Three stories of religious discrimination not widely reported in the mainstream media

Featured

  1. Religious clash leaves USA’s best left back an observer of World Cup bid

Hat tip to an American Family Association radio broadcast after I had discovered the first reference

We have to go outside of America’s press to a 12 July 2019 article in The Irish Times to find out that a Christian was cut from the US Women’s Soccer Team because she declined to wear a rainbow jersey.

Jaelene_Hinkle

The curious case of Jaelene Hinkle.

In June, 2017, she was called into the USA women’s squad ahead of a two-match tour of Scandinavia. With eight full caps already and the World Cup two years away, it looked the perfect opportunity for the then 24-year-old to confirm the growing consensus that she was the country’s best left-back.

Shortly after US Soccer announced the team would wear special jerseys in Europe, emblazoned with rainbow numbers in support of LGBTQ Pride month, Hinkle pulled out of the squad, initially citing “personal reasons” before later going into more detail.

“I just felt so convicted in my spirit that it wasn’t my job to wear this jersey,” she said.

“I gave myself three days to just seek and pray and determine what He was asking me to do in this situation . . . I knew in my spirit I was doing the right thing. I knew I was being obedient. If I never get another national team call-up again then that’s just a part of His plan, and that’s okay. Maybe this is why I was meant to play soccer, to show other believers to be obedient.”

The religious justification for her withdrawal came during an interview for The 700 Club, the most popular and incendiary show on the Christian Broadcasting Network, the go-to channel for fundamentalists across America, an outfit that regularly denounces the gay lifestyle.

When Hinkle’s North Carolina Courage visited the Portland Thorns in the National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL) shortly after the broadcast, opposing fans waved Pride flags and booed her every touch, something supporters of other teams soon began to copy.

(Read more at The Irish Times)

Considering all of the praise heaped on the captain of the team and recognition of her lesbian lifestyle, it would seem that the high standard of acceptance required of everyone when it comes to her lesbianism would also require acceptance (on co-captain Megan Rapinoe’s part) of other people’s point of view.

However, the always-inclusive crowd (at least the one at Slate) lobbied to have Jaelene Hinkle removed from the US Women’s Soccer Team in 2018 because they saw her presence as an affront to the LGBTQ2 community. I was not able to find any letters to the editor written by any Women’s Soccer Team member in support of Jaelene Hinkle, but what can you expect? For liberals, tolerance usually only goes in one direction.

  1. Christian Student Kicked out of Uni for Gay Marriage Views Wins Latest Court Battle

Breitbart reports in a 4 July 2019 article that a Christian student at the University of Sheffield was expelled for a Facebook post and has now won a judgement.

Felix-Ngole

A Christian who was expelled from his university for expressing a biblical view on marriage has celebrated winning his latest legal battle, calling it a victory for freedom of speech and religious conscience.

In 2015, Felix Ngole had defended U.S. state official Kim Davis, who had refused to register same-sex marriages in her state of Kentucky, writing on an open Facebook page: “Same-sex marriage is a sin whether we like it or not. It is God’s words and man’s sentiments would not change His words.”

Mr Ngole at the time had been studying for a Master’s degree in social work at the University of Sheffield, but two months after the Christian student stated the biblical position on marriage he was informed by university administrators that his comments were being investigated. After a professional fitness to practice (FtP) hearing, the university panel deemed Mr Ngole’s comments “derogatory of gay men and bisexuals” and he was expelled from the course.

Mr Ngole took his case to court to have the university’s decision overturned, stating that the decision was a violation of his right to freedom of thought and speech. In 2017, deputy high court Judge Rowena Collins Rice sided with the university.

However on Wednesday, three Court of Appeal judges overruled that judgement, saying Sheffield University’s disciplinary proceedings were flawed and that the institution should reconsider its decision through another FtP hearing, reports The Guardian.

The university had ruled that because Mr Ngole was taking a “professionally qualifying degree” in social care, the openly-shared comments may be of offence to people he may encounter or work with in the future.

“This is great news, not only for me and my family, but for everyone who cares about freedom of speech, especially for those working in or studying for caring professions,” the 41-year-old from Barnsley, south Yorkshire, said.

“As Christians we are called to serve others and to care for everyone, yet publicly and privately we must also be free to express our beliefs and what the Bible says without fear of losing our livelihoods,” he added.

Despite expressing regret that four years of his life were lost to battling his case for religious freedom and freedom of speech, Mr Ngole said: “…I feel overwhelming joy that what I have lost will be so much gain to Christians today and in the future as a result of this important ruling for freedom.”

(Read more at Breitbart)

So, as long as you toe the liberal line, you can stay at the university. Prove me wrong in my belief that liberals will accept tolerance only when it goes in one direction.

  1. Christian student group sues university for ‘equal access,’ alleges religious discrimination

As illustrated by a 12 July 2019 Fox News article, we see that not only have public universities become hotbeds of liberalism, but they have become exclusionary of any other type of thought (particularly Christian thought).

InterVarsity

A prominent Christian student organization has sued its university, claiming the group was targeted because of its religious beliefs.

In 2017, Wayne State University kicked Intervarsity Christian Fellowship off campus because it required its leaders to be Christians. It was only when the student group, which had been on campus for 75 years, threatened to sue in March 2018 that the Detroit school reversed its decision, according to a federal lawsuit.

The university claims the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship is just trying to use this case to “set a precedent.” But Becket, the civil liberties firm hired by the student group, argues the school still stands by its original interpretation that claims InterVarsity is “discriminating in violating of the law and could be kicked off at any time.”

“We are proud of and love our university, so we were saddened in fall 2017, when Wayne State deregistered our group, canceled our meetings, kicked us out of campus group events, and made us pay thousands of dollars to use campus space that other groups got for free, all simply because we asked that our student leaders believe our Christian faith, just as we have for over 75 years before,” Deaunai Montgomery, a student from InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, said Wednesday outside the courtroom.

InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, a student group at Wayne State University, is suing the Detroit, Mich. school in federal court alleging unfair and unconstitutional treatment. (Becket Law)

“As a Christian, we need our leaders to sincerely believe that what they teach us about Jesus is true,” Montgomery added. “To be clear, we want everyone to feel welcome to attend our group, but why should our Bible studies, prayer, and worship be led by someone who doesn’t believe those things?”

(Read more at Fox News)

Thank God that Intervarsity won this lawsuit.

5 or 9 Stories the main stream media ignored


  1. Avoiding the education behind a hate-filled heart

The Story of the Christian-hating liberal and the transgender

DevonEricksonTweet

OneNewsNow provided some insights to the boy who hated Christians.

More details are starting to come out about the two teenage shooters who took a life and injured eight others this week at a Colorado high school, but some details might get dropped from the typical news story.

Just before 2 p.m. on May 7, Devon Erickson (pictured at right) and accomplice Maya McKinney allegedly walked into the Highlands Ranch STEM school with two loaded handguns and began firing before they were tackled.

kendrick-castillo_280x175

One well-deserved post-shooting story describes the heroism of Kendrick Castillo (pictured below), an 18-year-old senior who helped tackle Erickson and thus helped end the shooting, paying for his courage with his own life.

Two others joined Castillo in stopping Erickson, and an unnamed private security guard is credited with subduing McKinney, The Associated Press reported.

But what about the two shooters themselves? Are they MAGA hat-wearing white supremacists? NRA members?

And why did they do it? Were they inspired by President Trump? By the tea party? By a Fox News host?

News website The American Conservative, which has been following the shooting, points out Erickson’s white car that was towed from his home was spray-painted with “666” and a Pentagram, and the words “fu– society” were spray-painted on its side.

On his Facebook page, Erickson complained in a 2014 post that he hates “all these Christians who hate gays” for their biblical views.

The same story notes that law enforcement authorities misidentified the accomplice as a male when the “he” is a she who claims to be transgender and is transitioning from “Maya” to “Alec.”

American Conservative writer Rod Dreher then writes:

Watch the coverage over the next few days. It hardly needs saying — but I’m going to say it anyway — that these alleged killers do not represent all gays, allies, or non-Christians, any more than Christians or Muslims who shoot up or bomb places represent all in their religion. But it’s going to be very, very interesting to observe how the media craft this narrative to explain what role the identities these two suspects embraced played in justifying their violent actions.

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

When I blog, I generally include short comments on the words of main stream media (this way, the main stream media’s words can be used to prove my point). When main stream media refuses (as it increasingly does) to comment on a conservative topic, I use media outlets like Fox, One America News Network, the Christian Broadcasting Network, and similar outlets.

Once again, the American main stream media has largely proven itself lacking in anything but a desire to follow the liberal agenda of the day.

  1. Elderly Pro-Life Woman’s Amazing Christian Response to Attacker Who Broke Her Leg: ‘I’m Forgiving Her’

prolifeprotester_hdv

The Christian Broadcast Network tells in a 10 May 2019 article of a woman who was received a broken leg for protesting abortion.

A 31-year-old woman from Louisville has been charged with second-degree assault after she allegedly shoved an elderly pro-life activist to the ground outside Kentucky’s only abortion clinic.

