Archive for the ‘Christianity’ Category

An American Genocide: It’s Time for Christians to Speak Out From the Pulpit and On the Street

October 18, 2015

Abortion punishment 1052014But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.  – Matthew 19:14 (KJV)

The Christian Post reports that

Christian ethicist Russell Moore has said that congregations too afraid of being political to speak out against acts of immorality, like abortion, are similar to churches in the 1800s that remained silent on the issue of slavery.

As the featured speaker at the Institute on Religion and Democracy’s fifth annual Diane Knippers memorial lecture, Moore, the president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, criticized mainstream Christian congregations that have relaxed their teachings on key issues of sexual morality and other social issues in order to blend in with the “ambient culture” and appeal to today’s society. 
Moore explained that religious conservatives need to “preserve” the biblical truth for future generations. Although secular society likes to claim that Christian conservatives are on the “wrong side of history,” Moore told the audience that Christian conservatives should not be afraid to have their biblical convictions conflict with mainstream society and that they should really embrace the distinctive Christian message.

“This is something that Diane Knippers saw Mainline denominations losing as they believed that the best way to connect with the generations around them was to assimilate into the sameness of the ambient culture. That is a recipe for death,” Moore argued.

“It’s a recipe for death, precisely for the same reasons that Jesus is speaking to Pilate about a Kingdom that does not originate from the world. Christianity always thrives the best when we have a distinctive word and a distinctive word that is rooted in a specific view of authority. Jesus said, ‘I have come to bear witness for the truth.'”

“The arguments that we see happening right now over issues of human sexuality are not really about human sexuality,” Moore continued. “These are debates of apostolic authority.”

Despite the fact that religious conservative views on issues like gay marriage and abortion directly conflict with the views of a secular world, Moore assured that the historic Christian message has always conflicted with the world’s understanding.

Although many congregations in the last 50 years have altered their views and teachings to accommodate the modern worldviews, Moore warned that churches that have historically distanced themselves from the biblical truth eventually failed to exist.

“The miraculous was startling in the first century and in every other century, so the churches who discarded it no longer had anything distinctive to say and withered and died into obscurity,” Moore stated. “The churches who were willing to speak with a voice of authority about resurrection, the coming of Christ, supernatural regeneration by the Holy Spirit are the churches who had a witness to be able to bring forward.”

Moore further argued that secularism is not the world’s final “stopping point.”

“Secularism is just a stop along the path,” Moore said. “We must have a distinctive word in terms of claim to authority, and we must be willing to bear witness. We must be a conversionist people, which means that if we truly believe that the spirit of God is able to transform someone from sinner to saint, we will be the people who will not hesitate to speak the truth and to speak what often will be unpopular truths.”

Churches have long been responsible for speaking the unpopular truths on social issues, not just in today’s world where abortion and gay marriage are the hotly contested subjects, Moore said.

“The churches in 1845 Georgia that did not speak to slavery, were speaking to slavery,” Moore said. “If you stand in the pulpit and call people to repentance for drunkenness and sexual immorality, but you do not call them to repentance for man-stealing and kidnapping and pretending to own another human being, you have spoken to that issue by saying that it will not be something for which one must give an account at the judgement.”

“The churches in 1925 Mississippi that spoke about drunkenness and adultery, but did not speak about lynching, were speaking to lynching,” Moore continued. “They were baptizing the status quo by not calling people to repentance for a grave sin against God and against a neighbor.”

“The churches in 21st century America that do not speak to the personhood of the unborn are speaking to the personhood of the unborn by baptising the status quo and leaving consciences that are wounded and in need of Gospel liberation exactly where they are under accusation, rather than freeing them with a witness that is thought to be political.”

Russell Moore makes a good point.

However, I wish to take it a step further.

Christian Americans are not in a struggle against just Christianity vs. Secularism.

We are involved in a struggle of Good vs. Evil.

In 2003, Illinois State Senator Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm), spoke in front of his colleagues in defense of the infanticide known as Late-Term Abortion…

I just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the objections of the Medical Society. As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child – however way you want to describe it – is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that its nonviable but there’s, lets say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just out limp and dead, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?

While The Lightbringer was in the Illinois State Senate, he opposed a state version of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, a bill which would make sure that babies who survive abortions are given proper medical care.

This measure also protected babies who were “aborted” through a purposeful premature birth and left to die afterwards.

During Obama’s U.S. Senatorial Campaign in 2004, his opponent attacked him for supporting infanticide by voting against the above-mentioned bill. Obama responded by claiming that he had opposed the state bill because it lacked the neutrality clause found in the federal version.

The Chicago Tribune reported on October 4, 2004,

Obama said that had he been in the U.S. Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal.

During Obama’s 2008 run for President, he stood by those claims.

In March, 2008, during a Townhall Meeting in Western Pennsylvania, Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) said,

Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.

Of course, Barack Hussein Obama was elected President of the United States. When he was “radically changing” everything about our sacred land, blood was being spilled across the fruited plains. Especially, in that same state of Pennsylvania:

On February 18, 2010, the FBI raided the “Women’s Medical Society,” run by Dr. Kermit Gosnell, a butcher, euphemistically killing babies under the title of “Abortion Doctor”.

