Friday, September 14, 2018


The EU Parliament recently put the internet, at least in Europe, on a path towards certain corporate Orwellian doom. Article 11 also known as the "link tax" forces anyone linking an article of more than one word to a news story to pay for a service that licenses the article. The news site can according to the Verge ”charge anything they want for the right to quote them or refuse to sell all together, effectively giving them the right to choose who can criticize them. “ While Article 13, also known as the upload filter requires “All but the smallest platforms will have to defensively adopt copyright filters that examine everything you post and censor anything judged to be a copyright infringement.” According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. And if that wasn’t enough to bring the free flow of information to a grinding halt. Typical Social media posts, like a selfie taken at a football game have been targeted by Article 12a. “ No posting your own photos or videos of sports matches. Only the "organisers" of sports matches will have the right to publicly post any kind of record of the match. No posting your selfies, or short videos of exciting plays. You are the audience, your job is to sit where you're told, passively watch the game and go home.” According to the EFF. The EU celebrated the decision with smitten glee. Unaware that they are shooting themselves in the foot. The final vote won’t take place until January of 2019, but it is expected to pass.



Top Google Scientist Quits Over Plan for Censored Chinese Search Engine


‘I am forced to resign in order to avoid contributing to, or profiting from, the erosion of protection for dissidents’

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
A top Google employee has resigned in protest of the company’s work on a censored search engine for China.
The employee, 32-year-old Jack Poulson, who worked as a senior research scientist for Google’s research and machine intelligence division, first raised concerns at the company in early August after documents published by The Intercept first revealed the project’s existence.
Known internally as Dragonfly, the censored search engine would allow the Chinese government to keep its citizens from accessing any data it deems sensitive.
Poulson, who is believed to be one of at least 5 employees to quit over Dragonfly, told The Intercept‘s Ryan Gallagher that he felt an “ethical responsibility to resign” over the “forfeiture of our public human rights commitments.”
Aside from the censored search engine, Poulson also expressed concern over customer data being hosted in China, a country notorious for targeting dissidents.
Poulson laid out his issues with Dragonfly and Google’s direction in a resignation letter to his superiors.
“Due to my conviction that dissent is fundamental to functioning democracies, I am forced to resign in order to avoid contributing to, or profiting from, the erosion of protection for dissidents,” Poulson wrote. “I view our intent to capitulate to censorship and surveillance demands in exchange for access to the market as a forfeiture of our values and governmental negotiating position across the globe.”
The decision to pursue such projects, Poulson further argued, could lead to other authoritarian regimes making similar demands.
“There is an all-too-real possibility that other nations will attempt to leverage our actions in China in order to demand our compliance with their security demands,” Poulson wrote.
Despite growing outcry over Dragonfly, Google has thus far refused to publicly comment on the project, only stating that it does not discuss “speculation about future plans.”
Just last month a group of leading human rights organizations called on Google to immediately cease its involvement with the project.
“Like many of Google’s own employees, we are extremely concerned by reports that Google is developing a new censored search engine app for the Chinese market,” a letter to Google CEO Sundar Pichai said. “The Chinese government extensively violates the rights to freedom of expression and privacy; by accommodating the Chinese authorities’ repression of dissent, Google would be actively participating in those violations for millions of internet users in China.”
More than 1,400 Google employees also signed a similar letter last month demanding the company let its workers know what it was developing.
“Currently we do not have the information required to make ethically-informed decisions about our work, our projects, and our employment. That the decision to build Dragonfly was made in secret, and progressed with the [artificial intelligence] Principles in place, makes clear that the Principles alone are not enough,” the letter said. “We urgently need more transparency, a seat at the table, and a commitment to clear and open processes: Google employees need to know what we’re building.”
Google had previously built a search engine for China in 2006 but ended the program four years later after saying the Communist government attempted to curtail free speech and even tried to hack their computer systems as well.
Pichai, Google’s CEO, also refused earlier this month to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee to answer questions regarding Dragonfly.

