Saturday, January 5, 2019


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Oppose jihad? Then starve.
This is not hysterical. It’s coming. In some ways, it is already here. It has started with me, but it won’t end with me. Read on. And donate to Jihad Watch, a 501c3 organization, here, and get the book The History of Jihad here, while you still can. It is not at all outside the realm of possibility that you may not be able to do either in the very near future.

“Bokhari: The Terrifying Rise of Financial Blacklisting,” by Allum Bokhari, Breitbart, January 2, 2019:
It is the most totalitarian form of blacklisting: not just to be prevented from speaking on a university campus, or to be kicked off social media, but to be shut out of the entire financial system. That is the terrifying new threat to freedom that western societies must now contend with.
Financial blacklisting doesn’t just rob you of a chance to spread your message: it robs you of your ability to do business, your livelihood, your very means of functioning in a capitalist society. Thanks to the encroachment of progressive ideology into the financial industry — including major credit card companies like Visa, Discover, and Mastercard — it has now become a reality.
I first wrote about the rise of financial blacklisting in July, in a column for Breitbart News in which I highlighted the growing tendency of online financial platforms — as well as Visa and MasterCard — to deny service to customers for political reasons. I was surprised to receive a strongly worded comment from the liberal Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), who bluntly warned that banks and credit card companies had become “de facto internet censors.” That even liberal groups had raised the alarm signaled the seriousness of the problem.
Since then, financial blacklisting has only gotten worse. In August, Mastercard and Discover deplatformed conservative and Islam critic Robert Spencer. In the same month, Visa and Mastercard ceased service to David Horowitz. While credit card processing service to Horowitz was eventually restored, Spencer remains financially blacklisted.
Crowdfunding platforms like Patreon, which allow online content creators to collect donations from their supporters, are frequently cast as the primary villains in financial blacklisting. Patreon’s recent ban of YouTuber Carl Benjamin, better known by his moniker Sargon of Akkad, triggered a crisis for the platform. Both donors and creators — including prominent atheist Sam Harris — quit the platform in protest, while Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin pledged to create an alternative platform that is pro-free speech.
But Patreon and other crowdfunding platforms are not the real villains. They are dependent on the whims of the credit card companies, something that was already apparent in August when Mastercard forced them to withdraw service from Robert Spencer. We now know that the credit card companies were also a factor in Patreon’s decision to boot Benjamin.
YouTuber and Patreon creator Matt Christiansen recently released a transcript of his conversation with Jacqueline Hart of Patreon about Benjamin’s ban. Hart frankly admits that the sensibilities of credit card companies play a key role in Patreon’s decisions.
Here’s an excerpt of that transcript (emphasis ours):
JACQUELINE: The problem is is Patreon takes payments.  And while we are obviously supportive of the first amendment, there are other things that we have to consider. Our mission is to fund the creative class. In order to accomplish that mission we have to build a community of creators that are comfortable sharing a platform, and if we allow certain types of speech that some people would call free speech, then only creators that use Patreon that don’t mind their branding associated with that kind of speech would be those who use Patreon and we fail at our mission.  But secondly as a membership platform, payment processing is one of the core value propositions that we have. Payment processing depends on our ability to use the global payment network, and they have rules for what they will process.
MATT:  Are you telling me that this was Patreon’s decision then, or someone pressured you into this?
JACQUELINE:  No – this was entirely Patreon’s decision.
MATT:  Well then I don’t understand passing the buck off to somebody else.
JACQUELINE:  No, I’m not passing the buck off.  The thing is we have guidelines, but I’m trying to explain, #1 it is our mission to fund the creative class and obviously some people may not want to be associated.  
MATT:  Well if it’s your mission, then payment processors are irrelevant.  It’s your mission. That’s what you’re pursuing.
JACQUELINE:  We’re not visa and mastercard ourselves – we can’t just make the rules.  That’s what I’m saying – there is an extra layer there.
This “extra layer” places platforms like Patreon in an impossible position: abandon free speech or lose your ability to process payments. That’s also why so many free-speech alternatives to Patreon have failed: FreeStartr, Hatreon, MakerSupport, and SubscribeStar all tried to offer a more open platform, and were promptly dumped by the credit card companies. All are unable to do business.
This exposes the emptiness of establishment conservative arguments about the free market. Those who oppose Silicon Valley censorship aren’t allowed to just build their own alternative platforms. They must build their own global payment processing infrastructure to have any hope of restoring free speech online.
That, or they must find a way to stop Visa, Mastercard and Discover from taking advice from the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and Color of Change. The former was allegedly responsible for the blacklisting of Robert Spencer, while the latter claims to have removed 158 funding sources from “white supremacist sites” — although as the group won’t list what those sites are, we don’t know if they really are “white supremacist.” The far left typically includes regular Trump supporters under the label…


 Alex Newman is an international journalist, educator, and author, currently serving as foreign correspondent for The New American. He holds a B.S. degree in journalism with an emphasis on economics and international relations, as well as an A.A. degree in foreign languages. His work has been cited by major media outlets around the world. He is a frequent guest on radio shows, TV programs, and at conferences. His family currently splits their time between Europe and the U.S.
For more information on JBS visit: 
For more information on The New American, visit:

Alex Newman of JBS New American gives a short overview of the Deepstate and Globalist agenda


Premiered Dec 25, 2018

Alex Newman of JBS New American gives a short overview of the Deepstate and Globalist agenda, during one of our Christian gatherings in Lublin, Poland.


 “We’re not going to shirk our responsibility.”
republished below in full unedited, LESS OFFENSIVE TWEETS, for informational, 
educational and research purposes
Democrats have wasted little time in moving to impeach the President after taking office in the new year, with one new Congresswoman even declaring her desire to “go in and impeach the motherfucker.”
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Muslim Congresswoman from Michigan, was sworn in on Thursday, controversially taking her oath of office using a Quran.
According to reports, Tlaib quoted her son telling her, “Look mama you won. Bullies don’t win.”
Tlaib was said to reply in front of a MoveOn funded crowd “You’re right, they don’t. And we’re gonna go in and impeach the mother****er.”

Tlaib isn’t the only Democrat calling for Trump’s head. In addition to Tlaib’s comments, coming after Democrats officially took over the House, Democratic California Rep. Brad Sherman reintroduced articles of impeachment against Trump.

