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

In this new Jamie Glazov Moment, I discuss Children Taken Away If Islam Criticized?and I wonder: Is something rotten in Denmark?

Don’t miss it!
Subscribe to the Glazov Gang‘s YouTube Channel and follow us on Twitter: @JamieGlazov.
Please donate through our Pay Pal account.


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

“Prosecutors have said he told investigators his ‘mission was to kill and be killed.’”

Where did he get the idea for such a mission? Could it have been from the Qur’an?
“Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties, for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed.” (9:111)
Will authorities in Michigan or anywhere ponder the implications of the congruence of this jihadi’s mission with the Qur’an’s promise of Paradise to those who kill and are killed? Of course not.
“Man convicted of terrorism at Flint airport gets life, says he regretted not killing more people,” Fox2 Detroit, April 18, 2019:
FLINT, Mich. (FOX 2) – A Canadian man convicted of terrorism for nearly killing an airport police officer in Michigan was sentenced Thursday to life in prison.
U.S. prosecutors said Amor Ftouhi drove 1,000 miles from Montreal to the airport in Flint, Michigan, where he yelled “God is great” in Arabic and repeatedly stabbed Lt. Jeff Neville in 2017.
Investigators said Ftouhi wanted to stab Neville, take his gun and start shooting people in the airport. He legally drove into the U.S. at Champlain, New York, and arrived in Flint five days later. He tried but failed to buy a gun at a gun show and instead bought a large knife.
During Thursday’s sentencing, Ftouhi told the judge that he “regretted he did not get a machine gun” and regretted he did not “kill that cop.”
He also asked for a life sentence and said he had jihad in his heart and blood and didn’t kill enough people
Ftouhi is a native of Tunisia who moved to Canada in 2007. He had a degree in sociology, worked in insurance and had no indications of being radicalized until the attack in Flint.
Prosecutors have said he told investigators his “mission was to kill and be killed.”
His defense lawyer, Joan Morgan, said Ftouhi wasn’t attempting to create mass casualties and wanted to be killed so his family could collect life insurance and so he could become a martyr….
Neville, who was on duty at the airport, when he was approached from behind by Ftouhi and had his throate slashed….