The FBI entered the office about 8:30 p.m. expecting to find to find evidence that it was illegally selling prescription drugs. What they found was America’s Auschwitz:

There was blood on the floor. A stench of urine filled the air. A flea-infested cat was wandering through the facility, and there were cat feces on the stairs. Semi-conscious women scheduled for abortions were moaning in the waiting room or the recovery room, where they sat on dirty recliners covered with blood-stained blankets. All the women had been sedated by unlicensed staff. They also found out that a patient had died there several months earlier.

Until 2009, Gosnell reportedly performed mostly first and second trimester abortions. But his clinic had come to develop a bad reputation, and could attract only women who couldn’t get an abortion elsewhere, former employees have said. “Steven Massof estimated that in 40 percent of the second-trimester abortions performed by Gosnell, the fetuses were beyond 24 weeks gestational age,” the grand jury states. “Latosha Lewis testified that Gosnell performed procedures over 24 weeks ‘too much to count,’ and ones up to 26 weeks ‘very often.’ …in the last few years, she testified, Gosnell increasingly saw out-of-state referrals, which were all second-trimester, or beyond. By these estimates, Gosnell performed at least four or five illegal abortions every week.”

On January 22, 2013, Obama said,

On the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we reaffirm its historic commitment to protect the health and reproductive freedom of women across this country and stand by its guiding principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters, and women should be able to make their own choices about their bodies and their health care.

The Liberal mind is fascinating.  Sick and twisted…but, fascinating. On the one hand, Obama is saying that children are to be cherished and protected. I agree.

At, the same time, he stands by a woman’s right to kill her baby. I can hear the Liberals screeching right now.

That’s not a baby. It’s a fetus! It’s not the same thing! You chauvinist pig!

(Fetus is Latin for BABY)

If cherishing God’s gift of life makes me a “chauvinist pig”, you’re darned skippy I am! Yay, pigs! Sooey! That’s not a puppy growing in there, y’all.

The blatant hypocrisy shown by Obama, his loyal minions in Congress, and the MSM, the Liberal pundits on TV and Radio, and ignorant “seminar” callers and posters on Conservative websites, in defense of  “their rights “not to be punished with a baby” and their silence regarding the American Auschwitz know as the Gosnell Case, is reminiscent of Germany in the 1930s…and positively chilling.

Remember a while back, when MSNBC Host, and resident Communist, Melissa Harris-Perry proclaimed, 

…we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it’s everybody’s responsibility, and not just the household’s, then we start making better investments.

Evidently, for Obama and the rest of the Liberals, that only applies when the child is no longer a “punishment”.

And, if Christian Americans do not speak out against this American Genocide…WHO WILL?

God help us.

Until He Comes,


Obama’s Moral Equivalency: Israel’s Right to Defense = Palestinian Terrorism

October 17, 2015

AFBrancoObamaCarterAward1092014The New York Times reports that

UNITED NATIONS — Israel’s new ambassador to the United Nations plunged into his first public diplomatic engagement here on Friday, ruling out any international protection force for a disputed holy site in Jerusalem, as the Palestinians demand.

In an appearance outside the Security Council chambers, the new ambassador, Danny Danon, a former deputy defense minister in Israel known for hawkish views, also condemned the Palestinian leadership for what he called its instigation of violence against Jews.

Mr. Danon portrayed the series of stabbings and other attacks on Israelis in recent weeks, coupled with an arson attack at the holy site known as Joseph’s Tomb in the West Bank city of Nablus on Friday, as the direct result of what he described as hate-filled incitement of Palestinian children.

“I wish my first time speaking to you was on happier terms,” Mr. Danon, 44, told reporters as the Security Council convened a meeting on the latest Palestinian-Israeli violence.

An underlying cause of the mayhem has been tensions surrounding the holy site in Jerusalem known as the Temple Mount to Jews and the Noble Sanctuary to Muslims.

Palestinians have said they fear Israelis are planning to take over the site, which under a longstanding arrangement is administered by a religious council under Jordanian custodianship. Israel has repeatedly called such fears false, unfounded and inflammatory.

Mr. Danon dismissed a request by the Palestinian delegation for an international protection force to provide security at the site.

“We don’t think any intervention will help,” Mr. Danon told reporters. “Keeping the status quo is right thing to bring stability and to keep stability in the region.”

France said it intends to advance a draft statement calling for “restraint” and “maintaining the status quo.” The Security Council has not discussed any text. A statement is not legally binding and has little effect.

The Palestinian ambassador, Riyad H. Mansour, told the Council that the need for international protection at the site had become “more urgent than ever before.”

The United Nations legal office has prepared a confidential memorandum listing examples of how a protection force could be deployed. But to make it public and bring it up for discussion would require consensus among all 15 Security Council members. That has proved elusive.

Seven Israelis and more than 30 Palestinians have been killed in recent weeks, the United Nations assistant secretary-general, Tayé-Brook Zerihoun, told the Council.

He said the loss of hope in prospects for a Palestinian state had contributed to what he called the “anger and frustration” that fuels the violence. He welcomed Israel’s commitment to maintaining the status quo.

What has been the reaction of the Obama Administration to this outbreak of Palestinian violence within the borders of one of traditionally closest allies?

Amateurish moral equivalency and a lack of spine, all too common in this Administration, has put us on the outs with our friend, Israel.

The Jerusalem Post reports that

US Secretary of State John Kerry will meet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Germany next week to discuss the recent spate of violence between Israel and Palestinians in which 39 people have been killed, the Israeli ambassador to Washington said on Friday.

Kerry, who has said he planned to go to the Middle East soon to try to calm the violence, was traveling to Europe on Friday. Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, confirmed the planned meeting in Germany during an interview with CNN.