The resolution accuses the President of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” and claims that Trump “sought to use his authority to hinder and cause the termination of” investigations related to alleged Russian “collusion” during the 2016 campaign.
In addition, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) told Lawrence O’Donnell that “Donald Trump is either going to be impeached by the Congress, or impeached at the ballot box.”
“It’s really a race as to which one will happen first. I think for the sake of democracy, just as Speaker Pelosi said, I’d rather see it done at the ballot box, but we’re not going to shirk our responsibility.” Swalwell added.
Earlier Thursday, in an interview with NBC, new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to rule out the possibility of impeachment.
“Well we have to wait and see what happens with the Mueller report. We shouldn’t be impeaching for a political reason, and we shouldn’t avoid impeachment for a political reason. We just have to see how it comes,” Pelosi said.
In addition, Georgia Rep Hank Johnson, a Congressman voted most clueless by congressional staffers, delivered a speech comparing Trump to Hitler, and yesterday doubled down on the comments.
The Witch Hunt continues.
 “At Friendship Baptist Church in Atlanta, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) repeatedly compared President Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler” and referenced him as “racist strongman.”
This is the kind of propaganda that routinely used against the counter-jihad movement: branding those who oppose jihad terror as “racist” is as ridiculous as comparing Trump to Hitler. Hitler allied with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and murdered Jews during the Holocaust. Hank Johnson’s bizarre comparison is abhorrent. Trump has been a staunch ally and defender of Israel, the number-one target of jihadists. Trump moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and defunded  the UNRWA (United Nations Relief Works Agency). The UNRWA  is “an active part of perpetuating the conflict. UNRWA schools have become a hotbed of incitement against Israel, Jews and the West. UNRWA personnel have been caught time and again working hand in hand with Hamas, enabling terror tunnels to run under its institutions.”

 New Muslim Rep. Rashida Tlaib sworn in on Quran, says of Trump: 
“We’re going to impeach the motherf***er”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

Merely “hours after being sworn in as the first-ever Palestinian-American to serve in Congress, Michigan Democrat Rashida Tlaib used an expletive to describe US President Donald Trump and vowed to push for his impeachment.”
Tlaib brings into Congress a heavy-handed agenda that she has made no secret of, one that is vociferously anti-Trump and anti-Israel. Tlaib has also stated that she would “absolutely” vote against military aid to the Jewish state, which she knows full well is a jihadi target for obliteration. In fact, she seeks a one-state solution, which would destroy Israel as a homeland for Jews.
This new “Palestinian source of pridewas sworn in on the Quran, and then graciously stated of America’s Commander in Chief: “We’re gonna impeach the motherf****r.” Classy.

“Rashida Tlaib on Trump: We’re going to impeach that mother****er,” Times of Israel, January 4, 2019:
Hours after being sworn in as the first-ever Palestinian-American to serve in Congress, Michigan Democrat Rashida Tlaib used an expletive to describe US President Donald Trump and vowed to push for his impeachment.
Speaking at an event organized by progressive group MoveOn, Tlaib recounted a conversation she had with her son.
“‘Momma look you won. Bullies don’t win,’” she said he told her.
“And I said, ‘Baby they don’t, because we’re going to go in there and impeach the mother****er,” Tlaib continued to applause.
There was no immediate response from Trump, who is known for taking to Twitter to hit out at critics.
Placing her hand on a Quran that once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, Tlaib was sworn in earlier Thursday.
Together with Minnesota’s Ilhan Omar, Tlaib, an outspoken activist-cum-politician from Michigan, was one of the two first Muslim women to enter Congress Thursday, among dozens of freshman lawmakers who are helping make the 116th Congress the most diverse one in the nation’s history…..
 Rashida Tlaib (in red thobe and glasses), accompanied by her family, being sworn in with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (in pink dress), at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, January 3, 2019. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images/AFP)
 Rashida Tlaib (in red thobe and glasses), accompanied by her family, being sworn in with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (in pink dress), at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, January 3, 2019. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images/AFP)
 Hugh Fitzgerald: Rashida Tlaib and Jefferson’s Qur’an
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Rashida Tlaib, the newly-elected Democratic congresswoman from Michigan, was sworn in yesterday on the Qur’an once owned by Thomas Jefferson. She claims this Qur’an shows that “Muslims were there at the beginning.” The only thing that Jefferson’s Qur’an shows is that he was curious about all sorts of things, and that, among those things, was Islam. He apparently bought the Qur’an, in the 1734 translation by George Sale, when he was a young man studying law. We do not know when, or even if, he read the book. Rashida Tlaib may think Jefferson’s owning of the Qur’an was a sign of his respect for the faith. The facts suggest otherwise.
We do know that in March 1786, Jefferson and John Adams met in London with the ambassador from Tripoli, Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, to discuss Triopolitanian attacks on American shipping. When they inquired “concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury,” the ambassador replied:
“It was written in their Koran, (that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.”
Jefferson came away from that encounter convinced that the only language these Muslims understood was force, and that any payment to Tripoli, as Abdrarahman had demanded, in order to stop attacks on American shipping, would not work. Jefferson argued that paying tribute would only encourage more attacks. However, even those who agreed with Jefferson thought the American navy was ill-prepared to engage the ships of the Bashaw of Tripoli, and it was not until 1801, when Jefferson had become President, and turned down a demand from the Bashaw for tribute in order to exempt American shipping from Tripolitanian attacks, that the first Barbary War began.
Ever since his encounter in London with Abdrarahman in 1786, Jefferson had taken a dim, and realistic view, of Muslims. He understood that they attacked Christian shipping because they were convinced that they had both a right and a duty to do so. Possibly Rashida Tlaib does not know about his encounter with the envoy from Tripoli. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if among the reporters covering her swearing-in — and with many no doubt gushing over this “first Palestinian-American” member of Congress — there will be at least one intrepid reporter who will remind readers that the Qur’an Jefferson owned was one of 6,487 books his library ultimately included, that he had bought it as a young law student, and that there is no indication that he ever read it, much less ever mentioned it respectfully. Further, Jefferson’s own pugnacity toward the Muslim rulers of North Africa, and his refusal to countenance the payment of tribute to the Bashaw of Tripoli, which led to the First Barbary War, have their roots in his first encounter with a Muslim, the Tripolitanian envoy in London, Sidi Hajj Abdrarahman, who, when Jefferson asked him the reason why Tripoli’s sailors attacked Americans who had done nothing to them, coolly explained that: “It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.”
Let’s hope that that important part of Jefferson’s own education in Islam is faithfully reported, especially because of the tendentious political use to which his Qur’an is being put, and not for the first time — Keith Ellison also made a big deal about being sworn in on “Jefferson’s Qur’an.” Americans deserve to know what Jefferson thought both of Islam as a creed, and of Muslims as self-declared enemies (“it was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners…”) of the young Republic. Even Rashida Tlaib could benefit from such a history lesson. It might just dampen her enthusiasm for Jefferson, as she finds out more about our third President.
Finally, it is pleasant to think that among Congressional islamocritics, there might be one who will be bold enough to ask to be sworn in on the Bible that once belonged to John Quincy Adams, in order, that islamocritic could explain, “to pay tribute to the acuity of our most learned President, John Quincy Adams, the defender of the Amistad slaves, and a formidable student of Islam whose views on the faith deserve to be better known among Americans today.”

  Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
(Friday Church News Notes, January 11, 2019,,, 866-295-4143) - Rashiba Tlaib, newly elected Democratic congresswoman from Michigan, was sworn into Congress last week on a Quran owned by Thomas Jefferson. She said, “It’s important to me because a lot of Americans have this kind of feeling that Islam is somehow foreign to American history. Muslims were there at the beginning. … Some of our founding fathers knew more about Islam than some members of Congress now ... My faith has centered me. The prophet Mohammed was always talking about freedom and justice” (“Detroit congresswoman to use Jefferson’s Koran,” Detroit Free Press, Dec. 19, 2019). Tlaib is right that some of the founding fathers knew more about Islam than some members of Congress today, but not in the way that she assumes. As soon as America gained independence from Britain, Muslim pirates had begun seizing American merchant ships and enslaving the crews for ransom. In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were sent to London to negotiate with Tripoli’s ambassador, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja. When asked why the Muslims attacked nations that “had done them no injury,” Adja replied, “It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once” (Thomas Jefferson Papers, Series 1 1651-1827, Library of Congress). The Barbary pirates cited the Koran as their authority for attacking, brutalizing, and enslaving anyone who is not submitted to Allah. In 1795, America paid $1 million for the release of 115 sailors, an amount that was one-sixth of the U.S. budget. The pirates demanded an annual payment of the same amount. When Jefferson was elected America’s second president in 1801, he and his fellow citizens were of no mind to accept bullying and blackmail. The U.S. Navy was built to protect America against Muslim pirates. One of the most memorable acts of the Barbary War was in 1805 when a force of eight U.S. Marines and 400 Greek and Arab mercenaries, led by U.S. Navy Lieutenant William Eaton, force-marched across 600 miles of desert from Alexandria, Egypt, to capture the city of Derne (or Derna) on the shores of Tripoli. This is memorialized in the U.S. Marine Hymn. By 1816, the Barbary states were forced to cease attacking American and British ships, and this was accomplished by force of arms.
 New Muslim Rep. Rashida Tlaib celebrates 
with Linda Sarsour, puts “Palestine” on office map
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
 Apparently “Palestine” is somewhere north of Cairo, but precision wasn’t
 what whoever did this was after. These two photos are a solid 
indication of what kind of Representative Rashida Tlaib is going to be: 
one who represents far-Left interests of stoking racial hatred, 
demanding entitlements, and vilifying U.S. ally Israel. Of course, no 
one has ever had any reason to suspect that she was going to do anything
Someone has already made a slight alteration to the map that hangs in Rashida Tlaib’s new congressional office.

US Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib shines in a traditional Palestinian dress (Thobe) as she prepares to be sworn in today as the first congresswoman of a Palestinian origin. (pic via @HannahAllam)
 Antisemitic tweet from Muslim Rep. Rashida Tlaib: Accuses pro-Israel Americans of 
“dual loyalty” over BDS
 Alhamdulillah: For Ilhan Omar, All Praise Be To Allah For Her Victory (Part One)
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
A tweet from Ilhan Omar to her “sister” Rashida Tlaib right after the elections:

Congratulations to my sister @RashidaTlaib on your victory!

I cannot wait to serve with you, inshallah. 🙏🏾
Why is Rashida Ilhan’s “sister”? And why was it that Ilhan Omar “cannot wait” to serve with her? Because they are both Muslims. That’s enough to make them “sisters.” That’s more than enough.
Ilhan Omar, one of the first two Muslim women elected to the U.S. Congress, began after her election by treating her audience at her victory speech to a dance performance by fellow Somali-Americans, before giving the universal Islamic greeting with which her victory speech began.
“As-salaam aleikum,” the Democrat said to a crowded room of supporters during her victory party in Minneapolis, using an Islamic phrase that means “Peace be upon you.”
“Wa aleikum salaam,” the crowd immediately replied, which means “and upon you be peace.”
After the exchange, which echoes the way millions of American Muslims greet each other every day, Omar offered her gratitude to God.
“Alhamdulillah,” Omar said three times, a phrase that translates to “all praise to God.”
Hearing that, her supporters erupted in cheers.
Omar’s win in Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District means Congress will soon have its first hijab-wearing member, its first refugee and its first Somali-American.
The common Islamic phrases in Omar’s speech were a poignant moment for many American Muslims ― especially after an election cycle filled with Islamophobic attacks against Muslim candidates running for election.
Hearing Omar use the Islamic phrases in the acceptance speech felt affirming, authentic and relatable, Margaret Hill, managing director of the Muslim Anti-Racism Collaborative, told HuffPost.
“For any Muslim who draws on their faith for strength, these are natural phrases,” Hill said. “They are everyday phrases. I see a Muslim, I give them that greeting. I often say it when I address a crowd.”
Muslims’ practice of exchanging blessings upon meeting is rooted in Islamic scriptures.
It’s also not at all uncommon for Christian politicians to use religious language to give thanks, with phrases like, “praise God,” and “to God be the glory.”
Hill said that saying “Alhamdulillah” is an act of humility for Muslims.
“We don’t bat an [eye] when Christians reference their faith in victory speeches, in moments of silence, or opening prayers,” Hill said. “If we as Muslims are questioned for using phrases which are part of our daily life, then that speaks a lot to the climate of anti-Muslim bigotry.”
But these phrases deserve to be questioned. “As salaam aleikum” is a phrase uttered by Muslims to other Muslims; it is not ordinarily meant to be addressed to non-Muslims. And the phrase “alhamdulillah,” which means “praise be to Allah,” is an example of Islam’s inshallah-fatalism: praising Allah for whatever Allah wills, for Allah Knows Best.
Hearing Omar open her acceptance speech by wishing blessings to her supporters and thanking God is “no different than hearing other members of Congress or public figures thank God for their successes,” Hoda Hawa, director of policy and advocacy at the Muslim Public Affairs Council, told HuffPost.
It’s very different. Does Hoda Hawa know many Christian “members of Congress” who send greetings, but only to their fellow Christians, as Ilhan Omar was doing when she greeted only fellow Muslims with her “as-salaam aleikum”? And how many “Christian politicians” nowadays thank not their families, supporters, party, but God (“praise be to God”) for their electoral successes?
Hawa said Omar’s election ensures that diverse American communities are represented in Congress.
There have already been two Muslim members of Congress; now there are three: Andre Carson, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar, who ran for the seat being vacated by the first Muslim member of the House, Keith Ellison. But there is one “American community” that is “not represented in Congress” today at all — the Christian refugees from Muslim lands. These refugees, mainly from Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Pakistan, have been on the receiving end of Islamic intolerance. Their experience of Islam, and understanding of the Jihad, need to be heard in Congress. Perhaps in 2020 there will be such a candidate.
“Her presence is an inspiration for young American Muslims who seek to become more politically engaged,” [Hoda Hawa] told HuffPost.
Slate reporter Aymann Ismail wrote in a post that he felt “transported” after hearing Omar use the Islamic phrases.
“As the child of Muslim immigrants myself, for years, every vote I cast for a national candidate felt mostly like a vote against whoever I thought was more likely to stoke hatred against Americans like me,” Ismail wrote.
This self-pitying victimization — this claim of anxiety about which candidate was more likely “to stoke hatred against Americans like me” — infuriates, especially because there has been almost no such “stoking of hatred against Americans” like Aymann Ismail, that is, Muslims. The mainstream media largely support Islam and Muslims, labeling sober islamocritics as islamophobes, and helping to keep the contents of the Qur’an and Hadith more or less under wraps, lest knowledge of their contents lead to a widespread revulsion with Islam. That media has gone into overdrive in its celebrating the victories of the “first two Muslim women to have been elected to Congress.”
“In Omar, I see a congresswoman who not only sees the world the way I do, but whose presence alone will remind Congress that I too am American, and so are all American Muslims.”
How does Aymann Ismail know that  Ilhan Omar “sees the world the way” he does? Because they are both Muslims, and for him that shared identity effaces all other differences. And notice his allusion to the (non-existent) mistreatment of Muslims who, he claims, have hitherto not been recognized as real Americans, but who now, thanks to Omar’s victory, everyone in Congress will be reminded that we Muslims are Americans, too. But why does Aymann Ismail think anyone in Congress needs to be reminded that Muslims are “American citizens too”? They already have had  Keith Ellison and Andre Carson as fellow members of the House, the former having served for more than ten years. Surely that’s enough of a reminder that Muslims “are American citizens too.”