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The abuse of Christians, which includes the violation and torture of young Christian girls, continues in Pakistan (and elsewhere), while Pakistani leader Imran Khan complains about how hurtful it is to Muslims when Islam is insulted.
“Court orders return of Pakistani Christian teen raped and tortured in forced Islamic marriage,” by Samuel Smith, Christian Post, April 16, 2019:
A Pakistani court has ordered the return of a Christian teenager who was abducted and forced into an Islamic marriage in March after the victim gave testimony of how she was beaten, tortured and raped, rights groups are reporting.
Shalet Masih, believed to be about 15-years-old, was rescued by a police raid at the home of her captor, Zafar Iqbal, last Wednesday morning, according to the London-based NGO British Pakistani Christian Association.
Masih was said to have been kidnapped on March 25 after leaving her family’s home in Faisalabad, Pakistan’s third most populous city.
Although she left the home following an argument with her brother, Masih reportedly headed to a family friend’s house. However, BPCA reports that Masih was eventually sold into slavery by a neighbor of the family friend to a Muslim man.
After Masih’s family and NGOs pressured police to intervene, a woman by the name of Rukhsana was arrested.
According to BPCA, Rukhsana is alleged to have confessed to police that she sold Masih to a man who she knew to be involved in sex trafficking. However, the woman could not tell police where the girl was at that time.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Recent Gallup polls appear to reflect and confirm the “secularization thesis” in the United States: Church membership and religious affiliation among all demographics is falling precipitously. On Thursday Gallup reported that since 2000, church membership in the United States has fallen, modestly at first but accelerating recently. Twenty years ago, 70 percent of Americans said they were members of a church or a synagogue. Today, said Gallup, that has declined by 20 points to just 50 percent. Said Gallup: “The decline in church membership is consistent with larger societal trends in declining church attendance and an increasing proportion of Americans with no religious preference.”
The decline among Millennials (born 1980-2000) was equally drastic. Twenty years ago, 62 percent of Generation Xers belonged to a church, while among Millennials today just 42 percent say they belong to a church.
Gallup concluded, based on this poll, that the “United States is far less religious that it used to be,” adding, “The rate of U.S. church membership has declined sharply in the past two decades after being relatively stable in the six decades before that. A sharp increase in the proportion of the population with no religious affiliation, a decline in church membership among those who do have a religious preference, and low levels of church membership among millennials are all contributing to the accelerating trend.”
Gallup reached the same conclusion following another study it recently released as part of its ongoing analysis of religion in America. When asked, “How important would you say religion is in your own life — very important, fairly important or not very important? — the cohort Gallup quizzed showed a drop from 58 percent saying religion was “very important” in 2012 to 50 percent in 2018.
When that same cohort was asked, “Did you, yourself, happen to attend church or synagogue in the last seven days, or not?” 32 percent of them said Yes, down from 42 percent in 2009. Even more concerning was the number who answered Never. In 1998, just 10 percent said they never attend church. By 2018, that number had jumped nearly threefold, to 28 percent.
Nancy Ammerman, professor of the sociology of religion at Boston University, said the religious base of the American Republic is eroding: “Culturally we are seeing significant erosion in the trust people have for institutions in general and churches in particular. We are also seeing a generational shift as the “joiner” older generation dies off and a generation of non-joiners comes on the scene.”
Professor Scott Thumma, who teaches the same thing at Hartford Seminary, blamed the decline on young people delaying marriage and thus postponing starting a family.
On the other hand, Glenn Stanton, the director of family formation studies at Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs, says these polls prove no such thing; that on the contrary, the church of “real believers” has never been stronger:
Religious faith in America is going the way of the Yellow Pages and travel maps, we keep hearing. It’s just a matter of time until Christianity’s total and happy extinction, chortle our cultural elites. Is this true? Is churchgoing and religious adherence really in “widespread decline” so much so that conservative believers should suffer “growing anxiety”?
Two words: Absolutely not.
Stanton says it’s a matter of asking the right question, citing a study published in Sociological Science by two professors, one from Indiana University and the other from Harvard. Wrote Stanton: “It comes down primarily to what kind of faith one is talking about. Not the belief system itself, per se, but the intensity and seriousness with which people hold and practice that faith.” The study, said Stanton, shows that
The percentage of Americans who attend church more than once a week, pray daily, and accept the Bible as wholly reliable and deeply instructive to their lives has remained absolutely, steel-bar constant for the last 50 years or more, right up to today….
The percentage of such people is … not small. One in three Americans prays multiple times a day….
One-third of Americans hold that the Bible is the actual word of God….
Those who take their faith seriously are becoming a markedly larger proportion of all religious people. In 1989, 39 percent of those who belong to a religion held strong beliefs and practices. Today, these are 47 percent of all the religiously affiliated.
Those two professors, Landon Schnabel and Sean Bock, summed up their study:
Recent research argues that the United States is secularizing, that this religious change is consistent with the secularization thesis, and that American religion is not exceptional.
But we show that rather than religion fading into irrelevance as the secularization thesis would suggest, intense religion — strong affiliation, very frequent practice, literalism, and evangelicalism — is persistent and, in fact, only moderate religion is on the decline in the United States.
We also show that in comparable countries, intense religion is on the decline or already at very low levels. Therefore, the intensity of American religion is actually becoming more exceptional over time. We conclude that intense religion in the United States is persistent and exceptional in ways that do not fit the secularization thesis.
Stanton quoted another study done by professors at the Baylor Institute for Studies in Religion who found that the percentage of church-going Americans, compared to the nation’s population, is more than four times greater today than it was in 1776, and “the number of attendees has continued to rise each and every decade over our nation’s history right up until the present day.”
The remaining question is this: What constitutes that “intensity of American religion” that makes it unique? In attempting to answer, J. I. Packer, in his monumental work Knowing God, said, “First, one can know a great deal about God without much knowledge of Him. Second, one can know a great deal about godliness without much knowledge of God.” He contrasts two individuals attending a July 4 parade: One is a bystander, enjoying the passing throng of bands, performers, and bagpipers; the other is actually participating in the parade itself, carrying and playing his instrument.
Charles Spurgeon, the “prince of preachers,” in a sermon he gave in December 1870, spoke of his own personal testimony of his acceptance of the Gospel of Christ:
So to believe in our Lord means this: that I believe Him to be the Son of God, and believe all other truths concerning Him; that I also believe whatever He says to be the truth. In other words, I believe Him.
Yet more than this, I cast my soul upon His atoning merits that He may save it, and so believe upon Him, and furthermore, having so done I give myself up entirely to the Savior’s holy guidance.
I believe Him to be infallible as the director of my spirit. I feel a union with Him. I come to be in Him. His cause is my cause. My cause His cause — I believe into Him.
Stanton was interviewed by Jerry Newcombe for D. James Kennedy Ministries recently, and said that the declines were occurring in churches that had abandoned the Gospel: “They are bailing on the basics of Christianity and, guess what?, the people are bailing on them. People are leaving those churches as if the buildings are on fire, and do you know where they are going? They are not going nowhere. They are going to the Biblically faithful churches, and those are the churches that are growing.
Related article:


