THE CHURCH MILITANT
Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse.
As
phone calls between President Trump & President Duterte are leaked
to criticize Trump for congratulating Duterte on his extra-judicial
killings in the name of a War on Drugs, it’s clear the US surveillance
state wants both Presidents gone. Duterte has said he wants the US
military out of the Philippines and was in Russia as an ISIS attack took
over a town in Muslim controlled Mindanao and took a priest and his
congregation hostage. Will the Philippines be the next victim of the
CIA and its ISIS surrogates?
"LITTLE MOGADISHU" Follows Measles Outbreak in Somali Community
Published on May 26, 2017
Minnesota
Muslims were caught with AK-47, large quantities of ammunition and bomb
making devices. But one of them is already out of jail on misdemeanor
charges. Minnesotans love their migrants.
CAROLINE GLICK OF THE JERUSALEM POST THANKS "CANCEL SARSOUR" PROTESTORS
AT CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
CUNY has invited a pro-terror, pro-sharia anti-semite to give the keynote
commencement address. And they will not reconsider. Universities have
disinvited Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish, Ann Coulter, Milo, legions of
conservative thinkers and voices in defense of freedom, but a vicious,
pro-sharia, Jew hater they will defend to the death and that is it right
there. They fear jihad. They fear Islamic supremacists. They know no
harm with come to them if they smear, defame, libel or cancel us. They
know we don't destroy, maim, behead like Sarsour supporters and their
violent running dogs on the left.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Not physically ugly, but ugly deep in their souls. Georgetown
University professor Christine Fair happened upon neo-Nazi Richard
Spencer, who is not me, at a gym and began berating him. The gym then
revoked Richard Spencer’s membership. I have no regard for Richard
Spencer, as often as I am confused with him (even in the comments at
National Review on this piece, some clown says that the article should
have highlighted Richard Spencer’s remarks on white nationalism, not his
criticism of Islam; in reality, he is the one who writes about white
nationalism, and I am the one who writes about Islam, and we are two
completely different people): he has more than once demanded that I
reveal my “real” name, as he is convinced that I am secretly a Jew who
has changed my name to fool good white folks like him.
So while I have nothing but disgust for Richard Spencer, I have even
greater disgust for Christine Fair, who in this incident showed herself
to be more of a Nazi than Richard Spencer could ever hope to be. Like
the Nazis, she wants those whom she hates destroyed, full stop. Just
destroyed. She doesn’t want them to be able to speak in public. She
doesn’t want them to be able to hold memberships in gyms. She doesn’t
want them to be allowed to live in the city she lives in. She doesn’t
want them to breathe. This is quintessentially Nazi behavior, and is in
direct contradiction to the principles that make a society free.
While Richard Spencer is indeed a Nazi, albeit in a different way
from how Fair is one, and there is no excuse for that, as long as he is
not breaking any laws he has as much right to be in that gym as
Christine Fair has. But not as far as Christine Fair is concerned. She
has apparently not reflected upon the precedent she is setting, or on
the possibility, as remote as it is, that one day her views could be out
of favor, and she could find herself getting poisoned, and forbidden to
speak, and screamed at by campus fascists, and driven out of gyms, and
the like, and that a healthier and freer society allows for the freedom
of expression and doesn’t persecute or hound those whose ideas are
unpopular or even unarguably obnoxious.
National Review writer Jeremy Carl brings me into this because I have
been on the receiving end of Fair’s wrath before, and have found her to
be a shockingly rude, unkind, angry, and remarkably unpleasant
individual — all while she preens as an exponent of “tolerance” and
“peace.” Carl is a bit hasty, in my view, to accept the claims of my
critics without evaluating those claims or my work on their merits, but
his anxiousness to distance himself from me is perhaps understandable in
a piece that appears in the publication that Ann Coulter so famously
observed years ago was run by “girly men.”
I would happily debate Jeremy Carl, or Christine Fair, or any serious
analyst on the nature of Islam or any of the assertions I have made in
my work, and I am confident that the claims about my work that Carl so
readily embraces here would, in that event, be proven false. It’s
certain, however, that neither Carl nor Fair will agree to debate me,
and so that is that. Whatever the undeniable flaws of Carl’s piece, he
is dead-on about the Left’s increasing authoritarianism and thuggery.
Mark my words: I won’t be the last enemy of the Left that Leftists will
try to kill.
Addendum: I just noticed that in her hate screed against Richard
Spencer in the Washington Post, Christine Fair cites as factual the thoroughly discredited study
claiming that “right-wing extremists” pose a greater threat than
Islamic jihadists. This is what an academic is today: not a thinking
individual, but a propagandist for the hard-Left.
