Tuesday, November 27, 2018


 Laura Loomer joins Joe Pags to discuss her recent ban from Twitter and the potential ramifications.
 265,000 Followers on Twitter
Banned for exposing Muslim Jew Hater


 Globalists Use Migrants as 
 All eyes seem to be pointing south with news of a migrant caravan that is reportedly about 7,000 strong. Most of the media is doing the best it can to tug at your heart strings. But, in this episode of Analysis Behind the News, we call it what it is: an invasion by socialist forces that seek a new world order.


 US Border Chief: Caravan Used Women, Children as Human Shields Before Rocking Agents
 Chief CBP agent destroys CNN ‘peaceful’ 
caravan narrative
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

A San Diego Customs and Border Protection agent gave CNN a firsthand account of events at the US border in Tijuana over the weekend, describing migrants who attacked agents as “adult males” who used women and children as shields before assaulting agents with rocks.
Chief Patrol Agent Rodney Scott on Monday described migrants who stormed the border Sunday were mostly adult males who weren’t interested in seeking asylum.

“I kind of challenge that this was a peaceful protest, or that the majority of these people were claiming asylum. We ended up making about 42 arrests – only 8 of those were females and there were only a few children involved. The vast majority were adult males.”
During Scott’s testimony, CNN aired images of women and children at the confrontation.

Scott said caravan members who participated in the Sunday siege at the US border in Tijuana flung rocks at agents outfitted in tactical gear and damaged CBP windows and vehicles.
“The group immediately started throwing rocks and debris at our agents, taunting the agents. Once our agents were assaulted and the numbers started growing we had two or three agents at a time initially facing hundreds of people at a time. They deployed tear gas to protect themselves and protect the border.”
Scott said migrants were able to breach a portion of a dilapidated border wall made of sheet metal which has yet to be reinforced with new wall infrastructure.
“What I saw on the border yesterday was not people walking up to Border Patrol agents and asking to claim asylum. Matter of fact, one of the groups I watched… they passed 10 or 15 marked Border Patrol agents walking West to East, numerous uniformed personnel, as they were chanting, waving the Honduran flag and throwing rocks at the agents.”

Embedded video
Here’s moment right before shot bang. You can see some rocks being thrown.
“If they were truly asylum seekers, they would have just walked up with their hands up and surrendered, but that did not take place,” he added.
Agent Scott further stated he found it “unconscionable” that the group exploited children in their mission to harm Border Patrol agents.
“What we saw over and over yesterday was that the group – the ‘caravan’ as we call them – would push women and children towards the front and then begin basically rocking our agents.”



 Islamic terrorists are the world’s 
eighth largest military
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