“That discussion will be, ‘OK, how do we get back to where we were in order to calm things down’,” Dermer said.

A spokesman for German Chancellor Angela Merkel said earlier on Friday that Netanyahu will travel to Germany on Wednesday for talks with Merkel on the security situation in Israel and the wider Middle East.

According to Israel’s Channel 10, the premier will seek an explicit statement from Washington supporting Israel’s position that it is preserving the status quo on Temple Mount and throughout Jerusalem’s Old City.

Thus far, the Obama administration has been reluctant to issue such a declaration.

Jerusalem reacted furiously on Thursday to State Department spokesman John Kirby’s statement that Israel is not maintaining the status quo on the Temple Mount and accusing it of using “disproportionate force” to stop the wave of stabbing attacks.

“The comments by the US State Department spokesman are so crazy, deceitful and baseless, that I expect President [Barack] Obama and Kerry to distance themselves from them, and to clarify the US position,” Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan said.

Kirby ignited a maelstrom of anger when, during the State Department’s daily press briefing on Wednesday, he was asked numerous questions about the situation in Israel.

Asked about the placement of roadblocks at the entrance to some east Jerusalem neighborhoods that day, Kirby said that Israel has a “right and responsibility to protect its citizens.”

Then he continued, “We’ve certainly seen some reports of what many would consider excessive use of force. Obviously we don’t like to see that,” adding shortly afterward, “We’re concerned about that.”

Erdan told Israel Radio that it was the “height of hypocrisy” for Kirby, who just last week needed to explain the US’s accidental bombing of a hospital in Afghanistan leading to the deaths of 22 people, to “preach” to Israel.

Erdan, in a Twitter message, wrote that “every reasonable person knows very well how the police in the United States would act if terrorists armed with axes and knives would come to kill citizens in New York and Washington.”

Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said in an Israel Radio interview that Jerusalem heard in the last few days from the US and the UN that it was using disproportionate force. “If someone wields a knife and they kill him, is that excessive force? What are we talking about?” he asked.

And Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked referred to the remarks as well, telling Israel Radio that “if people with knives were roaming the streets of New York and started stabbing people, they would not be asked to present their IDs, and the NYPD would draw their weapons.”

The US administration “can say whatever it wants, and we will do what is needed,” Shaked said.

While Kirby did not walk back these comments, he did take to Twitter to clarify remarks he made at the press briefing that the status quo on the Temple Mount was not being maintained.

“Clarification from today’s briefing: I did not intend to suggest that status quo at Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif has been broken,” he posted in a message early on Thursday morning.

An hour later he added, “We welcome both Israel’s & Jordan’s commitment to continued maintenance of status quo at Temple Mount/Haram Al-Sharif.”

Asked during the press briefing whether the administration believes the status quo on the Temple Mount has been broken, he replied: “Well, certainly, the status quo has not been observed, which has led to a lot of the violence.”

That the status quo was not being observed, he asserted, is “indisputable. That’s not a belief; that’s a fact.”

Netanyahu has said repeatedly over the past few weeks that Israel has not changed the status quo on the Temple Mount, nor has it any intention of doing so, characterizing Arab charges to the contrary as “lies” and “deceit.”

Kirby’s comments came shortly after he tried to clarify comments Kerry made on Tuesday night that also irked Jerusalem, implying that Israel’s settlement construction caused the current outbreak of terrorism.

“What’s happening is that, unless we get going, a two-state solution could conceivably be stolen from everybody,” Kerry said during a speech at Harvard University. “And there’s been a massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years, and now you have this violence, because there’s a frustration that is growing.”

Kirby attempted to clarify the secretary’s comments.

“The secretary wasn’t saying, well now you have the settlement activity as the cause for the effect we’re seeing,” Kirby told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday.

“Is it a source of frustration for Palestinians? You bet it is, and the secretary observed that. But this isn’t about affixing blame on either side here for the violence. What we want to see is the violence cease.”

He said that the US position against Israel’s settlement construction is “crystal clear” and remains unchanged.

Even though Israel is now a basically secular nation, the Temple Mount remains of utmost importance to both the Jewish and Christian Faiths. While Jewish pressures for prayer on the Mount or the building of a Third Temple, represent a minority point of view,  practicing Jews around the world have considered the eventual building of a third temple an obligation, or at least something that would be accomplished when the Messiah comes.

Even though Israel is “secular”, on the Day of Atonement the majority of the people still fast the whole day and go to a synagogue. Other religious holidays are observed to an increasing degree. Interest in the Bible and its claims is increasing. Because of this, national Jewish consciousness and media attention concerning the Temple Mount is rising.

These events have caused fear in the minds of the Muslims and has led in recent years to poor treatment of both Jewish and Christian visitors to the Temple Mount and to arbitrary restrictions of access as well as several incidents of harassment by Arab guards. This situation has been exacerbated by Muslim Terrorist attempts to shoot up or blow up the Dome of the Rock and El-Aqsa.

Obama and his State Department’s amateurish “So what?” reaction to the Palestinian Terror Campaign has Americans and the rest of the world, who are paying attention and support Israel’s right to self-defense, flummoxed.

To equate the actions of a sovereign nation, in defense of their citizenry, with the barbaric destruction of Palestinian Terrorists is disingenuous at best and dangerously naïve, at worst.