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Representative Eric Swalwell, a hard-leftist from California, has about as much chance of winning the Democratic nomination for president as Bill Weld has of winning the GOP nomination.
Be that it as it may, Swalwell’s proposal to jail Americans who refuse to surrender legally purchased and owned firearms to a federal gun Gestapo not only demonstrates how the Left has moved the Overton Window in the gun-control debate, but also how Democrats have given in to the totalitarian impulse.
Outright gun confiscation is something only the craziest Democrat would have suggested 30 years ago, and the suggestion certainly would not have come from one who wished to be considered a serious contender for the presidency.
But more significantly, an American politician has suggested the wholesale arrest and imprisonment of law-abiding Americans who oppose the Stalinist proposal.
Tapper Gets at the Truth As Swalwell brags on his website, “I’m the only candidate calling for a mandatory national ban and buyback of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons.”
Appearing with CNN talker Jake Tapper, Swalwell explained the penalty for refusing to give up a legally-purchased and owned firearm.
Forget about the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids Congress from banning firearms, or Article 1, Clause 3, Section 9, which forbids Congress from passing ex post facto laws. You’ll go to jail if you don’t turn over your gun to Swalwell’s jackbooted Stormtroopers:
TAPPER: So, gun control is the central plank in your campaign.You wrote last year — quote — “We should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons. We should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law. And we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.” Criminal prosecution for keeping assault weapons. What's the punishment for people who don’t hand in their guns? Do they go to jail?
SWALWELL: Well, Jake, they would, but I also offer an alternative, which would be to keep them at a hunting club or a shooting range. And the reason I have proposed this is because these weapons are so devastating.
Swalwell then falsely claimed Americans, particularly children, are living in paralyzing fear of being shot to death, and cited Australia’s and New Zealand’s gun confiscation as a model for Americans.
Then Tapper dropped a truth bomb on the gun-grabber:
TAPPER: I know you know this, but the vast majority of gun-related deaths in this country are not related to these semiautomatic assault weapons, whatever you want to call them. And the vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens who have purchased these weapons legally and use them safely. One of the most frequent attacks on this issue from President Trump and the Republicans is that Democrats want to take away your guns. But isn't it fair to say you actually do want to take away people's guns?
SWALWELL: You know, keep your pistols, keep your long rifles, keep your shotguns. I want the most dangerous weapons, these weapons of war, out of the hands of the most dangerous people.
Thus has the Overton Window moved. Three decades ago the gun grabbers were after handguns, particularly Saturday Night Specials, a movement that reached hysterical pitch after John Warnock Hinckley gunned down White House Press Secretary Jim Brady when Hinckley tried to assassinate President Reagan.
Now, the monomania is “assault weapons” and “weapons of war,” terms of no real meaning but that do permit the demonization of law-abiding Americans. Swalwell would ban those awful things, and who in his right mind could be against that?
“I’m the only candidate that’s proposing we ban and buyback the 15 million assault weapons on our streets,” Swalwell tweeted on Monday, the day after his Tapper interview. Then, as reported, Swalwell attempted to soften his threat:
NRA Twitter is losing its mind with “how is Swalwell going to take guns from law-abiding owners.” SPOILER: I’m not. I’m organizing with the Moms & students, and we’re going to CHANGE the law. Weapons of war will be no more. #BanandBuyBack #EndGunViolence
That’s not what he told Tapper and that’s not his website says.
Unique Candidate Upshot it, Swalwell proposes a law that would do the opposite of ObamaCare’s now-repealed individual mandate, which forced American to buy something they might not want. He would force Americans to sell something they might want to keep.
And just as Americans would refuse to pay “voluntary” income taxes every April 15 without the threat of fines and imprisonment for tax evasion, gun owners would refuse to sell their firearms without a similar threat.
That said, Swalwell might be unique. He might be the first politician to campaign for president with a vow not just to take away one of the primordial rights of the American citizen but to imprison those who refuse to surrender it.


