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.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Democratic presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke pushed for gun confiscation while at Kent State University, Ohio, the location where government agents shot and killed four unarmed students in 1970.
The irony of advocating to disarm Americans while at the site where the Ohio National Guard opened fire on anti-war protestors was lost on Robert Francis as he continued to call AR-15s, the choice target of government buybacks, ‘instruments of terror.’
Yesterday, people brought assault weapons to our rally at Kent State—where 4 students were shot dead in 1970.
I told them nobody should show up with an AK-47 or an AR-15 to seek to intimidate us in our own democracy.
Reporter Kaitlin Bennett, who famously open-carried a rifle on the same campus in a graduation photo to advocate arming students, called out Beto’s comments.
Those 4 students were shot by people like yourself – government agents that didn't want American citizens to have freedom. You are no different than the guardsmen pulling the trigger. https://t.co/357hLebcEJ
“We should be able to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government,” said Bennett to the Washington Post last year. “To make sure the government can’t go against the citizens.”
Now that I graduated from @KentState, I can finally arm myself on campus. I should have been able to do so as a student- especially since 4 unarmed students were shot and killed by the government on this campus. #CampusCarryNowpic.twitter.com/a91fQH44cq
“Thanks to all who have sent me death threats for taking a picture,” said Bennett responding to the progressive backlash. “You’re the biggest advocates for gun rights. You proved exactly why people carry.
MULTIPLICITY OF GENDERS DENIED & DISPROVED BY BIBLE BELIEVING DOCTOR
Medical Risks of Hormonal and Surgical Interventions for Gender Dysphoric Children
Michael K. Laidlaw, MD, is an Endocrinologist practicing in Rocklin, CA. Dr. Laidlaw graduated from University of Southern California School of Medicine in 2001 and has been in practice for 18 years. He explained the dangers of radical new transition-affirming therapies for children with gender dysphoria.
Watch the full event here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnP_W...
Doctor Exposes Transgender Propaganda
"Medical Harms from the Treatment of Child and Adolescent Gender Dysphoria"
FDA: OVER 6,000 DEAD FROM PUBERTY BLOCKING DRUG FOR TRANSGENDER CHILDREN
Parents of kids with gender dysphoria not warned about dangers of hormone blockers
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
A drug used to block puberty in children with gender dysphoria is responsible for the death of over 6,300 people, according to the Food & Drug Administration (FDA).
The Christian Post reports Leuprolide Acetate (Lupron) “is being prescribed off-label for use in children who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria despite the lack of formal FDA approval for that purpose.”
“The drug is clinically approved for treatment of precocious puberty, a condition where children start their pubertal processes at an abnormally early age and the blocker is administered for a short time until the proper age,” the outlet continues.
Citing FDA data, the article reads, “Between 2012 and June 30 of this year, the FDA documented over 40,764 adverse reactions suffered by patients who took Leuprolide Acetate (Lupron), which is used as a hormone blocker. More than 25,500 reactions logged from 2014-2019 were considered ‘serious,’ including 6,370 deaths.”
A California-based endocrinologist named Michael Laidlaw has been exposing the controversial tactic of prescribing testosterone to girls as young as 8 who suffer from gender dysphoria.
Laidlaw argues, “Gender dysphoria is not an endocrine condition, but is a psychological one and should, therefore, be treated with proper psychological care.”
However, when puberty blockers are given to children, an endocrine condition is created.