Islamic terrorists are a “tiny minority of extremists”. That’s the message we’ve been hearing ever since 9/11. They’re only a handful of “guys in a cave” or a few “lone wolves” radicalized over the internet.
How tiny is that tiny minority?
According to a study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, there are 230,000 Jihadists.
Put this tiny minority of extremists together in a city and you would have Boise, Idaho, or Richmond, Virginia, or Des Moines, Iowa. But that’s not a roster of Muslim civilians who support Islamic terrorism, just active members of terrorist groups. And so a better point of comparison is to national armies.
At 230,000, Sunni Islamic Jihadists outnumber the British Armed Forces (149,000), the French Armed Forces (117,000), and Germany's Bundeswehr (179,753). That should be troubling since those are some of the militaries and countries on the front lines of Europe’s reluctant fight against Islamic incursions.
The list of Sunni fighters has a lot of questions marks and is incomplete. Sunnis outnumber Shiites, but under the Iranian umbrella, Shiites have fielded sizable terror forces in Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen.
Hezbollah in Lebanon boasts between 25,000 to 65,000 Jihadists. The Houthis in Yemen, currently the beneficiaries of a massive propaganda campaign in the media, have around 25,000 to 30,000 Jihadists. Iraqi PMU’s add another 90,000 to 150,000 Jihadists to these numbers. And finally there’s Iran’s own Revolutionary Guard, a regional terror hub with another 120,000 members.
These numbers add between 260,000 and 365,000 Jihadists on the Shiite side for a total of over half a million Sunni and Shiite Jihadists making Islamic terrorists the world’s eighth largest military.
That’s not a tiny minority of extremists and it’s not a few guys in a chat room or a cave.
This dark army of terror grew by leaps and bounds under the Obama administration which fractured Sunni countries by overthrowing their governments in and bringing Islamists to power in the Arab Spring, while the Iran nuke deal fed and freed up billions for Iran to invest in Shiite expansionism.
The CSIS report notes that the number of Salafi Jihadists and allied terror groups more than doubled between 2008 and 2016. Despite the Iraq War, during Bush’s second term, the increase was fairly light. The stratospheric increase, from the thirties to the sixties, took place during the Obama years.
The estimated number of Jihadist fighters rose from a high of 100,000 in 2008 to 250,000 in 2016.
The mass deaths in Syria, Libya and Yemen (to name some of the worst Arab Spring trouble spots) are a direct result of the policies and, in Libya of the military intervention, of the Obama administration.
Lefty twitter brims with propagandas photos of supposed Yemeni children starving to death. The media has tried to blame the religious war between Sunnis and Shiites (and their Saudi and Iranian backers) on President Trump. But dead children in Yemen are the wages of the foreign policy of Hope and Change.
As the Democrats and the Republican foreign policy establishment advocate for Jamal Khashoggi, intervention in Syria and support for the Palestinian Authority, it is urgent to remember that these are the same old failed policies that led to a 150% increase in Jihadists and killed over 500,000 people in Syria, and cost the lives of tens of thousands more in Yemen and Libya. And elsewhere in the region.
“Democratization” is a poisoned Islamist chalice. At its cloudy bottom lie terror and death.
The media has accused President Trump of a callous indifference to human life for putting American national interests ahead of Khashoggi, an Islamist pal of Osama bin Laden. But it’s the media radicals whose horrid idealism put half a million people into the ground in the service of the region’s Islamists.
Khashoggi’s Islamist political agenda killed enough people to qualify as its own genocide.
Half a million dead and half a million Jihadists rampaging around the world are the outcome of an idealistic foreign policy in which chattering class lefties allowed Islamists like Khashoggi to call the shots. The tiny minority of extremists was never that tiny, but it grew to a monstrous size with massive infusions of cash and military interventions plotted by Islamists and implemented by Washington D.C.
Many of the 70,000 Jihadists in Syria were directly or indirectly funded by the Obama administration. As were many of the 5,000 Jihadists in Libya, where Obama’s illegal military intervention led to everything from a near Al Qaeda takeover of Mali to the flow of surface-to-air missiles to Hamas terrorists.
Major terror groups and state sponsors of terror from Pakistan to Iran to the Palestinian Authority also saw huge cash transfers from American taxpayers to Islamic terrorists.
In his first year in office, Obama signed off on a $7.5 billion aid package for Pakistan. The Islamic terror state repaid us by harboring Osama bin Laden and aiding Islamic terrorists killing American soldiers.
This year, President Trump made drastic cuts to foreign aid to Pakistan after tweeting, “The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools.”
We’re still foolishly funding Jihadists, including the tens of thousands of members of the Palestinian Authority’s security forces, even after their leader, Abbas, called for the destruction of the White House.
CSIS doesn’t list the Islamic terror militias in the Terrorist Occupied Territories in Israel. That leaves the tens of thousands of Jihadists in Hamas, Fatah and other Palestinian Authority TOT terror groups out of the calculations. These groups are not just a threat to Israel. Hamas is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood and is backed by Iran. Its skills and resources are at the disposal of allied terror groups.
That’s how Iran’s Hezbollah assisted Al Qaeda in its preparations for 9/11. It’s why Iran is aiding the Taliban today. An Islamic terror group or terrorist anywhere is a link in a global terror network.
That is the understanding that made ISIS so deadly, striking from Iraq to Paris to New York.
Islamic terrorists are not a tiny minority of half a million. They are not an aberration. They are everywhere. And the failed foreign establishment funded and aided many of them.
Military interventions spread them, democratization brought them to power and immigration transplanted them from war zones into our countries. Their numbers have more than doubled in a decade. If the Left gets to set foreign policy again, in another generation there will be millions.
If we want to avert that outcome, our interventions, regime change and immigration policies must all objectively meet the test of making societies, including our own, less Islamist, not more so. Foreign aid should be barred by law from going to any country or militia whose goal is to establish Islamic theocracy by force. Any intervention must be objectively shown to make a society less bound to Islamic law. And immigration policy must be aimed at reducing the percentage of Islamists in the United States.
Otherwise the next Islamic civil war won’t be fought in Syria, but in the United States of America.