As I have documented previously, with Obama’s ill-conceived “Iranian Agreement” and his disastrous Foreign Policy of “Smart Power” which led to the bonfire know as “Arab Spring”, Obama has set the Mid-East ablaze.

The question now is, can the next President fix this mess, or, are we seeing, slowly and execrably, Biblical Prophecy being played out before our very eyes?

Until He Comes,




The War Against Christianity: Trying to Quantify the Unquantifiable

October 16, 2015

American ChristianityI am a Christian American Conservative. I make no apologies for that fact.

Depending on which poll you read, Christians comprise 70-75% of America’s Population.

During the Obama Administration, there has been a concerted and very visible effort to limit the role which Christianity plays in the day-to-day lives of average Americans.

This was already done, decades ago, in Europe, and now, they are suffering the consequences of their actions.

The Christian Post reports that

The Church of England is reportedly considering plans to keep some historic village churches across the country opened only on holy days such as Christmas and Easter due to population shifts and the ever-growing decline in attendance and church membership.

A major 66-page report by the CofE’s Church Buildings Review Group noted that many churches are no longer sustainable, and that about one in four parishes have fewer than 10 regular worshipers.

The report proposes turning some parishes into “festival churches” in order to ease the financial burden, suggesting that they will only be used for key dates on the religious calendar, or occasions such as marriage and funerals.

Festival churches are only one of the widespread changes proposed by the review group, which says it is focused on “securing spiritual and numerical growth and serving the common good.”

“We believe that — apart from growing the church — there is no single solution to the challenges posed by our extensive responsibility for part of the nation’s historic heritage,” the group added.

The CofE has had to deal with sharp decline over the past 30 years, as reported in May by NatCen Social Research.

The group’s Social Attitudes survey found that 40 percent of the British population identified as Anglicans in 1983, but that number is down to only 17 percent in 2014. Presently only 8.5 million Britons identify as Anglicans, the survey said.

People of no religious faith now make up close to half of the population in Britain, or 49 percent, which is up from their 31 percent count in 1983.

With the steady rise of immigration, the rise of non-Christian faiths has also been well documented, with Islam making up close to 5 percent of all Britons in 2014, up from 0.5 percent in 1983.

Could this happen in America?

It is a fact that a significant number of Americans have left Organized Religion, frankly, because by embracing Popular Culture, instead of God’s Holy Word, the church they attended LEFT THEM.

For example…

The Episcopal Church continues to experience losses in both church attendance and membership, according to recently released numbers from the denomination’s Office of the General Convention.

From 2013 to 2014, active baptized members in domestic dioceses went from 1.866 million to 1.817 million, representing a loss of nearly 50,000 members. 

The statistics reveal that in 2014 that average Sunday attendance was a little over 600,000 in domestic dioceses, down from approximately 623,000 in 2013.

2014’s numbers are even more telling when compared with 2009, when the theologically liberal Episcopal Church had about 200,000 more members and over 80,000 more Sunday worship attendees.

Jeff Walton, Anglican program director at the theologically conservative Institute on Religion & Democracy, noted in a blog entry last week other aspects of decline for the Church.

“Other measures of Episcopal Church vitality also saw decline: the denomination reported the shuttering of 69 parishes and missions, down from 6,622 in 2013 to 6,553 in 2014,” wrote Walton.

“Children’s baptisms declined 4.8 percent from 25,822 to 24,594 and adult baptisms declined during the same time-frame from 3,675 to 3,530, a decline of nearly 4 percent.”

The losses experienced between 2013 and 2014 are nearly double the roughly 27,000 fewer members between 2012 and 2013.

Why do churches who allow the world’s “Popular Culture” to influence their worship of God, tend to have to eventually close their doors?

Perhaps, it is because, instead of concentrating on the “Divine Mystery” of the Triune God, Liberal Churches are “trying to quantify the unquantifiable”. has posted an article on-line, in which scientists claim that they can change someone’s opinion about the existence of God and illegal immigrants, through the use of magnets.

In Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience Sally Satel (psychiatrist) and Scott Lilienfeld (psychologist) say “the half-life of facts can be especially brief” in this field. New results disprove older ones continuously.After the zapping, all participants were re-asked the same questions. Turns out participants “reported an average of 32.8% less conviction in positive religious beliefs” than those who weren’t zapped. That’s 32.8% and not 32.7%, mind you. In science we demand precision! A wee p-value confirmed that this change was “statistically significant.” There isn’t space here to explain the horror of this statistical approach, but interested readers can learn more here.

This is where it gets interesting. There was, as we have just seen, a small change in the answers to pseudo-quantified questions about positive religious beliefs, but there weren’t any “significant” changes in the answers to pseudo-quantified questions about negative religious beliefs. The same sort of thing happened in the questions about immigrants: Some had wee p-values and some did not. And there were no changes in any of the other questions asked. Yet which “findings” got the headlines?

We still haven’t answered the big question: why. Why did the authors design a study about belief in God and attitudes about immigrants? From their conclusion, written in the impenetrable prose typical of such “studies”:

“History teaches that investment in cherished group and religious values can bring forth acts of both heroic valor and horrific injustice. Understanding the psychological and biological determinants of increases in ideological commitment may ultimately help us to identify the situational triggers of, and individuals most susceptible to, this phenomenon, and thereby gain some leverage over the zealous acts that follow. …The results provide evidence that relatively abstract personal and social attitudes are susceptible to targeted neuromodulation, opening the way for researchers to not only describe the biological mechanisms undergirding high-level attitudes and beliefs, but also to establish causality via experimental intervention.”