North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper on Thursday vetoed a bill that would have required doctors to try to preserve the life of any infant born alive during an attempted abortion.

The state’s Republican-controlled Legislature had passed the bill, called the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act,” this week. In a letter announcing his veto, Cooper, a Democrat, wrote that laws “already protect newborn babies, and this bill is an unnecessary interference between doctors and their parents.”
“This needless legislation would criminalize doctors and other healthcare providers for a practice that simply does not exist,” Cooper wrote. Under the proposed law, if an infant were born alive during an abortion attempt against it, any health care practitioner there would be required to “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonable, diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”
A health care practitioner who does not do that would be guilty of a class D felony. Additionally, anyone who intentionally “performs an overt act” that kills the child would be guilty of murder, the proposal says.
Most of the bill’s supporters in the Legislature were Republicans, though it attracted affirmative votes from a few Democrat lawmakers. Two of the bill’s primary sponsors, Sen. Joyce Kawiec and Rep. Pat McElraft, said in a joint statement Thursday that “caring for a living, breathing newborn infant is too restrictive for Gov. Cooper’s radical abortion agenda,” according to CNN affiliate WRAL.
“We thought Democrats would agree that children born alive should be separate from the abortion debate, but it’s clear that they want the ‘right to choose’ to even extend past birth,” the two Republican lawmakers said. “This is a sad day for North Carolina.”
The state Senate passed the bill Monday with a 28-19 vote, with three senators absent. Two Democrat senators voted for it.
The House passed it Tuesday with a vote of 65-46, with nine lawmakers absent or not voting. Four Democrat representatives voted yes. To override Cooper’s veto, legislators would need the approval of three-fifths of each chamber.

Donate, Tithe, or Offerings:

Email: [email protected]
Pastor David House
(757) 955-6871

Please make checks out to Saving Health Ministries and mail to:
PO BOX 41161
Norfolk, VA 23541

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

North Carolina Democratic Governor Roy Cooper has vetoed a measure that would have protected babies born alive during a late-term abortion, proving once again that the Democratic Party has become the “pro-infanticide” party.

Under the legislation, healthcare practitioners would be required to provide life-saving care for newborns born alive during botched abortions. Those who fail to do so could face a felony and prison time, along with fines and civil damages, the Washington Times reports.
Cooper contends the legislation is unnecessary. “Laws already protect newborn babies and this bill is an unnecessary interference between doctors and their patients,” Cooper wrote in his veto message. “This needless legislation would criminalize doctors and other health care providers for a practice that simply does not exist.”
But according to the North Carolina Values Coalition, five states reported at least 25 children were born alive during attempted abortions in 2017, and while North Carolina does not maintain those sort of statistics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported more than 140 infant deaths nationwide involved induced terminations from 2003 to 2014, the Times writes.
There is also video evidence that contradicts claims that “born-alive” legislation is needless. Live Action president Lila Rose issued a statement outlining this evidence:
Live Action has documented on camera how abortionists in our country’s notorious late-term abortion facilities talk about survivors of abortion. Washington, D.C. abortionist Cesare Santangelo told our undercover investigators that he would make sure babies “do not survive” if they were born alive at his facility. A New York abortion worker told our Live Action investigator to “flush” the baby down the toilet or “put it in a bag” if she’s born alive. In Arizona, an abortion worker told us there “may be movement” after the baby is outside of the mother and that they would refuse to provide help and instead let her die. Dr. DeShawn Taylor, former medical director for Planned Parenthood, told a Center for Medical Progress investigator that identifying “signs of life” after a baby survives an abortion is contingent upon “who’s in the room.”
Governor Cooper seems to be taking a page right out of Ralph Northam’s book. The Governor of Virginia said in a January radio interview that he supports infanticide of babies who survive botched abortions, also citing the intimate relationship between the patient (the mother) and her doctor.
“This is why decisions such as this should be made by providers, physicians and the mothers and fathers that are involved,” he said. “When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physician — more than one physician, by the way — and it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s non-viable.”
Sadly, Cooper and Northam do not appear to be exceptions to the rule. Twenty times Senate Democrats have blocked a Republican bill that threatens prison time for healthcare practitioners who do not attempt to save the life of infants born alive during failed abortions .
“If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws," reads the legislation, adding: "Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care."
All of the prominent Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls — Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Kamala Harris of California, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts — have voted down the measure.
Still, pro-life lawmakers are taking a stand against the anti-life legislation that has sadly become a trend since New York passed its Reproductive Health Act. Following in New York’s footsteps, legislatures in Rhode Island, New Mexico, Vermont, and Illinois have proposed measures to expand access to late-term abortions. Texas is close to passing its own “born-alive” bill, which would likely be signed into law by GOP Governor Greg Abbott. Arkansas, North Dakota, Iowa, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Ohio have also passed fetal heartbeat bills that prohibits abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected. Unfortunately, many of those laws are currently not in effect as a result of court orders.