But the victim, 82-year-old pro-life activist Donna Durning, told the Louisville Courier Journal she has forgiven her alleged attacker, Janaya Alyce Gregory, and is asking others to pray for her.

“I believe that the lady who caused this injury needs prayers,” Durning said, “and I’m forgiving her and I would hope that people would also pray for her.”

Gregory, for her part, pleaded not guilty last week to the incident, which took place April 12 outside the EMW Women’s Surgical Center, according to court documents.

As a result of the assault, Durning sustained a broken femur. She required surgery and rehabilitation in order to recover from the incident. Durning said she is confident “God is watching over me.”

(Read more at the Christian Broadcast Network)

Had this been a Muslim attacked by a someone who once claimed to be a Christian, this would be front page news for a week.

However, with a Christian, older woman having her leg broken by a 31-year-old snowflake, the media gives us crickets.

  1. Pro-Life Activists Rally in Philly to Counter Dem’s Vicious Viral Attack

phillyproliferally3_hdv

After gay, pro-abortion Pennsylvania House member Brian Sims bullied three teen girls and an elderly woman protesting abortion, the Christian Broadcast Network reports in a 10 May 2019 article that pro-life groups have come together to protest his methods.

Pro-life activists rallied in Philadelphia Friday morning in response to a viral video of a Pennsylvania state representative harassing pro-life teens and women.

WATCH the entire rally BELOW:

We are LIVE at our pro-life rally against bullying, calling for the resignation of Brian Sims and for the end of abortion.

Faithwire’s Carly Hoilman was on site for the rally, posting numerous highlights from the event on Twitter:

The rally came together to protest the actions of state Rep. Brian Sims who is seen in viral videos harassing and threatening teenagers and a woman silently praying outside of this particular Planned Parenthood clinic. Sims points his camera at the teens, hoping to expose the identity of these minors, saying: “I’ve got a hundred dollars for anyone who can identify these three.”

In his bullying video, Sims hovers around an older woman, taunting her and trying to shove the camera in her face saying, “Today’s protester, now she is an old white lady who is going to try to avoid showing you her face.”

Sims had triumphantly tweeted his harassment, calling on others to target pro-lifers too: “Push back against Planned Parenthood protestors, PLEASE! They prey on young women, they use white privilege, & shame. They’re racist, classist, bigots who NEED & DESERVE our righteous opposition. Push back, please”

In another tweet, he blasted pro-lifers as “Bible bullies.”

(Read more at Christian Broadcast Network)

Since the media wants to portray gays as victims and never bullies, this will never see the light of day. Likewise, the attacks on the teens, the offers to have those teens’ lives ruined (much like the issues the media first tried to impose on the Covington Catholic boys.

  1. Pro-Lifers Pack Street at Philly Planned Parenthood: ‘We Are Not Going to Continue to Be Bullied’

In another article by the Christian Broadcast Network, we find that pro-life groups have a message for Planned Parenthood.

Hundreds of pro-lifers came here Friday to protest a Pennsylvania state representative’s recent verbal attacks against pro-life sidewalk counselors outside a Philadelphia abortion clinic.

As CBN News has reported, state Rep. Brian Sims (D) put out a video of himself blasting a woman who was merely praying a few feet from the Elizabeth Blackwell Planned Parenthood clinic. “An old white lady telling women what to do with their bodies,” he said.

Sims then basically offered a bounty for information on three teenage girls praying at the same clinic.

He called them, “A bunch of pseudo-Christian protestors who’ve been out here shaming young girls for being here. So here’s the deal: I’ve got $100 to anybody who’ll identify any of these three.”

phillyproliferally9_si

The pro-life advocates who came to this clinic told CBN News they won’t be intimidated or stopped because abortion must be fought.

Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood manager who now helps abortion clinic workers leave their jobs, addressed the rally.

(Read more at the Christian Broadcast Network)

Even without the coverage by the media, maybe Planned Parenthood and Brian Sims will get the message of this rally.

  1. Former Rap Artist Indicted for Obama 2012 Campaign Donations

former-rap-artist-indicted-for-obama-2012-campaign-donations

The Wall Street Journal gives us a hint of some more Obama administration corruption in a

Former Fugees rapper Pras Michel was indicted on charges of funneling millions of dollars in foreign money to then President Obama’s 2012 re-election effort, amid widening fallout of the multibillion-dollar fraud scandal at a Malaysian government fund.

The scandal has toppled Malaysia’s prime minister, threatened Goldman Sachs Group Inc. with criminal charges, and ensnared both Republican and Democratic fundraisers.

(Read more at the Wall Street Journal)

Considering how the media has gone bonkers over 30-year-old IRS reports on Donald Trump’s losses that were otherwise self-reported, we can only imagine what the reporting would have been like if this had been a Trump fund raiser who was convicted.

  1. One America News lists five other stories

maxresdefault

Liz Wheeler on One America News lists five other stories not mentioned by the main stream media.

  1. No Democrats viewed the mostly-unredacted version of the Mueller report
  2. California State Education has implemented sex education starting with kindergarten that cannot be opted out of and which is graphic at all levels
  3. Ilhan Omar has ties to the Muslim Amereican Society (which published the video of children singing “we will chop head of unbelievers off”).
  4. Trump told of his losing billions during his first episode of The Apprentice
  5. The Planned Parenthood location where Pennsylvania House member Brian Sims bullied three teen girls and an elderly woman for protesting abortion has failed 14 of the past 20 health inspections

This is a sad state of affairs for the media when they cannot report the news for fear of helping conservatives.

A sad day for many American Christians


The Shocking Speech Wheaton College Doesn’t Want You to Hear

In a 11 January 2019 Black Community News article, Ryan Bomberger provides perspectives on two speakers at Wheaton College.

This is the tale of two lectures at Wheaton College, a Christian evangelical college in the suburbs of Chicago. One was given in September 2017 and the other in November 2018. Though only a year apart, the responses to the two presentations were universes apart. The reaction is very telling and tragic for those who believe that a Christian education is different than a secular one.

The first speech was given by Dr. George Yancy, a philosophy professor at Emory University (huge thanks to Jamie Dean at World Magazine for excellent article on this and uncovering actual audio recording). It was sponsored by Wheaton’s Philosophy department and held in the esteemed Billy Graham Center on campus. It was entitled: “A Post-Racial America? White Gazes and Black Bodies”. It can only be described as an expletive-laced, pornographic, racist, anti-biblical screed. His theme? “To be white is to be racist.” Listen to these shocking excerpts from that speech here.

There was no backlash from Wheaton’s leadership. There were no letters sent out by any staff or student government leaders denouncing him or raising concerns about the hostile, f-bomb-laden speech. There was only internal praise by the school’s own Wheaton Record.

Then there’s that second speech. Wheaton College Republicans courageously invited me to speak about abortion and race. Keep in mind, there’s never been anyone—ever—to address racism and the abortion industry at Wheaton. In fact, no one has addressed the issue of abortion at their thrice weekly chapels but once (briefly) in many years. Wheaton, founded by slavery abolitionists, doesn’t lead whatsoever on the abolition of abortion. One would think a school that (sort of) espouses a prolife worldview, at least in text on its website (“followers of Jesus Christ will uphold the dignity of human beings, from conception until death…”), would encourage students to put that into action by attending the March for Life Chicago or volunteering at a local pregnancy resource center.

Needless to say, I did not speak in the center named after the school’s most famous alum. But I did speak to a standing-room only audience in another Wheaton lecture hall. My multimedia talk was entitled “Black Lives Matter In and Out of the Womb”; it was an expletive-free, fact-based, statistics-driven, Biblically-rooted, deeply personal and grace-filled discussion on the systemic racism of the abortion industry and the hypocrisy of the pro-abortion #BlackLivesMatter movement. As an adoptee and adoptive father who was conceived in rape, I challenged students to see the most vulnerable, the most marginalized, and the most powerless among us as having equal intrinsic worth and God-given Purpose.

Six days later, I was severely denounced by a campus-wide email sent out by two Wheaton staff members and signed by three student government leaders. My entire message was branded as “offensive rhetoric” that made “many students, staff and faculty of color” feel “unsafe” on their campus. And now, the school has cancelled the College Republicans’ next event, because leadership claims their speaker approval process needs to change so Wheaton students aren’t exposed to such factivism (aka truth) again.

(Read more at Black Community News)

While this shows that at least one Christian college has gone full-bore liberal instead of full-bore Christian, this will not be the first time a faithful Christian and pro-lifer has been discriminated against. For examples, refer to my blog posts in

Since Wheaton College so flagrantly contradicted the examples of the Old Testament and the commands of the New Testament, maybe a review of how Christians must not discriminate racially and must not discriminate among Christians is in order.

Galatians 3:28 tells us that “(t)here is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” In other words, there are no divisions between Christians (no matter the gender, race, or financial status) due to the uniting properties of Jesus Christ. Let me be more clear: Christ makes all Christians into one body. We must not discriminate against the other parts of our own body any more than the mouth should denounce the nose.