This dangerous practice is becoming increasingly lucrative for Big Pharma company AbbVie, with Lupron sales in the United States hitting $669 million in 2017.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
On Sept. 19, 2019, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order, “Modernizing Influenza Vaccines in the United State to Promote National Security and Public Health.” Describing mass use of influenza vaccines “to combat seasonal flu” and influenza pandemics as “strengthening our Nation’s public health and security,” he announced the establishment of a National Influenza Vaccine Task Force. The Task Force will develop a five-year national plan to reduce “reliance on egg-based influenza vaccine production” in the United States and increase the country’s “capacity of alternative methods” for producing influenza vaccines that “allow more agile and rapid responses to emerging influenza viruses.”1
The Executive Order also directs the Task Force to:
“advance the development of new, broadly protective vaccine candidates that provide more effective and longer lasting immunities;” and
support the “promotion of increased influenza vaccine immunization” among “populations recommended” by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and
improve “public understanding of influenza risk and informed influenza vaccine decision-making.”1
The Task Force is specifically directed to look at ways to work through the director of the CDC to “increase influenza vaccine use through enhanced communication and by removing barriers to vaccination.”1
The Task Force will consist of a senior official from each of the following departments, agencies and offices: Department of Defense; Department of Justice; Department of Agriculture; Department of Veterans Affairs; Department of Homeland Security; Food and Drug Administration; CDC; National Institutes of Health; Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. The Executive Order directs the Task Force to submit a report on its plan to the President within 120 days.1
On Sept. 20, the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases awarded the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health in Baltimore a $200 million grant to develop more effective influenza vaccines and, ultimately a “universal” influenza vaccine.2
During the second half of last year’s “flu season,” the influenza vaccine was estimated to be only nine percent effective.3
According to Kathleen Neuzil, MD, who directs vaccine research at the University of Maryland, “Eliminating influenza is the goal. It will certainly be a challenge, but in seven years we hope to have a better vaccine, or a lot of better vaccines.” The research, which will be conducted under a program called Collaborative Influenza Vaccine Innovation Center (CIVIC) will “address the need to develop and test influenza vaccines that protect against new and emerging strains, and ultimately prevent more disease,” says Dr. Neuzil.24
“Development of a better flu vaccine and ultimately a universal flu vaccine is important and life-saving work,” says U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland.2
“A universal vaccine would protect against, if not all, a great array of influenza strains and could be given every 5 or 10 years or whatever it is,” says William Schaffner, MD, medical director for the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. “Every healthcare encounter would be an opportunity to provide that vaccine, not just every fall.”2
WBAL-TV 11 in Baltimore reports that the vaccine research that will be conducted under the grant to the University of Maryland will include “clinical trials and challenge studies in special populations such as children, pregnant women and the elderly.”5
It’s been an incredible year, an unprecedented year. In this country, the assault on vaccine exemptions has covered the whole country. The National Vaccine Information Center has monitored more than 500 vaccine-related bills that have been introduced in the states this year that we have actively reported on and issued action alerts, in many cases, on more than 200 vaccine-related bills. So, what has happened this year as a result of the World Health Organization declaring that vaccine hesitancy is one of the top 10 global threats to health in this world, [is that it] was immediately followed by—and I don’t think coincidentally—reports of outbreaks of measles.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Senator Bernie Sanders is calling for a “wealth tax” on the assets of America’s wealthiest people, complete with a “national wealth registry,” so the government will know where the wealth is when they plan to come and take it.
Sanders put it bluntly in announcing his proposal on Tuesday: “I don’t think billionaires should exist.”
Presently, Americans pay federal taxes on their annual income, but that is not enough for Sanders. He wants to confiscate the property of the very wealthy in the United States. Of course, much of a person’s wealth is already confiscated after their death, via estate and inheritance taxes. This proposal, however, would take a person’s cash, investments, real estate, and other wealth on an annual basis while they are still alive.
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who is running neck-and-neck with former Vice President Joe Biden in the race for the Democratic nomination, had previously proposed a wealth tax of two percent for those with a net worth of over $50 million and three percent for any net worth over $1 billion. Sanders’ proposal calls for even greater confiscatory rates than Warren, with his tax starting at one percent on any net worth over $32 million for a married couple and $16 million for singles. His proposal would go up from there, increasing to two percent for net worth from $50 million to $250 million, with incremental wealth tax brackets up to eight percent on any wealth over $10 billion.
“Under this plan,” Sanders explained, “the wealth of billionaires would be cut in half over 15 years which would substantially break up the concentration of wealth and power of this small privileged class.”
