RATHEREXPOSETHEM

THE CHURCH MILITANT Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse.

Sunday, April 29, 2018

THE MOST HISTORIC MOMENTS FROM THE KIM-MOON SUMMIT~"COMPLETE DE-NUCLEARIZATION" & "ONE AGAIN" POSSIBLE BY MERGING COMMUNISM WITH DEMOCRACY?~OR JUST EMPTY RHETORIC & WISHFUL SYMBOLISM?

THE MOST HISTORIC MOMENTS

FROM THE KIM-MOON SUMMIT

Kim Jong Un becomes first North Korean leader to set foot in South Korea

BY MIKAEL THALEN

SEE: https://www.infowars.com/the-most-historic-moments-from-the-kim-moon-summit/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in met at the Military Demarcation Line Friday for the two countries first summit in more than 10 years.

Kim, the first North Korean leader to enter South Korea since the 1950-53 Korean War, approached Moon with all smiles before the two shook hands on their respective sides.

“I was excited to meet at this historic place and it is really moving that you came all the way to the demarcation line to greet me in person,” Kim told Moon.

After stepping over to the South, Kim went off script and brought Moon back to the North, clutching the hand of his quasi-counterpart.

The pair posed for photos as dozens of journalists looked on, frantically capturing the historic moment as it unfolded at Panmunjom.

Credit: Korea Summit Press Pool/Getty Images

The two leaders were then accompanied by a traditionally-dressed honor guard as they began towards the event’s opening ceremony.

Credit: Inter-Korean Summit Press Corps/Pool via Bloomberg

Kim was introduced to numerous members of Moon’s delegation before Moon was introduced to Kim’s.

Moon was saluted by North Korea’s top military men, clad in Soviet-era regalia.

Credit: Korea Summit Press Pool/Getty Images

Making their way to the newly-renovated Peace House, Kim entered and signed the guest book, a gesture reserved for all high-level visitors.

A photo of Kim’s message reads: “A new history begins now – at the starting point of history and the era of peace.”

Upon finally reaching the negotiating table, Kim and Moon exchanged their opening remarks, both advocating for a long-sought peace in the divided region.

Halfway through the summit, the two took a break to plant a tree commemorating the unprecedented occasion.

After hours of deliberation and talks, the two leaders released a joint declaration. Among other things, the two countries promised to increase diplomatic relations and work towards the “denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”

“The two leaders solemnly declared before the 80 million Korean people and the whole world that there will be no more war on the Korean Peninsula and thus a new era of peace has begun,” the declaration triumphantly announced.

To celebrate the accomplishment, the leaders of the DPRK and ROK sat down for a banquet, complete with traditional Korean music, celebratory toasts and small talk.

As darkness eventually fell on the Korean Peninsula, Kim stepped inside a limousine surrounded by security personnel and slipped back into the Hermit Kingdom.

Kim is now set to meet with U.S. President Donald Trump in late May or early June.

While analysts are skeptical North Korea will give up its nuclear weapons, the summit could fulfill some short term goals, including an official end to the Korean war and the release of U.S. hostages, as Trump and Kim lay out plans for the future.

In a series of tweets Friday, Trump congratulated the two Korean leaders on their landmark proceeding.

“After a furious year of missile launches and Nuclear testing, a historic meeting between North and South Korea is now taking place,” Trump said. “Good things are happening, but only time will tell!”

View some of the Kim-Moon Summit’s historic photos below:

Credit: Korea Summit Press Pool/Getty Images

Credit: Korea Summit Press Pool/Getty Images

Credit: Korea Summit Press Pool/Getty Images

Credit: Korea Summit Press Pool/Getty Images

Credit: Inter-Korean Summit / POOL/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

Got a tip? Contact Mikael securely: keybase.io/mikaelthalen

_______________________________________________

KIM JONG UN WALKS INTO SOUTH KOREA AND AGREES TO ‘COMPLETE DENUCLEARISATION’

‘We are going to be one again’

BY DAILY MAIL

SEE: https://www.infowars.com/kim-jong-un-walks-into-south-korea-and-agrees-to-complete-denuclearisation/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

North and South Korea will seek a ‘peace regime’ to end the Korean War after 68 years as Kim Jong-un agreed to ‘complete denuclearisation’ during historic talks today.