In the Old Testament, we receive the example of a leader who did not consider skin tone and a God who stood by his prophet. In Numbers 12:1, we find …”Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman he had married” … In verses 9 and 10, God shows his backing for Moses when we see …”the anger of the Lord burned against them and He departed. But when the cloud had withdrawn from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow.” From this, we see that God stood against Miriam’s bigoted disapproval of Moses’ black wife. Not only that — God punished Miriam for her bigotry.

Additionally, Christians are commanded to “(b)e devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor.” We should love other Christians like brothers and put the needs of other Christians over our own. Similar commands can be found in 1 Thessalonians 5:11; John 13:34; Galatians 5:13; Ephesians 4:2 and 32; 1 Peter 4:8; and 1 John 4:7.

An Old Testament example of a man who was devoted to his fellow believers comes to us through Joseph, who — when presented with a chance to get back at people who sold him into slavery and thereby caused him to go to prison — said “you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Genesis 50:20).

Strong statements by Christians


Pope Francis says walls, occupation, and fundamentalism hamper Mideast peace

Reuters quotes the Pope in a 7 July 2018 article regarding the pontif’s opinion that walls, occupation, and fundamentalism hamper Middle Eastern peace.

Pope Francis led a summit of Christian leaders on how to promote peace in the Middle East on Saturday and said building walls, occupying territories and religious fanaticism would not resolve conflict in the region.

Francis also repeated his view that the “status quo” of the contested city of Jerusalem should be respected, and backed a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

Francis convened the summit in the southern Italian city of Bari that for centuries has been a gateway to the Middle East and home to the relics of St. Nicholas, a figure venerated in both the Western and Eastern branches of Christianity.

“Truces maintained by walls and displays of power will not lead to peace, but only the concrete desire to listen and to engage in dialogue will,” he said in his second speech of the day, after a private meeting among the religious leaders.

“Let there be an end to the few profiting from the sufferings of many. No more occupying territories and thus tearing people apart,” he said.

(Read more at Reuters)

Considering the liberality of the pope, one has to wonder if this and similar statements have been made to discourage the conservative Christians that he sees across the world.

In response to that thought, all I can say is, “Lead by example, Pope Francis. Tear down the walls around the Vatican — all of them.”

Pope Francis pulls the death penalty from acceptable means of punishment

Crux explains in a 2 August 2018 article the edict of Pope Francis.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the death penalty now is no longer admissible under any circumstances.

The Vatican announced on Thursday Pope Francis approved changes to the compendium of Catholic teaching published under Pope John Paul II.

“The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person,” reads the Catechism of the Catholic Church now on the death penalty, with the addition that the Church “works with determination for its abolition worldwide.”

This is a departure from what the document, approved under Pope John Paul II in 1992, says on the matter: “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”

The former formula does stipulate that if non-lethal means are sufficient to protect people’s safety from the aggressor, then authority must limit itself to it, as these “are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”

In 1997, the Catechism was changed to reflect John Paul’s 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae.

The addition said that the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

The statement released by the Vatican’s press office on Thursday says that Francis approved the new changes to point number 2267 of the Catechism on May 11, 2018, during a meeting with the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Spanish Cardinal Luis Ladaria.

As it’s been re-written, the Catechism now also says that “Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.”

Yet today, “there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state.”

“Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption,” reads the Catechism now, as it was approved by Francis.

It’s for this reason, and “in light of the Gospel,” that the Church teaches that the practice is now inadmissible.

Together with the revised number 2267 of the Catechism, the Vatican released a letter by Ladaria addressed to the bishops.

(Read more at Crux)

While I am inclined to agree that Christians should forgive those who have offended them, we cannot force this standard on the world. If God does not force his gift of forgiveness on the world, but allows us to choose to believe in him (John 3:16) — then I doubt that God expects us to not coerce forgiveness by eliminating this death penalty. Additionally, if you see that God gave the government the sword (Romans 13:3-4), then you should realize that the sword constitutes an instrument of death — not a paddle.

Since God directs us to speak for the voiceless (Proverbs 31:8; Psalm 82:4; and other verses). Since the murder victim cannot speak for themselves, we must.

As mentioned with the previous article referencing a ruling of the pope, one has to wonder how much the liberality of the pope and the conservatism of certain Christian movements have influenced this statement.

Oddly, after reviewing all of this, I ran across a web page explaining the pope’s position on the death penalty and it starts with:

The Church’s teaching has not changed, nor has the Pope said that it has. The Catechism and the Pope state that the state has the right to exact the death penalty.

 

‘Deny Trump to prove your love for Jesus’? I’m not playing that game

A 6 July 2018 OneNewsNow article discusses a ludicrous idea that Christians should deny a leader to prove their love for Jesus.

It’s utterly ridiculous to make the denouncing of Donald Trump a litmus test of Christian orthodoxy – yet that’s what we’re hearing from the same scoundrels who didn’t take our faith seriously before. We don’t have to prove our morality by giving our “Amen” to the left’s latest cause.

We hear this on a daily, if not hourly basis: Evangelicals have hurt their witness by voting for Trump. Evangelicals have lost their credibility by supporting Trump. Evangelicals can no longer be taken seriously because they’re in bed with Trump – and on and on it goes.

It doesn’t matter who he appoints to the Supreme Court. It doesn’t matter if he improves the economy. Or strengthens the military. Or helps stabilize the Middle East.

Not at all. Trump is a heartless, misogynistic, immoral, narcissistic, xenophobic monster, and whoever voted for him (or continues to support him) is not worthy of the name “Christian.”

This has almost become the new orthodoxy: Prove your allegiance to Jesus by denouncing Trump. Failure to denounce him is proof positive that you have compromised your witness.

Sorry, but I’m not playing this game. In fact, I refuse the premise of this game.

First, the very ones driving this narrative are the ones who didn’t take our faith seriously before. They branded us bigots and homophobes. They criticized us as Bible-bashers and rightwing extremists. And they’re the ones now saying, “We would take you more seriously if you denounced Trump.”

I don’t think so. They didn’t take us seriously before. Why should they suddenly say, “Now that you’ve put a distance between yourselves and that crazy man in the White House, we’d love to hear your views on abortion and homosexuality. Yes, please tell us why abortion is murder and why same-sex marriage is illegitimate in God’s sight. You have so much to offer us.”

Not quite!

This reminds me of some criticism I got for our video “Can You Be Gay and Christian?” A lot of hateful viewers vilified me as an “old man” (and much worse, of course). This prompted me to ask, “So, if I was a cool-looking young guy, would you like what I had to say?” I think not.

It’s the position we take that primarily brings us rejection, not our age or appearance.

Second, there are plenty of evangelicals and conservatives who didn’t vote for Trump (some were Never Trumpers), yet they still get hated and ridiculed by the left for their conservative views. Did journalists like Ben Shapiro and David French earn the respect of the liberal world by not voting for Trump? Have they become less hated? Are liberal campuses opening their doors saying, “Please speak to us, now that you’ve proved your credibility by not voting for Trump”?

Third, many of us who did vote for Trump said from the start that we had grave concerns about his character. That we thought he could be very divisive. That some of his rhetoric could be dangerous. And plenty of us have expressed our disagreement with the president since he was elected.

How, then, does our vote for him impinge on our faith?

I’ve said repeatedly that Donald Trump didn’t die for my sins and that he’s not my savior. And I will not sell my soul in support of him.

But you better believe I’d vote for him against Hillary Clinton any day of the week. I’d far rather have him picking Supreme Court nominees than Hillary. Or standing against LGBT extremism. Or protecting our religious freedoms. Or standing with Israel. Or facing down Iran.

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

I wonder why this challenge never surfaced during the years that so many were singing the praises of Obama. Nonetheless, I have to give Dr. Brown kudos for publishing this.

In addition to Dr. Brown’s musings regarding the metaphorical tug-of-war set up by the Never-Trumpers and liberals in order to confound those who support the President and conservatives, why not just follow the words of Christ where he said, “… render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”

A substantial part of the things that should have been reported on Trump (the good news that most of America’s press wants to ignore) is not being reported. Thence, the things (the honor and respect) that are due to Donald Trump are not being given by some segments of America.

Christians: Let’s discuss both immigration & Trump’s wall, too

OneNewsNow points out through a 6 July 2018 article how Pastor Jeffres has tried to bring sides together in the immigration debate.

“Never Trump” evangelicals included their names on a New York Times ad to promote immigration and blast President Trump, but a defender of the President says the ad blatantly ignores our borders and rule of law.

The ad, entitled “Immigrants and Immigration Strengthen Us,” was timed with the July 4th holiday.

It asks fellow Americans to “engage in a constructive conversation that respects the human dignity of all of our neighbors and welcomes people of all faiths, no matter where you were born.”

“I didn’t find anything objectionable about the ad at all. I think most Americans would agree with it,” responds Dr. Robert Jeffress. “But the issue is not immigration. The real issue is illegal immigration.”

The ad was sponsored by the National Immigration Forum, which advocates for the “value of immigrants and immigration” in the United States according to its own website.

Much like the newspaper ad fails to directly address illegal immigration, the NIF website repeatedly refers to “migrants” even when it’s criticizing the U.S. Border Patrol’s “catch and release” program that is apprehending illegal aliens.

Elsewhere the ad states that “America can be great only if we are good,” which Jeffress views as a veiled swipe at President Trump himself.