Got a tip? Contact Mikael securely:


The NWO's Desperate Chinese Censorship Gambit

The Chinese censorship model being hastened by the technocrats, their minions in the U.S. Congress and the EU's bitter clingers of the New World Order nightmare.


BIG tech elite move to destroy pro-Trump voices ahead of midterms

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The big tech elite, Democrats and the Communist Chinese government are reveling in their destruction of the First Amendment, in a new politically-incorrect cartoon from illustrator Ben Garrison

In the past few weeks, the anti-free speech agenda of the left-leaning tech giants has become clear – destroy anyone who supports Trump and America’s recovery ahead of the midterm elections.
From Ben Garrison at
The authoritarian left continues to shut down free speech and they’re getting away with it.
Their latest victim, ‘Roosh,’ sold his books for years on Amazon. His books mostly proffered advice about picking up girls. It’s an unsavory subject to many—especially feminists—but it’s his free speech and he wasn’t advising anything illegal. Bezos suddenly pulled the plug on Roosh’s books—many which were selling well. Who’s next? Conservative cartoonist books because the content offends the left?
It’s often said that the Internet and social media are the new ‘town square.’ Realizing that, the left-leaning Silicon Valley controls and monopolizes that town square. At first they claimed to be equivalent to the phone company. They provided the platform and access and let the users add the content in the form of free speech. That’s now no longer the case. Clearly Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are skewing content in favor of the left.
A 60 minute video of a 2016 meeting with top management at Google was released to Breitbart today, revealing their panic and dismay that Hillary had lost and Trump won. Google’s top executives, who preside over a company with unrivaled influence over the flow of information, are disparaging the motivations of Trump voters and plotting ways to use their vast resources to thwart the Trump agenda. Google is nothing more than Democrat propaganda and used to influence voters and swing elections.
 Infowars has been banned by Facebook. Please help by sharing this article on your own Facebook page.

Google is facing backlash after a report was released by The Intercept alleged Google was working on a confidential project, code-named "Dragonfly, that is allegedly for China and it will censor certain searches on topics like human rights, democracy, and religion. Ian Sherr, CNET News executive editor, joined CBSN to discuss.

China-Focused Google Project Receives 

Employee Backlash

Google has reportedly been working on a secret project codenamed Dragonfly, which is a censored version of its own search engine to be used in mainland China. On Thursday, news broke about a protest letter signed by 1,400 employees saying they wanted to “raise urgent moral and ethical issues” about Dragonfly.



SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Reprinted from
In 1993, Ibrahim Hooper, director of strategic communications for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said that, “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future. But I’m not going to do anything violent to promote that. I’m going to do it through education.” Twenty-five years later, CAIR could be making headway on that goal, through its relationships with US public school districts in at least three states.
CAIR — an Islamist group and United Arab Emirates-designated terrorist organization that bills itself as a defender of civil rights — has achieved special concessions for Muslim students and launched the inappropriate insertion of religion into publicly-funded education. Meanwhile, pushback from parents and outside organizations is building.
Seattle Public Schools’ partnership with CAIR’s Washington chapter is the latest incident to cause controversy, but the relationship dates back to at least 2011, when CAIR-WA sent the district a letter proposing accommodations for Muslim students and classroom lessons on Islam. Then as now, CAIR-WA claimed to be fighting “anti-Muslim bullying.” To that end, in 2012 and 2013 the organization contacted the school district to complain about “Islamophobia” among teachers.
That approach eventually paid off. In a Ramadan crowd-funding campaign in May of this year, the CAIR-WA chapter outlined its plan “to provide educational training for teachers and staff on things like Ramadan, Eid, and how educators can support Muslim students in the classroom.” Accordingly, that same month, CAIR-WA ran a “professional development session” in a Seattle high school that “addressed providing identity-safe spaces in schools for Muslim families” and “how to support students during Ramadan."
In July, the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund (FCDF), a legal advocacy group, sent a letter to the Seattle school district warning that partnering with CAIR and “discriminating in favor of students based on their religion” was a violation of the First Amendment that, if continued, would lead to legal action. (This was no empty threat: CAIR’s National Executive Director, Nihad Awadadmitted in 2016 that distributing the group’s publications to schools is “both a religious and educational exercise.”) FCDF then filed a public records request asking for emails between school officials and CAIR staff.
In a similar situation, the FCDF sued the San Diego Unified School District in 2017 on behalf of several local parents, alleging that its relationship with CAIR set up a “subtle, discriminatory scheme that establishes Muslim students as the privileged religious group.” That partnership began with an all-too-familiar “anti-Islamophobia bullying initiative” developed by CAIR’s San Diego chapter, focusing on Muslim holidays, “safe spaces” for Muslim students, and staff training about Muslim culture.
On the advice of its lawyers, the San Diego school board voted in 2017 to sever its ties with CAIR, but the FCDF filed an injunction in February alleging that the relationship was ongoing and calling for the release of all related correspondence. (Meanwhile, another California school district, Cajon Valley Union, is currently under pressure from CAIR to adopt its anti-bullying programs.)
Although no formal agreement yet exists, CAIR is following this same pattern with school districts in Minnesota, particularly Minneapolis, due to its large Somali refugee population. The organization’s local chapter, CAIR-MN, filed a complaint in 2010 with the US Department of Education alleging harassment of Muslim students, although it had begun conducting independent “mediation sessions and diversity training for district staff” the previous year.
In 2013, a member of the Columbia Heights School Board resigned at CAIR-MN’s urging, due to a Facebook comment (that he claimed was not his own) rejecting the idea of installing foot-washing stations and bidets in high school bathrooms to accommodate Muslim students.
CAIR-MN continued its efforts in 2016, complaining that various school officials were not responding quickly enough to alleged hate crimes against Muslim students, while calling for increased protection for such students statewide.
Earlier this month, CAIR-MN offered an in-house training session for educators, “Positive Interactions Training for Teachers,” that included a talk on “Understanding Islamophobia and Bullying.” Meanwhile, the Minnesota Department of Education website recommends — alone among religious organizations — CAIR-MN and its publication, “An Educator’s Guide to Understanding Islamic Religious Practices,” under “community resources” to “address bullying.”
Spotting a now familiar pattern, the FCDF sent a data records request to the Minneapolis public school district on August 17, calling for emails that show whether collaboration exists between the district and CAIR-MN. Minnesota would do well to learn from the mistakes of Washington and California, and avoid another ill-advised partnership with CAIR.
Given CAIR’s Islamist heritage, mission, and actions, no public school district should fall for its duplicitous claims of fighting bullying and “Islamophobia.” Its classroom activities endanger America’s future by opening students to indoctrination into a virulently anti-American, anti-Western, and antisemitic ideology.



They claim to have more important things to do.