Kim Jong-un became the first North Korean leader to step into the South for 65 years as he met with President Moon Jae-in for a peace summit today.

The two sworn enemies exchanged a warm greeting at the 38th parallel in the truce village of Panmunjom before Moon led Kim by the hand to cross into the South for the first time ever.

_______________________________________________

Peace Breaking Out With New Sheriff In Town:

DONALD TRUMP

North and South Korean Leaders Hold Historic Summit

Kim Jong-un crosses DMZ, welcomed by South Korea

In a historic meeting, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un crossed the demilitarized zone and was welcomed by South Korea President Moon Jae-in. It's been over 10 years since the two countries' leaders last met, and Kim's eagerness to negotiate is sparking some optimism of a united Korea.

North

A p

LETTER TO SUPREME COURT: GLOBALIST U.S. CATHOLIC BISHOPS CALL TRUMP'S TRAVEL BAN "BLATANT RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION"~JUST ANOTHER ATTEMPT AT DEFEATING THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION & THE CONSTITUTION

LETTER TO SUPREME COURT: GLOBALIST U.S. CATHOLIC BISHOPS CALL TRUMP'S TRAVEL BAN "BLATANT RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION"~

JUST ANOTHER ATTEMPT AT DEFEATING

THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION &

THE CONSTITUTION

BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/04/us-catholic-bishops-call-trumps-travel-ban-blatant-religious-discrimination; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The U.S. Catholic bishops submitted a brief to the Supreme Court declaring that President Donald Trump’s ban on migration from five Muslim countries was “blatant religious discrimination.”

One learns from childhood to discriminate between what is harmful and what is benign. Trump’s ban was from “countries of concern” that were chosen by the Obama administration due to the security threats emanating from them, not because of anti-Muslim bigotry.

There is no discrimination against Muslims in America, based solely on faith. Muslims are free to practice their faith in peace, despite the fact that many Islamic preachers are spewing hatred against Christians, Jews and Zionism.

Attorney Neal Katyal referred to the bishops’ strongly worded friend-of-the-court brief as Justice Samuel Alito pressed him for evidence that a “reasonable person” would view Trump’s proclamation as discriminating against Muslims.

Any reasonable person should ask the question of why there is concern about Islam and none about Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. No reasonable person has anything against a Muslim’s private faith if it is benign, but any reasonable person has concerns about jihad and the global Islamic war that has been declared against infidels.

The next question that comes to mind is this: what possible motive could the bishops have?

In the Fiscal Year 2016, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) received more than $91 million in government funding for refugee resettlement. Over the past nine years, the USCCB has received a total of $534,788,660 in taxpayer dollars for refugee resettlement programs

These bishops have abandoned persecuted Christians and abdicated their role as Christian leaders. They are unfit for their ecclesiastical duties.

“The Bishops’ Brief Against the Ban,” by Paul Moses, Commonweal, April 26, 2018:

The U.S. Catholic bishops submitted a brief to the Supreme Court declaring that President Donald Trump’s ban on migration from five Muslim countries was “blatant religious discrimination”—and the lawyer representing opponents of the measure reminded the justices of that line in oral arguments held Wednesday.

Attorney Neal Katyal referred to the bishops’ strongly worded friend-of-the-court brief as Justice Samuel Alito pressed him for evidence that a “reasonable person” would view Trump’s proclamation as discriminating against Muslims.