A vocal segment of “Never Trump” evangelicals is continually criticizing Trump for his views and policies that affect illegal aliens. One ongoing example is Russell Moore, who signed his name to the New York Times ad and has been given op-ed space in prominent newspapers to bash Trump on behalf of Southern Baptists. 

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

As Christians, we must be the ones to try to bring groups together; however, we must recognize that God does not force himself on the world. Therefore, we cannot force groups into harmony. We cannot force people who have broken the law in order to improve their lot in life (which includes just about everyone who has broken the law) to change their ways.

At the same time, we must be on guard against two forms of a new Pharisaicalism:

  1. We need to guard against being so seemingly spiritually-focused as to forget the real-world laws around us (as the NIF seem to forget).
  2. We need to guard against staying in our own little secluded groups. That is, Christians need to visit those in jail (Matthew 25:31-46) and rub shoulders with the rest of the world (John 17:16-18). Although Jesus was sinless, he associated with tax collectors and sinners (Luke 15:1). We should do the same.

Limited specifics on the Pennsylvania Catholic church sex abuse report

A 23 August 2018 article from the Philadelphia Inquirer seems to be on the way to providing more details to the Pennsylvania report on abusive priests.

A state grand jury report released last week revealed decades of allegations of child sex abuse at the hands of more than 300 priests in six Pennsylvania Roman Catholic dioceses.

The report presented accounts by victims and actions taken by church officials, and detailed the parish assignments of more than 250 of the accused clergy. This search tool catalogs the thousands of records detailing where they lived and worked in the dioceses, including some in the Philadelphia region.

Beyond these two paragraphs, the article only provides a set of links that first expands into a list of names of priests and then expands to show where each selected priest has served.

While I am certain that abuses occurred, those abuses do not appear here. And though I am certain that the mercy of God comes available to all humans, a number of things should be pointed out about how God works in the real world.

  • First, Jesus promised the thief that he would be in paradise that day — but Christ did not exempt him from his punishment on the cross.
  • Second, all of the people who Jesus healed (even the ones he raised from the dead) eventually died physically. Hopefully, they saw the message that Jesus offered and attained spiritual life; however, as John 21:22 points out, we should follow Christ ourselves.
  • Third, Jesus guarantees the believer a life-and-death struggle against the world in Luke 10:3 (where Christians are the lambs).

Therefore, for the Catholic church to shield these priests from prosecution works as an anti-evangelism that stifles the true message of the church.

Along the stream of thought that points out some acts work to stifle the true message of the church, might these acts be a continuation of the push by liberals regarding the gaying of the priesthood? While we all have sins, it seems an extreme mistake to include people into the priesthood who have specific problems with any of the 10 sins listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Of course, this means that some Protestant churches will have to follow the directive to show judicious decision-making skills as outlined in Matthew 7:1-5 and not put the former thief in charge of the year’s collection for the orphans.

On the other hand, the lack of dates of offenses (and, thence, the already-served convictions) seems to point toward the possibility that this Pennsylvania report includes issues that have already been adjudicated. The concept of proven offense and punishment as given in the Bible comes up here. Once someone has been punished for one offense, the state does not continue to punish for that one occurrence.

With all of this being said, could this be a ploy by Pennsylvania Democrats to discourage Catholics and other Christians? Since discouraged people are less likely to vote, could this be a covert method of cutting votes?

LifeZette exposes the recurring issues in the Catholic heirarchy

In a 28 August 2018 article of LifeZette, some of the truth peeks out.

It appears as though there’s some division in the Catholic Church — with news breaking that Pope Francis may have covered up sexual misconduct.

Former Vatican ambassador to the United States (from 2011 to 2016) and Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò published an open letter on a pair of Catholic websites — The National Catholic Register and LifeSiteNews — claiming the pope knew of allegations made against the former Archbishop of Washington (2001 to 2006), Theodore McCarrick. The ex-Cardinal was reportedly sexually active with seminarians and punished by Pope Benedict XVI.

Archbishop Viganò claimed that Pope Francis was aware of this situation, ignored it and reinstated Cardinal McCarrick as a high-ranking member of the U.S. Catholic Church.

“The pope learned about it from me on June 23, 2013 and continued to cover for him,” Archbishop Viganò wrote. “He did not take into account the sanctions that Pope Benedict had imposed on him and made him his trusted counselor.”

“Pope Francis must be the first to set a good example for cardinals and bishops who covered up McCarrick’s abuses and resign along with all of them,” Archbishop Viganò added.

On Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle” on Monday night, Fox News contributor Raymond Arroyo joined host Laura Ingraham to discuss the matter. Arroyo, who is also the managing editor of EWTN, a Catholic television network, explained that Archbishop Viganò is not the kind of person who would fabricate such a claim..

“He’s very well-respected,” Arroyo said of Viganò. “He’s a man of integrity … and he’s been a whistleblower in the past. In 2011, he wrote letters to Pope Benedict about corruption in the Vatican. Those were leaked and became the Vatileak scandal. It was his exposes, only meant for the pope’s eyes.”.

The VatiLeaks scandal Arroyo referenced occurred in 2012 when Viganò sent letters that Pope Benedict XVI leaked; in them, Viganò asked to not be transferred after exposing Vatican corruption — which cost the church millions of dollars..

(Read more at LifeZette)

Saying that “the statement speaks for itself — reach your own conclusions” sounds so much like Obama’s saying “I read about in the paper” regarding the IRS scandal, spying on AP reporters, Hillary’s email server (even with his emails in the mix), and other scandals.

Immigration issues


Fair Points: Illegal immigration hurts the environment and impinges our safety

In the following video, a former border patrol agent illustrates and describes the environmental issues and safety issues driving a need for a border fence.

It runs over 1900 miles from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean, but only about a third of it is actually fenced off. We’re talking about the US-Mexico border and it’s dividing America in half.

There’s the Open Border lobby which opposes common-sense immigration reform like added border security and building a wall — then there’s the rest of America that wants national security first.

The state of California has become a battleground for the immigration debate because of its sanctuary laws. So we travelled to San Diego, a neighboring city to Tiajuana, Mexico. There we met Chris Harris who served as a Border Patrol agent for 20 years.

A Trump supporter faces deportation

A San Diego Union Tribune article documents the plight of a minister who supports President Trump, but finds himself awaiting deportation proceedings.

Jorge Ramirez, an Oceanside minister and unauthorized immigrant, didn’t think he would end up in line for deportation when he encouraged his U.S. citizen daughter to vote for now-President Donald Trump.

In line with his conservative religious beliefs, Ramirez considers himself a Republican, he said in an interview at Otay Mesa Detention Center, where he is awaiting deportation proceedings. Border Patrol picked him up after staking out his house early one May morning, and he’s been in the detention facility since.

Ramirez said he does not know why he is being targeted for removal from the U.S. The Trump administration has said that it is targeting criminals and those who have already been ordered deported. Ramirez said he falls into neither category.

“Trump said, ‘Let’s keep all the good people here and all the bad people out,’” Ramirez said.

“That’s great, but I’m here,” Ramirez said of his detention situation. “If I’m here, anybody can be here. I’m not saying I’m the best person in the world, but I’ve tried to live a good life.”

Ramirez worked as a satellite television technician, and frequently went to Camp Pendleton. Issues with his security clearance brought him to the attention of authorities in December.

He said he supports the Republican agenda on both fiscal and social issues and that he still supports Trump.

(Read more at the San Diego Union Tribune)

Vice President Pence calls ICE agents heroes

A 6 July 2018 USA Today article discusses how Vice President Pence characterized ICE agents as “heroes.”

Vice President Mike Pence on Friday offered unqualified support for the government’s front line officers in the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts in the face of calls for the abolishment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“We are with you 100 percent,” Pence said during a visit to ICE headquarters. “We will always stand proudly with our brave heroes of Ice and the Border Patrol.

“Under President Trump, we will never abolish ICE.”

Pence’s appearance along with Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen comes as the Trump administration has been engulfed in controversy for separating young children from their undocumented parents as part of a “zero tolerance” border enforcement policy.

President Donald Trump abruptly halted the policy last month under mounting political pressure. The government now faces court-ordered deadlines to reunite nearly 3,000 children with their parents.

“The calls for abolishing ICE are not only outrageous, they are irresponsible,” the vice president said.

Pence said increasing public criticism against the agency was even putting officers and their families at risk, asserting that the agency was being “attacked and demeaned… at an unprecedented rate.”

“These attacks against ICE officers and their families must stop and must stop now,” he said.

He specifically cited Democratic lawmakers, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, saying their calls for shuttering the agency were “spurious” and “must stop.” He said the calls to abolish the 20,000-person agency responsible for apprehending undocumented immigrants in the interior of the U.S. have spread far beyond the “radical left.”

“The truth is that opposition of ICE has moved to the center of the Democratic Party itself, just when you thought the Democrats couldn’t move farther to the left,” he said.

Pence’s remarks drew applause from agency staffers gathered in an office studio.