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Richard Grenell, the U.S. Ambassador to Germany, slammed Democrat presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg’s recent attacks on Vice President Mike Pence, likening the homosexual mayor’s conduct to that of Jussie Smollett.
Grenell, who is also gay, took issue with Buttigieg’s incendiary targeting of Pence over his Christian faith and supposed anti-LGBT positions, asserting that the vice president and his wife have always treated Grenell and his partner with nothing but kindness and respect.
“Mayor Pete has been pushing this hate hoax along the lines of Jussie Smollett for a very long time now – several weeks – and I find it really ironic that Mayor Pete stayed silent about this so-called hate hoax on him and others during 2015, 2016, 2017, when Mike Pence was governor,” Grenell told Fox host Martha MacCallum. “It’s ironic that right about now when he’s starting his fundraising apparatus to run for president, he comes up with this idea and this attack.”
“One of the things that really bothers me about this attack is that Mike Pence is a friend of mine. Mike and Karen are great people, they’re Godly people, they’re followers of Christ. They don’t have hate in their heart for anyone. They know my partner, they have accepted us.”
“You asked me, do we agree philosophically on every single issue? No. I don’t agree philosophically with my hero Dietrich Bonhoeffer on everything, I don’t agree with my partner on everything,” Grenell continued. “The gay community used to be the community pushing tolerance and diversity; we were the ones that were saying everyone should be able to accept and love each other. Now suddenly there’s a whole community of people demanding we all think alike.”
Grenell also pointed out that Pence has always spoken highly of Buttigieg, including when both held public office in the state of Indiana, as governor and as mayor of South Bend, respectively.
“Let me just say one more thing – when Mayor Pete came out, the vice president complimented him and said he holds him in high regard,” Grenell said. “The vice president, or then-governor, has said nothing but positive things about Mayor Pete. I think this is a total hate hoax and I think it’s outrageous.”
Bernie Sanders appears to be okay with possible physical attacks on Kaitlin Bennett due to his rhetoric and characterization of Kaitlin and Infowars.


NM Gov Attacks Citizen Border Patrol After 1,800 Illegals Cross in 24 Hours

United Constitutional Patriots trigger Democrats by handing illegal immigrants to Border Patrol