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
It is as predictable as the sun rising in the East every morning — a Democrat member of Congress from Tennessee, Steve Cohen, has introduced a constitutional amendment to eliminate the Electoral College on the first day of the new Congress. Cohen’s amendment would provide for the direct election of both the president and the vice president of the United States by a national, rather than a state-by-state, popular vote.
Cohen, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, issued a statement explaining why he wishes to change the method of presidential election crafted by the framers of the Constitution: “In two presidential elections since 2000, including the most recent one in which Hillary Clinton won 2.8 million more votes than her opponent, the winner of the popular vote did not win the election because of the distorting effect of the outdated Electoral College. Americans expect and deserve the winner of the popular vote to win office. More than a century ago, we amended our Constitution to provide for the direct election of U.S. Senators. It is past time to directly elect our President and Vice President.”
Cohen’s proposal to ditch the system of presidential election found in the Constitution is a symptom of the desire of many on the Left to change our system of government from a federal republic into a unitary democracy. The framers of the Constitution were not looking to create a government to insure that the will of the majority prevailed in all matters, but rather were desirous of providing the “blessings of liberty” to themselves and to those Americans would come after them. If making sure the will of the majority prevailed was the goal, then the Bill of Rights, and indeed, the Constitution itself would be superfluous.
The United States was a creation of the 13 states that had entered into a military alliance to successfully secede from the British Empire. They did not liked being ruled by a far-off distant government regarding what they considered local matters, and they had no desire to put in place another such national government in America. Instead, they created a federal system of government, with most governmental powers reserved to the states.
As was the case with Congress, in which one house (the House of Representatives) would represent the people directly, giving some states more representation because of their larger population, and another house (the Senate) which would represent each state equally, the mode of presidential election was a compromise. Each state legislature would develop its own method of choosing electors (the number of which would be determined by each state’s total congressional representation, House and Senate), who would in turn elect the president.
Alexander Hamilton said the way the president was to be elected under the Constitution was certainly not perfect, but it was “excellent.” Writing in The Federalist, No. 83, Hamilton said, “The mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents.”
Can one imagine a presidential election conducted by a national popular vote, instead of the present system, using the Electoral College? As we saw in Florida in the last mid-term election, and in 2000, with the presidential election, much opportunity for mischief in ballot counting exists. With the Electoral College, this mischief is at least limited to one state. Were the United States to have a national election in which one candidate won by only a few thousand votes, it is doubtful that a recount would even be possible. Naturally, an election by direct popular vote would require the creation of an election process controlled by the federal government, not by the states.
Cohen’s proposal illustrates that there is a significant number of people who simply do not like the work of the Founding Fathers, which should cause those who are conservative and are advocating for an Article V Constitutional Convention to change course. The same electorate that just turned control of the House of Representatives to Steve Cohen and Nancy Pelosi is the same electorate that would elect delegates to any convention considering amendments to the Constitution.
There is no question that the Electoral College would be in the crosshairs at any such constitutional convention. So would the Second Amendment. For that matter, given the opportunity, many would like to undo the Constitution itself, and replace it with something less restrictive of their ability to expand the power, size, and scope of the government in D.C.
Not content with the prospect of scrapping the Electoral College, Representative Cohen wants to restrict the pardoning powers of the president, as well: He introduced a second proposed amendment to limit the pardoning powers of the president. These pardoning powers were given to the president as a check on the judicial branch — part of the system of checks and balances the Founders created when they adopted the Constitution.
“Presidents should not pardon themselves, their families, their administration or campaign staff. This constitutional amendment would expressly prohibit this and any future president, from abusing the pardon power,” Cohen said in his statement.
The fact is, those people are likely partisan targets of judicial misconduct, yet Cohen wants to give the courts unlimited powers, unchecked by the power of a presidential pardon, in this area. It is obvious that Cohen wants to target President Trump.
Fortunately, the Founders wisely made it difficult to make such fundamental changes to the basic law of the country, requiring a consensus that such a change should be made. All 27 amendments to the Constitution have come after a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress, followed by ratification from three-fourths of the states. This makes such partisan efforts as Cohen’s highly unlikely.
But a national convention, called to consider amendments to the Constitution, would be under no such two-thirds restriction. A simple majority of the delegates (chosen by the same electorate that has given us our present Congress) could propose any amendment they wish — including the abolition of the Electoral College, the Second Amendment, or indeed, the Constitution itself.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
 Donald Trump At National Rifle Association (NRA) Conference (5/20/2016)
 Donald Trump At National Rifle Association (NRA) Conference (5/20/2016)
New York – -( When Trump called for a ban on “Bump Stocks,” he ignored his pledge to support the Second Amendment; capitulating completely to the antigun crowd.
As if the Republican controlled Senate’s failure to enact national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation and President Trump’s failure to push forward a pro-Second Amendment agenda during his first two years in Office weren’t bad enough—a serious failure of omission on the part of both the U.S. Senate and the PresidentTrump’s ban on“bump stocks”—an act of commission—is even worse. By foolishly, impetuously, acting to ban “bump stocks,” the President demonstrates a dangerous naivety and ineptitude, along with a disturbingly blithe lack of concern for the well-being of the fundamental, immutable, unalienable, inviolate right of the American  people to keep and bear arms. Trump is obviously oblivious to the deleterious impact his unilateral action shall have—not simply may have—on the Second Amendment itself.