(Read more at USA Today)

Tweets illustrating the need for border control

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Harvard Harris Poll finds 81% of Americans want to cut legal immigration

According to the 7 May 2018 Voice of America article quoting a Harvard Harris poll, 81% of Americans want an end to legal immigration (possibly in order to allow our economy to take care of our own needy).

Immigration remains a hot button issue in American politics as the November midterm elections approach, and surveys of likely midterm voters suggests a large majority of Americans support limits on legal immigration.

According to an April survey (PDF) from the Polling Company, a conservative research firm, nearly two-thirds of Americans support reducing legal immigration.

The Washington-based company asked likely voters, “Current federal policy adds about one million new immigrants with lifetime work permits into the U.S. each year. Knowing this, which is closest to the number of new immigrants the government should be adding each year?”

Sixty-four percent said “the federal government should be adding less immigrants with lifetime work permits.” This sentiment was shared among men, women, Republicans, Independents, Democrats and Hispanic/Latino voters.

Those surveyed were asked to choose between six levels of immigration, more than two million, 1.5 million, one million (the current level), 750,000, 500,000 or 250,000 or fewer. Almost half (49 percent) the respondents chose 250,000 or less, 11 percent chose 500,000 and four percent said 750,000. Seventeen percent agree with the current level of one million per year.

The Polling Company findings are similar to a January Harvard/Harris poll(PPT) on Americans’ attitudes toward immigration.

Harvard/Harris found 81 percent of those surveyed favored less immigration than the current rate. It found nine percent want no immigration, 35 percent want less than 250,000 immigrants, 19 percent wanted between 250,000 and 499,999 and 18 percent wanted 500,000 to 999,999.

The Polling Company found about 60 percent support a path to citizenship for so-called Dreamers if their relatives are not given priority to enter the country.

Harvard/Harris found 77 percent of Americans said Dreamers should be given a path to citizenship, but 60 percent also do not want their family members to be given immigration priority.

Dreamers, who were brought to the United States illegally as children, have been allowed to remain, but have not been given legal residence. Under U.S. law a citizen or legal permanent resident can sponsor relatives from their home country to move to the United States.

The ability to bring one’s family is called “chain migration” by opponents and “family-based immigration” by proponents.

Almost 60 percent (59 percent) of both poll’s respondents said immigrants should only be able to bring in their spouse and minor children. Currently, parents, siblings and some non-nuclear family members can immigrate.

(Read more at the Voice of America)

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Once we required immigrants to contribute to the social fabric. Now, 51% of immigrants in US on welfare

OneNewsNow reports in a 12 August 2018 article that the Center for Immigration Studies has found 51% of immigrants (both legal and illegal) are on welfare.

A research report revealed that more than half of legal and illegal immigrants living in the United States are receiving some sort of welfare benefits from the government.

The study also divulged that immigrants residing in the U.S. use 57 percent more taxpayer-funded food stamps than Americans who were native-born.

“In September 2015, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) published a landmark study of immigration and welfare use, showing that 51 percent of immigrant-headed households used at least one federal welfare program – cash, food, housing or medical care – compared to 30 percent of native households,” CIS reported.

Drain on the economy?

This interprets to nearly $2,000 more in federal money received by immigrant households than native-born families nationwide.

“The average household headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) costs taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare benefits, which is 41 percent higher than the $4,431 received by the average native household,” CIS’s Jason Richwine divulged.

In several categories, immigrants are more costly to the American taxpayer than the native-born residents receiving federal aid.

“The average immigrant household consumes 33 percent more cash welfare, 57 percent more food assistance, and 44 percent more Medicaid dollars than the average native household,” Richwine added. “Housing costs are about the same for both groups.”

It was shown that immigrants from Panama all the way up to the southern border of the U.S. cost American taxpayers more than migrants from any other part of the world.

“At $8,251, households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico have the highest welfare costs of any sending region – 86 percent higher than the costs of native households,” CIS’s Richwine revealed.

A comparison between illegal aliens and legal immigrants was also made.

“Illegal immigrant households cost an average of $5,692 – driven largely by the presence of U.S.-born children – while legal immigrant households cost $6,378,” CIS’s report stated.

Low levels of education and poor performance at school are to blame for immigrants eating up such a large proportion of America’s welfare dollars.

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

Censorship by Facebook, Twitter, & other media giants


Thanks Breitbart for this explanatory illustration.

Midterm meddling: Twitter follows Facebook & blacklists GOP candidate’s family story of immigration from Cambodia

In a 16 August 2-18 Breitbart article, Facebook and Twitter have been shown to be stifling political speech in California again.

Twitter has followed in Facebook’s footsteps by blocking a campaign video ad for Republican congressional candidate Elizabeth Heng. Facebook eventually admitted that a campaign video including the communist atrocities in Cambodia is not “shocking, disrespectful, or sensational,” but Twitter, which describes the ad as “obscene,” disagrees.

Shortly after Facebook came under fire for refusing to allow Republican Congressional candidate Elizabeth Heng to advertise with her campaign ad on their platform, Twitter has made the same decision. Facebook blocked the ad, which shared the story of Heng’s family being forced to flee Cambodia for the U.S., claiming that the Facebook couldn’t allow videos that contained “shocking, disrespectful, or sensational” imagery on their advertising platform. The ad was eventually approved with a Facebook spokesperson stating: “Upon further review, it is clear the video contains historical imagery relevant to the candidate’s story. We have since approved the ad and it is now running on Facebook.” A decision Twitter apparently disagrees with.

Twitter has blacklisted the campaign ad, according to Heng. The Heng campaign stated in a press release: “In recent attempts to advertise Elizabeth Heng’s campaign video on Twitter, the campaign has received a message from the company stating that upon review, the ad is ‘ineligible to participate in the Twitter Ads program at this time based on our Inappropriate Content policy.’ Twitter defined inappropriate content as ‘that which is offensive, vulgar, or obscene.’”

Heng’s advertising refusal comes shortly after Infowars host Alex Jones received a seven-day suspension on the platform and many Twitter users reported a decline in followers as Twitter purged accounts from its platform.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Did Twitter find the images of Pol Pot’s Cambodia offensive, vulgar, or obscene? That is, did the brutality of a communist regime offend the millennial sensibilities of Twitter? Or was it scenes of Fresno’s deteriorating storefronts that offended Twitter?

If it was the images of the results of economic radicals like Pol Pot, will Twitter, Google, or Facebook block video of Patriot’s Day?

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Facebook opens up on vote meddling

A 4 August 2018 Associated Press article points out how Facebook has admitted to vote meddling (however, it does not mention the removal of conservative Brazilian pages or similar actions by Facebook).

For a company bent on making the world more open, Facebook has long been secretive about the details of how it runs its social network — particularly how things go wrong and what it does about them.

Yet on Tuesday, Facebook rushed forward to alert Congress and the public that it had recently detected a small but “sophisticated” case of possible Russian election manipulation. Has the social network finally acknowledged the need to keep the world informed about the big problems it’s grappling with, rather than doing so only when dragged kicking and screaming to the podium?

While the unprompted revelation does signal a new, albeit tightly controlled openness for the company, there is still plenty that Facebook isn’t saying. Many experts remain unconvinced that this is a true culture change and not mere window dressing.

“This is all calculated very carefully,” said Timothy Carone, a business professor at the University of Notre Dame. He and other analysts noted that Facebook announced its discovery of 32 accounts and pages intended to stir up U.S. political discord just a week after the company’s stock dropped almost 20 percent — its worst plunge since going public.

But Facebook’s proactive disclosure, including a conference call for reporters with chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg, struck a markedly different tone from the company’s ham-handed approach to a string of scandals and setbacks over the past two years. That has included:

  • CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s infamous dismissal of the idea that fake news on Facebook could have influenced the 2016 election as “a pretty crazy idea”;
  • The company’s foot-dragging as evidence mounted of a 2016 Russian election-interference effort conducted on Facebook and other social-media sites;
  • Zuckerberg, again, declining for nearly a week to publicly address the privacy furor over a Trump campaign consultant, Cambridge Analytica, that scavenged data from tens of millions of Facebook users for its own election-influence efforts.

A chastened Facebook has since taken steps toward transparency, many of them easy to overlook. In April, it published for the first time the detailed guidelines its moderators use to police unacceptable material. It has provided additional, if partial, explanations of how it collects user data and what it does with it. And it has forced disclosure of the funding and audience targeting of political advertisements, which it now also archives for public scrutiny.

Facebook said its timing was motivated by an upcoming protest event in Washington that was promoted by a suspicious page connected to a Russian troll farm, the Internet Research Agency. Several people connected to the IRA have been indicted by the U.S. special counsel for attempting to interfere in the 2016 election.

Despite Zuckerberg’s repeated mantra — delivered to relentless effect in some 10 hours of testimony before Congress in April — that the company now really gets it, some who know the company best have their doubts.

David Kirkpatrick, the author a Facebook history, argues that neither Zuckerberg nor Sandberg have ever shown themselves to be “deeply alarmed in public.” As a result, he suggests, Facebook seems more concerned with managing its image than with solving the actual problem at hand.

Such issues run deep for the company. Some of its biggest critics, including former employees such as Sandy Parakilas and early Facebook investor Roger McNamee, say the company needs to revamp its business model from the ground up to see any meaningful change.