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Just days after Border Patrol apprehended 1,800 illegal immigrants in one day, the government of New Mexico and the ACLU are criticizing a citizen group patrolling the border.
“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” New Mexico’s Democrat Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham told the New York Times.
She also said it’s “completely unacceptable” that migrant families “might be menaced or threatened in any way, shape or form when they arrive at our border.”
Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico sent a letter to Governor Grisham and Attorney General Hector Balderas on Thursday asking for the group of patriots voluntarily patrolling the border to be investigated.
Below is an excerpt of the letter in which they call the group, United Constitutional Patriots (UCP), “white nationalists” and “fascists.”
“Two nights ago, on April 16, 2019, an armed fascist militia organization describing itself as the United Constitutional Patriots arrested nearly three hundred people seeking safety in the United States, including young children, near Sunland Park, New Mexico. Other videos appear to show arrests in the past few hours.[1] The vigilante members of the organization, including Jim Benvie, who posted videos and photographs[2] of the unlawful arrests to social media, are not police or law enforcement and they have no authority under New Mexico or federal law to detain or arrest migrants in the United States. Their actions undermine the legitimate efforts of our state’s law enforcement officials to keep New Mexico families safe and they erode community trust. The Trump administration’s vile racism has emboldened white nationalists and fascists to flagrantly violate the law. This has no place in our state: we cannot allow racist and armed vigilantes to kidnap and detain people seeking asylum. We urge you to immediately investigate this atrocious and unlawful conduct.”
New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas bashed the group in a statement, saying, “These individuals should not attempt to exercise authority reserved for law enforcement.”
A spokesperson for the civilian group, Jim Benvie, said the detention of illegals amounts to “a verbal citizen’s arrest,” which is basically a bluff used to stop border crossers until Border Patrol arrives.
“We’re just here to support the Border Patrol and show the public the reality of the border,” Benvie insisted, adding, “Border Patrol has never asked us to stand down.”
Infowars has covered UCP multiple times this week after they caught a group of over 300 illegals Tuesday night and another group of more than 90 on Wednesday.
Patriot border patroller Conservative Anthony will join The War Room Friday at 4:30 P.M. CST for an exclusive interview where he’ll discuss the latest footage he’s captured, including over 70 buses arriving at the border and a “lookout” drone used by smugglers.
At the 26:45 timestamp in the following video, a drone can be seen monitoring the border to ensure the illegals safe entry into the U.S. as they try to avoid Border Patrol or citizen patrols.
“Lookout” drones are frequently used to assist smugglers who sneak illegal immigrants into the country.
At the 26:30 timestamp, the next video shows what is reported to be a caravan of over 70 buses arriving into Anapra, Mexico in the middle of the night.
While the government of New Mexico has its scope set on United Constitutional Patriots, the group vows to patrol the border until President Trump’s wall is built.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Steven Anderson is a fiery and controversial preacher from Tempe, Arizona, where he pastors Faithful Word Baptist Church. Anderson has been a public figure for some time, making the news for praying imprecatory prayers against President Obamaseeming pleased by the shooting at the Orlando gay night club, and perhaps most famously, getting tased by Border Patrol for resisting an unconstitutional traffic stop (a jury found Anderson not guilty).
Anderson is an Independent Fundamental Baptist, a title that varies widely in regard to its meaning and definition. Anderson has also been banned from numerous countries (ostensibly for ‘hate speech’ or its equivalent thought-crime equivalent) and has had as many as eight online financial platforms cancel his accounts due to pressure from online activists, usually associated with the LGBTQXYZLMNOP lobby.
Pulpit & Pen reached out to Anderson regarding the news that Bank of America has frozen his church’s assets and made his church’s money inaccessible.
Anderson told P&P, “First thing yesterday morning, I went to pay someone online and I went to transfer funds and neither transaction would go through. So, I figure the bank just put on a hold because I have been traveling…so I called the bank and [I was transferred to] a new department, and while I’m on hold it tells you that your account has been terminated and the representative will not be able to tell you why, will not change our decision, and will not give you any more information.”
Anderson continued, “They said, ‘Your account is frozen. You can’t remove any funds from your account. On the 23rd we’re going to issue you a cashier’s check and mail it to you.’ So they’re going to sit on our money for weeks.”
When asked if it was in relation to Southern Poverty Law Center or other activist groups that have flagged Anderson’s church for hate speech, Anderson relayed, “We’ve already been shut off by eight different online giving platforms. Paypal shut me off years ago. Paypal, then Easy Tithe, these other platforms and they’ve all been shut down. None of them will tell you why because they don’t want to get sued or be held accountable.
Anderson blamed the account closure on homosexual activism.
Anderson said, “It usually has something to do about the Sodomites. Typically this happens when we’re going viral in an article about the Sodomites. Right now we’ve been big in the media over the last week because I’m going to go preach in Ireland and Sweden and the Netherlands and because of that a whole bunch of people have done articles about that.”
Anderson credited Providence with his church’s financial solvency during the time period between the sudden freezing of his assets and when his church will receive their money from Bank of America. He explained that as rarely [as it] happens, the church treasurer had yet to make a deposit from the week prior, and they had an offering from the day before, which left two weeks of capital to start an account and get by until they could receive their funds.
Anderson said, “If we had already deposited our offerings, we would have been in a really hard place. It would’ve been a really bad thing. But thank God, even though it wasted a full day, it will work out. By the end of the day we fixed everything, and we have enough money to coast until we get our money in this cashier’s check.”
Anderson continued, “I mean, it’s a lot of money. It’s tens of thousands of dollars. We have like five full-time employees, we have three different locations where we’re paying rent. It could have been a disaster. The fact that they freeze your account for a few weeks, that can really wreak havoc when there’s no warning and you have obligations.”
One must question whether or not it is appropriate for financial institutions – which are backed by the United States Congress-appointed FDIC and governed by state and federal regulatory agencies – to discriminate based upon the religious or political views of customers when doing business with United States Citizens.