 Iraq War vet who called out social media censorship booted from Twitter
 Iraq War veteran and former Republican congressional candidate Jesse Kelly has been banned from Twitter for unclear reasons
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

Iraq War veteran and former Republican congressional candidate Jesse Kelly has been banned from Twitter for unclear reasons, becoming yet another conservative personality to be kicked from the platform.
Kelly’s account on Twitter was disabled on Sunday, drawing anger from many conservative commentators, as the ban was apparently affected with no prior notice.
A guessing game started about what might have prompted Kelly’s suspension, while liberal Twitter welcomed the move, accusing the Marine Corps vet of stoking violence.
Kelly was deployed to Iraq before retiring from the Marine Corps in 2004. In 2010, he ran as a Republican for the US House of Representatives seat in Arizona, losing to Democrat and gun control advocate Gabrielle Giffords by a single point.
In 2012, he attempted to secure the same seat in the Arizona special election, also without success.
Kelly is the host of “The Jesse Kelly Show” on a talk radio station in Houston.
The former Marine has been a frequent guest on Fox News, ironically predicting his Twitter ban in his latest appearance on Fox’s ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight,’ while talking about the suspension of right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones from Twitter and Facebook in August.
“That’s the point, Tucker. And they are coming for you and me next,” Kelly told Carlson. While disagreeing with Jones and calling him a “nutjob,” Kelly firmly believes free speech rules should apply to everyone.

In a column which Kelly wrote about the same time, he chastised moderate conservatives who were reluctant to decry Jones’ ban or even praised the move, warning that it is a slippery slope towards banning all opinions that stray from the mainstream.
Conservative Twitter has been incensed regarding the removal of Kelly’s profile page, with some denouncing the platform for stooping to a “new low” in suppressing right-wing opinions.

Jesse Kelly is a funny guy and a combat vet Marine, a man very dedicated to his country, his family, and his bit. What Twitter has done marks a new low for the platform.
“How can we discuss opinions and have discourse if they just ban ANYONE who is on the Right?” one user inquired.

Laura Loomer and Jesse Kelly banned in one weekend on Twitter.

How can we discuss opinions and have discourse if they just ban ANYONE who is on the Right?
Another pointed out that accounts that appear to glamorize pedophilia are still running.
However, there have also been many who cheered at the news.

This weekend Twitter banned Laura Loomer, Jesse Kelly & Liz Crokin

Twitter allows many pedophile accounts with LGBTQP, LGBTQ+, and MAP (Minor Attracted Persons) in their profile

Examples: @LLgbtqp @MacPhisto1996 @JMaltiere @ShiotaTheMap

Pls list others in comments & report!

Oh for God’s sake. I’m as liberal as they come. Jesse is a harmless guy who happens to be funny as hell, not to mention my friend. He did everything with a wink on here. If Twitter really banned him, that’s just stupid.

Now banned on Twitter: a woman is a biological woman.
Not banned on Twitter: the Jews are termites.@jack, you’re destroying your company.
It has been only a few days since Laura Loomer, another prominent conservative firebrand and conspiracy theorist, was pulled off Twitter after going on a rant over Democratic House Rep.-elect Ilhan Omar.


 China's Baby DNA Edit Threatens Humanity
 Science fiction has warned about this for decades
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
 Chinese scientists at the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, China are attempting to create the first gene-edited babies.

Utilizing CRISPR, they intend on eliminating a gene known as CCR5 and creating genetically modified babies resistant to HIV, smallpox, and cholera.
But does the bad outweigh the good?
Scientists worry that once a species is modified, it is changed forever.

How CRISPR lets us edit our DNA Jennifer Doudna

NOVEMBER 12, 2015: Geneticist Jennifer Doudna co-invented a groundbreaking new technology for editing genes, called CRISPR-Cas9. The tool allows scientists to make precise edits to DNA strands, which could lead to treatments for genetic diseases … but could also be used to create so-called "designer babies." Doudna reviews how CRISPR-Cas9 works — and asks the scientific community to pause and discuss the ethics of this new tool.