President Trump’s failure to cajole Congress to action, to strengthen our most cherished and important right, is unacceptable. That failure deserves our condemnation. But undermining our most cherished right is alarming and unforgivable. That deserves our lasting contempt. With the radical Left urging Democratic Party House members to impeach Trump, upon issuance of the Special Counsel’s, Robert Mueller’s, report that is due out at any time now, the President can ill afford to antagonize his own base; but Trump has done just that with his flagrant attack on the Second Amendment.
Trump should have left the matter of bump stocks to Congress. Congress, acting through its Article 1 legislative power, can, conceivably, lawfully, take such action to ban them, if it sought to do so, assuming—a big “if”—that the law, depending on the matter of its statutory construction, does not run afoul of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But it is not for the President to take that action upon himself under any set of circumstances. We have a system of checks and balances in our Country, and for good reason.
Congress makes the law. That power is within the province of Congress, not the President. The President’s duty is to faithfully execute the laws Congress enacts. Under our Constitution, the President has no authority to make binding law, in lieu of Congress. Unlike Great Britain and Australia, the Chief Executive has no authority to self-execute laws. The President does not serve as both Chief Executive and Legislator in Chief.”
We have seen how Obama had shown a marked, carefree proclivity to ignore the federal Government’s system of “checks and balances” that the founders of our Republic wisely conceived of and assiduously placed into our Constitution. As Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, makes crystal clear, it is the province of Congress to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Obama, as President, and, no less a lawyer and academician, knew this. Yet, that did not prevent him from unlawfully promulgating and implementing his infamous, illegal “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA), policy, along with the concomitant mess it left for his successor, President Trump.
What was Obama’s motive for DACA? As he said, as reported to the Leftist media echo chamber, CNN:  “… for years while I was President, I asked Congress to send me such a bill. That bill never came. “Let’s be clear: the action taken today isn’t required legally. It’s a political decision, and a moral question.” Obama proselytized to Americans, talking down to us as if we were children, suggesting that it is he, Obama, “the Great Father,” who shall teach us all what we ostensibly need to know about law, politics, and morality too, audaciously exclaiming that, as Congress didn’t give Obama what he wants—he—Barack Obama, will make law himself!
Obama’s remarks are a textbook example of propaganda, disseminated to the public by an insincere Press. It is bombastic, simplistic, perfunctory rhetoric; absolute drivel. Obama certainly knew it; and so should Press. This smug, duplicitous attitude on the part of both Obama and the Press serves to make Obama’s remarks and the mainstream media’s reporting of them all the more diabolical and reprehensible.
One salient, critical duty of the Chief Executive of the Nation, set down in Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” The laws the President is duty-bound to faithfully execute the laws Congress enacts. The President has no power to issue personal edicts, suggesting they have the force of Congressional law, when in fact they don’t, and cannot ever have. As Article 1, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution makes abundantly and absolutely clear: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” There is nothing in Article 1 or in any other Article of the U.S. Constitution reciting that legislative powers, of some sort or another, also vest in the President. Such powers do not invest in the President; only in Congress.
The U.S. Constitution Consists of Fundamental Precepts; Not Simple Platitudes.
Trump, as with Obama before him, has begun to demonstrate a disturbing propensity to ignore precepts of the U.S. Constitution, when he wishes to do so, unmoved by the dictates of either the Constitution or his conscience. His unilateral action banning bump stocks was a calculated move. It is obvious why he took this action. He evidently felt the general public supported it—more of those in favor of it than not. He caved to public pressure to deliver something to the public, because of the worst mass shooting ever to occur in our Nation and an unthinkable tragedy that happened to occur on his watch. That may appear as reason enough to act by some, but Trump should not have fallen prey to the frenzy of the moment, and with such apparent alacrity, abandon, and smug self-assurance.
The continued existence of the natural, fundamental rights set forth in the Bill of Rights are not properly to be left to public whim, and never have been. Public opinion is easily manipulated and ever changeable. The founders of our Republic didn’t intend for the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people to be weakened by mere heat and rancor of a given moment in time. That ought to be clear enough to most Americans if they stop to consider this. It should be clear enough to Congress. And it should be clear enough to the President, too; but apparently it wasn’t. Having taken the action to ban bump stock devices, President Trump did nothing to make this Nation safer. Having bowed to political pressure–something he is, often and admirably enough, not ordinarily inclined to do, but did so in this instance–he reneged on a salient campaign promise he made to millions of Americans, namely that he, like they, fervently and reverently hold the Nation’s Second Amendment in the highest regard, and that he will do his best to preserve and strengthen it. Yet, a ban on bump stock devices does no such thing. Rather, it makes a mockery of Trump’s promise to the American people. Worse, taking the action he did to usurp Congressional authority and prerogative to make law, Trump did much more than simply undermine a campaign pledge; he undermined the very Constitution he swore an oath to preserve and to protect. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution makes plain that,
“Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:—‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’”
Trump did not faithfully execute the office of President of the United States by making up his own law. He doesn’t preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States when he takes upon himself–as did his predecessor Barack Obama–the role the framers of the Constitution reserved alone to Congress, namely the authority to make law. And, Trump certainly doesn't preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, when he undermines the fundamental, immutable, unalienable rights and liberties of the American people as codified in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. 
Whether operating through grandiose self-delusion or blatant deceit, a Chief Executive, who fails to adhere to the limitations on his authority, as our Constitution dictates and mandates, significantly threatens the continued well-being of a free Republic. Under no set of circumstances can suspension or abrogation of our Constitution ever be justified.
*We urge all Americans, who support the Second Amendment, to sign the Petition, to overturn the ATF Rule that bans “bump stocks.”