“This is a ban that really does fall almost exclusively on Muslims,” Katyal said. “…Look at the wide variety of amicus briefs filed in this case from every corner of society, representing millions and millions of people, from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which calls it, quote, ‘blatant religious discrimination’”—

He was cut off, but the point was made before a court with five Catholic justices and one Episcopalian who was raised Catholic, Neil Gorsuch. The bishops’ brief cited Trump’s anti-Muslim tweets as evidence that the president’s order “arises out of express hostility to Islam,” and violates the First Amendment’s free exercise clause.

“Such blatant religious discrimination is repugnant to the Catholic faith, core American values, and the United States Constitution. It poses a substantial threat to religious liberty that this Court has never tolerated before and should not tolerate now,” the brief says. “Having once borne the brunt of severe discriminatory treatment, particularly in the immigration context, the Catholic Church will not sit silent while others suffer on account of their religion.”

Much of the news coverage of the hearing took the justices’ questioning as evidence that the court’s five-member conservative majority would rule in Trump’s favor. On the face of it, the justices need to decide if the core element of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965—abolishing discriminatory national-origin quotas passed in the 1920s—is trumped by a paragraph in the same law that, if the Trump administration is right, gives the president unlimited power over who can enter the country.

Whether the religious discrimination argument will move the justices in this case remains to be seen—and it’s best not to speculate on a justice’s thinking based on his or her questions.

But however the court rules, the USCCB’s brief is important in staking out an authentic Catholic position on Islam and immigration at a time when many anti-Islam voices are able to find a platform in Catholic media and institutions. And it counters the bishops’ past failures to include discrimination against Muslims as a cause for their campaign for religious liberty, as seen in the statement “Our First, Most Cherished Liberty,” which was issued before the 2012 presidential election. With a few exceptions, Catholic institutions were slow to respond to the nativist strain in Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, and the first nativist president was elected with a majority of the white Catholic vote. More recently, the USCCB released a statement in February 2017 urging Trump to fulfill his promise to protect religious liberty—but without mentioning his plans for immigration or his anti-Muslim comments……

_______________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:

U.S. Catholic bishops to Americans: Drop dead

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/04/u-s-catholic-bishops-to-americans-drop-dead; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

As Jihad Watch reported Saturday, “The U.S. Catholic bishops submitted a brief to the Supreme Court declaring that President Donald Trump’s ban on migration from five Muslim countries was ‘blatant religious discrimination.'” Is it really?

And do the U.S. Catholic bishops feel any obligation to support measures that would protect Americans from jihad attacks? Apparently not. The message that the bishops are sending to Americans is simple: drop dead. The U.S. Catholic bishops appear to be absolutely unconcerned about the following facts:

Somali Muslim migrant Mohammad Barry in February 2016 stabbed multiple patrons at a restaurant owned by an Israeli Arab Christian; Ahmad Khan Rahami, an Afghan Muslim migrant, in September 2016 set off bombs in New York City and New Jersey; Arcan Cetin, a Turkish Muslim migrant, in September 2016 murdered five people in a mall in Burlington, Washington; Dahir Adan, another Somali Muslim migrant, in October 2016 stabbed mall shoppersin St. Cloud while screaming “Allahu akbar”; and Abdul Razak Artan, yet another Somali Muslim migrant, in November 2016 injured nine people with car and knife attacks at Ohio State University. 72 jihad terrorists have come to the U.S. from the countries listed in Trump’s initial immigration ban.

What’s more, all of the jihadis who murdered 130 people in Paris in November 2015 had just entered Europe as refugees. In February 2015, the Islamic State boasted it would soon flood Europe with as many as 500,000 refugees. The Lebanese Education Minister said in September 2015 that there were 20,000 jihadis among the refugees in camps in his country. On May 10, 2016, Patrick Calvar, the head of France’s DGSI internal intelligence agency, said that the Islamic State was using migrant routes through the Balkans to get jihadis into Europe.