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

According to recently disclosed patents, Google is preparing to take “surveillance as a feature” to a whole new level, with devices in every room of users’ homes to watch, listen, and analyze users’ every word and action.
Promoting the new devices as a matter of convenience, as it has done with the Google Home speaker, the tech giant seems to expect that users will readily accept even more (and more detailed) surveillance for the promise of greater ease and convenience. The unevenness of that trade-off (something as precious as privacy for something as unimportant as convenience) is why this writer refers to such technology as “surveillance as a feature.”
While Google may have started out as a search engine and is still largely associated with that aspect of its business model, the reality is that Google’s main business (to which the search engine aspect is completely subservient) is data-mining and data analysis. Consider that the tech titan has amassed a net value of roughly $200 billion by offering “free” services, such as search, e-mail, calendar, and address book, along with YouTube and other services. That $200 billion has largely been made by gathering troves of personal data on its more than one billion users and leveraging that data into advertising revenues. The company also routinely filters and manipulates search results for the benefit of political candidates and policies favored by the company’s leaders.
The recently publicized patents reveal that the surveillance hawks at Google apparently don’t think enough is enough. In fact, those patents show that the new technology in Google’s offing blows past anything the company has done up to this point. The new technology includes the integration of cameras, microphones, and other sensors that would allow those devices to work together to monitor the comings and goings (using sensors on doors as well as cameras and microphones) of people in homes equipped (read: bugged) with the devices. The cameras and microphones would allow the devices and Google’s servers to recognize people and objects and analyze the significance of the presence of those people and objects. As PJ Media is reporting:
These patents tell us that Google is developing smart-home products that are capable of eavesdropping on us throughout our home in order to learn more about us and better target us with advertising. It goes much further than the current Google Home speaker that’s promoted to answer our questions and provide useful information, and the Google-owned Nest thermostat that measures environmental conditions in our home. What the patents describe are sensors and cameras mounted in every room to follow us and analyze what we’re doing throughout our home.
They describe how the cameras can even recognize the image of a movie star’s image on a resident’s t-shirt, connect it to the person’s browsing history, and send the person an ad for a new movie the star is in.
That degree of surveillance is far beyond anything found in the current state of “surveillance as a feature.”
As an indication of the thinking of the folks over at Google, the description for one of the patents begins by lamenting the lack of ability to use current “smart-devices” to accomplish the level of surveillance the company desires. The patent is explained in 258 paragraphs. Paragraph [0003] and [0004] state:
People interact with a number of different electronic devices on a daily basis. In a home setting, for example, a person may interact with smart thermostats, lighting systems, alarm systems, systems, and a variety of other electronic devices. Unfortunately, the usefulness of these devices often times is limited to basic and/or particular pre-determined tasks associated with the device.
As society advances, households within the society may become increasingly diverse, having varied household norms, procedures, and rules. Unfortunately, because so-called smart devices have traditionally been designed with pre-determined tasks and/or functionalities, comparatively fewer advances have been made regarding using these devices in diverse or evolving households or in the context of diverse or evolving household norms, procedures, and rules.
And paragraph [0006] says:
According to embodiments of this disclosure, a smart-home environment may be provided with smart-device environment policies that use smart-devices to monitor activities within a smart-device environment, report on these activities, and/or provide smart-device control based upon these activities.
So, the current state of “so-called smart devices” isn’t up to Google’s standard? Apparently, the only devices that qualify as “smart” to Google are those that allow the company to analyze your every conversation and movement throughout your home. To drive that home, paragraph [0072] spells out just how two of the processors in the device described by this patent would work together to accomplish the type of surveillance that meets Google’s standard for “smart devices.” It states:
By way of example, the high-power processor 20 and the low-power processor 22 may detect when a location (e.g., a house or room) is occupied (i.e., includes a presence of a human), up to and including whether it is occupied by a specific person or is occupied by a specific number of people (e.g., relative to one or more thresholds). In one embodiment, this detection can occur, e.g., by analyzing microphone signals, detecting user movements (e.g., in front of a device), detecting openings and closings of doors or garage doors, detecting wireless signals, detecting an internet protocol (IP) address of a received signal, detecting operation of one or more devices within a time window, or the like. Moreover, the high-power processor 20 and the low-power processor 22 may include image recognition technology to identify particular occupants or objects.
Paragraph [0125] explains how the devices would distinguish between voices to determine, for instance, that a room is occupied by an adult male, an adult female, or a female child based on the audio signatures of the voices. It goes on to state, “Video data may optionally be used to confirm or to help arrive at such conclusions.” And paragraph [0131] explains how the devices can use “facial recognition or other image-based recognition” along with “digital device presence (e.g., presence of electronic devices associated with a particular person), or other inputs ... associated with a particular household occupant or particular type of household occupant” to identify people.
Perhaps one of the most disturbing elements is found is paragraph [0185]. It describes the presence of sensors, cameras, and microphones in bathrooms to determine whether a person is brushing his teeth— based on “an audio signature and/or video signature” to measure such things as “the sounds and/or images of teeth brushing” and the sound of the sink being left on for the time it takes a person to brush their teeth.
Let that sink in for just a moment: sensors, cameras, and microphones in your bathroom? Remember that paragraph [0125] already discussed the fact that the devices can detect the presence of children. This means that the folks over at Google are already aware that there are children in the world. Those children take baths and showers. Google wants you to point a camera and a microphone at your children while they bathe?
And that is far from the only access to your children sought by Google. Another patent filed by Google discusses the tech company’s plans to monitor children as a type of digital nanny. As The Atlantic reported:
The second patent proposes a smart-home system that would help run the household, using sensors and cameras to restrict kids’ behavior. Parents could program a device to note if it overhears “foul language” from children, scan internet usage for mature or objectionable content, or use “occupancy sensors” to determine if certain areas of the house are accessed while they’re gone— for example, the liquor cabinet. The system could be set to “change a smart lighting system color to red and flash the lights” as a warning to children or even power off lights and devices if they’re grounded.
As bad as all of this is, Google makes sure to leave the door open for more. Early on, paragraph [0005] of the first patent states:
A summary of certain embodiments disclosed herein is set forth below. It should be understood that these aspects are presented merely to provide the reader with a brief summary of these certain embodiments and that these aspects are not intended to limit the scope of this disclosure. Indeed, this disclosure may encompass a variety of aspects that may not be set forth below.
So, Google — already pushing surveillance into new areas — reserves the “right” under this patent to push even further as new surveillance ideas enter the darkened minds of the leaders of the company whose motto was once, “Don’t be evil!