These critics would like to see Facebook rely less on tracking its users in order to sell targeted advertising, and to cut back on addicting features such as endless notifications that keep drawing people back in. Parakilas, for example, has advocated for a subscription-based model, letting users pay to user Facebook instead of having their data harvested.

Merely hiring more moderators, or hanging hopes on the evolution of artificial intelligence, isn’t going to cut it, in their view. There have also been widespread calls for Facebook to acknowledge that it is, in a sense, a media company, responsible for what happens on its platforms — a characterization the social network has long fought.

For all that, Facebook is well ahead of Silicon Valley rivals such as Google and Twitter when it comes to openness — even if only because it’s attracted the lion’s share of criticism, said Paul Levinson, a media studies professor at Fordham University.

But Facebook “can’t win at this game,” said Siva Vaidhyanathan, a University of Virginia professor of media studies whose 2018 book “Antisocial Media” critiques Facebook’s effect on democracy and society. Because it’s so huge — 2.2 billion global users and counting — and so difficult to police, he said, “it will always be vulnerable to hijacking and will never completely clean up its content.”

(Read more at the Associated Press)

This is not big news. So what if Facebook caves again to the socialist forces that would limit free speech. This allows the media giant to feel good about itself. Too bad Facebook could not learn from the lessons provided by Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-il, and George Orwell.

Then again, there was the example of Barack Obama.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Twitter takes a stab at silencing the “shitty people”

In the following undercover video, the interviewer got Olinda Hassan, Policy Manager for Twitter Trust and Safety, to admit that “we’re trying to get the ‘shitty people’ not to show up.”

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Spotify, Apple, Google, and Facebook purge the free speech rights of Alex Jones of InfoWars

In the insightful fiction from the middle of the last century (1984 by George Orwell), the author saw the deleterious effect of a central government that controlled everything down to speech and thought. That insight came from exposure to governments that attempted to provide everything to the working class — down to what we should think.

Even with these cautionary tales, a number of media giants (Spotify, Apple, Google, Twitter, and Facebook) have taken up the task of limiting the free speech rights of others.

The rise of corporate censorship

A 7 August 2018 Spiked Online article delves into censorship by the online media giants.

So we’re now trusting the capitalist class, massive, unaccountable corporations, to decide on our behalf what we may listen to and talk about? This is the take-home message, the terrible take-home message, of the expulsion of Alex Jones’ Infowars network from Apple, Facebook and Spotify and of the wild whoops of delight that this summary banning generated among so-called liberals: that people are now okay with allowing global capitalism to govern the public sphere and to decree what is sayable and what is unsayable. Corporate censorship, liberals’ new favourite thing – how bizarre.

We live in strange times. On one hand it is fashionable to hate capitalism these days. No middle-class home is complete without a Naomi Klein tome; making memes of Marx is every twentysomething Corbynistas’ favourite pastime. But on the other hand we seem content to trust Silicon Valley, the new frontier in corporate power, to make moral judgements about what kind of content people should be able to see online. Radicals and liberals declared themselves ‘very glad’ that these business elites enforced censorship against Jones and Infowars. We should be ‘celebrating the move’, said Vox, because ‘it represents a crucial step forward in the fight against fake news’. Liberals for capitalist censorship! The world just got that bit odder, and less free.

Over the past 24 hours, Jones and much of his Infowars channel has been ‘summarily banned’ – in the excitable words of Vox – from Apple, Facebook, Spotify and YouTube. Initially, Facebook and YouTube had taken only selective measures against Jones. In response to a Twitterstorm about his presence on these platforms, they took down some of his videos. But then Apple decided to ban Jones entirely – removing all episodes of his podcast from its platform – and the other online giants followed suit. Or as the thrilled liberal commentary put it: ‘The dominoes started to fall.’ Despite having millions of subscribers, despite there being a public interest in what he has to say, Jones has been cast out of the world of social media, which is essentially the public square of the 21st century, on the basis that what he says is wicked.

This is censorship. There will of course be apologists for the corporate control of speech, on both the left and right, who will say, ‘It’s only censorship when the government does it!’. They are so wrong. When enormous companies that have arguably become the facilitators of public debate expel someone and his ideas because they find them morally repugnant, that is censorship. Powerful people have deprived an individual and his network of a key space in which they might propagate their beliefs. Aka censorship.

(Read more at Spiked Online)

The Real Reason for the Left’s Double Standard on Hate Speech

Having used the ideas of Dr. Brown as much as they aligned with my own, I again find myself dipping from the well of Dr. Michael Brown’s thought (which often appears in OneNewsNow and TownHall) in his 9 August 2018 article on the left’s propensity to excuse its own hate speech.

Why is it that organizations like the SPLC can designate conservative Christians as hate groups while ignoring radical leftists like Antifa? Why is that Facebook and Google and YouTube and Twitter appear to punish conservatives disproportionately for alleged violations of community guidelines?

The answer is as disturbing as it is simple. The left believes it is so morally and intellectually superior to the right that it can see nothing wrong with its extreme positions and hostile words. Is it wrong to be intolerant of bigots? Is it wrong to hate (or even punch) a Nazi?

In short, if I’m a member of the KKK, is it wrong for you to disparage and mock me? If I’m a dangerous homophobe, is it wrong for you to vilify and exclude me? If I’m a hate-filled propogandist spreading dangerous lies, is it wrong for you to mark me and marginalize me?

Of course, there are double standards on all sides of the debate, on the right as well as on the left. And there is more than enough hypocrisy to go around, from the most progressive to the most conservative.

All of us also have our share of blind spots, so we tend to condemn in others what we justify in ourselves. Welcome to human nature.
Still, it is conspicuous that the same behavior gets treated differently by the leftist elite (including many a university professor) and by watchdog groups like the SPLC and by the internet giants.

Back in 2004-05, when I first began to address gay activism, I was widely mocked for saying, “Those who came out of the closet want to put us in the closet.”

The response was consistent: “No one wants to put you in the closet!”

A few years back, I noticed a change in tone: “Bigots like you belong in the closet!”

But of course!

While being interviewed on a Christian TV program back in 2011, I quoted the comment of a Christian attorney. He told me that those who were once put in jail (speaking of pioneer gay activists) will want to put us in jail.
For having the audacity to say this on Christian TV, I was vilified and maligned.

Yet when Kim Davis was jailed in 2015 for refusing a court order to grant same-sex marriage licenses, there was widespread rejoicing on the left: “Kim Davis is ISIS! Lock her up!”

(Read more at AskDrBrown.org)

NBC ignores an Antifa attack on its own reporter and crew

A 12 August 2018 NewsBusters article illustrates how a “news” outlet self-censors a significant story about a group who would really repress the free press.

On the one-year anniversary of the deadly Charlottesville protests, white supremacists and radical leftists known as Antifa descended on the Virginia town once more to commit more violence. Late Saturday night, NBC News reporter Cal Perry and his crew were in the thick of it as Antifa members ganged up on them and attacked. The next morning, NBC’s Sunday Today ignored the attack and suggested the media was simply “heckled” by their assaulters.

On Twitter, Perry was documenting the protesters as they marched through the streets of college town when they started to get “very aggressive with the media” and trying to block their camera shots. “Yeah. We’re getting a lot of this. Protesters trying to grab our camera,” he responded to one Twitter commenter telling him to “f**k off national media vulture.”

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Things got super-heated when one Antifa protestor shouted “F**k you, snitch a** news b**ch. F**k you” and tried to either pull the camera away from the person using it or knock it to the ground. It was unclear in the video.

Despite the video evidence on the ground from their own reporter, NBC went to Garrett Haake, who was at the White House in anticipation of violence there as another white supremacist rally was set to be held. “Overnight, tense moments in the streets of Charlottesville, Virginia, strong far left protesters heckling the media and chanting anti-police slogans,” he suggested at the top of his report. They actually used footage Perry and his crew shot but didn’t show anything from their attack.

The assault on NBC’s reporter came almost a year since their political director, Chuck Todd used his MSNBC program, MTP Daily to elevate Antifa’s violence as a legitimate tactic against the right. He even doubled down and allowed them to use the formerly prestigious Meet the Press as a platform to push their hate and violent methods. Todd has never condemned them.

Todd appeared on Sunday Today and had nothing to say about the attack or Antifa, which had been declared a domestic terrorism group by the State of New Jersey before he had them on last year. Instead of condemning Antifa, he lambasted the President for criticizing anthem protesters and targeted his supporters as racists.

So I don’t think, if the President is, quote, ‘learned anything’ I think in his mind, he has seen this is an effective political strategy to keep his base, his base,” he declared about what the President had learned since last year’s violence. “That it is the president’s continuation of using to be generous, dog whistles, others say they’re not silent. You can hear the whistles pretty loudly.

It’s sad and disturbing that NBC would choose to ignore violent leftists assaulting their own employees in exchange for railing against President Trump’s voters, but this appears to be the world we live in now. The assault also came after the entire liberal media had been trying to convince the public that Trump supporters where violent ones reporters had to watch out for.

(Read more at NewsBusters)

I have always been warned not to “cut off my nose to spite my face.” It looks like NBC let its nose get cut off and then dared the rest of us not to notice the profuse bleeding.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Patreon and Mastercard ban Robert Spencer without explanation

Jihad Watch reports in a 15 August 2018 article that Robert Spencer has been banned by Patreon and Mastercard without explanation. Nonetheless, this banning likely stems from his shining the light of truth on Islam.

Recently Alex Jones and Gavin McInnes have been banned from various social media platforms, in a desperate attempt by the Left to ensure that the 2016 election results aren’t repeated in 2018. Some people say it doesn’t matter that these men were deplatformed, because they don’t like what they say, and what’s more, these are all private companies. They are indeed private companies, but they have a virtual monopoly today over the means of communication, and once they start banning people because they don’t like what they say, they’ve set a precedent that is inimical to the survival of a free society.

If only approved viewpoints can be aired, we live in a totalitarian state, not a free society, and the effects of this will reverberate in our lives in ways we cannot imagine. If you think that the banning will stop when those who are deemed “crazy” or “extremist” are all banned, you’re in for a surprise.

Yesterday, they came for me, albeit in not yet as thoroughgoing a manner as the way they went after Jones and McInnes.

(Read more at Jihad Watch)

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Islam-related news


Islamist at compound accused of training kids for school attacks

The Associated Press reports in a 9 August 2018 article that two Islamic men and three Islamic woman have been training 11 children on guns in preparation for attacks on schools.

A father arrested at a ramshackle New Mexico compound where 11 hungry children were found living in filth was training youngsters to commit school shootings, prosecutors said in court documents obtained Wednesday.

The allegations against Siraj Ibn Wahhaj came to light as authorities awaited word on whether human remains discovered at the site were those of his missing son, who is severely disabled and went missing in December in Jonesboro, Georgia, near Atlanta.

The documents say Wahhaj was conducting weapons training with assault rifles at the compound on the outskirts of Amalia, a tiny town near the Colorado border marked by scattered homes and sagebrush.

“He poses a great danger to the children found on the property as well as a threat to the community as a whole due to the presence of firearms and his intent to use these firearms in a violent and illegal manner,” Prosecutor Timothy Hasson wrote in the court documents Wednesday.

Authorities raided the compound Friday in an investigation that has yielded a series of startling revelations — including the discovery of the 11 children in rags and word that Wahhaj wanted to perform an exorcism on his son because he thought the boy was possessed by the devil.

(Read more at the Associated Press)

One sad thing about this situation is that the FBI knew about this. but would not act. It was local New Mexico officials that took the initiative to move against these abusers.

Mind you, I support and practice the First Amendment right of freedom of religion. Therefore, I have no problem with a father passing his beliefs to his children. However, to quote a Christian source (Saint Paul as translated in the NASB of 1 Timothy 5:8), “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

To have a child die and to have the other 11 to be starving, there is no excuse. Additionally, to train children to kill as soldiers is psychological abuse and should be prosecuted.

Since school is just about to start and because sources report that there had recently been an unexpected lull in shooting (as if to conserve ammo), we may have just received a miracle deliverance from this Satanic cult.

It might be noted that Wahhaj is the son of an imam in New Jersey who may have played a part in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center; however, the father was never prosecuted.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Muslim man on trial for honor killing of his son-in-law and an Iranian activist

We find through a ABC affiliate in Houston that Ali Irsan, an immigrant from Jordan, has been found guilty in a double murder.

The deaths of two people, linked together by one family, have been dubbed ‘honor killings’ and a father is facing the potential of the death penalty.

Ali Irsan has been convicted of capital murder in the complex case. Prosecutors say Ali was enraged that his daughter decided to date, and ultimately marry, a Christian man.

“Nesreen Irsan would not succumb to her father’s complete domination and rule of her and she left his home without his permission and went into hiding,” Devon Anderson, who was Harris County District Attorney at the time, said in 2015.

According to documents, Nesreen met Coty Beavers through his twin brother, who was a classmate at MD Anderson where she and her sister were studying to earn medical science degrees. Nadia Irsan, who now faces a stalking charge, told her father about her sister’s relationship, which investigators say enraged him.

After marrying Coty, Nesreen had a protective order filed against Ali. But that didn’t stop him, according to authorities. The father reportedly enlisted Nadia to help him find the couple.

That’s when the Irsan family reportedly approached Gelareh Bagherzadeh, Nesreen’s best friend. Bagherzadeh, who was dating Coty’s twin brother Cory, “refused to help (Ali) and berated him for even thinking that he should be able to control his daughter,” Anderson said.

On January 17, 2012, Bagherzadeh, a medical student well-known in her community as an Iranian activist for women’s rights, was shot to death outside the townhome where she lived near the Galleria.

Months later, on November 12, 2012, Nesreen found Coty fatally shot inside the apartment they shared. On May 22, 2014, Ali, his wife and daughter Nadia were all taken into federal custody on fraud charges. Ali had also been charged with murder in the shooting of Bagherzadeh.

According to court documents, Ali, Shmou Alrawbdeh and Nadia took part in a sophisticated scheme to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits, involving Social Security, insurance, credit card and even food stamp fraud.

In one account in Nadia’s name, authorities say more than $255,000 was deposited between 2006 and 2012.

On April 22, 2015, Ali was charged with capital murder, as the killings of Bagherzadeh and Beavers were linked. Alrawbdeh and Ali’s son were charged with murder, and Nadia was charged with stalking.

(Read more at ABC)

While many have been encouraged by the growth of moderate Muslims in the US, it obviously only takes one fundamentalist Muslim to point out the death-centered origins of that faith.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The Clarion Project presents an argument worth asking in Islamists by the numbers

In the following Clarion Project video, Raheel Raza quotes the progressive political people in government and the press and then counters those quotes with facts.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Muslim Brotherhood embedded in national security

A 19 July 2018 OneNewsNow article provides an insider’s view of the national security apparatus inherited from the Obama administration.

One terrorism expert has issued a stern warning about the extent to which the Muslim Brotherhood is embedded inside America’s national security apparatus.

Understanding the Threat Founder and President John Guandolo – a former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent – shared with OneNewsNow some crucial information that he learned about the Islamic terrorism front organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, while he served with the government agency.

“I came to understand and see how deeply they were embedded in our national apparatus, portraying themselves as nice, helpful [and] wanting to be patriotic,” explained Guandolo, who created and implemented the FBI’s first Counterterrorism Training/Education Program. “But … in fact, we could identify all the leaders of the Islamic organizations as members of the Muslim Brotherhood – and [identify] all of the key Islamic organizations in the United States as part of their network. And of these are the organizations that are primarily doing outreach to churches [and] law enforcement government agencies – including the Pentagon.”

Guandolo also maintains that what the Muslim Brotherhood believes is completely compatible with Islam.

“The command to wage war against the non-Muslim community is core Islamic doctrine,” the national security expert informed. “It’s the reason Islam exists – codified in Sharia Islamic law, which comes from the Koran and [from] the examples [given from the] prophet Mohammad.”

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

This matches the testimony of Phil Haney, a founding member of the Department of Homeland Security and a whistle blower during the Obama administration. In See Something, Say Nothing, Haney and Moore described the removal of vital information that Obama deemed might offend the Muslim Brotherhood elements being brought into the government.

Therefore, we can take to heart the warning from John Guandolo that the Muslim Brotherhood has moved into the national security agencies of America.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Random House stops publication of a politician’s book for fear of reaction by Muslims

In a Yahoo reported on 6 July 2018 that a book by Thilo Sarrazin (politician-turned-author) has been axed due to fears of causing an anti-Muslim backlash.

Publishing giant Random House has declined to release a new book by controversial German politician-turned-author Thilo Sarrazin over fears it could whip up anti-Muslim hatred, Bild daily reported Friday.

The dispute, which will be heard before a court in Munich on Monday, revolves around Sarrazin’s new book “Hostile Takeover — How Islam Hampers Progress and Threatens Society”.

In 2010 Sarrazin, a former central banker and Berlin state finance minister, published the incendiary book “Germany Does Away With Itself”, arguing that undereducated Muslim migrants were making the country “more stupid”.

The volume became a runaway bestseller and is now seen as having helped pave the way for the anti-Islam Alternative for Germany party which entered parliament last year with nearly 100 deputies.

The new book was to have hit shelves in late August and is billed as a critical close reading of the Koran.

Sarrazin, 73, told Bild that he had signed a contract with Random House in November 2016 on the basis of a 10-page expose and delivered the manuscript in February this year.

He did not discuss the size of his advance.

“After a lot of back and forth about the publishing date, the publisher said at the end of May that it would not put the book out at all,” he was quoted as saying.

Random House, which is owned by German media behemoth Bertelsmann, confirmed the dispute would be heard in court Monday but declined to comment on the specifics.

However Bild cited sources at the publisher as saying that the new book could “seize on and amplify anti-Islam sentiments”.

(Read more at Yahoo)

For speech to be free, all speech must be unhindered (especially offensive speech). Therefore, the suppression of Charlie Hebdo or silencing of German politician-turned-author Thilo Sarrazin cannot be sacrificed to the god of political correctness.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Al Shabaab fighters attack Somalia police HQ after twin bombings

A 7 July 2018 Reuters article reports on the attack by Al Shabaab on Somali police.

At least five people were killed and 21 wounded on Saturday when militants from Somalia’s al Shabaab group set off two bombs in central Mogadishu and stormed a government building.

A Reuters witness saw a heavy exchange of gunfire outside the building, which houses the security and interior ministries and is also used by police.

Smoke drifted from burning vehicles following a suicide car bombing close to the presidential palace and a second blast near the security building.

“So far we carried (out) five dead people and 21 others injured. The death toll may rise,” Abdikadir Abdirahman, director of the Amin ambulance emergency service told Reuters.

The military operations spokesman for the Islamist group, Abdiasis Abu Musab, said it had carried out both bombings and its fighters remained inside the government security building.

(Read more at Reuters)

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Good News: The Nigerian imam who saved Christians from Muslim gunmen

In a 1 July 2018 report by the BBC, we find how one Nigerian Imam saved hundreds of Christian villagers.

When an imam in Nigeria saw hundreds of desperate, frightened families running into his village last Saturday, he decided to risk his life to save theirs.

They were fleeing from a neighbouring village – a mainly Christian community.

They say they came under attack at about 15:00 (14:00 GMT) from about 300 well-armed men – suspected cattle herders, who are mostly Muslims – who started shooting sporadically and burning down their homes.

Some of those who managed to escape ran towards the mainly Muslim neighbourhood nearby where the imam lived, arriving over the next hour.

The cleric immediately came to their aid, hiding in total 262 men, women and children in his home and mosque.

“I first took the women to my personal house to hide them. Then I took the men to the mosque,” the imam told BBC Pidgin.

We have blurred the faces of the imam and the villages, for their own safety.

This was the latest wave of violence to hit Nigeria’s central region where farming communities and nomadic cattle herders often clash – usually over access to land and grazing rights.

The region is prone to religious tension – herders are ethnic Fulani and mostly Muslim, while the farmers are mostly Christian from the Berom ethnic group.

Hundred of people have been killed in 2018, and the tit-for-tat violence has been ongoing for several years. A report from 2016 suggested Nigeria’s pastoral conflict was the cause of more deaths that year than Boko Haram.

Had the imam not intervened, the death toll may have been much higher, as the armed men stormed into the mainly Muslim village in pursuit of those who had fled the mainly Christian village nearby.

One of the villagers described the panicked scenes, saying: “First they attacked a village before us so we ran to the security post.

“But then they started firing towards the security post so we all ran away – even the security personnel.”

When the attackers heard that the villagers had fled towards the mosque, they demanded that the imam bring out those he was hiding.

But the defenceless imam refused to comply – and also refused to allow them entry to the mosque.

He began to plead with the herdsmen, who were threatening to burn down the mosque and his house.

He then prostrated himself on the floor in front of the armed men.

Along with some others in the Muslim community, he began to cry and wail, asking them to leave.

And to their amazement the herdsmen did go – but then set two nearby churches on fire.

The imam later told the BBC that he wanted to help because more than 40 years ago, the Christians in the area had allowed the Muslims to build the mosque.

They had freely given over the land to the Muslim community, he said.

“Since we have been living together with the Beroms, we have not experienced an ugly incident like the attack on Saturday,” another Muslim leader told the BBC.

Those whose lives were saved by the imam expressed their gratitude and relief.

“Ever since they took us into the mosque, not once did they ask us to leave, not even for them to pray,” said the local chief.

“They provided dinner and lunch for us and we are grateful.”

The villagers stayed with the imam for five days – and have since moved to a camp for displaced people.

(Read more at the BBC)

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Christians Under Attack in Nigeria

A 12 July commentary at the Cybercast News Service by Breakpoint contributor John Stonestreet shows the severity of the attacks on Christians in Nigeria.

It’s one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a Christian. What’s going on right now in Nigeria is “pure genocide.”

Recently on BreakPoint, I said that it took a lot of courage to be a Christian in Iraq. Just two years ago, the Obama administration called what ISIS was doing to Iraqi Christians “genocide.”

Unfortunately, there are other places in the world where being a Christian requires a lot of courage as well, and, where the treatment of Christians merits the word “genocide.”

One such place: Nigeria. By most estimates, the population of Nigeria is almost evenly divided between Muslims and Christians. That religious split largely follows geographic lines: The northern part of the country is predominantly Muslim, the eastern and southern parts of the country heavily Christian. The middle, sometimes called the “Middle Belt,” is ethnically and religiously diverse.

Not surprisingly, what makes Nigeria so dangerous for Christians originates in the Islamic north. There, Christians have been on the receiving end of a campaign Open Doors calls “religious cleansing,” that is, an attempt “to eradicate Christianity” from the region.

One of the most notorious Islamist terrorist groups in the world, Boko Haram, is responsible for killing thousands of Christians and displacing countless more in northern Nigeria. But Boko Haram isn’t the only group targeting Christians there.

In a statement released in late June, Christian leaders claimed that “over 6,000 persons—mostly children, women and the aged—have been maimed and killed in night raids by armed Fulani herdsmen.”

The Fulani are an ethnic group who are overwhelmingly Muslim, and their raids are not always at night. In April, Fulani herdsman attacked a group of Christians during Sunday mass, killing two priests and seventeen parishioners.  The same attackers then razed fifty homes belonging to Christians. In fact, earlier in the year, on New Year’s Day, 72 people died at the hands of a Fulani attack.

In their statement, Nigerian Christian leaders also complained about the “continuous abduction of under aged Christian girls by Muslim youths…” These girls “are forcefully converted to Islam and taken in for marriage without the consent of their parents.”

The language used by Christian leaders in Nigeria in their statement to describe what is happening, “pure genocide,” is hard to disagree with. As was the call, directed toward the national government to “stop this senseless … blood shedding… and avoid a state of complete anarchy where the people are forced to defend themselves.”

Unfortunately, Nigerian officials are downplaying, if not outright denying, the religious dimension of what’s happening. Instead, they’re calling this a conflict over resources, in this case, over land.

Don’t believe it. For starters, the security forces are, in the words of the statement, “skewed to one religion and one region of the country,” that is, Islam and the Islamic north.

What’s more, this idea conveniently glosses over the one-sided nature of the violence in the region: The Fulani are the hammer and the Christians are the nails.

(Read more at the Cybercast News Service)

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

‘Sinister’: What’s Behind the Genocide That’s Left 6,000 Nigerian Christians Dead

The Christian Broadcasting Network uses a 16 July 2018 article to explain attacks that have killed 6,000 Christians in Nigeria this year.

New attacks against Christians in Nigeria are leading to demands that a special envoy investigate the gruesome outbreak of violence in the African country.

One man whose relatives were killed calls Nigeria the deadliest place in the world for Christians.

But who is really behind the murders?

Yes, the Boko Haram terror group is still a threat, but recent attacks against Christians in Nigeria are coming from Muslim tribal herdsmen known as Fulanis.

“What we have is a genocide. They are trying to displace the Christians, they are trying to possess their land and they are trying to impose their religion on the so-called infidels and pagans who they consider Christians to be,” explained international human rights attorney Emmanuel Ogebe.

Ogebe recently lost family members, including a relative who was pregnant along with her husband and their children.

“They went into their home and they killed their four-year-old son and their six-year-old daughter who were asleep in their beds,” he said.

The Fulani’s weapon of choice? AK-47 automatic weapons – too expensive for most herdsmen.

“Given what an AK-47 goes for, a Fulani herdsman would need to sell all of his cattle to be able to buy an AK-47,” explained CBN Nigeria Director Felix Oisamoje.

Ogebe says there’s a “sinister side” to those behind the attacks.

“A lot of these cattle are owned by very rich Fulanis who are in government and who are in power. So, there is a strong belief that the Fulanis, the ruling elite are actually funding the herdsmen to conduct these attacks,” he said.

  • According to the Global Terrorism Index:
    Fulani herdsman have killed as many as 60,000 people since 2001.
  • And church leaders in Plateau State say:
    Herdsmen have ramped-up the genocide this year, killing 6,000 Christians so far.

(Read more at Christian Broadcasting Network)

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Spencer: ‘Multi-cultural’ hire got innocent woman killed

OneNewsNow reports in a 3 August 2018 article, Robert Spencer pontificates on the murder of Justine Damond by Muslim policeman Mohamed Noor.

A vocal critic of radical Islam is convinced that the City of Minneapolis is trying to cover up its actions after the 2017 shooting death of a woman by a Somali-born police officer.

Justine Damond was shot by Mohamed Noor through the driver’s side window of the police car while he was seated in the passenger side.

Damond had called 911 about what she thought sounded like a sexual assault.

Noor, who has refused to explain why he shot Damond when she approached the squad car, is charged with third-degree murder and second degree manslaughter.

The victim’s family, which has filed suit, is demanding answers and Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch tells OneNewsNow there are many unanswered questions.

“The real story in this seems to be that this cop was hired because he was a Muslim, and because the Minneapolis Police Department and City of Minneapolis wanted to show how wonderful multi-culture they were,” Spencer complains.

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js