In other words, Sanders wants to simply confiscate wealth, not so much to pay for any legitimate government expenses, but just because he believes billionaires should not exist. The 19th-century French political philosopher Frédéric Bastiat had a term for what Sanders (and Warren) want to do: legal plunder. In his book The Law, Bastiat argued that just because theft is committed by government does not make it any less theft.
We tend to think that Democratic Party politicians are more socialistic in their public positions today than they were a generation ago, and in general that is true, but this type of thinking has been expressed publicly by some very powerful Democrats in the past as well. President Franklin D. Roosevelt actually proposed that “no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year [roughly $475,000 today].”
Roosevelt was denied his wish by Congress, but he was eventually able to get a 94-percent rate on incomes in excess of $200,000 per year (nearly $4 million today).
But not even FDR proposed confiscating wealth already accumulated. For all the talk by socialists such as Sanders about how we should be more like Europe, his top rate of eight percent would more than double that of Spain’s wealth tax, which is presently the world’s highest. It should also be noted that Spain’s tax is only a temporary tax, enacted in 2011 during Spain’s financial crisis. Sanders is proposing a permanent wealth tax.
In France, a wealth tax was imposed in 1982, but was eventually repealed in 2017 in an effort to stop the exodus of many wealthy French business leaders and celebrities out of the country.
Were the United States to actually adopt this form of legal plunder known as a wealth tax, we could expect the same thing to happen here. Patriotism can have only so much hold on a person, and nations such as Canada, Switzerland, and others would be the beneficiaries of these highly productive individuals.
In the end, the wealth tax might actually reduce government revenue. After all, if a wealthy person knows that a wealth tax is soon to be imposed, he or she might just take that wealth elsewhere, and all of that person’s future income would be lost to the U.S. Treasury as well.
And for those who stay? Why make investments if a Sanders- or Warren-run government is just going to take those investments? Assets that cannot be moved easily, such as real estate, would be sold and the money taken with the person. But then who would be buying such an asset, knowing that the tax collectors are going to confiscate it?
This is a recipe for an economic depression.
Instead of investing inside the United States, one could expect those with the assets that Sanders, Warren, or some other leftist wants to take would make their investments outside of the country. Banks would lose assets that could be used to finance loans for home purchases and the like.
Of course, if that happened, a socialist such as Sanders would simply blame it on the free market, arguing that we need to nationalize the banks.
Hopefully, the American people still retain some sense of morality, and understand that stealing is wrong — whether it is done by a man robbing a liquor store, or by a socialist such as Bernie Sanders.
As Trump continues selling American's best weapon systems to the Saudis and offering them military training on mainland U.S. military bases, the Saudis continue to be the largest funders of terrorism globally. A recent terrorist attack against U.S. military personnel on U.S. soil, which had been planned by a group of Saudi airmen trainees, is only more evidence of the irredeemable culture of the Arabic world.
U.S. SENDS SOLDIERS & WEAPONS TO "DEFEND" SAUDI ARABIA FROM FUTURE ATTACKS
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The U.S. Department of Defense confirmed on September 26 the deployment of 200 U.S. ground troops, one Patriot missile battery, and four radar systems to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
“In light of recent attacks on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and at their invitation, Secretary of Defense Mark T. Esper announced today that the U.S. would deploy” the above listed equipment, according to a statement released by Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman.
“This deployment will augment the kingdom’s air and missile defense of critical military and civilian infrastructure. This deployment augments an already significant presence of U.S. forces in the region. The Secretary has also approved putting additional forces on Prepare To Deploy Orders (PTDO). While no decision has been made to deploy these additional forces, they will maintain a heightened state of readiness,” added Hoffman.
The “additional forces” mentioned in the memo include two additional Patriot missile batteries and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system (THAAD).
It is a highly suspect coincidence that, according to President Donald Trump and senior members of his administration, Iran attacked Saudi Arabia on September 14, just nine days after an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act was proposed that would discontinue military aid to the kingdom, as the money and materiel was being used to prosecute its war on Yemen.