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

Lecrae, Carl Lentz, and Planned Parenthood all have one thing in common. They all endorse Stacey Abrams as a role model for young girls.
Abrams lost her race for Governor of George to pro-life Republican, Brian Kemp, no thanks to celebrities who came out to support her in droves. When Planned Parenthood endorsed the Democratic candidate, they pointed out her service on the NARAL Pro-Choice Georgia board and her pro bono legal work for young women who want abortions. Abrams also opposed a 20-week abortion ban during the 2012 legislative session, in which she voted to allow the murder of infants, while she was yet 9 months pregnant (she videotaped her speech for abortion so that it could be played when she went into labor).
This is a photo of Abrams being endorsed by Planned Parenthood below.
 Abrams is not a role model for little girls. She’s responsible for the deaths of little girls. She’s Margaret Sanger in black-face. There is nothing commendable about Stacey Abrams that can outweigh her wicked and evil support of abortion.
 Nonetheless, Oprah isn’t the only celebrity that has fawned over the now-defeated gubernatorial contender. Christian recording artist Lecrae also took time to pose for a photograph with the woman who wants to keep the wombs of American mothers a more dangerous environment than any slave ship to cross the Atlantic.
Posting to his Instagram account, Lecrae said:
Dear @staceyabrams, My daughter looks up to you and she’s 9. Not because she’s familiar with your stances and policies, but because you’re a highly educated woman of color who fights for what she believes in despite opposition. She sees that she can be more than what society says. Thank you.
Well, for starters, society said Stacey Abrams couldn’t be the governor of Georgia. So there’s that.
Secondly, Lecrae commends Abrams for fighting “for what she believes in” and apparently teaches his daughter that this is a commendable trait. This, of course, is sub-intellectual.
Jefferson Davis, the first (and only) president of the Confederate States of America, literally fought for what he believed in. Was it honorable?
Adolf Hitler, who gassed 6 million Jews and countless others, literally fought for what he believed in. Was it honorable?
Orval Faubus, as governor of Arkansas, challenged desegregation and the Little Rock Nine, and fought for what he believed in. Was it honorable?
Nathan Bedford Forrest was an early member of the Ku Klux Klan and was a general in the Confederacy, having fought for what he believed in. Was it honorable?
Of course, people of reasonable intellect know that “fighting for what you believe in” is not a good thing if what you believe in is a bad thing. In the case of Stacey Abrams, this includes the mass-infanticide of unborn black Americans in disproportionate numbers. That’s hardly a good thing. Honestly, it seems as wicked as any Civil War general ever was. In fact, considering that there is no record of any Confederate Civil War general having advocated for the death of infants or for the eugenic extermination of the ethnic Africans, it’s safe to say that Stacey Abrams ‘fighting for what she believes in’ is significantly worse.
For Lecrae, it seems that the primary reason his daughter (supposedly) looks up to Abrams as a role model is because of the color of her skin and her education. There are, of course, countless highly educated black women who don’t promote political policies that accord with the devil.
Lecrae was joined by Hillsong pastor, Carl Lentz, who similarly stated admiration for the pro-choice politico.

