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

France flagged “more than 78,000 people” as jihadist security threats in 2017; three churches a day are attacked there; anti-Semitism is so prevalent (and violent) in France that it prompted the President of the Confederation of Jews in France to conclude that “in a few decades, there will be no Jews in France.”

But none of these facts have troubled globalist Emanuel Macron (and company), whose focus is on making everyone feel welcome in France, no matter what. Never mind those who choose not to integrate. This can be partially explained due to the fact that Macron does not believe that there is anything substantial to integrate into. He once declared that there is “no such thing” as a true Frenchman or true Dane. So it follows that Macron has a few ideas of his own about the rebuilding of the Notre Dame cathedral that would reflect his undying commitment to “diversity,” even if they are callous toward Christians and those who respect France’s heritage. Macron does not believe that the rebuilding of the Notre Dame should be intended to restore the glory of the ancient Gothic cathedral (with the painstaking labor that went into it); instead, Macron wants it to be recreated to be “consistent with our modern, diverse nation.
Now what might that mean? Here’s an indicator: an architect has proposed that the new structure include a minaret. A minaret is a type of tower built into mosques as a visual focal point and used for the Islamic call to prayer. The architect sees fit to “memorialize Algerians who protested the French government in the 1960s” since “these victims of the state could be memorialized by replacing the spire with – why not? – a graceful minaret.” Given the obscene insensitivity displayed by Macron and others, it would come as no surprise if indeed a minaret were installed at Notre Dame, as a declaration of victory over France’s history and democracy.
Macron undoubtedly knows that Islamic countries — among others — value their own history and culture, but he has no such respect for French culture, and so it would follow that he would believe that there is no culture in France to protect. The burning down of Notre Dame was symbolic of the steady burn of French culture, as the country’s globalist leaders continue to bow to everything multiculturalism has to offer.
“Macron says Notre Dame should be rebuilt consistent with the modern, diverse France – and architects suggest a glass roof, steel spire and minaret,” Voice of Europe, April 23, 2019:
Macron’s initial promise to restore the magnificent cathedral to its former glory has been shoved aside. Now he says it will be rebuilt “consistent with our modern, diverse nation”, and at the same time the French Government has announced an international competition to redesign the Notre Dame spire.
After the announcement designers haven’t missed the opportunity to respond with their ideas, proposing that it should not be faithfully restored, but rebuilt with “contemporary” features such as a glass roof, steel spire, or even a minaret.
The Telegraph published an article claiming it would be a “travesty” to restore Notre Dame, while Rolling Stone quoted a Harvard architecture historian as saying that the burning of a building “so overburdened with meaning… feels like an act of liberation.”
Lord Norman Foster, arguably Britain’s most famous modern architect, has unveiled a design topping the ancient cathedral with a glass and steel canopy with a featureless glass and steel spire, which he describes as “a work of art about light” which would be “contemporary and very spiritual and capture the confident spirit of the time”.
Ian Ritchie, a modern architect most famous for the so-called Spire of Dublin – a metal spike erected in the Irish capital – is mulling a proposal along similar lines, which he describes as “a refracting, super-slender reflecting crystal to heaven” or a “beautiful contemporary tracery of glass crystals and stainless steel” – i.e. a featureless glass and steel spire. Perhaps most controversial is a proposal in Domus, the architecture magazine, by Tom Wilkinson, for the fallen spire to be replaced with an Islamic minaret….


Franklin Graham urges Buttigieg to repent 
for sin of being gay

Franklin Graham Suspended by Facebook, Blocked for His Biblical ‘Hate Speech’