Arbalest Quarrel
About The Arbalest Quarrel:
Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel' website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.
For more information, visit:
 Trump’s School Safety Commission Begs States 
for Red Flag Laws


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
This new Glazov Gang edition features the Brannon Howse Moment with Brannon Howse, the producer of the movie, “Sabotage.” [Visit]
Brannon unveils The Marxist Revolution in the USA, taking us Inside the Left’s Vicious War on America.
Don’t miss it!
[Jamie Glazov will be speaking at Beverly Hills Hotel on Feb. 6 about his new book: Jihadist Psychopath: How He Is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us. Register HERE. Order the book HERE.]
Subscribe to the Glazov Gang‘s YouTube Channel and follow us on Twitter: @JamieGlazov.
Please donate through our Pay Pal account.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
 An Italian newspaper has called on the Catholic Church to excommunicate 
Matteo Salvini, alleging that he flouts Catholic teaching on social justice.
Salvini has been the target of many attacks from those in the Catholic Church who uphold the globalist open-door agenda. Church representatives have demonstrated their animosity toward him on numerous occasions, calling him “anti-Christ” and “minister of the devil,” while ostensibly preaching love and kindness (through an open-door immigration policy) at the same time.
Their venom has been ongoing. Over the summer, the Guardian reported that Italian Catholic priests were slamming Salvini over his “anti-economic migrant stance, as racist and xenophobic.” One priest, Gianfranco Formenton, even “put a sign up on the door of his church” against those opposed to mass migration, saying: “Racists are forbidden from entering. Go home!”
Salvini responded:
Perhaps the priest prefers smugglers, slaveholders and terrorists.
As expected, the globalist members of the Catholic Church cannot respond to this challenge:
In point of fact, Church doctrine does not encourage politicians to indiscriminately welcome migrants but recognizes their right and duty to regulate immigration for the benefit of the common good.
“Newspaper Calls on Catholic Church to ‘Excommunicate’ Salvini,” by Thomas D. Williams, Breitbart, December 31, 2018:
An Italian newspaper has called on the Catholic Church to excommunicate Matteo Salvini, alleging that he flouts Catholic teaching on social justice.
Il Fatto Quotidiano published an article Saturday saying that according to Canon Law Mr. Salvini should be excommunicated because of his attacks on the Church’s representatives and disregard for doctrine.
Salvini responded to the article on Twitter saying the suggestion he should be excommunicated as an unworthy Catholic had reached the point of “comedy.”
“Fewer departures, fewer landings, fewer deaths, and less business for swindlers and mafiosos. Simple no?” Salvini said. “What do you say, tomorrow I can go to Mass..??”
In point of fact, Church doctrine does not encourage politicians to indiscriminately welcome migrants but recognizes their right and duty to regulate immigration for the benefit of the common good.
The record also shows that it has been Catholic prelates, priests, and organizations that have attacked Mr. Salvini, rather than the other way around, calling him everything from Satan to the antichrist.
Last week, an Italian priest railed against supporters of Salvini and his efforts to combat illegal immigration, calling them “insignificant Christians.”
In what Italian media referred to as the “umpteenth attack against Matteo Salvini,” Father Enrico d’Ambrosio, a priest from a parish in the northern Italian town of Campagnola, used his church pulpit last week to assail Mr. Salvini, saying that “anyone who does not welcome [migrants] and votes for that party that closes ports even on Christmas Eve is an insignificant Christian.”
The priest’s words referred to the decision by Mr. Salvini to refuse to allow the Spanish NGO vessel Open Arms to disembark the 311 African migrants it had picked up near the coast of North Africa.
“My answer is clear: Italian ports are closed!” Salvini Tweeted. “For human traffickers and those who help them, the party is over.”
During a homily in Saint Peter’s Basilica last summer, one Catholic priest referred to Salvini as the “antichrist” and urged the police to practice “civil disobedience to block the deportation of persons back to countries where their lives are at risk.”….






 The Rev. Johnnie Moore, a commissioner with the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, speaks at the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's Jalsa Salana event in Alton, Hampshire, England, on Aug. 4, 2018. Photo courtesy of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community

 Being Unequally Yoked



 What does the Bible say?

1. Amos 3:3 Do two walk together, unless they have agreed to meet?
2. 2 Corinthians 6:14 Don’t team up with those who are unbelievers. How can righteousness be a partner with wickedness? How can light live with darkness?
3. Ephesians 5:7 Therefore do not become partners with them.
4. 2 Corinthians 6:15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?
5. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
6. 2 Corinthians 6:17 Therefore, “Come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.”
7. Isaiah 52:11 Depart, depart, go out from there! Touch no unclean thing! Come out from it and be pure, you who carry the articles of the LORD’s house.
8. 2 Corinthians 6:16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.”

 Christian leader meets Middle East rulers: “We want what it was like when Muhammad was alive, a pluralistic region”

BY ROBERT SPENCER; SEE:; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

 Says Johnnie Moore: “All we want is for what it was like when the Prophet Muhammad himself was alive, which was a very pluralistic region. There were Christians and Jews, there were synagogues and there were churches.”

Yes, but what happened to them?
According to Islamic tradition, there were three Jewish tribes in Medina when Muhammad moved there: the Banu Qurayzah, Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir. Muhammad exiled the Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir, massacred the Banu Qurayza after they (understandably) made a pact with his enemies during the pagan Meccans’ siege of Medina, and then massacred the exiles at the Khaybar oasis, giving Muslims even today a bloodthirsty war chant: “Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, the army of Muhammad will return.”
A hadith depicts Muhammad saying: “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.” (Sahih Muslim 19.4366)
This is why the Saudis allow no non-Muslim religious observance in their domains.
If Johnnie Moore thinks Muhammad offers a pluralistic model for Muslim countries to emulate today, he has been reading too much deceptive Islamic apologetics, and is whistling in the dark.

“Evangelicals Seek Detente With Mideast Muslim Leaders As Critics Doubt Motives,” by Jerome Socolovsky, NPR, January 2, 2019 (thanks to Magdi):
In recent months, evangelical Christian leaders have been traveling to the Middle East to meet with rulers of Islamic countries and with Muslim clergy.
The participants say the meetings — especially one they had in November with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman — are unprecedented, and aimed at promoting religious freedom in the region.
Johnnie Moore, a public relations consultant and a former vice president of Liberty University, has been on many of the trips. He says they are not about easing the way for Christian missionaries, as some critics allege.
“All we want is for what it was like when the Prophet Muhammad himself was alive, which was a very pluralistic region,” he says. “There were Christians and Jews, there were synagogues and there were churches.”
The evangelicals have also had audiences with Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed al Nahyan of the United Arab Emirates, President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan….
 Still No Churches in Saudi Arabia, But Small Steps Toward Religious Freedom
Still No Churches in Saudi Arabia, But Small Steps Toward Religious Freedom

US envoy celebrates “unprecedented” progress under the promise of more moderate Muslim rule.