Lentz said, “Amazing! Women like this, I point my daughters to as well! God bless her.”
Carl Lentz has previously defended abortion on The View. After an uproar caused by polemics ministries reporting his words to the Christian public, Lentz back peddled. And yet, here Lentz says “God bless her” to refer to an exceedingly evil woman who is the opposite of the midwives God blessed in Egypt.
Some of Lecrae’s followers, however, took exception.

Lecrae employs here the tactics of Critical Race Theory and Marxist victimology, claiming that he’s “sad” someone has seen through the blackness of Abram’s skin into the blackness of her heart. Apparently, the lens through which Lecrae sees the pro-choice politician doesn’t have a moral filter, but one that stops at the surface-level. Lecrae’s lens is essentially amoral. He is judging someone by the color of their skin, and not the content of their character.
[Contributed by JD Hall]


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

[Chiapas, Mexico] Roman Catholics are persecuting evangelical Protestant Christians in Mexico. Among other things, like cutting off the water supply to their homes, the local government has now refused to let one family bury the body of their mother.
Authorities in the village of Ranchera Yocnajab (in the state of Chiapas) are refusing to let the woman be buried because her family has not participated in local Roman Catholic festivities. The family was told she would have to be buried outside the city limits, but other plots for burial aren’t readily available. Ultimately, she had to be buried in an altogether different town in Comitan.
The woman was a member of one of seventeen Protestant families who refuse to contribute to religious festivals of the Papists. In return, the town cut off their utilities and basic services.
Reportedly, it is the local Roman Catholic church in Ranchera Yocnajab that has convinced civil servants to persecute these believers. An organization that is designed to help protect persecuted Christians in Mexico Called Mission Agency 21 Gramos claims that city officials have signed illegal agreements to keep the Protestant believers from receiving these utilities and burial rights.
The Protestant believers have made complaints through all proper governmental channels, but they are repeatedly told to submit themselves to the local authorities and that it’s “what the majority has decided.” Without having the Mexican equivalent of a First Amendment right, the Protestant families have to suffer through a tyranny by the majority.
This is why nationalism designed to protect individual liberties in juxtaposition to Communitarianism, is so important for religious freedom.
The Human Rights Office of Mexico has acknowledged that the water to the family’s homes has been cut off, but has thus far not taken action.
[HT Evangelical Focus and Christian News Network]

ABOVE: Hillsong founder and pastor, Brian Houston
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

[9 News, Australia] Brian Houston, the founder of the Hillsong Church, is under investigation by New South Wales police over his handling of the sex crimes committed by his father Frank Houston.
Frank Houston was a Pentecostal pioneer, a leading Assemblies of God pastor who preyed on young boys in Australia and New Zealand in the 1960s and 1970s.
The first allegations of Frank Houston’s pedophilia emerged in the late 1990s, when Brian Houston was the Australian National President of the Assemblies of God, part of the largest Pentecostal denomination in the world.