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Franklin Graham, evangelical Christian leader and son of the most widely known evangelist of the 20th century — the late Billy Graham — took issue Wednesday with South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a Democratic presidential candidate who has publicly attacked Vice President Mike Pence, a former Indiana governor, on the issue of homosexuality and its relationship to Christianity.
Graham said in a tweet, “Mayor Buttigieg says he’s a gay Christian. As a Christian I believe the Bible defines homosexuality as sin, something to be repentant of, not something to be flaunted, praised or politicized. The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman — not two men, not two women.”
During the CNN-sponsored “Town Hall” event in Manchester, New Hampshire, Buttigieg defended his homosexuality: “I get that one of the things about Scripture is different people see different things in it. At the very least we should be able to establish that God does not have a political party.”
But Buttigieg was the one who first interjected his status as a gay man into the contest, and opted to attack Vice President Pence’s Christian faith in relationship to that status. He recently questioned Pence’s Christianity for serving with President Donald Trump, and said that Pence (who had said nothing publicly about Buttigieg’s homosexuality) and those who think like him should understand that if they have a problem with Buttigieg’s sexual orientation, then they should take it up with God.
What Buttigieg was saying was not really a political statement, per se, because Pence has proposed no laws inhibiting the mayor’s homosexual lifestyle, but rather a religious statement. When Buttigieg said at the CNN event, “It can be challenging to be a person of faith who’s also part of the LGBTQ community and yet, to me, the core of faith is regard for one another,” adding, “And part of how God’s love is experienced, according to my faith tradition, is in the way that we support one another and, in particular, support the least among us,” he was stating religious beliefs.
Buttigieg has every right to express whatever religious belief he wants, but by the same reasoning, so does Mike Pence, and so does Franklin Graham. And when a public figure such as Buttigieg chooses to use his position as a public figure to advance a religious viewpoint, others have not only a right, but a duty, to defend their own religious viewpoint.
But what has happened in American society in recent years is that Christians who accept the authority of Scripture are expected to just shut up and not assert their view that homosexuality, adultery, and other sexual sins are sins.
The truth is that public figures have been using their public platforms to attack evangelical and Roman Catholic Christianity more and more, in increasingly strident tones. When Amy Comey Barrett, a Catholic, was up for confirmation to a federal circuit court judge position, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) actually told Barrett that she did not like her Catholic “dogma.” Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) told Russell Vought, a nominee for a post in the Office of Management and Budget, that he was going to vote against him simply because Voight holds to the position that salvation is only through faith in Jesus Christ.
And, incredibly enough, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, the 2016 candidate of the Libertarian Party — a party supposedly dedicated to the concept of “liberty” — dismissed the concept of religious liberty as a “black hole.”
Buttigieg, during his unprovoked assault upon Pence’s Christian faith, said, “My understanding of Scripture, it’s about protecting the stranger and the prisoner and the poor person and that idea of welcome. That’s what I get in the gospel when I’m in church.”
For years, liberals have cited Scripture (wrongly, many say) to argue that Jesus was some sort of progressive who advocated the redistribution of wealth, but when someone else would quote the Bible to defend a conservative position, they would shout that such quotations are “mixing politics and religion.”
We can expect that Graham will be told that he should not have called homosexual behavior a sin — after all, only liberals are allowed to use religion in a political context. But Graham is not even making a political point. On the contrary, Graham is defending his Christian faith from what he believes is a public and deliberate distortion by a politician.
Of course, politicians have never really cared for preachers calling them out for sexual sins. King Herod wasn’t too happy about it when John the Baptist publicly condemned him for taking his own brother’s wife away from him. John the Baptist called it what it was — adultery — and a sin. At the angry wife’s urging, Herod had John beheaded.
Franklin Graham doesn’t face decapitation — we haven’t degenerated that far, yet — but he will no doubt face the wrath of the elites who control academia, Hollywood, and the secular media. He should also receive the support of fellow Christians for bravely defending the faith from distortion.