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
 Saudi Arabia has made unprecedented strides toward religious tolerance just a year 
after its young new ruler pledged to bring more moderate Islam to the Sunni 
After a visit to the capital city of Riyadh last week, US officials reported the country has reformed its religious police—once tasked with enforcing shari’ah law on the streets and in homes—and has instituted new government programs to quash extremism.
“I was surprised by the pace of change in the country. It reminded me of the verse at the end of Book of Job which says, ‘My ears had heard ... but now my eyes have seen,’” said US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) commissioner Johnnie Moore, who has also served as an unofficial liaison between evangelical leaders and the Trump White House.
“It was the first time I have ever thought to myself, Wow, we could actually see religious freedom in Saudi. This is possible.”
Moore represents the highest-profile evangelical leader to meet with the Saudi government since 33-year-old Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman announced plans last October to return the restrictive Muslim country to “what we were before: a country of moderate Islam that is open to all religions and to the world.” The USCIRF official formerly worked with Mark Burnett and Roma Downey’s campaign to aid persecuted Christians in the Middle East.
Fewer than 5 percent of the 32 million people living in Saudi Arabia are Christians, according to Pew Research, and the kingdom ranks No. 12 among countries where it is hardest to follow Jesus, according to Open Doors. Likewise the State Department, at USCIRF’s recommendation, has designated Saudi Arabia a “country of particular concern” since 2004 due to its egregious religious freedom violations.
The government still does not sanction churches or any form public worship by non-Muslims, but progress is being made toward allowing private worship and protecting the rights of minority faiths.
As the conservative Muslim nation instituted new social reforms—including lifting its infamous ban on women driving—bin Salman has recently hosted a string of Christian leaders.
“It should not be lost on us that the Crown Prince has—in the last six months alone—met with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Maronite Patriarch, and met with the Coptic Pope in Cairo and that meeting took place in front of wall-sized piece of art honoring Jesus,” Moore told CT.
“There was also a very prominent visit by the recently deceased Cardinal Tauran [a Vatican diplomat] where he signed a joint agreement to promote peaceful coexistence with the General Secretary of the World Muslim League, Dr. al-Issa.”
During their visit, Moore and fellow USCIRF commissioner Nadine Maenza met with leaders across the government, including the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, which promotes Islamic moral code.
According to Moore, the commission—once the greatest barrier to private worship—no longer has authority to go into people’s homes or to make arrests. He said Christians in Saudi Arabia have already felt the effects of the reform under bin Salman and support the changes.
Additionally, the USCIRF delegation met with the government ministries tasked with cracking down on religious extremism by establishing educational programs and monitoring teaching in mosques. Under a Muslim constitution, Saudi Arabia continues to have laws against apostasy and conversion, though there a signs they may be becoming less strict in their implementation.
The changes now coming to Saudi Arabia have been anticipated for over a year. “The days of a religious monopoly in Saudi Arabia are over,” Daoud Kuttab, a Christian Palestinian journalist, told CT last fall, noting mixed motivations—social and economic—for the changes. “No more pushing Islam down every citizen’s throat.”
Some of the reforms are obvious already. “I saw women driving, some guardianship rules being rolled back, and women and men increasingly mixing in public venues, including at a Cirque du Soleil concert in Riyadh,” Commissioner Maenza said in a press release.
“The question we continue to assess is whether this opening is extending to other parts of the country and the degree to which these reforms are impacting freedom of religion or belief in a country that still—for instance—officially bans public worship unless it is the state-sanctioned practice of Islam.”
Moore, for one, is hopeful. He wrote to CT days after the trip:
I am optimistic for a Saudi Arabia where Muslims, Christians and others can freely and openly worship, living as neighbors, their children as friends with no fear of one another and, in fact, great joy from knowing one another.
I’m praying for a day when I can travel to Saudi Arabia to proudly and publicly celebrate Christmas or Easter on a peninsula whose Islamic faith and culture owes, by its own admission, a great debt to “people of the book,” which preceded it.
For the first time in my life, and in my advocacy for religious freedom, I believe this could be possible and maybe even sooner than we expect. I am also realistic about the challenges involved, but—so far—I do believe they are sincere in their ambitions to moderate and modernize.
Over the summer, USCIRF commissioners also spoke out on behalf of religious minorities in Pakistan, including Ahmadi Muslims and Christians, pledging to prioritize religious freedom and promote peace in that region as well.
Why Rev. Johnnie Moore Is Praising This Muslim-Majority Nation as a 'Model' for Other Countries
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Rev. Johnnie Moore, founder of the Interdenominational Congress of Christian Leaders, is singing the praises of Azerbaijan after wrapping up a multi-day visit to the Islamic nation.
Moore says he was encouraged by how people of various faiths and backgrounds seemed to peacefully co-exist in the country, which boasts a more than 90 percent Muslim population.
"I met Sunni and Shia young people who pray together, orthodox and evangelical Christians who serve together," he wrote in a statement. "And I observed the valued and indispensable role a thriving Jewish community plays in a country whose population is over 90 percent Muslim but whose people have celebrated a longstanding relationship between their nation and the State of Israel."
Moore was joined by Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Both men are frequent collaborators on interfaith initiatives worldwide and Moore said he was impressed by the multiculturalism he witnessed during their visit.
"No doubt, Azerbaijan has its imperfections as well," Moore acknowledged. "But I came to specifically assess firsthand the spirit of multiculturalism that undergirds Azeri society, which should be celebrated and which can be a model for many countries in the world."
He indicated this was particularly poignant given Azerbaijan's history as a former Soviet republic.
"It was profound to sit these last few days with Muslim, Jewish and Christian citizens who haven't forgotten the mutual suffering they endured together as devoutly religious under the atheistic, Soviet era," Moore said. "They cherish what they have now knowing what little they had, then. "
He noted that Azerbaijan lies in stark contrast to nations like Iraq and Afghanistan, where religion is wielded like a weapon against the people by terror groups like the Islamic State. It's a brutal phenomenon he hopes to help bring to an end.
"Having witnessed firsthand the devastation wrought by the alternative in 2014 by Daesh (ISIS) in Iraq, I decided I would work with all my might to prevent future extremism by finding good partners, encouraging moderation, identifying best practices and building trust through friendship between many religious communities throughout the world, especially between Muslims, Christians and Jews," Moore wrote.
"The fact is that we have allowed our world to become a place where religion is too easily weaponized," he observed. "Rather than being a blessing to the world that God intended, religion has been used as a tool to sow chaos, division, and worse. Even in our most developed and enlightened societies, we are losing the ability to get along with those different than us."
"For the sake of our children, we must find another way, where the name of God is revered, not defiled by our mistreatment of others who are also made in His image," he concluded.
 Fighting intolerance, Ahmadi Muslims have won unlikely allies
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
ALTON, United Kingdom (RNS) — Johnnie Moore, one of President Trump’s evangelical advisers, stood before the Ahmadi caliph and tens of thousands of his Muslim followers on Saturday (Aug. 4) and celebrated the phrase “Allahu akbar,” Arabic for “God is the greatest.”
“I grieve at the defilements of God’s name to promote (acts of terrorism and murder),” Moore said in a short speech at the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community’s annual Jalsa Salana convention in Alton. “God truly is great, and he is a God of peace, and you are a symbol of it.”
The Jalsa, billed as the U.K.’s largest Muslim convention, was presided over by Mirza Masroor Ahmad, the caliph and leader of the world’s minority Ahmadi Muslims. The denomination’s members, estimated to number 10 million to 20 million, face often-deadly persecution from hardline clerics who consider them apostates.

Moore, whom Trump recently appointed as a commissioner on the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, has drawn criticism from many in liberal and Muslim activist circles for his alignment with Trump. But for Ahmadis, an alliance with a political conservative like Moore is nothing unusual. Their strong advocacy of religious freedom and vocal condemnation of religious extremism have gained them several unlikely allies in the West.
“Sometimes the religious freedom space isn’t packaged neatly,” Amjad Mahmood Khan, AMC’s U.S. public affairs director, told Religion News Service. “We believe in religious freedom for all, and not as a partisan or political issue.”