In 2014, Brian Houston gave evidence before the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sex Abuse, which later found he had failed to take the matter to the police and had a conflict of interest in dealing with the complaints against his father.
It has emerged that in the wake of the Royal Commission’s findings, NSW Police began looking into his handling of his father’s crimes, an investigation that was suspended because of lack of evidence.
A NSW police spokesman said the investigation has been reopened and is now “current and active”.
Tonight on 60 Minutes, one of Frank Houston’s victims, Brett Sengstock, spoke for the first time of his abuse by Frank Houston as a seven-year-old boy and his ongoing quest for justice.
A key witness at the Royal Commission, where he was known only as ‘AHA’, Brett Sengstock gave up his anonymity to tell his story.
The video is below.

[Editor’s Note: This article was written by Garry McNab and first published at 9 News, title changed by P&P]
 Hillsong’s Pastor Tells Child Molestation Victim, 
“It’s Your Fault. You Tempted [Him].”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

[Canberra, Australia] The Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Australia is looking into Brian Houston’s cover-up of the sexual abuses of his father against church children. This has been widely reported, as covered by Pulpit & Pen and many other news sites. What’s not been widely reported yet is a startling accusation toward a sexual abuse victim by Hillsong founder, Brian Houston. The Royal Commission already censured Brian Houston for the sex-abuse cover-up back in 2015, but the latest revelations are truly tragic.
Brian Houston told a child sex abuse victim, “It’s your fault all this happened, you tempted my father.”
The commission received an account of Houston’s words under oath, and reportedly occurred as Houston was talking to his father’s victim, after his father had agreed to pay him 10 thousand dollars.
According to The Australian:
After the allegations became public within the church during 1999, Frank Houston met his victim offering him $10,000 and saying: “I want your forgiveness for this. I don’t want to die and have to face God with this on my head,” the commission heard.
Months later, when the money had not arrived, his victim called Frank Houston’s son Brian, who was then the national president of the Assemblies of God in Australia Pentecostal movement.
The victim said Brian told him: “You know, it’s your fault all this happened. You tempted my father.”
“Brian got very angry after that. He slammed the phone down after saying words to the effect of ‘You’ll be getting your money’,” the victim told the commission. He received a cheque for $10,000 about two weeks later.
Brian Houston has made a statement acknowledging the phone call with his father’s victim, but denies he said those words precisely.
 Australian Prime Minister Complicit in Covering Hillsong Pastor’s Criminal Behavior
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

[Independent Australia] The PM remains mute as his mentor, Pentecostal Pastor Brian Houston, is investigated for covering up child sexual abuse but demands Muslim leaders take responsibility for their communities’ criminal behaviour, writes Dr Jennifer Wilson.
IN HIS MAIDEN SPEECH, current Prime Minister Scott Morrison referred to evangelical Christian and Hillsong Church leader, Brian Houston, as his “mentor.”
The Prime Minister thanked Houston for his support and encouragement.
While Morrison no longer attends Hillsong he does attend Horizon, another Pentecostal church that along with Hillsong is affiliated with Australian Christian Churches — the Australian branch of the Assemblies of God.
In 2015, Brian Houston was censured by the Child Abuse Royal Commission for failing to report his father, Frank Houston, to police for the alleged sexual abuse of children in his church.
On Monday, three years after this censure, NSW Police confirmed that Brian Houston is being investigated by them after complaints that he failed to report his father’s crimes, instead, concealing them and urging church officials to refrain from publicly revealing the allegations in the interests of the institution’s reputation.

Hillsong Church is again under the spotlight as former member of the Pentecostal Assemblies of God Church accuses leader of Hillsong Church of covering up his Pastor father's sexual abuse over many years. 

 In May 2018, Catholic Archbishop Philip Wilson was found guilty in an NSW court of concealing child sexual abuse.
Abuse survivor Peter Gogarty said after the verdict:
“I think this will now open the doors for other jurisdictions to start looking at trying to prosecute people who deliberately looked after their institution and, literally, threw children to the wolves.”
It appears that Prime Ministerial mentor Brian Houston and the Hillsong Church may have “deliberately looked after their institution” and “thrown children to the wolves”. The current police inquiry will pursue this possibility.
Continue Reading >>