The aid ordered by the president and the defense secretary will bypass such bipartisan blocking of aid to the oil-rich monarchy, as the American soldiers and weapons will be used only to defend Saudi Arabia against future attacks by Iran.
Furthermore, there seems little sense in sending money, men, and materiel to a hereditary monarchy that completely controls their country, including the $11 billion in net oil revenue they made in 2018. For sake of reference, that’s nearly twice what Apple netted last year.
One would think that for $11 billion the kingdom of Saudi Arabia could adequately fund the construction of weapons and an army and an air force sufficient to safeguard itself!
In a comment made during a White House meeting last week, President Trump said that he would hold off on ordering a retaliatory strike against Iran — for now.
“And it’s too bad what’s happening with Iran. It’s going to hell, doing poorly. They are practically broke. They are broke. And they could — they could solve the problem very easily. All they have to do is stop with the terror,” the president said during a press conference on September 20.
In a lengthy response to a question regarding whether he planned a military strike against Iran, President Trump told a reporter,
The easiest thing for me to do — and maybe it’s even a natural instinct, maybe I have to hold myself back. I remember during the debates, and when I was running against Hillary and the Democrats and the media — I view them all the same; I view that partnership very much the same.
But when I was running, everybody said, “Oh, he’s going to get into war. He’s going to get into war. He’s going to blow everybody up. He’s going to get into war.” Well, the easiest thing I can do — in fact, I could do it while you’re here — would say, “Go ahead, fellas. Go do it.” And that would be a very bad day for Iran. That’s the easiest thing I could do. It’s so easy.
And for all of those that say, “Oh, they should do it. It shows weakness. It shows…” Actually, in my opinion, it shows strength. Because the easiest thing I could do, “Okay, go ahead. Knock out 15 different major things in Iran.” I could do that and — all set to go. It’s all set to go. But I’m not looking to do that if I can.
And I think I’ve changed a lot of minds. People are very surprised that — and many people are extremely happy. Many people are thrilled. And many people are saying, “Oh, I wish you’d hit the hell the out of them.” Well, let’s see what happens. But it will take place in one minute; I could do it right here in front of you and that would be it.
There are several constitutional problems with the president’s threats of using the U.S. armed forces in “knocking out 15 major things in Iran.”
First, Article I of the U.S. Constitution very clearly places the authority to put American servicemen in harm’s way in the hands of the representatives of the people in Congress.
Among the legislative branch’s powers enumerated in Article 1 Section 8, there is granted the power “to declare war.”
The Founders were adamantly against allowing the president to put forces into combat.
On Friday, August 17, 1787, during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, one of the delegates — Pierce Butler — advocating the granting of war-making power to the president. That was a most unpopular opinion.
Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts jumped to his feet, declaring that he “never expected to hear, in a republic, a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war.”
And such a prerogative was never granted in the Constitution.
In a letter penned in 1793 that is eerily timely even now, James Madison wrote that the power to declare war is “of a legislative and not an executive nature.” He continued on that subject:
Those who are to conduct a war [the Executive Branch] cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws.
Even when, as president, Madison was on the brink of war with Great Britain, he refused to act without the permission of the people’s representatives.
The United States’ policy must be aimed at “avoiding all connections which might entangle it in the contest or views of other powers, and preserving a constant readiness to concur in an honorable reestablishment of peace and friendship, is a solemn question which the Constitution wisely confides to the legislative department of the government,” Madison wrote.
Regardless of republicanism or the lack of constitutional authority, the Pentagon will proceed to carry out the unconstitutional defense of a monarchy making hundreds of millions of dollars a month.
“It is important to note these steps are a demonstration of our commitment to regional partners, and the security and stability in the Middle East,” the Pentagon spokesman declared in the Defense Department’s memorandum on the United States’ deployment of troops and weapons in defense of Saudi Arabia.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Try as they might, the mainstream media can’t hide the truth about the Biden-Burisma scandal, which has blown up again thanks to President Trump’s phone call of July 25 with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Hate-Trump leftists on Capitol Hill would use that call to impeach Trump because he asked Zelensky to get to the bottom of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s strong-arming Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor in March 2016. That prosecutor was probing a company that employed a consultancy in which Biden’s son, Hunter, was a principal.