Muslim advocacy groups have long noted that it’s difficult to move in Western religious freedom circles. Muslim activists and researchers told Deseret News in 2016 that, particularly because of perceived ties to extremism, their contributions in the space were not valued. On top of that, many Muslim civil rights advocacy groups have shunned conservative politicians and organizations because of their ties to anti-Muslim policies. And Muslims themselves feel disconnected from the idea of religious freedom because of how they say it has been politicized by the Christian right.
But Ahmadi officials say they are happy to work with any nongovernmental organizations or politicians who share their goals. Ahmad told reporters during a news conference after the Jalsa that his community will join a secular organization working toward good. “When the purpose is not religious, we can work together for humanitarian work,” he said.
In 2014, Reps. Peter King, R-N.Y., and Jackie Speier, D-Calif., became co-chairs of the 32-member Congressional Ahmadiyya Muslim Caucus for religious freedom. Before that, King made headlines for chairing a controversial 2011 hearing about radicalization among U.S. Muslims — a hearing many Muslims criticized as an Islamophobic witch hunt. But one prominent U.S. Ahmadi wrote a letter to the editor in The New York Times at the time: “There should be no reason to blindly accuse the Muslim-American community of noncooperation. But if the government thinks that Congressional hearings will improve homeland security and help expose those exploiting Islam, I assure full cooperation.”

At the AMC’s annual Jalsa in Canada, too, speakers have included conservative former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who was branded an Islamophobe by many Muslims and liberals after, among other comments, his attempt to call for limitations on wearing the face-covering niqab shortly before the elections. (Many Ahmadi women worldwide wear the niqab.)

Mirza Masroor Ahmad, the international leader of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, speaks at the group’s 52nd annual Jalsa Salana event in Alton, Hampshire, England, on Aug. 4, 2018. Photo courtesy of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community
Speakers at this year’s Jalsa U.K. included Sara Khan, head of the U.K.’s new Commission for Countering Extremism. Her appointment drew criticism because of her support of policies that some claimed damaged government relations with Muslim communities.
“It is the Ahmadiyya Community’s defiant rejection of extremism often in the face of abuse, intolerance and persecution that brings me to today’s Jalsa,” she said. “I am here today to extend my hand out to you in friendship, solidarity and partnership in our common cause of countering extremism.”
In an age when many critics accuse moderate Muslim leaders of standing silent in the face of Islamist terrorism, the AMC is quick to send out press statements condemning acts of deadly violence. The denomination’s founder, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, whom members believe to be the messiah, urged a “jihad of the pen” to defend the faith. Every year, the caliph keynotes a National Peace Symposium the AMC organizes in London for a crowd of 800 dignitaries and civic leaders, where he denounces terrorism as well as the governments that enable and sponsor such discord. He has also corresponded with heads of state and delivered speeches on establishing world peace before Congress and the parliaments of Canada and major European nations.
In the U.K., Ahmadis have become well-known for the “human chain” of solidarity they formed last year on the Westminster bridge after a Muslim man drove his car into a crowd there, killing four in what officials called an act of terrorism. Ahmadis’ anti-extremism campaigns in the Western world are wide-ranging: True Islam clarifies that terrorism has no place in Islam, Muslims for Peace shows that the faith revolves around tolerance and justice, Stop the CrISIS and United Against Extremism work against youth radicalization, and Pathway to Peace identifies the requirements for moving toward a lasting world peace. 

An incredible honor to address the Ahmadiyya Muslim community today on behalf of @USCIRF, during their global gathering in the United Kingdom, over 35-thousand people.

For too long, & in too many places, Ahmadis have been severely persecuted for their faith.

We stand with you

Amjad Khan said his experience engaging with the Obama and Trump administrations shows that it’s not always the case that progressives enact policies that help Muslims. Under Obama, the role of the international religious freedom ambassador remained vacant during much of his administration, and Khan said there were long stretches where the administration would ignore AMC’s efforts to engage.
While many leaders were skeptical that Trump would prioritize Muslim religious freedom, Khan said, the president appointed Sam Brownback to the empty ambassador position in a matter of months, and Brownback’s office now holds weekly roundtables with global stakeholders. And last month, not only did Brownback speak at the AMC’s Jalsa in America, he invited representatives from AMC and a Pakistani Ahmadi victim of persecution – Farooq Kahlon, who was shot five times the day after his son’s wedding by anti-Ahmadi extremists in 2012 – to speak at the State Department’s first International Religious Freedom Ministerial in Washington, D.C. 
Brownback’s first international trip once in office was to a camp for persecuted Rohingya Muslims. And his first public appearance was his speech at an event hosted in February by the Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies, where interfaith leaders signed the Washington Declaration that called for respect for U.S. Muslims and affirmed the rights of religious minorities in Muslim-majority nations.
Regarding largely liberal critics who accuse Moore and Brownback of only caring about religious freedom for Christians, Amjad Khan said: “I always expect commissioners to naturally be passionate about issues they’re personally connected to. That’s why you need a diverse group to bring in their own experiences and interests.”
As a USCIRF commissioner, Moore promised Ahmadis that he had a “personal commitment to make sure that you’re not forgotten, because I believe that the answer to the worst of religion in our world is the best of the best of faith.” He pointed to a recent RNS op-ed he co-wrote calling for international pressure to be placed on the Pakistani government to undo its blasphemy laws against Ahmadis.
That personal commitment is partly because of behind-the-scenes advocacy efforts from Ahmadi representatives.
“I would like to see (Vice President Mike) Pence tweeting about Muslim prisoners of conscience instead of only Christian ones,” Amjad Khan said. “But the principle I advocate is that you must meet with anyone and everyone who will listen to you advocate your cause. Our job is not to dictate the political winds.”
But that doesn’t mean cowing into silence or praise when those people miss the mark, he said. “I’ve told Sam Brownback that when it comes to Islam, he needs to educate himself on this issue or that issue.”
And while many Muslim leaders announced that they would refuse to attend Trump’s controversial White House iftar dinner, held this summer during Ramadan, Ahmadi officials say they would have gladly attended had they received an invitation.
“We would never boycott an event,” Khan said. “It’s not in our DNA. It’s critical for us to have a seat at the table and discuss our concerns.”
 'Holocaust of Christians' in the Middle East?
When Stupid Christians Are Misled & Deceived by Alleged "Peaceful" Muslims
 Johnnie Moore on his new book, 'Defying ISIS' 
NOTE: It's Not Just Isis, But All of Islam;
What Better Way To Separate Jihad Terror From The Rest of Islam, But Through Attempting to Whitewash the Rest of Islam?

"Defying Isis" ???

Johnnie Moore shares his latest book "Defying ISIS: Preserving Christianity in the Place of Its Birth and in Your Own Backyard". To Get Your Copy: For More Information about Johnnie Moore: