Monday, December 31, 2018

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
As a Christian researcher and minister, I approached the reading of Andy Stanley’s book Irresistible with an account of Andy Stanley’s message to the Southern Baptist Convention that helped me to understand Stanley’s core belief concerning the Scripture. He had told the gathering at the SBC, “I would ask preachers and pastors and student pastors in their communications to get the spotlight off the Bible and back on the resurrection.”  Along with similar statements, it was clear to me that Stanley was not strong on the necessity of the Scriptures in our call to preach the Gospel and build up the church.
Stanley’s book Irresistible did nothing to take away that perception. In fact, it appears that Stanley has doubled down on his assertion that Scriptures are not all that necessary in our commission.
Stanley begins the book with the idea that the church used to be irresistible but now people are walking away from God in droves, and he believes it is largely because of the Bible being preached the way it is. He asserts that we change our language and our assertions about the Bible, and that will make us more irresistible somehow.
Stanley spends a great deal of time explaining away his controversial assertions. On the one hand, he will declare that the Old Testament is obsolete, and on the other, he tries to explain that it is still good to have for history, stories, etc.
The first part of the book is Stanley’s effort to prove that the Old Testament, the law, etc., is obsolete and has been replaced by the New Covenant. In effect, there are some of Stanley’s assertions that are correct. But it is not all that he says, and therein lies the problem. Like so many new emergent ministers, the tendency is to try to weaken, eliminate or downplay those parts of Scripture that are troublesome or appear to be in opposition to current cultural mores and lifestyles.
Although there are many true things in Stanley’s book, the number of bones one must throw out to find the chicken is rather overwhelming. His ideas in the second part of the book that we must follow Jesus’ command to love others and that will be our motivator and decider on how to handle people is right, and we would all benefit by understanding that love is the fulfillment of the law, and it is the reason why we do what we do.
But many of Stanley’s conclusions as well as his assertions are problematic on many levels. Here are just a few:
  1. He reduces the Hebrew Scriptures to stories and history and does not feel we should put any authoritative stock in it for ourselves as New Covenant believers.
  2. He uses the phrase “replaced” and “replacement” of Israel and the law several times, raising a concern that he may subscribe to the evangelical movement of “replacement theology” that believes God is through with Israel as a nation and simply replaced them with the church.
  3. Stanley spends a great deal of time planting seeds of doubt as to the accuracy, scientific and archeological and even moral authority of the Scriptures.
  4. Stanley asserts that the reason we are not irresistible to unbelievers is that we keep using the term “the bible says” and that the reason most “nones” walked away from church is that they lost faith in our Bible stories that simply got torn apart in college. And while it is true that many church kids lose their faith in college under the brutal attacks from secular and atheistic professors who are able to argue circles around them, the answer is not to further weaken young people’s faith in the Scriptures but rather to fortify and arm them with the truth of the accuracy, historicity, and spiritual power to transform hearts and lives through the Scriptures. I would further suggest that the reason many, many church kids fall away in college when their faith in Scriptures is undermined may be because they did not have a personal saving encounter with Jesus Christ to begin with.
  5. He asserts that we would become irresistible if we simply stopped using language like “the Bible” and stopped using the Old Testament and the law and ten commandments as our authority or proof of our faith.
  6. Stanley continues to subtly suggest that the Old Testament was contradictory, flawed, and at odds with science and archeology. I suggest the lack of apologetic facts here is very dangerous to young audiences. It leads them to believe that even though there are flaws and mistakes and errors in Scripture, it does not matter, because our faith isn’t based on Scripture. While partially true that our salvation is based on Jesus and His resurrection, it is a grave mistake to suggest that Scripture does not play an extremely significant and crucial part in our faith – not our salvation, but our faith and spiritual growth as we seek to be conformed into the image of Christ. And, we must realize that Scripture is the frame work of our faith. 
  7. While Stanley seems to suggest neither Jesus nor the apostles based much on the Scriptures, the fact is that they were all committed to “the Word of God.” The Hebrew term was “Torah observant.” When Jesus said, ‘They have kept your word” (John 17:6), that is what it meant.
  8. Much of Andy’s theology is based on the idea that the Old Testament is obsolete and only good for stories and history. On the other hand, Jesus Himself said, “Sanctify them through the truth. Thy Word is truth”(John 17:17). What Word? The Hebrew Scriptures. When Satan contended with Jesus in the wilderness, Jesus said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God”(Matthew 4:4). What Word? The Hebrew Scriptures.
The real crux of the matter is that Stanley spends far too much time weakening people’s confidence in biblical accuracy as well as telling them they have almost nothing to gain from reading the “Old Testament.” But while there may be old and new covenants, there is really just one book. Jesus affirmed both the accuracy and God-breathedness of the Hebrew Scriptures, as did Paul and Peter. Basic theology taught us that the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed. But more than that, the truths contained in the Hebrew Scriptures are God’s truth.
Perhaps Stanley’s problem is that he does not believe there is any more to the Scriptures than stories and history. But those who have taught and preached and carried the Scriptures throughout history and were used to produce some of the greatest revivals in history did so carrying the whole weight of scriptural authority with them, not deeming half of them obsolete. In fact, in the book of Acts, almost every major public preaching message, whether by Peter, or Paul, or Stephen, was literally a retelling of the Hebrew Scriptures, from prophets to history to wisdom and Psalms.
Perhaps Stanley’s other issue is that he does not believe in the AUTHORITY of the Word of God. Those of us who have lived by it and preached by it for our whole lives can attest that it is not “just a book,” but the Word of God is powerful on multiple levels.
He sent forth His Word and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions. (Psalm 107:20)
Thy Word have Ihid in my heart that I might not sin against thee. (Psalm 119:11)
And perhapsmost central,
Thou hast magnified Thy Word above all Thy Name. (Psalm 138:2)
If God so glorifies His Word, we should be very careful not to lessen its place or importance.
It is also not accurate to say that if we dosome of the things Stanley suggests, we will suddenly become irresistible to the world. Jesus, in fact, made it plain that the world would largely hate believers, not find us or our message irresistible (Matthew 10:22).
While some of Stanley’s suggestions are valid, the repeated undermining of respect and acknowledgement of the power and authority of the Word of God, both Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, as well as pointing out several times how indefensible many of the Old Testament things are, can only serve to get new believers to disregard the Old Testament altogether – especially since Stanley deems them “obsolete.” This makes the book a dangerous book heading in a dangerous direction. As with the former evangelical Rob Bell’s book Velvet Elvis, which Irresistible closely resembles, it has the effect of being a systematic tearing down of faith in the Scriptures, and whatever good things are said will not be sustained without a solid scriptural foundation to enable the reader to walk in truth.

Sunday, December 30, 2018


 Image result for NO TO HIJAB DAY
Image result for NO TO HIJAB DAY
 Related image
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

Once again non-Muslim women will signal their virtue by donning a hijab. But where is their concern for the women who have been brutalized and even killed for not wearing the hijab? Do the women who will happily participate in World Hijab Day care about Aqsa Parvez, whose Muslim father choked her to death with her hijab after she refused to wear it. Or Amina Muse Ali, a Christian woman in Somalia whom Muslims murdered because she wasn’t wearing a hijab? Have they shown any concern for the 40 women who were murdered in Iraq in 2007 for not wearing the hijab; or for Alya Al-Safar, whose Muslim cousin threatened to kill her and harm her family because she stopped wearing the hijab in Britain; or for Amira Osman Hamid, who faced whipping in Sudan for refusing to wear the hijab; or for the Egyptian girl, also named Amira, who committed suicide after being brutalized by her family for refusing to wear the hijab; or for the Muslim and non-Muslim teachers at the Islamic College of South Australia who were told they had to wear the hijab or be fired; or for the women in Chechnya whom police shot with paintballs because they weren’t wearing hijab; or for the women in Chechnya who were threatened by men with automatic rifles for not wearing hijab; or for the elementary school teachers in Tunisia who were threatened with death for not wearing hijab; or for the Syrian schoolgirls who were forbidden to go to school unless they wore hijab; or for the women in Gaza whom Hamas has forced to wear hijab; or for the women in Iran who protested against the regime, even before the recent uprising, by daring to take off their hijabs; or for the women in London whom Muslim thugs threatened to murder if they didn’t wear hijab; or for the anonymous young Muslim woman who doffed her hijab outside her home and started living a double life in fear of her parents; or for the fifteen girls in Saudi Arabia who were killed when the religious police wouldn’t let them leave their burning school building because they had taken off their hijabs in their all-female environment; or for the girl in Italy whose mother shaved her head for not wearing hijab; or for all the other women and girls who have been killed or threatened, or who live in fear for daring not to wear the hijab?
Courageous women in the Islamic Republic of Iran are taking off their hijabs as a sign of resistance to the oppressive Sharia regime under which they live, and at least 29 women have been arrested for doing so. Who is standing in solidarity with them? Not the participants in World Hijab Day.

“World Hijab Day Encourages All Women to Wear Veil in Solidarity with Muslims,” by Edwin Mora, Breitbart, December 26, 2018 (thanks to the Geller Report):
The World Hijab Day (WHD) non-profit organization launched its 2019 campaign Wednesday, encouraging women and girls of all faiths, backgrounds, and ethnicities to “voice their choice” of wearing the headscarf for 24 hours on February 1, in solidarity with Muslim women across the world.
“#FreeInHijab is the much-needed hashtag for our current global situation where women in hijab are labeled by media as oppressed and symbolically imprisoned,” Nazma Khan told Turkey’s state-run Anadolu Agency (AA).
“Through this hashtag, women are encouraged to voice their choice of wearing the hijab; thus dispelling common misconceptions,” Khan added.
Each year since its inception in 2013, WHD has invited women to wear a hijab — a headscarf worn by Muslim women — for one day on February 1.
“Perhaps, this one-day experience will make them see the hijab in a different light,” Khan told AA.
“More than 70 global ambassadors from over 45 countries have been involved, and women from around 190 countries participate in the annual event,” Al Jazeera noted last year.
Khan explained that WHD’s 2019 motto is “Breaking Stereotypes, Shattering Boundaries,” noting that the campaign also includes “promoting World Hijab Day both online and offline globally.”
Each year, the non-profit organization prepares for World Hijab Day weeks in advance.
In 2017, WHD became a nonprofit organization focused on fighting discrimination against Muslim women through awareness and education, according to the organization’s official webpage.
Khan has told several news outlets that the hardships she faced growing up in New York City due to her hijab motivated her to establish World Hijab Day.
“I was constantly bullied in middle school and high school. Discrimination took on a different height after 9/11,” she said, referring to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.
She added, “Every day, I would face different challenges just walking on the street; I was chased, spat on, surrounded by goons, called a terrorist, Osama bin Laden, etc.”
Khan described her experience as “devastating,” adding that she did not want anyone else to go through the same thing.
“Therefore, I thought to myself, if I could invite sisters from all faiths and backgrounds to walk in my shoes just for a day, perhaps things would change,” she said.
In 2017, New York state and the House of Commons of the U.K. recognized February 1 as World Hijab Day. The Scottish Parliament and the Philippines have reportedly followed suit.
Khan dismissed accusations that the organization is spreading a political Islam ideology….
 The Unknown: Lies About Hijab 101
By Aynaz Anni Cyrus, Ex-Muslim Refugee From Iran 
 Saudi Ex-Muslim: 'World Hijab Day 
insults millions of women'
 #WorldHijabDay is an insult to millions of women and girls who do not have the choice to take off their hijab.” Saudi #ExMuslim Each time a new ex-Muslim voice rises, a thousand more realize another life is possible. Support the ExMuslim TV platform: Watch and share: ExMuslim TV is a video platform at the service of the ex-Muslim movement. #ReligiousFreedom is the first freedom and now is the time to normalize #LeavingIslam without consequences. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
  "Wear Hijab Day"? Asra Nomani exposes the global PROPAGANDA campaign behind the Hijab
 Asra Nomani discusses the oppressive politics of the hijab and exposes the global propaganda campaign behind "Wear Hijab Day". Excerpted from the debate "Politics & Clothing: The Hijab" at the Chicago Humanities Festival, April 30, 2016. Watch the full debate here: Asra Nomani is a journalist, former Wall Street Journal correspondent, and author of the book "Standing Alone: An American Woman’s Struggle for the Soul of Islam". She co-wrote the Washington Post opinion piece: "As Muslim women, we actually ask you not to wear the hijab in the name of interfaith solidarity":  
 Christian Commentary World Hijab Day
Published on Feb 16, 2016
 A school in Rochester, NY is in the news for presenting hijabs 
for the female students to wear on World Hijab Day. 
What does the Bible say about head coverings?
Saudi Arabia and 
Fetishizing the Hijab 
(Yasmine Mohammed Pt. 2)
  Published on Apr 17, 2017
 Yasmine Mohammed (Author and Activist) joins Dave Rubin to discuss Saudi Arabia, the soft bigotry of low expectations, fetishizing the hijab and much more.
 Gad Saad on Fetishizing the Hijab, Jew Hatred, and the Personal Cost of Being Public

Saturday, December 29, 2018


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
 No Western country should bend its laws and abandon its principles in 
order to appease anyone or to suit any religious sensibilities at the 
expense of its women and girls. And yet this is not happening in Germany
 alone; many Western countries are increasingly 
adopting a two-tier legal system,  
allowing for a harmful accommodation of Sharia norms.
“German Supreme Court Rejects Anti-Child Marriage Law as Unconstitutional,” by Chris Tomlinson, Breitbart,December 26, 2018:
The German Federal Supreme Court has made a new ruling on a child marriage case which could have implications on the way child marriages conducted legally overseas are treated in the country.
The ruling comes from a case involving a Syrian man who was separated from his underage “wife” when the pair arrived in Germany as asylum seekers in August 2015, Die Welt reports.
The pair, cousins, were married in February 2015 while the man was aged 21 and the girl aged only 14 in a marriage procedure that was done under sharia legally in Syria but was considered invalid by German authorities where the marriage age was 16 at the time.
After his “wife” had been taken into separate care due to her status as a minor, the Syrian man complained to German courts which initially granted him weekend access to her with a district court claiming the marriage had not been forced.
The case was then sent up to the Federal Supreme Court which has now ruled that the marriage between the pair should be examined on the basis of its legal status in Syria. Such cases in the future should be looked at on an individual basis, the court said, instead of a blanket refusal to recognise them — as was the procedure previously.
In Germany, protection of marriage and family are enshrined in the Basic Law, as well as the principle of equal treatment, and both could be violated under the ban on child marriages…..
 German Court Applies Sharia to Child Marriage
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The following report from the German website Einwanderungskritik (Immigration Criticism) is all but unbelievable: a district court has cited sharia law to validate a Syrian immigrant’s marriage to a 14-year-old girl. An act that would land a native German man in prison for child molestation is being sanctioned by the court as a valid “marriage”, simply because it as recognized as such by Islamic law.
Many thanks to Nash Montana for the translation:
Scandalous judgment: Islamic pedophile-marriages are valid in Germany
“A marriage that has been performed according to Syrian law in Syria with a 14 year old bride and a man of legal age, has to be recognized as valid if the husband belongs to the Sunni religion and the marriage has already been executed.”
by Robin Classen
With mass immigration, not only terrorism in Paris and Brussels and the sex crimes on New Year’s eve came to Europe, but also very different social and moral values. For instance, Islam allows men to marry multiple women.
Extremely problematic: Mohammed married his “favorite woman” Aisha when she was just six years old. That is not an unusual Islamic opinion; this is widely uncontested knowledge in Sunni as well as in Shiite Islam. In Germany however, as part of sanctioned lying to advance the cause of Islam (taqiyya), those who ask critical questions are often told: Aisha was after all already 14 years old when she married the 50-year-old Mohammed. Even more common is the lie that around the year 700 children were a lot more sexually mature. That one cannot compare the nine-year-old Aisha therefore with a nine-year-old of today, that she was a complete woman. That all the focus on cleanliness and coddling in the modern world is what delays a girl’s menstruation more and more.
The opposite has been scientifically proven: In Germany in 1860 girls got their first period at the age of 16.6 years old. In 1920 they began to menstruate at 14.6 years old, in 1980 at 12.5 years old, and today even sooner yet. And all this of course completely independent of the fact that a first menstruation is only one step on the way to become an adult woman and it does not signify the ultimate end of childhood.
Forced marriage of children is completely okay in Islam
Since Mohammed was deemed to be an exemplary ideal and virtuous man, this moral assessment applies as well to his marriage with multiple women and the child Aisha, which is why forced marriages of children in Shiite as well as in Sunni Islam are entirely normal. Often children die on their wedding night due to fatal internal bleeding caused by their Muslim husbands. This behavior is now entering Germany.
Here’s the case of a 22-year-old Syrian man and his 14-year-old wife — probably a more benign example — a couple who came to Bavaria at the end of 2015. They are also cousins — since marriages among relatives, too, is a custom that is accepted in Islam, which has for centuries harmed the gene pool of the Islamic peoples. According to one BBC study 55 % of the Pakistanis living in Great Britain are married to relatives. And worldwide, half of all Muslims are living in incestuous marriages. The consequences are an average IQ that is 10 points lower, and a significantly higher risk for psychological and physical illnesses.
Youth welfare service unsuccessfully tried to protect the child from German justice
The two youths were separated immediately after their arrival in Germany: The Youth welfare office took the child into custody. The man then submitted a lawsuit — in all likelihood at taxpayer’s expense — and verified through a Syrian marriage certificate that he was effectively married to the child he according to Syrian law. The district court then reinterpreted the lawsuit which demanded that the child be handed over to the husband, and granted visitation rights to the “couple” so they could meet alone on the weekends. But the youth welfare office lodged an appeal, arguing that the “wife” is a child and acts like a child. That she is not in a position to lead an autonomous, self-determined life as a “wife”, and that there is the danger that the two have sexual intercourse on the weekends, which according to German law constitutes sexual abuse of a minor.

The subsequent decision of the OLG Bamberg (regional appeals court Bamberg) is simply mind-blowing: The OLG decided that international privacy rights have to be applied to the Syrian couple. During the trial the court had received a “crash course in Syrian marriage law” and had decided that the couple were effectively married. That even the German “Ordre Public”, the public policy doctrine, cannot stand in the way of this. If anyone would like to know what is possible concerning the Islamization of German law, they should read the resolution from May 5, 2015, file reference 2 UF 58/16 of the Regional Appeals Court of Bamberg.
OLG is exclusively applying Sharia law
One paragraph after another the judge cites openly and absent of all critique sharia law, which they then apply one-to-one. For the Bavarian judges, according to their own statements, it is therefore only important “whether the marriage of a Muslima with a non-Muslim is void”, since Islamic law prohibits such. In other words, if there were two refugees with a Syrian marriage certificate, and then it emerged that one of the two was a Christian, a German court would void the marriage, since a Muslim Herrenmensch (overlord) cannot be married to a Christian Untermensch (subhuman).
According to Syrian-Islamic marriage right there is a minimum marriage age of 13 years, but it is invalid if the wedding has already been performed. So therefore, there really is no law for a minimum age, but this seems to pose no problem for Bavarian judges. It seems more important to the court in Bamberg that the dowry was paid by the parents:
Apart from that, Article 51, section 2 of the PSG (strengthening of the care-giving act) on defective marriage contracts after cohabitation, decides, among other things, the obligation of paying the dowry, the obstacle of in-law relationship to marrying, and the obligation of observing the legal waiting period in cases of dissolution of marriage either by divorce or death. Therefore, Articles 47 to 52 PSG cannot be interpreted as a regulation to the effect that a defective marriage contract after cohabitation leads to a void marriage.
The child has to endure abuse so that “integration” is successful
After all this, the court came out with the real tear-jerker: The “husband and wife” had endured so much together already during their “flight”! Additionally, a recognition of their marriage for the purpose of integration is vital. The two had already rejected participation in integration courses long before their marriage was validated, the German judges seriously lamented.
The youth welfare office and parents do not play a role anymore for the court: The child is legally married and, according to Syrian law, parental responsibility has thereby lapsed. Punishability according to § 182 III StGB is swept under the rug by the OLG Bamberg: That counts as “a matter of interpretation”. The bottom line is that the higher regional court, as the second most highest civil rights entity, has applied sharia law, which thus with one swipe suspends German family law, and especially criminal law, and has therefore deprived a 14-year-old girl of all protection given to her by the youth welfare services, and instead has exposed her to her “husband” defenselessly.
The legal court documents about the case:
OLG Bamberg, Beschluss v. 12.05.2016 — 2 UF 58/16 — B├╝gerservice


 Angela Merkel: Nation States Must Be Willing to "Give Up Their Sovereignty"
 German Chancellor says people who complain 
about immigration should be ignored
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
German Chancellor Angela Merkel told an audience in Berlin that “nation states should be willing to give up their sovereignty” and that governments shouldn’t listen to their own citizens on matters of immigration.
During an event aimed at combating populism entitled Parliamentarism in the Tension of Globalization and National Sovereignty, Merkel brazenly said that “nation-states should be willing to give up their sovereignty today” and this should be done via an “orderly process”.
Responding to critcism of the UN Migration Pact, which greases the skids for mass migration to be treated as a human right, Merkel said that international agreements took precedence over the will of the people within individual countries.
“There were [politicians] who believed that they could decide when these agreements are no longer valid because they are representing The People,” she said.
“[But] the people are individuals who are living in a country, they are not a group who define themselves as the [German] people,” she stressed.
Merkel’s forthright denunciation of sovereignty and her continued support for mass immigration comes despite both issues leading to a massive collapse in her own approval numbers.
Earlier this year, a YouGov survey also found that almost half of Germans want to leave their own country “for a more stable political situation”.



 Far-left Slate reporter April Glaser boasted Friday that she forced YouTube to censor pro-life videos on their platform and replace them with pro-abortion videos instead.
 Leftist Slate reporter boasts she forced YouTube to remove anti-abortion videos from the platform
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
YouTube appears to have cleaned out pro-life videos from the top choices under the search word “abortion.” What’s more, a writer for the left-leaning suggested that she was responsible for the change.
April Glaser, identified as a Slate technology reporter, wrote that “before I raised the issue with YouTube ... the top search results for ‘abortion’ on the site were almost all anti-abortion” — meaning they were pro-life in perspective.
One of the previously top-ranking titles apparently unranked through Glaser’s efforts is called “LIVE Abortion Video on Display,” which is nothing less than a horrifyingly true video representation of what happens when a pre-born baby’s life is ended through abortion. While the graphic nature of the two-minute video prevented Glaser from challenging the veracity of its deeply disturbing content, she claimed that many other top-ranking pro-life videos she viewed were “frequently misleading” — a charge she made without qualification.
“Only two of the top 15 results struck me as not particularly political,” she wrote, “and none of the top results focused on providing dispassionate, up-to-date medical information.”
Glaser related that after e-mailing YouTube to ask why pro-life videos dominated its search results for “abortion,” over the next two or three days the website’s managers changed the search results to reflect a bias more favorable to a pro-abortion perspective.
In a subsequent Twitter post, Glaser claimed that a “search for ‘abortion’ on YouTube last week and the top results were a horrifying mix of gore and dangerous misinformation.” She went on to insist that “YouTube changed the results after I asked.”

In her Slate article, Glaser wrote that after YouTube followed her directions, “anti-abortion content meant to enrage or provoke viewers was no longer purely dominating the results” — which, translated, means that any video content designed to confront the viewer with the stark and murderous reality of abortion was sanitized from YouTube’s top “abortion” search results, replaced by content that gave all discussion on the killing of babies through abortion a safe and friendly texture.
Why eliminating pro-life content from YouTube’s top “abortion” search results matters so much to Glaser “is that more than 1.8 billion people look for information on YouTube every month,” she wrote, “and that could easily include someone who is considering getting an abortion.” The apparent implication here is that offering such individuals a truly balanced representation of abortion may just convince them that the procedure is wrong for them and their babies.
Among the previously top-ranked content that was de-ranked by YouTube following Glaser’s complaints were videos by pro-life group Live Action. The videos, which appeared to be among those Glaser labeled as “misleading,” were produced by Live Action “to educate viewers on how the different abortion procedures are actually committed, since the abortion industry fails to inform women of the truth,” explained the pro-life group after Glaser’s article appeared.
The group added that the videos in question “are from the ‘Abortion Procedures’ series, which show medical animations of the most common abortion procedures. The animations depict how a pre-born child appears during each stage, and are narrated by former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino, who committed thousands of abortions before becoming pro-life.”
Live Action defended the accuracy of the videos, saying that “Dr. Levatino has the experience to understand and explain how each type of abortion works.”
The Live Action videos, including some that were de-ranked by YouTube as a result of Glaser’s complaints, can be viewed here.


Search for "abortion" on YouTube last week and the top results were a horrifying mix of gore and dangerous misinformation. YouTube changed the results after I asked 
Leftist Slate Reporter: YouTube 'Changed Search Results' For Abortion 'After I Asked' 
Though Google CEO Sundar Pichai claimed last week in sworn testimony before congress that "we don't manually intervene on any particular search result," Glaser said that "YouTube changed the results after I asked."
 When I searched "abortion" on Saturday morning I had to scroll down 39 pages to find the video titled "LIVE Abortion Video on Display" -- which means you have to go past around 190 videos to get what was the number one result last week before Glaser complained.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence and Google's engineers are not manually rigging anything!

Friday, December 28, 2018

(Friday Church News Notes, December 28, 2018,,, 866-295-4143) - 
The following is excerpted from “Sen. Mike Lee Blocks,”, Dec. 21, 2018: “Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) is blocking Senate confirmation of President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Chai Feldblum, for fear she could threaten religious freedom and traditional marriage. If confirmed, Feldblum, a leftist Democrat and LGBTQ activist who has made controversial comments about religious liberty, would serve her third EEOC term. She was first nominated in 2010 by then-President Barack Obama, and finished her second term in July 2018. Sen. Lee has asserted that Feldblum ‘is no typical Democrat,’ and could curtail ‘the rights of religious Americans.’ ... The EEOC is a bipartisan commission that enforces federal laws prohibiting discrimination against job applicants or employees on the basis of race, sex, religion, color, national origin, age, disability or genetic information. In a 2006 interview with the Weekly Standard, Feldblum suggested sexual liberty was more important than religious liberty, and should be prioritized should the two come into conflict. ‘Sexual liberty should win in most cases,’ Feldblum said. ‘There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.’ ... Editor-in-Chief of The Daily Wire Ben Shapiro said Feldblum was ‘President Trump’s Worst Federal Nomination’ ... ‘Feldblum should not be anywhere near the levers of power,’ Shapiro wrote. ‘And it’s particularly inexcusable for President Trump and a Republican Congress to reauthorize her presence there.’”


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Schools in China are forcing students to wear uniforms with microchips that are capable of tracking them and triggering alarms if they skip class.
The so-called “intelligent uniforms” are part of the Communist Party’s initiative for more “smart campuses,” The Telegraph reports:
Two chips, sown into the shoulders of school jackets, can sustain around 500 wash cycles and temperatures of 150 degrees Celsius, according to the Guizhou Guanyu Technology Company, their manufacturer.
…The uniforms allow teachers and parents to track students’ movement, sending out an alert if they are not present in a lesson.
Facial-recognition scanners at school gates match the chips with the correct student, meaning that any who try to swap jackets in order to bunk off will be caught.

Correspondingly, this news comes on the heels of a report detailing thousands of Swedes volunteering for a more invasive method of microchip implementation.
The Swedes are injecting the chips into their hands to replace credit cards and more, according to
The chip is about the same size as one of the legs on a normal plug and you choose yourself, where you want the chip to be put. Typically, it is placed between the forefinger and the thumb – where you have a little slack skin. has long reported on the growing trend of megabanks and the global elite pushing for the masses to be injected with computer chips similar to the prophetic “Mark of the Beast.”


Published on Dec 27, 2018
 Mike Adams advises Infowars listeners to start manufacturing their own firearms in states where it is still legal in order to prevent the government, and their 2nd amendment oversight, from taking all of your guns when they come to take your store registered guns.


Published on Dec 27, 2018
 Mike Adams praises President Trump for finally ending the unnecessary prohibition on hemp, a very useful crop that can be used for human consumption, but it can also be used for paper products, clothing, and health benefits.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Of course. The Home Office doesn’t want to appear “Islamophobic.”

“Christian man ‘beaten and threatened by Islamic extremists’ in Pakistan faces imminent deportation from UK,” by May Bulman, Independent, December 26, 2018:
A Christian man who was allegedly beaten and repeatedly threatened with execution by Islamic extremists in Pakistan is facing imminent deportation from the UK.
A church community in Birmingham has been left shocked after Asher Samson, 41, was detained while attending a weekly signing event with the Home Office in Solihull on 26 November.
Mr Samson told The Independent he was “terrified” at the prospect of being sent back to his home city of Abbottabad in Pakistan.
The 31-year-old first arrived in the UK in 2004 to carry out his theology training in order to become a pastor, but later applied for asylum after receiving threats from Islamic extremists during visits home, he said.
His asylum claim was rejected earlier this year and Mr Samson is now being held in Morton Hall Detention Centre in Lincoln where he has been told he will be deported.
Mr Samson said he has “no one and nowhere to go” in Pakistan, adding: “If they do send me back my life will be really in danger. I’m so scared.
“People know who I am, they know I am a Christian and they have seen me on social media.
“They told me they had booked me a flight and I refused to go. They said next time they will take me by force.”…
Revered Lorraine Shorten, who has known Mr Samson and his brother Aamir for 15 months and is pastor at their church of 10 years, said he was a “well-thought-of” member of the community….
“It’s shameful – we are a Christian country yet we can’t help them. It’s terrifying to send him back there with the situation for Christians in Pakistan.”…
“At home they were threatened and they lived in fear. This is so extremely short-sighted by the Home Office.”…