But Biden-Burisma documents published by John Solomon of The Hill show that Joe Biden very likely lied in explaining his role in the matter, and that when he was vice president, he used his office to enrich and protect his son.
Prosecutor Not Corrupt
As Solomon reported late yesterday, then-Vice President Biden claims he pushed then-President Petro Poroshenko to fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin because he “was corrupt and inept, not because the Ukrainian was investigating a natural gas company, Burisma Holdings, that hired Biden's son, Hunter, into a lucrative job.”
But “hundreds of pages of never-released memos and documents — many from inside the American team helping Burisma to stave off its legal troubles — conflict with Biden’s narrative,” Solomon reported.
Indeed, they don’t just conflict. They show that Biden likely moved against Shokin to protect Burisma and his son, and to “stop prosecutors’ plans to interview Hunter Biden during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”
The proof?
In a meeting with Ukraine’s temporary prosecutor, Yuriy Sevruk, after Biden torpedoed Shokin, Burisma Holdings’ American legal team “offered ‘an apology for dissemination of false information by U.S. representatives and public figures’ about the Ukrainian prosecutors, according to the Ukrainian government’s official memo of the meeting. The effort to secure that meeting began the same day the prosecutor’s firing was announced.”
Burisma’s team included a lobbying firm, run by two former Clinton administration employees, that paid a Ukrainian embassy official for help to set up that meeting.
If Biden is telling the truth — that he threatened to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees if Shokin wasn’t fired because Shokin was corrupt — then why, Solomon asked, would Burisma’s legal team say those claims were false?
Second, if sacking Shokin was unrelated to the Burisma probe as Joe Biden claims, Solomon continued, why did the Burisma protection squad contact the new prosecutor “within hours of the termination and urgently seek a meeting in Ukraine to discuss the case?”
Probe Hadn’t Ended
The Biden-Burisma scandal surfaced in December 2015, when the New York Times reported that Bursima hired Hunter Biden shortly after President Obama put Biden senior in charge of U.S.-Ukraine relations. But “that story also alerted Biden’s office that Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin had an active investigation of Burisma and its founder,” Solomon continued.
As well:
Hunter Biden’s American business partner in Burisma, Devon Archer, texted a colleague two days after the Times story about a strategy to counter the “new wave of scrutiny” and stated that he and Hunter Biden had just met at the State Department. The text suggested there was about to be a new “USAID project the embassy is announcing with us” and that it was “perfect for us to move forward now with momentum.”
Solomon has sued the State Department to get records of that meeting to find out whether Hunter Biden used the department to help his business while his father was vice president.
And that business having been helped, did Biden senior push out Shokin to protect it?
Shokin told Solomon that he “was making plans to question Hunter Biden about $3 million in fees that Biden and his partner, Archer, collected from Burisma through their American firm.”
Solomon’s documents include an affidavit from Shokin, who “testified that when he was fired in March 2016, he was told the reason was that Biden was unhappy about the Burisma investigation. “The truth is,” Shokin said, “that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors.”
Central to Biden senior’s claim that he pushed out Shokin because of corruption is the corollary claim, which has appeared in some media reports, that the prosecutor’s office had closed its investigation of Burisma. But the Burisma probe was alive and well.
“The Ukraine Prosecutor General’s office still had two open inquiries in March 2016, according to the official case file,” Solomon reported. “One of those cases involved taxes; the other, allegations of corruption. Burisma announced the cases against it were not closed and settled until January 2017.”
One of those false reports surfaced in the Washington Post just yesterday. Noting that the probe in Burisma was “dormant,” it quoted a former Ukrainian prosecutor as saying Hunter Biden did nothing wrong.
Maybe, but his activities implicate his father, the leading Democratic candidate for president, in a major influence-peddling scheme when he was vice president.
