal sense. Paul said, That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; (Ph 3:10.) Few have known Him like this. Oh that we might have a longing to know Him in this manner.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Yesterday we brought you the news that a Muslim professor who says she has expertise in “Islamophobia” claims she was assaulted at a conference of Canadians for the Rule of Law. According to “journalist” Ron Csillag of the Canadian Jewish News, Jasmin Zine, the professor making the assault claim, “said she did not plan on speaking” at the conference. Csillag quoted Zine saying: “I went really just to hear the viewpoints that were being expressed and the kind of arguments that were being made to support them.”
Really? Let’s examine the likelihood of that claim.
Jasmin Zine is part of the “Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project,” an initiative designed to buttress the spurious claim that Muslims are targets of wholesale discrimination and harassment in the West.
In April 2018, Jasmin Zine gave a keynote speech on “Islamophobia, Anti- Muslim Racism, and the Weaponizing of Free Speech” at “The Road Traveled: 9th Annual International Islamophobia Conference,” held at the University of California Berkeley.
Jasmin Zine testified in support of the Anti-Islamophobia Motion 103 before a Canadian Heritage Parliamentary subcommittee. That motion has been used to shut down criticism of jihad terror and Sharia oppression of women and others.
Zine defines “Islamophobia” as “fear and hatred of Islam and Muslims that translates into individual, ideological and systemic forms of oppression.” In reality, “Islamophobia” is an intentional conflation of two distinct and unrelated phenomena: vigilante attacks against innocent Muslims, which are never justified, and honest, accurate analysis of the motivating ideology behind the jihad threat. The purveyors of “Islamophobia” propaganda are trying to shut down the latter by equating it with the former. A former member of the International Institute of Islamic Thought, Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, has stated that “this loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.” And it has been skillfully used to do just that.
Zine does want to restrict the freedom of speech. She has claimed: “As an academic, I support free speech as well as academic freedom. But these are not without limitations. Freedom of expression is limited by the consequences of that speech. Spreading hate is not free speech.” But who decides what is “spreading hate” and what is “enunciating unpopular truths”? She is essentially arguing for the extinguishing of the freedom of speech and the control of the public discourse by arbiters who would presumably stifle all criticism of Islam, jihad, and Sharia.
So Jasmin Zine went wanting to “hear the viewpoints that were being expressed”? Unlikely. What she did was ask Jihad Watch writer Christine Douglass-Williams a question and then talked over her answer, refusing to be silent until she was removed from the event. It is clear that she wanted to shut down the viewpoints that were being expressed and smear them with the false claims of “white supremacism” and “Islamophobia” that she makes in the Canadian Jewish News article.
That article also notes that the Canadians for the Rule of Law conference had “a large Jewish presence: sponsoring groups included B’nai Brith Canada, the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, Hasbara Fellowships, Shurat HaDin and Canadians for Israel’s Legal Rights. Kashrut was observed at the event.”
What might Jasmin Zine have thought of that? Let’s see:
Jasmin Zine signed this petition accusing Israel of “apartheid” and calling on the University of Toronto and York University to divest from companies doing business with Israel.
Zine also signed this call for the Canadian government to impose sanctions upon Israel for alleged war crimes in Gaza in 2009. During that conflict, Hamas used human shields in order to get civilians killed, whereupon they would accuse Israel of targeting civilians and get the UN and others to condemn the Jewish State.
Zine endorsed sending a boat from Canada to Gaza to end the Israeli blockade. Remember that the people on the most notorious of these forays to Gaza to end the blockade, the Mavi Marmara flotilla from Turkey, were genocidal Jew-hating jihadis, as you can see in the second video below: they were chanting a jihad war cry recalling Muhammad’s massacre of the Jews of Arabia: “Khybar, Khybar, O Jews, the army of Muhammad will return.” If the same chant had begun on a Canadian boat bound for Gaza, would Jasmin Zine have objected?


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
ASBURY PARK, N.J. — A New Jersey mother is facing a first-degree murder charge and her boyfriend a desecration of human remains charge after the woman allegedly killed the baby shortly after birth and then later decided with her boyfriend to dispose of the baby in a dumpster.
According to reports, Jada McLain, 18, hid her pregnancy from her parents for months. A friend who turned McLain into police last week said that McLain had attempted a self-abortion by drinking, smoking marijuana and taking pills, but her efforts were unsuccessful.
She considered going to an abortionist, but thought parental notification was required and didn’t want her mother to find out.
McClain and her boyfriend, Quaimere Mohammed, 19, consequently discussed what they would do after the baby was born, with an option being to kill the child.
In the early morning hours of March 29, McLain gave birth to a baby boy in the bathroom, took a shower to clean herself and the infant off, and laid the newborn, who was alive and crying, upon her bed. She then allegedly pushed down on her son’s chest until he turned blue and died.
McLain named the child Legend, and sent her friend photographs of the newborn from her bedroom.
According to, McLain wrapped her deceased son in a blanket and drove to her boyfriend’s house. The two went to the beach to talk the matter over, and then returned to Mohammed’s house.
After crying and talking for approximately two hours, they decided to place the baby in a bag and dispose of him behind an apartment complex in Asbury Park.
KFSN-TV reports that McLain showed police the dumpster where the baby had been discarded. Surveillance video also captured the car driving up to the dumpster, with Mohammed getting out of the vehicle and placing a blue bag inside.
The teen’s friend reported the incident to the police on April 4, and both McLain and Mohammed were arrested.
NBC New York reports that McLain’s parents were in shock, both that they had lost a grandchild and in witnessing their daughter being arrested. Family members held each other and cried as they gathered in the courtroom. states that Mohammed’s attorney told the court on Friday that the two were remorseful, as text messages from McLain to Mohammed stated, “I was the one that took his last breath. … I’m the one who heard him struggling to breathe when I was killing him.”
She said that the baby looked like Mohammed and his face was etched in her mind.
“I’m always going to regret what I did till the day I die,” McLain texted.
Assistant Monmouth County Prosecutor Stephanie Dugan told the court on Friday during a detention hearing that Mohammed should remain in jail because of the severity of “throwing an hours-old dead baby in a dumpster in Asbury Park, which was put into a garbage truck, compacted in a garbage truck, dumped out on the floor of the dump, where the garbage is sorted and compacted again.”
A statement from McLain’s parents reads, “The family prays that authorities find the infant’s remains so they can properly bury their grandson. They also want to express their love and support for their daughter. They ask the public for privacy during these troubling times.”
New Jersey has a Safe Haven law that allows for mothers to safely surrender their newborns at a local hospital, police station or fire station without prosecution.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The so-called LGBTQ “Equality Act” is the most dangerous piece of homosexual/transgender activist legislation every proposed. We thank Liberty CounselAction for producing this 3-minute video. Take Action: tell your Congressman (202-225-3121) to oppose HR5, the “Equality Act.”