“Liberal Bullies Threaten Free Speech,” by Jeremy Carl, National Review, May 24, 2017:
…Let’s stipulate that Richard Spencer is a man who has
embraced values that are anathema to America’s, and that his vision is
quite obviously not one that conservatives or Republicans share. But
Fair publicly claims that Spencer’s very presence in the gym, because of
his political views, creates an oppressive environment, which is a much
more dramatic and potentially dangerous claim. If you are still
cheering on Professor Fair, consider the case of another Spencer —
Robert Spencer (no relation to Richard), a persistent critic of
political Islam and a favorite of Steve Bannon and other figures in the
Trump administration.After he spoke to a large audience last week in
Reykjavik, Iceland, a leftist approached him as he was dining with
companions and managed to slip a combination of MDMA (“Ecstasy”) and
Ritalin into his drink, causing him to become ill to the point that he
was hospitalized. Fortunately, police seem to have identified the
perpetrator. But despite Spencer’s relative prominence and the dramatic
nature of the crime, this political poisoning attracted almost no
attention from the mainstream media.
As Spencer put it ruefully, “The lesson I learned was that media
demonization of those who dissent from the leftist line is a direct
incitement to violence. By portraying me and others who raise legitimate
questions about jihad terror and Sharia oppression as racist, bigoted
‘Islamophobes’ without allowing us a fair hearing, they paint a huge
target on the backs of those who dare to dissent.”
Spencer, the author of two New York Times bestsellers on radical
Islam, is certainly controversial — and has his fair share of critics
even on the right. But one should be able to be controversial without
being poisoned. In the wake of the bombings in Manchester, are critics
of political Islam really the people who should be beyond the pale of
civil discourse?
hat does all this have to do with Professor Fair? Well, it turns out
that Robert Spencer too has had his share of run-ins with Professor
Fair, who according to Spencer called him a “lunatic” and likened him to
Charles Manson while “refusing (of course) to debate me on questions of
substance.” Robert Spencer says he has never met Fair in person, which
has not saved him from being a repeated target of Fair’s ire.
Very well, you may say, but Spencer’s harsh and cherry-picked
criticism of Islam may have stirred up legitimate anger — there’s no
reason to defend him. Well, how about Asra Nomani, a liberal Muslim immigrant woman, former
Wall Street Journal reporter, and Georgetown professor who committed
the mortal sin (to Christine Fair) of voting for Donald Trump and then
writing a piece in the Washington Post explaining her decision. In
response, she was brutally harassed by Professor Fair on Twitter for the
better part of a month. As Nomani subsequently wrote to Georgetown in a
formal complaint against Fair: “Prof. Fair has directed hateful, vulgar
and disrespectful messages to me, including the allegations that I am: a
‘fraud’; ‘fame-mongering clown show’; and a ‘bevkuf,’ or ‘idiot,’ in my
native Urdu, who has ‘pimped herself out’ . . . this last allegation
amounts to ‘slut-shaming.’”
But while a quick perusal of Fair’s public statements reveals her to
be an extreme case, a virtual parody of liberal intolerance, she is
hardly the only liberal behaving badly. In just the past year, many
conservatives, libertarians, and other assorted right-wingers, from Ann
Coulter to Charles Murray to Heather Mac Donald to Milo Yiannopoulos to
Ben Shapiro, have been shouted down and prevented, often by violence,
from sharing their views, most often on America’s campuses. And so far,
almost without exception, those universities have declined to give any
significant punishment to the perpetrators. It is all well and good for
conservatives to point out that there is a yawning gap between the
Richard Spencers of the world and the Charles Murrays and Heather Mac
Donalds. But for the Christine Fairs of the world — and an increasing
number of her ideological soulmates on the left — they are all the same.
None should have the right to speak — and increasingly, they are not
even free to lead private lives free of harassment and threats. All of
the people named above have been called “Nazis,” “white supremacists,”
and similar epithets. If the Right, through silence, decides it’s okay
to harass or physically attack Richard Spencer because he is a “Nazi” (a
video clip of an Antifa member sucker-punching Spencer has become a
favorite Internet meme on the left), they should not expect that the
punchers will stop at Richard Spencer — or Robert Spencer, or even Asra
Nomani. If we won’t fight for the free speech of those who anger the
Left, no matter how distasteful we find their views, because we are
afraid that the Left will wrongly ascribe their views to us, then
conservatives are little more than feeding red meat to the ravenous
left-wing lion in vain hopes that they will be the last ones eaten. And
the lion is getting stronger and hungrier.