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Republican lawmakers have made it clear they have no intention of repealing Obamacare in the current Congress.
Republicans in the nation’s top lawmaking body have never really wanted to get rid of Obamacare. They would prefer to present the program, which David Horowitz correctly describes as “the greatest assault on individual freedom and individual choice in our lifetimes,” as a villain and whip up sentiment against it and run against it every election. They view Obamacare as good for the business of politics. They may chip away at it from time to time or tinker with it at the margins, but make no mistake: these creatures of Washington want to keep it in place. This is the Republicans’ dirty secret.
Republicans have been promising to rip Obamacare out root and branch ever since it was enacted. They ramped up their rhetoric after the allegedly conservative-dominated Supreme Court declared the blatantly unconstitutional Obamacare law constitutional in the incoherent NFIB v. Sebelius ruling of 2012. Americans responded to this government takeover of a huge chunk of the economy by electing GOP-controlled congresses in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016, and by electing Donald Trump as president. 
Unintimidated by the Left and sneering hack journalists, Trump began the push to bury the misnamed Affordable Care Act and as a result, the individual mandate will die at the end of this year. But the bulk of the statute and related rules such as the economically suicidal pre-existing medical conditions mandate remain in place, complete with federal insurance-purchasing subsidies for people who don’t need the help, as well as the sclerotic administrative apparatus, and the odious rule that prevents health insurers from competing across state lines.
The top vote-counters in both chambers say repeal is a no-go for the rest of the year. This ought to worry conservatives because there is a good chance that when the new 116th Congress convenes Jan. 3, 2019, one or both of its chambers will be in the hands of the government healthcare-loving Democrats. 
So it’s now or quite possibly never.
“I’m not going to be asking for another vote on that this year,” Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas reportedly said last week when asked about Obamacare repeal. His counterpart in the House, Steve Scalise of Louisiana, offered excuses for his party’s inaction. “We need to win this election and then get more seats next year.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he won’t revisit Obamacare before this Election Day, and no expects him to change his tune after then and pursue repeal in a lame-duck congressional session.
Whether the return to the battle over the law is a decision “I don’t have to reach anytime soon and don’t have time to facilitate, even if I was so inclined,” McConnell said last week.
Retiring Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) made it clear he couldn’t care less. “I haven’t even thought about it,” he said.
Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who previously blocked repeal, continue to support keeping the Obamacare law in place.
“I would still oppose outright repeal,” Collins last week. Aides to Murkowski said she “is not interested in another rushed, partisan process in the absence of a quality, comprehensive replacement” for the law.
It’s the same old same old. And it’s not going to change unless reliable hardcore conservatives take over Congress.




SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
PROMINENT BJU-ASSOCIATED PASTOR DEFENDS USE OF “CONTEMPORARY HYMNS” (Friday Church News Notes, September 14, 2018,,, 866-295-4143) - 
Brian Fuller, Senior Pastor of Trinity Baptist Church, Concord, New Hampshire, defended the use of contemporary worship hymns in a blog in 2012. This church has been called “the flagship of BJU-FBF (Bob Jones University-Fundamental Baptist Fellowship) in New England.” Its Christian Leadership Conference on March 31, 2012, featured Jim Berg of BJU and Matt and Christy Taylor of the Wilds. Fuller writes: “If I recall correctly, it was at our 2003 New England Leadership Conference that Dr. David Parker sang How Deep the Father’s Love for Us to a capacity crowd of New England fundamentalists. A chorus of hearty ‘amens’ followed this theologically robust text and appropriate tune by Stuart Townend. That was 2003. This is 2012. You see, 2003 was a somewhat blissful time when the ‘association’ or ‘source’ question of the original style of modern hymns wasn’t being necessarily fingerprinted. That benevolent spirit of heartily affirming the truths of these modern hymns has all but evaporated, unfortunately. Frankly, as a believer, I feel a little ‘robbed’ that the spiritual gift I received in hearing that hymn back in 2003 has now been flagged as a potential stumbling block to other believers. Beyond the ‘offense’ objection, I have discovered that there seems to be a political element to this issue. In attending conferences and fellowships, I have noticed the ‘source and association’ issue of modern hymnody is raised with rapidity and frequency. If not stated explicitly, the attitudinal implications of some of the discussions are that there is little room at the table for a difference of opinion. A pastor’s ‘true-blue’ separatism might be questioned if he discerningly embraces these modern hymns. There is a definitive suspicion that is detected from others about your teetering on the ‘slippery slope’ if you view the source and association elements as mostly irrelevant, illogical or extra-biblical” (“Of Modern Hymnody at Trinity, Feb. 13, 2012). Fuller went on to defend the Getty/Townend “contemporary hymn movement” as being (allegedly) different in character than the Contemporary Christian Music field. In this, he is dead wrong, as documented in the next report.
ARE THE CONTEMPORARY HYMN WRITERS “SAFE”? (Friday Church News Notes, September 14, 2018,,, 866-295-4143) - 
As we have documented in The Directory of Christian Worship Musicians, Stuart Townend is an out-and-out Christian rocker, a radical charismatic, and a rabid ecumenist who associates with Rome and promotes the Alpha program and is therefore building the one-world church. By their intimate and non-critical association with Townend, the Gettys have demonstrated that they are one in spirit. The people who are writing the “contemporary hymns” are not separated from the wider field of CCM. They are ALL holding hands. They ALL have the same spirit. NONE of them are friends of a fundamentalist position. ALL of them are avowed enemies of biblical separation. ALL of them have an ecumenical, charismatic mystical agenda. This is not opinion. We have studied these things “from the horse’s mouth” for nearly 50 years and have carefully documented our warnings. God’s Word forbids us to associate with end-time apostasy. We are to touch not the unclean thing. To be careful about associations is the very heart and soul of biblical separatism. The use of CCM is definitely a “slippery slope” toward compromise and error, and those who are playing with it are playing with fire. “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Corinthians 15:33). This warning has nothing to do with “politics.” I can’t speak for others, but I know that my motive in warning against the slippery slope of CCM is a passion for the truth that I found in Christ. CCM is the sound-track of end-time apostasy. It is a bridge to the “broader church” with all of its ancient and end-time heresies. The aforementioned thinking is dangerous and ill-informed, but it probably represents the majority position today. THE CORNER HAS BEEN TURNED IN REGARD TO FUNDAMENTAL BAPTISTS AND CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIAN MUSIC. Twenty years ago, the vast majority of influential IFB preachers condemned it in no uncertain terms. The trumpet was giving a clear sound. Today, the majority of influential IFB preachers are justifying its use and questioning the motives of those who still reprove it. Since so many fundamental Baptist preachers are crowd-followers and man-respecters, it is not surprising that the philosophy of justifying the “adaptation” of contemporary worship music has spread so rapidly. This is further evidence of the collapse of separatism. (See the free eBooks “The Collapse of Separatism among Fundamental Baptists,” “The Directory of Contemporary Worship Musicians,” “The Treacherous Waters of the SBC and Evangelicalism,” and “Why Most Independent Baptist Will Be Emerging,” which are available at the Way of Life web site.)
IS IT CONSISTENT TO BE “PICKY” ABOUT CCM ASSOCIATIONS WHILE USING PROTESTANT HYMNS? (Friday Church News Notes, September 14, 2018,,, 866-295-4143) - 
It is popularly argued that if we are to be “picky” about musical associations in regard to the contemporary musicians, then we would have to discard Luther’s or Wesley’s hymns, but that holds no water. The old Protestant hymns were exceedingly different in character from contemporary worship music. The old Protestants weren’t building the end-time one-world church, but the CCM crowd most definitely is. The old Protestants condemned Rome boldly and were separated from her. The world represented by Stuart Townend and his “contemporary hymns” is the world of rock & roll, charismatic mysticism, C.S. Lewis, The Shack, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the emerging church, The Message, Brennan Manning, Christian homosexuality, Leonard Sweet, Rick Warren, contemplative prayer, and unity with Rome. I don’t know of even one instance in which the use of a hymn by Luther has transformed a Baptist church into a Lutheran church, but I know of large numbers of cases in which fundamentalist churches have been converted to a contemporary philosophy through the use of CCM. I don’t know of one instance in which the old Protestant hymns acted as a bridge to the world, the flesh, and the devil, but I can point to many young people who have discovered contemporary worship music to be a bridge to these things. And it always started with the softer, less controversial stuff.