The bishops have never expressed any concern about any of this. They are completely in line with Pope Francis, who has claimed risibly that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.” This has become a super-dogma in the Catholic Church: if you don’t believe that Islam is a Religion of Peace, you will be ruthlessly harassed and silenced by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and the hierarchy elsewhere as well. The bishops of the Catholic Church are much more concerned that you believe that Islam is a religion of peace than that you believe in, say, the Nicene Creed. And so what possible reason could there be to be concerned about these “refugees”? It’s a religion of peace!

The bishops, of course, have 91 million reasons — indeed, 534 billion reasons — to turn against the truth and disregard the safety and security of the American people: “In the Fiscal Year 2016, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) received more than $91 million in government funding for refugee resettlement. Over the past nine years, the USCCB has received a total of $534,788,660 in taxpayer dollars for refugee resettlement programs.”

“Leave them; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14)

It was not always thus. For centuries, in fact, as I detail in my forthcoming book The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS, the Catholic Church was at the forefront of efforts to resist jihad aggression in Europe. In it, you’ll discover:

The Pope who was a true precursor of Pope Francis: he was harshly criticized by the Romans for failing to keep them safe from jihad attacks;
The Pope who answered a Byzantine Emperor’s call for help against the jihadis not by scolding him about how Islam was peaceful, but by calling on the rulers of Europe to send troops;
The Medieval Pope who called Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, a “son of perdition,” and called for Christians to unite against the advancing jihad;
What happened when a Mongol ruler sent an emissary across Central Asia and into Europe to meet the Pope and seek an alliance with the Christians against the forces of jihad;
The Pope who haughtily refused to come to the aid of the Christian Byzantine Empire when it was mortally threatened by jihadis, because of doctrinal differences;
The Pope who took a solemn oath at his consecration to “extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet”;
The Pope who touched off worldwide Muslim riots by noting that “God is not pleased by blood”;
Much more.

Click here to preorder The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS.

APOLOGIZING/GROVELLING IN FRONT OF MUSLIMS: TRUMP'S U.N. MIGRATION AGENCY PICK ASKS FORGIVENESS FOR COMMENTS DEEMED "OFFENSIVE" TO MUSLIMS

JELLYFISH SPINELESS COPYCAT OF OBAMA'S APOLOGIES TO MUSLIMS IS TRUMP'S PICK?

WHY?

APOLOGIZING/GROVELLING IN FRONT OF MUSLIMS: TRUMP'S U.N. MIGRATION AGENCY PICK ASKS FORGIVENESS FOR COMMENTS DEEMED "OFFENSIVE" TO MUSLIMS

BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/04/trumps-un-migration-agency-pick-asks-forgiveness-for-comments-deemed-offensive-to-muslims; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Ken Isaacs once proposed building a wall in the Alps to keep out migrants. Trump wants him to lead the world’s principal migration agency.

Some things should go without saying. One of them is that no one would ever leave their front, back, and side doors, and their windows, open to anyone who wishes to enter their homes.

Every productive, law-abiding immigrant who has been through the necessary process of vetting understands the reasoning behind the two-way street principle of immigration.

In the case of those claiming to be refugees, if they’re genuine refugees the emergency creates a different situation, but it is still basic prudence to consider the well-being of the citizens of the nation to which the refugees are arriving, and not just that of the refugees alone.

Groups such as the Islamic State and al Qaeda have already infiltrated the refugee stream. It is the the duty of authorities to protect their citizens against these “refugees.”

For the past few weeks, Isaacs has been traveling to foreign capitals in Europe and Africa in the company of White House and State Department escorts, seeking forgiveness.

Isaacs should not be apologizing for his prior concerns about public safety, given the flood of Muslim migrants into Europe and the subsequent well-documented ills that followed. Isaacs is unwittingly sending a message that leaders who care about their populations, and who have opted to try to curb or block the streams of unvetted refugees, are wrong or offensive for doing so — including President Trump, who has caused “offence” over his temporary Muslim ban from countries of concern for jihad activity.