In his comments on Fair, written long before his poisoning incident,
Robert Spencer wondered, “Why are the loudest proponents of ‘tolerance’
and ‘peace’ so frequently ugly, hateful people?” It’s a question the
Left doesn’t want to answer — and too many on the right, afraid of being
labeled as bigots by the most intolerant voices on the left, are scared
to even ask.
entire Qur’an. But the imam Andy Burnham, mayor of Manchester, says he was not a
Muslim. On what grounds? On the grounds that he committed jihad mass
murderer, and as everyone knows, Islam is a Religion of Peace. Any
Muslim who commits an act of violent jihad becomes, simply by virtue of
doing so, not a Muslim. Islam is thus always preserved as good and
benign, no matter what crimes are committed in its name, and politicians
such as Andy Burnham are free of any responsibility to understand the
motives and goals of those who have vowed to destroy us. See how it
works?
“Manchester Mayor: Bomber Was A Terrorist, Not A Muslim,” LBC, May 24, 2017:
Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham says the bomber who killed 22 people was a terrorist, not a Muslim….
But the Mayor of Manchester insisted that this man was a terrorist who had noting to do with Islam.
Speaking to Nick Ferrari on LBC, he said…
“The message that I would want to get over – and this is how the vast
majority of people feel – this man was a terrorist, not a Muslim.
“He does not represent the Muslim community. We’ve got to keep that
distinction in mind all the time. This was an unspeakable act.
“The worst thing that can happen is that people use this to blame an entire community, the Muslim community. “In my view, the man who committed this atrocity no more represents
the Muslim community than the individual who murdered my friend Jo Cox
represents the white, Christian community.”
PRESIDENT TRUMP SPEECH AT NATO; UNVEILING OF BERLIN WALL & 9/11 REMNANTS~TRUMP SCOLDS NATO MEMBERS FOR SUPPORT DELINQUENCIES
Trump Gets Tough On NATO, Demands Europe Pay Up Published on May 30, 2017
Roger
Stone breaks down President Donald Trump's negotiating tactics with
NATO where he hopes to convince European countries in the Union to offer
capital along with their firm alliance.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
THE WOODLANDS, Texas — The governor of Texas has
signed into law a bill that prevents the government from subpoenaing
copies of sermons or questioning pastors about the content of their
messages.
“Texas law now will be your strength and your sword and your shield,”
Gov. Greg Abbott declared during a ceremony at Grace Church of the
Woodlands. “You will be shielded by any effort by any other government
official in any other part of the state of Texas from having subpoenas
to try to pry into what you’re doing here in your churches.” Senate Bill 24 was
birthed following the 2014 controversy surrounding Houston Mayor Annise
Parker, who had requested copies of sermons and other material from
several area pastors as part of the discovery phase of a lawsuit over a
petition seeking to repeal the city’s “bathroom bill.” As previously reported,
attorneys for Parker, an open lesbian, asked for “all speeches,
presentations, or sermons related to [the bathroom bill], the petition,
Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity…”
A motion was soon filed in turn to stop the city from scrutinizing
the speech of area pastors, which caused Parker’s attorneys to alter
their demands.
The clergy members who were the subject of the city’s discovery
requests then sued Parker for “trampl[ing] on the rights of one million
Houston citizens” through the subpoena requests.
Uproar over the matter spurred lawmakers to present legislation that would prevent such situations in the future.
“A governmental unit may not, in any civil action or other civil or
administrative proceeding to which the governmental unit is a party,
compel the production or disclosure of a written copy or audio or video
recording of a sermon delivered by a religious leader during religious
worship of a religious organization or compel the religious leader to
testify regarding the sermon,” read Senate Bill 24, presented by Sen.
Joan Huffman, R-Houston.
While the bill was signed into law at the governor’s mansion on
Friday, a special ceremony was also held at Grace Church on Sunday, with
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick also attending.
“We got in a situation we had never been in, didn’t want to be in,”
Steve Riggle, the senior pastor, told the Houston Chronicle. “We got our
sermons subpoenaed—which is a difficult position, because you’d sure
like the mayor to read the sermons and to listen to them—but at the same
time, we weren’t about to give them over because of a document that was
given to us in subpoena form. We felt like that was wrong, so we said
no.”
Patrick told those gathered that the bill didn’t arise from a
Democratic or Republican issue, but “a right to keep men out of ladies’
rooms and to not allow boys and girls to shower together in the 10th
grade.”
He further elaborated that the nation is “not split between
Republicans and Democrats, but it’s split between those who believe in
our Savior Jesus Christ and those who are lost like I was once and all
of us were.”