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The question isn’t just whether Joe Biden, who announced his candidacy for president yesterday, can defeat Donald Trump. It isn’t even whether he can win the nomination — an increasingly doubtful proposition in a party that is openly hostile to white men.
The question is whether Biden can overcome his past. His nickname is Creepy Joe because he has a bad habit of grabbing, hugging, and kissing any woman who gets within arm’s length.
But the Biden résumé also includes plagiarism, a fight against forced busing (a position liberals in the Democrat Party would take issue with), silly racial gaffes that would have ended the career of any Republican, and what the hard Left and sisterhood claim is his betrayal of sex-harassment hoaxer Anita Hill during the confirmation hearings of U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas.
Nonetheless, Biden is in. The polling shows he is the heavy favorite among rank-and-file Democratic voters, but again, the radicals who control the party might stymie his third try for the White House.
Mendacious Video Biden didn’t bother contesting or challenging President Trump’s foreign, economic, or other policies in his opening video. Instead, he adopted the Left’s usual tactic: name-calling. Albeit without name-calling.
Biden opened with a few words about Thomas Jefferson and Charlottesville, Virginia, then segued into the unfortunate race riot in Charlottesville in 2017.
“Charlottesville is also home to a defining moment for this nation in the last few years,” Biden intoned. “It was there on August of 2017 we saw Klansmen and white supremacists and neo-Nazis come out in the open, their crazed faces illuminated by torches, veins bulging, and bearing the fangs of racism. Chanting the same anti-Semitic bile heard across Europe in the ’30s. And they were met by a courageous group of Americans, and a violent clash ensued and a brave young woman lost her life.”
Then Biden said the president’s remarks on the riot “stunned the world and shocked the conscience of this nation. He said there were ‘some very fine people on both sides.’ Very fine people on both sides?”
Trump also said “we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides,” but ignoring that, Biden claimed the president “assigned a moral equivalence between those spreading hate and those with the courage to stand against it. And in that moment, I knew the threat to this nation was unlike any I had ever seen in my lifetime.”
Those remarks, Biden said, were an afflatus. “I wrote at the time that we’re in the battle for the soul of this nation. Well, that’s even more true today. We are in the battle for the soul of this nation.”
If Trump is reelected, Biden said, “he will forever and fundamentally alter the character of this nation — who we are — and I cannot stand by and watch that happen.”
Thus, Biden is running. To save us from Trump.
Biden’s Past Awaiting this moment were moderate Democrats who fear a repeat of 1972, when Democrats went off the deep end, nominated hard-left George McGovern, and handed Nixon the presidency.
Problem is, moderate Democrats don’t control the party. Radicals do, which is why Biden’s most disqualifying attribute might be his sex and race. The New York Times frankly asked whether a white man could "be the face of the Democratic Party in 2020,” an explicit recognition that the party is, as columnist Pat Buchanan wrote, “no party for old white men.”
That said, as The New American has reported, the Real Clear Politics polling average shows that Biden holds a comfortable lead over his closest rival, communist apologist Bernie Sanders, and a commanding lead over the rest of the field.
The latest voter polls from RCP put Biden over Sanders, 29.3 percent to 23 percent. Harris sits at 8.3, 21 points behind, followed by media darling Pete Buttigieg at 7.5 percent, the leftist media’s only hope they’ll be reporting about a homosexual and his “husband” in the White House.
But that’s the RCP average. A Morning Consult poll conducted among nearly 15,000 registered voters from April 15 through 21 showed Biden ahead of Sanders 30-24, with the rest no closer than Buttigieg at nine, a whopping 21 points behind Biden and 15 behind socialist Sanders.
A Monmouth University poll of 330 registered voters 10 days ago showed Biden ahead of Sanders, 27-20, with Harris and Buttigieg at eight percent.


Former Obama official praised Communist Dictator Mao


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke's campaign may be losing steam, so this is an important reminder that he truly is Kennedyesque.
The former police officer who arrested Beto O’Rourke for driving drunk in 1998, along with the sergeant who signed the incident report, both say they believe now what they reported at the time: that O’Rourke tried to leave the scene of the wreck he caused.
O’Rourke admits he was intoxicated and says there is no justification for his actions, but he has denied that he tried to flee.
Neither the investigating officer, Richard Carrera, nor his former supervisor, Gary Hargrove, specifically recalls the events of that night more than 20 years ago. But both of the former Anthony Police Department officers told The Texas Tribune they have no doubt the report they compiled and signed is accurate.
“I believe we have contradicting stories here,” said Carrera, who arrested the 26-year-old O’Rourke and took him to a police station to undergo a breath test. “I stand by my report.”
Carrera, 49, said after reading the police report, in which an unnamed witness claimed O’Rourke tried to flee in his Volvo, he has “no doubt that he tried to leave the scene.”
It figures that it would be a Volvo. Though that's less Kennedyesque and more Obamaesque. And it doesn't really qualify as Kennedyesque unless you kill a woman.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
COLOMBO — Eight of the nine Islamic suicide bombers responsible for the deadly blasts that killed more than 300 people in Sri Lanki on Sunday, including at two Roman Catholic assemblies and an evangelical charismatic church, have now been identified by officials.
According to reports, most were middle to upper class citizens, with some holding degrees from foreign universities.
“They’re quite well-educated people,” Junior Defense Minister Ruwan Wijewardene said during a press conference on Wednesday, according to ABC News. “We believe one of the suicide bombers studied in the U.K. and then later on did his postgraduate in Australia before coming back to settle in Sri Lanka.”
Names of the bombers include Abdul Lathief Jameel Mohamed and brothers Inshaf Ibrahim and Ilham Ibrahim.
Wijewardene outlined that the assailants were those that had affiliations with the local Muslim group National Towheed Jamaar. The philosophy of the attackers, he said, is that “Islam can be the only religion in this country.”
The barbaric Islamic group ISIS had also claimed responsibility for the deadly bombings, releasing a photograph of eight of the individuals — most of whom had their face covered — as well as a video of the men pledging allegiance to ISIS.
Sri Lanka is largely a Buddhist nation — an estimated 70 percent of residents identify as Buddhist, followed by 12 percent Hindu. Less than 10 percent identify as Catholic or evangelical, and likewise fewer than 10 percent identify as Muslim.
According to reports, the attackers at the three houses of worship targeted all Catholic facilities: St. Sebastian’s Church in Katuwapitiya; St. Anthony’s Church in Colombo; and St. Mary’s Cathedral in Batticaloa.
The Daily Mirror reports that a suspicious male went to St. Mary’s Cathedral at approximately 8:30 a.m. and began to inquire about mass. However, as the service had begun early that morning, most of the attendees had left the premises.
The attacker consequently left and went down the road to Zion Church, a charismatic congregation, where he similarly began to make inquiries about the meeting.
Contrary to reports from The Times of India and other outlets, which characterized the service as a “mass” and the leaders as “father” or “priests,” Zion Church is evangelical and not Catholic. It identifies itself on social media as “A Charismatic church, situated in Batticaloa, Sri Lanka. A branch church of Lighthouse Church, Kandy, Sri Lanka. A member of the Fellowship Of Free Churches of Sri Lanka.”
Ganeshamoorthy Thirukumaran, one of the pastors of the church, says that he spoke to the man and invited him inside.
“I noticed a person standing near the pastor’s office with a bag on his shoulder and clutching another bag to his chest. I asked him who he was and why he was standing there,” he recalled to the Daily Mirror. “He replied that he had just come to observe what was happening at the church and asked me details about the church.”
Thirukumaran asked another church member to tend to the inquirer, and the member became uncomfortable with the visitor’s suspicious demeanor and questions. He began to lead him off the premises. While standing just outside the building, the man detonated a bomb, killing a number of children who were playing and/or eating a snack nearby.
Caroline Mahendran, one of the Sunday School teachers at Zion Church, said that the children had just been asked during class if they were willing to die for Christ, and minutes later, a dozen of them lost their lives.
“Today was an Easter Sunday School at the church and we asked the children, ‘How many of you [are] willing to die for Christ?’ Everyone raised their hands,” Israeli reporter Hananya Naftali posted to social media in sharing Mehendran’s recollection. “Minutes later, they came down to the main service and the blast happened. Half of the children died on the spot.”
Thirukumaran’s 14-year-old son was among those who died in the blast.
Roshan Mahesan, the senior pastor of Zion Church, posted the times and locations of the funeral services to social media on Monday. He also shared a message about the terror attack on Sunday, writing in English above the video, “May the dear Lord continue to comfort us all in this difficult time.”
Messages of condolence have poured in from around the world.
“Our deepest condolences with sympathy for church members who lost their loved ones. Our thoughts and prayers go out to all those affected,” one commenter wrote.
“Terribly sorry to hear of your tragic and violent loss. May God’s Holy Spirit comfort you all in the years ahead and grant you the grace necessary to lead in these dangerous times, in Jesus’ name,” another posted.
“We are with you pastor and congregation of Zion Church. May the Lord comfort you all and give you strength to face this pain. We uphold you in our prayers,” a third stated.
In addition to the three houses of worship, suicide bombers also targeted three luxury hotels — the Shangri-La, Kingsbury and Cinnamon Grand hotels — and an explosion additionally occurred at the mansion of attacker Ilham Ibrahim, as his pregnant wife blew herself up when police arrived on the scene, killing the officers and her three additional children.
Surveillance footage from the hotels has been located, showing men with backpacks walking the premises.
A pipe bomb was also found on a road near the Colombo airport. It was safely detonated by authorities.
359 people were killed in the various blasts at the seven locations, and an estimated 500 injured. Four Americans died in the attacks and nearly 50 Sri Lankan children.
Some residents are further upset now that it has emerged that the government reportedly had been warned about potential violence from Islamists.
“We were told that ten minutes before the blast, Indian intelligence had said that this is going to happen,” Hilmy Ahmed, vice president of Sri Lanka’s Muslim Association, told CBS News. “The churches could have been evacuated and at least the number of casualties could have been reduced.”
He noted that one of the men shown in the video released by ISIS, Moulavi Zahran Hashem, had been reported to intelligence officials three years ago.
“I don’t think they took this threat seriously enough, to put enough manpower [into it] to track him down,” Ahmed said.
The Daily Mail reports that dozens have either been arrested or questioned in the aftermath of the coordinated terror attacks.
Sri Lanka Suicide Bomber Was Radicalized in 
Great Britain and Australia