Muslims are not being targeted worldwide, except by fellow Muslims. Over 11 million Muslims have been murdered since 1948 by their coreligionists. It is infidels and apostates who are being victimized by Muslims, not the other way around.

Responsible immigration policy is essential, and Isaacs should be advocating for it. Concern for the victims of Islamic supremacism and jihad is valid, no matter how loudly the media claims that such concern renders one evil. There is a systematic war being waged against free societies. The first step in effectively fighting it is to stand firm on Judeo-Christian values and genuine human rights for all people, including, of course, genuinely peaceful Muslims. No apologies are needed for protecting human rights and the free societies that protect those rights.

“A Trump U.N. Pick Tries to Make Up for Anti-Muslim Tweets,” by Colum Lynch, Foreign Policy, April 26, 2018:

If there were ever a candidate for Twitter purgatory, it would have to be Ken Isaacs, who upended his White House-backed campaign to lead the U.N. migration agency with a series of tweets denigrating Islam.

For the past few weeks, Isaacs has been traveling to foreign capitals in Europe and Africa in the company of White House and State Department escorts, seeking forgiveness as he tries to rescue his bid by persuading foreign dignitaries, including Pope Francis, that he is not the sum of his tweets and that he can be trusted to lead the International Organization for Migration (IOM) without religious bias. In a sign of the importance of his candidacy, Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, will host a reception on May 3 to introduce U.N. ambassadors to Isaacs in New York.

The State Department declined to make Isaacs available for an interview. But Isaacs agreed to respond to written questions.

“I have apologized publicly for social media comments that have caused hurt,” he writes. “I ask people to judge me on my professional record and the decades of work I have done to help people in need around the world.”

Despite persistent misgivings about the U.S. candidate’s temperament, Isaacs maintains the edge as the front-runner because key powers, particularly in Europe, are unwilling to challenge the Americans’ traditional hold on the job out of concern that it might provoke the United States to pull IOM funding or cost them Washington’s support for other national priorities, several diplomatic sources say.

The United States is the single largest donor to IOM, contributing more than 30 percent of the some $1 billion the organization receives in voluntary donations each year.

“We are not going to take the fight [to the United States] out of fear of pushing the U.S. away and [damaging] our bilateral relations,” one senior European diplomat says. That view, the diplomat says, is “fairly widely held” among European governments.

The nomination of such a controversial candidate will serve as a test of the United States’ ability to maintain its leadership position on the multilateral stage at a time when the White House has expressed disdain for international institutions from the International Criminal Court to the World Trade Organization. It will also determine whether the United States will be forced to pay a diplomatic cost for imposing sharp budget cuts on key agencies, including the U.N. Population Fund and the U.N. Relief and Works Agency…..

______________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:

Trump pick under fire from “CNN’s resident smear merchant” Andrew Kaczynski for retweeting Jihad Watch

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/03/trump-pick-under-fire-from-cnns-resident-smear-merchant-andrew-kaczynski-for-retweeting-jihad-watch;

EXCERPTS:

"The Trump administration’s pick to head the United Nations organization that coordinates assistance to migrants worldwide regularly pushed anti-Muslim sentiment, including claims that Muslims were trying to impose Sharia law in the US."

"A CNN KFile review has turned up previously unreported tweets that reveal Ken Isaacs has an extensive history of sharing anti-Muslim sentiment. Isaacs pushed a conspiratorial view of Islam and promoted the fringe views from prominent anti-Muslim activists, the review shows…."

"Asked about the tweets in this story, the State Department sent CNN’s KFile a statement that spokeswoman Heather Nauert gave to the Post in February."

"“Mr. Isaacs has apologized for the comments he posted on his private social media account. We believe that was proper for him to do so,” Nauert said last month. “Mr. Isaacs is committed to helping refugees and has a long history of assisting those who are suffering. We believe that if chosen to lead IOM, he would treat people fairly and with the dignity and respect they deserve. I would refer you to Mr. Isaacs for any information on his statements.”"