A few residents protested Abbott and Patrick’s appearance at the
church, claiming it violated the “separation of Church and State.”
"It
is to be understood the actual “patriotic” worth of the
CIA’s actions depend upon who sits at the helm (Obama) and the
director of the CIA always is a reflection of the POTUS. Hence we
have John Brennan who you should recall refused to release 28 pages
of the 911 Report because HE claimed it contained inaccurate information”.
Well, couldn’t they release the pages and mark what the CIA
claimed was inaccurate?
Who
is John O. Brennan? Most certainly a globalist, supporter of the Obama
agenda and a man who has worked for the CIA in enough positions for
the past 25 years to write a book. Brennan withdrew his name from
consideration for Director of the CIA in the first Obama administration
over concerns about his support for transferring terror suspects to
countries where they may be tortured while serving under President
George W. Bush. Instead, Obama appointed Brennan Deputy National Security
Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism AND Assistant to
the President, a new position which did not require Senate confirmation.
Placing
Brennan in the position of Dir. of the CIA, has put one of Obama’s
closet and most powerful aides in charge of an agency that has been
transformed by more than a decade of secret wars. Working for Obama
Brennan has:
•
Overseen the escalation of drone strikes in Pakistan in 2010. • Was the principal architect of the administration’s
secret counter terrorism operations in Yemen. • Became a prominent public spokesman for the
administration, appearing on television after foiled terrorist plots
and giving speeches about the legality and morality of targeted killing. • Brennan denied his use of brutal interrogation
methods and ended up with the prize job for Obama. • After Brennan was sworn into his office
not on a Bible but on a copy of the Constitution rumors came out
he had converted to Muslim
while stationed in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Liberal leaning Snopes
claims the rumor is not true. (This would explain his very close
relationship with Obama). • The Beauty
of Islam according to John Brennan of which is what Obama learned
as a child in Jakarta. • Spoke forcefully for closing the prison at
Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and colleagues say he has argued for
greater openness and clearer rules for targeted killing. • His reporting of the supposed raid to kill
Osama bin Laden was proved to be inaccurate.
After
leaving government service in 2005, Brennan became CEO of The Analysis
Corporation, a security consulting business, and served as chairman
of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance, an association
of intelligence professionals."
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
One would think that the Muslim migrant chaos and crime were enough
for Germany, but still the leftist-jihadist alliance is tightening its
stranglehold on the country, a country with debt in the tens of billions
due to this migrant chaos.
The problems that many critics point out are the vague
definitions of the term “hate speech” and the restrictions that the
proposed law may have on freedom of speech
Leftists and Islamic supremacists have been at the center of the push
for “hate speech” laws; they have been relentlessly attacking the
freedom of speech, with the help of the aggressive socialist leftist
lobbies. Criticizing Islam is defined by Leftists and Islamic
supremacists as “hate speech” and “Islamophobia.”
The Social Democrats’ coalition partners, including
Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, argue that the
law will result in censorship of legitimate speech.
And indeed, Germany began a crackdown on the freedom of speech nearly two years ago, so as not to offend Muslim migrants.
Other nations in Europe seem to be headed in the same direction as
Germany, unless these authoritarian politicians are booted out at
election time. This doesn’t look like an encouraging prospect after
France’s elections.
Germany Considers Million Dollar Hate Speech Fines, by Jacob Bojesson, Daily Caller, May 19, 2017:
The German parliament is debating a proposal to force
social media platforms to either delete hate speech quickly or risk
hefty fines.
The problems that many critics point out are the vague definitions of
the term “hate speech” and the restrictions that the proposed law may
have on freedom of speech. Justice Minister Heiko Maas disagrees,
arguing it will only help protect freedom of speech in Germany.
“The point of the proposed legislation is that statements that
violate the law must be deleted,” Maas, a Social Democrat, said Friday,
according to Deutsche Welle. “These are not examples of freedom of
speech. They’re attacks on freedom of speech. The worst danger to
freedom of speech is a situation where threats go unpunished.”
Flagrant violations need to be removed within 24 hours while more
complex cases have to be removed within one week, according to the
proposal. Failure to remove posts may result in fines of up to 50
million euros ($56 million dollars).
“Practice shows that not too much, but too little, gets deleted,”
Maas said. “We’re at a crossroads. Should the digital revolution be
allowed to continue to call our state, based on law and order, into
question?”
The Social Democrats’ coalition partners, including Chancellor Angela
Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, argue that the law will result in
censorship of legitimate speech.
“I cannot understand how Facebook, for example, is qualified to check whether content is illegal,”….