TECHNOLOGY AND MUSICAL ASSOCIATIONS (Friday Church News Notes, September 14, 2018,,, 866-295-4143) - 
We live in a different world today because of technology, and the technology allows people to easily communicate with and associate with musicians. Even when Luther was alive or Charles Wesley or Fanny Crosby or whoever, if you sang their music in a church, the members had no way to develop an intimate association with the hymn writers so that they could sit at their feet and be influenced by everything they believed and represented. That is not true today. When a fundamentalist church uses contemporary worship music, the people have ready access to the writers of the music through the Internet. They can read their blogs, browse their Facebook pages, follow their Twitter accounts, listen to their music on YouTube. They can surf the links from these musicians to their friends and associates and be influenced by the whole world of contemporary music. There is no doubt that this is happening in churches everywhere because of the carelessness and ignorance and lack of wisdom on the part of so many leaders. Contemporary worship music is a bridge to many dangerous things. It has transformation power. If the influence doesn’t come overnight, it will come eventually. If it doesn’t come to the older people, it will come to the younger ones. If the contemporary philosophy doesn’t permeate the church in this generation, it will in the next. For those of us who do still believe in biblical separation and therefore agree that lines must be drawn, why can’t we agree that the lines should be drawn at the safest place? Why not “approve things that are excellent” as opposed to borderline and questionable (Phil. 1:10)? Why try to find something good within the dangerous world of contemporary worship music? Is that wise? Is that godly? For the sake of the next generation, we need to keep all contemporary influences out of our churches and homes, and we need to do the work of serious education that will protect the people. Instead of mocking and sidelining and blacklisting those who are warning about these things, we need to listen carefully and treat them as wise friends of truth rather than fools and enemies.
SUGGESTED STATEMENT ON CHURCH MUSIC (Friday Church News Notes, September 14, 2018,,, 866-295-4143) - 
Some time back, we received the following request: “My father asked me to write to you and see if you have a statement about music standards that we could draw from in revising our church constitution. Music has become such a big topic in our day that he feels as senior pastor that we should have a clear, somewhat timeless statement about it in our constitution.” I sent the following, which is an update of a statement that we use in our churches in South Asia: 1. The church music must teach sound doctrine (Col. 3:16). The words of the songs must be right according to the teaching of the Bible. Most Contemporary Christian Music is unacceptable because it represents the ecumenical charismatic philosophy or it presents a vague message that lacks doctrinal clarity and strength. 2. The church music must be holy and separate from the world (Eph. 5:19; Rom. 12:2; 1 John 2:15-16). This means that the church’s music will not sound like the popular music played on the radio and the music that the world uses for dancing and drinking and partying. Our church music will not use the backbeat and other forms of dance syncopation, because this has always been associated with sensuality and has been characterized as “the sexy” part of pop music. We believe it is not wise to use drums (except in an orchestra) and electric guitars in church music, because they are so easily used in a pop music fashion. 3. The church music must not borrow from the world of contemporary Christian music, since it is a major element of building the apostate one-world church and represents a foreign spirit (1 Cor. 10:21; Eph. 5:11; 2 Tim. 3:5; Rev. 18:4). This is evident by examining the history of this music as well as the lives and beliefs of the contemporary musicians as we have done in The Directory of Contemporary Worship Musicians4. The church music must not be designed to produce a charismatic style mystical experience (1 Peter 5:8). The objective of charismatic music is to produce an experiential worship and toward this end contemporary worshipers use music with a strong dance rhythm, non-resolving chord sequences, repetition, and electronic modulation so that people will be carried away emotionally. The Bible tells us to be sober-minded and not to allow anything to capture our hearts other than God and His Word. We are not supposed to open ourselves up unquestioningly to any experience but are to continually test everything by the standard of God’s absolute Truth (1 Thessalonians 5:21). 
CONCLUSION: The Friday Church News Notes is designed for use in churches and is published by Way of Life Literature’s Fundamental Baptist Information Service. Unless otherwise stated, the Notes are written by David Cloud. Of necessity we quote from a wide variety of sources, but this obviously does not imply an endorsement. We trust that our readers will not be discouraged. It is God’s will that we know the times (1 Ch. 12:32; Mat. 16:3) and that we be as wise as serpents and harmless as doves. The News Notes remind us that the hour is very late, and we need to be ready for the Lord’s coming. Are you sure that you are born again? Are you living for Christ? “And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof” (Rom. 13:11-14).