Did you catch that? These scientists hope that in the future belief in God, or in some other politically incorrect question that might — only might — lead to “zealous acts,” can be treated, maybe even cured, by magnet zappings. And there you have the real danger that follows from believing you can quantify the unquantifiable.

Popular Culture, under the guise of “making the individual feel better about themselves”, actually constrains individual achievement.

These “millennials”, by believing that they are “their own god”, are limiting themselves.

History has shown us, time and again, what happens to a society, when man starts worshiping himself.

As Proverbs 16:18 tells us

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

Right now, you’re probably saying to yourself,

Hold on, KJ, you just said that the individual CAN achieve.

Yes, I did.

Those who have gone before us, such as our Founding Fathers, our military leaders, our civic leaders, and our spiritual and familial leaders, all had one thing in common:

They all possessed a spirit of self-sacrifice.

Not sacrificing their will to achieve for the “good of the State”, but, rather, unselfishly sacrificing their time and talents for the betterment of those around them.

And, that is where the “Progressives” (i.e., Liberals), get it wrong.

It is not “the State”, nor the community-at-large, that drives, or allows, Individual Americans to succeed.

Anytime that man tries to limit God, he sets himself up for failure.

It is that “still, small voice” that resides within each one of us that has endowed us with our “certain inalienable rights” as Americans, of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”, that gives us the strength and discernment to succeed.

For without God, nothing is possible.

Until He Comes,






“Smart Power!” Continues Down the Porcelain Receptacle as Israel Prepares for Third Intifada.

October 15, 2015

americanisraelilapelpinMerriam-Webster defines the word Intifada as

uprising, rebellion; specifically :  an armed uprising of Palestinians against Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip

This is a word which the world has become familiar with twice before.

Now, with the bubbling cauldron of potentially-nuclear annihilation getting hotter every passing day in the Middle East, thanks to President Barack Hussein Obama’s failed Foreign Policy of “Smart Power!”, the third time we become acquainted with the word Intifada, will definitely not be a “charm”. reports that

The Obama administration is under pressure to help calm the growing violence in Israel which has some warning of a third intifada, as Israel’s military steps up its response to deadly Palestinian attacks by deploying hundreds of troops. 

Amid the unrest, Secretary of State John Kerry just announced plans to visit the region, and has spoken with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. 

“We’re working on trying to calm things down,” he said Tuesday during an event at Harvard University. “And I will go there soon at some point appropriately and try to work to re-engage and see if we can’t move that away from this precipice.” 

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest also cited that visit Wednesday when asked what President Obama is doing to address the crisis, saying Kerry will travel “in the near future.” He said the visit underscores the “continuing deep concern” the U.S. has and urged both sides to take “affirmative steps” to calm tensions. 

Yet the State Department under both Hillary Clinton and now Kerry so far has been unable to push forward the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Relations between Obama and Netanyahu remain as chilly as ever — particularly after the Iran nuclear deal put them on opposite sides of the debate — and it’s unclear how much sway the administration still has in the volatile region. 

Retired Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, a Fox News analyst, cited Netanyahu’s visit last month to Moscow to meet with Putin to discuss Syria. “He can see that Obama’s Middle East non-policy has failed utterly,” Peters said.  

Kerry may be hoping his personal touch can help bring both sides together as tensions reach a critical point. 

Tuesday was among the bloodiest days so far, as a pair of Palestinian stabbing and shooting attacks in Jerusalem killed three Israelis and another two attacks took place in the normally quiet Israeli city of Raanana. Three Palestinians, including two attackers, were also killed. 

On Capitol Hill, U.S. lawmakers urged a stronger response from the administration. 

“I stand behind Israel’s fundamental right to defend itself and its people from violence and terror,” Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., said in a statement. “Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his government have an obligation to stop these attacks, to cease the harsh rhetoric that incites them, and to negotiate in good faith for a peaceful resolution.” 

He added, “It is imperative that the United States continue to ensure that Israel has the resources [it] needs to enhance its security and meet these threats.” 

Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., said “it is critical that the Obama administration and Congress press Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas … to act decisively to end the growing wave of Palestinian violence and return to bilateral peace negotiations with Israel.” 

State Department spokesman John Kirby on Tuesday put out a statement condemning “in the strongest terms today’s terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians.” 

He said the U.S. stresses the importance of “condemning violence and combating incitement” and is in “regular contact” with both governments. “We remain deeply concerned about escalating tensions and urge all sides to take affirmative steps to restore calm and prevent actions that would further escalate tensions,” he said. 

It’s unclear what the U.S. message involves beyond those appeals. 

That’s simple.

United States President Barack Hussein Obama and Secretary of State John F. Kerry still want Israel to give half of their country to the “Palestinians”, which would return their nation to basically a strip of land, as it was before the Six Day War.

Who exactly are “The Palestinians”?

According to,

Since the Six Day War of 1967, the Arab world’s most powerful leaders — in Egypt, Libya, Arabia, Syria, and Iraq prior to Saddam Hussein’s demise — have waged a war of words against Israel. Having failed to defeat Israel by means of naked military aggression, these leaders and their advisors decided, sometime between the end of the war and the Khartoum Conference of August-September 1967, to bring about the destruction of Israel by means of a relentless terror war.

To justify to the world their ruthless murder of Israeli civilians and their undying hatred of the West, these leaders needed to invent a narrative depicting Israel as a racist, war-mongering, oppressive, apartheid state that was illegally occupying Arab land and carrying out the genocide of an indigenous people that had a stronger claim to the land of Israel than did Israel itself.

Thus the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), under the tutelage of the Soviet KGB, invented “The Palestinian People” who allegedly had been forced to wage a war of national liberation against imperialism.

To justify this notion, Yasser Arafat, shortly after taking over as leader of the PLO, sent his adjutant, Abu Jihad (later the leader of the PLO’s military operations), to North Vietnam to study the strategy and tactics of guerrilla warfare in the hopes that the PLO could emulate Ho Chi Minh’s success with left-wing sympathizers in the United States and Europe. Ho’s chief strategist, General Giap, offered advice that changed the PLO’s identity and future:

“Stop talking about annihilating Israel and instead turn your terror war into a struggle for human rights. Then you will have the American people eating out of your hand.”

Giap’s counsel was simple but profound: the PLO needed to work in a way that concealed its real goals, permitted strategic deception, and gave the appearance of moderation. And the key to all this was creating an image that would help Arafat manipulate the American and Western news media.

Arafat developed the images of the “illegal occupation” and “Palestinian national self-determination,” both of which lent his terrorism the mantle of a legitimate peoples’ resistance. After the Six Day War, Muhammad Yazid, who had been minister of information in two Algerian wartime governments (1958-1962), imparted to Arafat some wisdom that echoed the lessons he had learned in North Vietnam:

“Wipe out the argument that Israel is a small state whose existence is threatened by the Arab states, or the reduction of the Palestinian problem to a question of refugees; instead, present the Palestinian struggle as a struggle for liberation like the others. Wipe out the impression . . . that in the struggle between the Palestinians and the Zionists, the Zionist is the underdog. Now it is the Arab who is oppressed and victimized in his existence because he is not only facing the Zionists but also world imperialism.”

So, why would an American Administration and their fellow Liberals, including American Jews,  join with our nation’s sworn enemies in their Jihad against our staunchest ally, Israel?

In an  article, posted on June 2, 2011, on americanthinker.comWhy Does the Left Hate Israel?,  Richard Baehr attempted to answer that very question…

…I have been to several of the left wing Israel hate fests. They are scary. There is real passion in the air. There is something about Israel that gets the juices going. Anti—Semitism is a part of it. There are a lot of people who are envious of Jews, on the left as well as the right. Patrick Buchanan thinks Jews have hijacked the conservative movement. But on the left, particularly in the academy, and in journalism, I am certain there is professional envy of the many Jewish faces and what better way to get even, and get back for sometimes losing the competitive battle, than by picking on the Jewish state as a surrogate. Leftist Jews sometimes lead the assault against Israel in these venues, thereby giving the attacks, whatever their reason, greater moral authority. Few Jews will stand up for Israel in these environments, because of the great pressure on the left to conform to the group think in the institutions they control.

…The evidence I believe is clear today that Israel faces far greater threats from the left than the right. The left is reflexively anti—Israel and has established important beachheads in significant American institutions— academia, the media, and the old line Protestant ‘high’ churches, as well as in the very seats of government power in many Western European countries, and their intelligentsia. It is not surprising that Israel seems unable to get a fair shake from college professors, the BBC, Reuters, NPR, or liberal churches. Being anti—Israel has become part of their religion.

As a Christian American, I know who I support:  God’s Chosen People. 

You see, I’ve read The Book.  I know how all of this ends.

Until He Comes,




The War Against Christianity: Fascism in the Name of Political Correctness

October 11, 2015

th1DXO5NI3While the world continues its path to a possible nuclear meltdown, America’s Silent Majority continues to suffer under the oppression of a Far Left Ideology, attacking our Constitutional Freedoms in the name of “Political Correctness”.

The Christian Post has the story

Evangelical preacher Franklin Graham has compared the removal of Ten Commandments monuments from public property in the U.S. to the Islamic State terror group tearing down Christian symbols across the Middle East.

“We have been appalled at news reports of ISIS and the Islamic State tearing down all symbols of Christianity in the Middle East; but think about it — we’re doing it to ourselves here in the U.S. Atheists, activists, and anti-God groups like the ACLU, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and the Military Freedom of Religion Foundation are on a quest to erase or tear down anything associated with the Name of Jesus Christ,” Graham wrote in a Facebook post on Friday.

He linked to a story by USA Today earlier this week that reported on the recent removal of the Ten Commandments granite monuments from the Oklahoma Capitol grounds.

Back in June the Oklahoma Supreme Court decided in a 7-2 ruling that the display violated the ban on using state property to further religion.

The monument was torn down early Tuesday morning in order to avoid confrontations.

“What are these people thinking? We need God’s laws — these are the laws that have helped society flourish,” Graham said.

IS militants have posted numerous videos online depicting the destruction of Christian buildings and symbols in the territory it has captured across Iraq and Syria.

Back in March, the jihadists shared photos of the destruction of Christian crosses, statues, and icons from churches in Ninawa, Irawa, which they replaced with the group’s infamous black flag.

“The images show ISIS men engaged in the destruction of various Christian symbols, which ISIS perceives as being polytheistic and idolatrous,” the Jihad and Terrorism Threat Monitor said back then.

“They don’t care what it’s called; they are just following their ideology and that means getting rid of churches and minorities. It is the Islamic State, and there’s no room for anyone else,” MEMRI Director Steven Stalinsky added.

Graham further commented on his Facebook page that the removal of the Ten Commandments monument and other such instances are one of the reasons he is rolling out his “Decision America Tour,” where he will travel to all 50 states in 2016 to rally Christians to get involved politically.

“I’m going to challenge the people of God to stand for His truth and righteousness and make a difference in this nation,” Graham added.

Back in April, he explained that he’s encouraging Christians to vote based on biblical principles and to run for political office themselves.

“I want to strongly urge Christians to run for public office at every level — local, state, and federal. We will not be endorsing any political candidates, but I will be proclaiming the truth of God’s Gospel in every state,” Graham said.

I have written. time and time again, about the Culture War, which is taking place in America.

Boys and Girls, it is not just a “Culture War”. We are battling a war against Government-sponsored FASCISM. reported a while back,  that

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Saturday said Democrats had gone to extremes in their persecution of Christians.

“Today’s Democratic Party has decided there is no room for Christians in today’s Democratic Party,” he said at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition summit in Waukee, Iowa.

“There is a liberal fascism that is going after Christian believers,” the 2016 GOP presidential candidate continued.

“It is heartbreaking,” Cruz argued. “But it is so extreme, it is waking people up.”

Cruz said same-sex marriage had produced rabid zealotry in Democratic ranks. This ideology, he argued, was excluding people of faith.

“Today’s Democratic Party has become so radicalized for legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states that there is no longer any room for religious liberty,” he said.

The Texas lawmaker said this stance was against America’s traditional values. Religious liberty, Cruz claimed, was one of the nation’s founding principles.

“We were founded by men and women fleeing religious persecution,” Cruz declared.

“We need leaders who will stand unapologetically in defense of the Judeo-Christian values upon which America was built,” he concluded.

Cruz, a long-time opponent of same-sex marriage, seemingly softened his tone on gay rights earlier this week.

The White House hopeful reportedly said Monday evening he would still accept one of his daughters if they became a lesbian.
The Texas lawmaker was the first official entrant into the 2016 election cycle.

He so far will face Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.) for their party’s nomination.

My late father was one of thousands of brave young American men, who landed on the beaches of Normandy , France on June 6, 1944, in the military operation which broke the backs of the Nazis, leading to the end of World War II,  now known as D-Day.

World War II was in a war against Fascism.

What is Fascism? Per, it is a

political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Ladies and gentlemen, I firmly believe that America is now fighting a new war against fascism.

It’s not a war that is being fought fought with guns and bullets, But instead with state referendums, Congressional votes, Executive Orders, Law Suits, and Judicial Activism.

And, it’s not our Brightest and Best who are dying on this field of battle, but rather, it is our Constitutional Freedoms which are dying an ignoble death, pierced by the arrows of socialism and political correctness.

By now, there’s some out there in the audience saying, “Oh Lord, the crazy old cracker’s overreacting again.”

No, Skippy, I’m not.

If you try to talk to a Liberal about this New Fascism, they will deny that there is any Fascism going on at all. In fact, they will tell you that this is “the will of the people” and they will site Democratically-stacked push polls in order to back their opinion up.

When you ask Liberals if , for example, “homosexual marriage” is the “will of the people”, why did voters in the overwhelming majority of states, including California, vote against it? And, if there is “no Fascism”, what do you call the fact that 2% of the population is having activist judges overturn the actual will of the people in order to get their way, in their attempt to redefine a word that has meant the same thing since time immemorial?

In response, you will usually see their eyes glaze over, like a deer in the headlights, or experience a dramatic pause in posting, if you are on the Internet.

Liberals can not legitimately defend the suppression of the First Amendment Rights of Christian Americans.

Fascism, in any form, remains indefensible, even, when a spineless Supreme Court kicks the can down the road.

The Godfather of Conservative Talk Radio, Rush Limbaugh, once said the following,

You know as well as I do that people are scared to death to tell you what they really think. The left has politicized everything — everything — to the point that people are afraid to go against what they know to be political correctness, which is nothing more than liberal fascism, nothing more than censorship.

When Barack Hussein Obama assumed the position of President of the United States, the Far Left became empowered. Obama’s handlers saw the opportunity to “radically change” America into a Democratic Socialist Republic. You know, the kind of government that is currently failing over in Europe.

Every piece of legislation that Barack Hussein Obama has tried to get passed, has been designed to either overtly or covertly limit our freedom.

From the stimulus bill, through Obamacare and now, through the latest threatened changes to our Gun Laws by Executive Order, every single piece of legislation has been designed to further the Far Left’s agenda.

Remember when Obama was campaigning so hard to get the Affordable Health Care Act passed?

He always used people as props for his speeches, whether it was just normal people or people dressed in white coats like doctors.

When he was previously trying to get gun control passed, he used the parents from the Newtown Massacre in Connecticut as human props to try to get his repressive agenda passed.

The use of human props is an old propaganda trick, which was used by Joseph Goebbels to make his boss Adolf Hitler seem like a man of the people who really cared about the German citizenry.

The use of propaganda to further the aims of fascist governments is an old and effective method of camouflaging fascism, which Obama’s handlers realize all too well.

In addition to the use of human props during a speech, another strategy used in a propaganda campaign is to select an enemy and target them with the aid of a sympathetic press behind you.

During Hitler’s rise to power, the German Press demonized European Jews, betraying them as evil and money grubbing…painting them as being different from normal German citizens. It was this classification of the European Jews as the enemy that almost led to the extinction of them in that horrible attempted genocide, known as the Holocaust.

Now, in the early 21st century, the Far Left, the Democratic Party, and the Obama Administration (but, I repeat myself) are using propaganda to isolate and demonize average Americans, who through hard work, have risen to a high station in life or through their strong Christian faith and love of their country refuse to follow a popular culture- worshiping Administration, when it issues Executive Orders or has its Democratic Congress pass legislation which clearly contradicts the Word of God and the Judeo-Christian Belief System upon which America was built.

Considering what is happening in the world around us, thanks in a large part to Obama’s failed Foreign Policy, if America keeps on the path we seem to be headed on, we will find out why America is not mentioned in the Book of Revelation.

Claiming to be wise, they became fools. – Romans 1 : 22

Until He Comes,




Obama to Go to Roseburg Massacre Site to “Grandstand for Political Purposes”. Founding Fathers Weep.

October 7, 2015

Politicize-600-LI (2)Friday, the President of the United States of America is going to travel to where he is not welcome.

No, not Syria. Not Iran. Not Iraq. Not any Foreign Country.

Barack Hussein Obama is traveling to Roseburg, Oregon.

On Monday afternoon, it was announced that

President Barack Obama will travel to Oregon this week to visit privately with families of the victims of last week’s shooting at a community college.

Obama will visit Roseburg on Friday as he opens a four-day trip to the West Coast. No additional details about his visit were immediately available.

Obama has renewed his call for stricter gun laws following the shooting and has expressed exasperation at the frequency of mass shootings in the U.S.

Nine people were killed when a 26-year-old opened fire in a classroom at Umpqua (UHMP’-kwah) Community College before killing himself in a shootout with police. Another nine people were wounded.

Some faculty, staff and students have been bringing flowers to a makeshift memorial as they return to the campus for the first time since the shooting.

Unfortunately for President Obama and his plans to continue his push for Gun Confiscation…err…Gun Control…the town’s citizens do not want him there. reports that

In an interview on Fox News’s “O’Reilly Factor,” David Jaques, publisher of the Roseburg Beacon, said Monday that he has talked to “dozens upon dozens of citizens,” victims’ family members, and elected officials, who say President Barack Obama is not welcome in their town to “grandstand for political purposes.”

“He wants to come to our community and stand on the corpses of our loved ones to make some kind of political point, and it isn’t going to be well received – not by our people, not by the families, and not even by our elected officials,” Jaques told Bill O’Reilly.

Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin told CNN on Friday that his position in support of gun rights has not changed in the wake of the tragedy that claimed the lives of nine people at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore.

According to the Associated Press, Hanlin even wrote to Vice President Joe Biden in 2013 after the Newtown, Conn., shooting that claimed 20 kids and six adults at an elementary school, saying he and his deputies would refuse to enforce new gun control laws “offending the constitutional rights of my citizens.”

“There’s a rumor. President Obama might go to Roseburg, Douglas County. The funerals start Thursday, and I guess they will extend into next week. How will the president be treated if he does indeed travel to Roseburg?” O’Reilly asked Jaques on Monday night.

“I think the president first of all is not welcome in the community, and that isn’t just my opinion. We’ve talked to dozens upon dozens of citizens – some family members of the victims, our elected officials,” said Jaques, who summarized a statement from Douglas County Commissioners and the county sheriff, who “all came to a consensus language about him not being welcome here to grandstand for political purposes.”

As previously reported, on Oct. 2, the same day as the shooting, Obama spoke about the tragedy, saying, “This is a political choice that we make to allow this to happen every few months in America. We collectively are answerable to those families who lose their loved ones because of our inaction.”

The authorities hadn’t finished counties the bodies of the victims, Jaques said, before Obama gave his speech.

“The bottom line, Bill, is that a number of people believe that when the president opened his press conference, we hadn’t finished counting the bodies on the campus right behind me. We hadn’t identified whose children were killed and whose were not, and even at that same moment, he is saying, some people will accuse me of politicizing this issue, and he goes on to say, but it should be,” Jaques said.

“So he not only acknowledged that it could be politicized, he was doing so deliberately. So now he wants to come to our community and stand on the corpses of our loved ones to make some kind of political point, and it isn’t going to be well received – not by our people, not by the families, and not even by our elected officials,” he added.

So, the ghoulish President of our country, Barack Hussein Obama, is going to Roseburg, Oregon, whether its citizens want him there or not, for the sake of Political Expediency.

The problem with Obama’s purpose for going there, besides the fact that he has not and will not acknowledge that it was Christians, who were singled out and killed, is this salient fact:

It was not the gun’s fault.  A gun is an inanimate object, incapable of  thought and in capable of pulling its own trigger. It’s the individual pulling the trigger.

Political Pundit, Dr. Charles Krauthammer, reminded us of this, in his op ed piece, published December 20, 2012:

Monsters shall always be with us, but in earlier days they did not roam free. As a psychiatrist in Massachusetts in the 1970s, I committed people — often right out of the emergency room — as a danger to themselves or to others. I never did so lightly, but I labored under none of the crushing bureaucratic and legal constraints that make involuntary commitment infinitely more difficult today.

Why do you think we have so many homeless? Destitution? Poverty has declined since the 1950s. The majority of those sleeping on grates are mentally ill. In the name of civil liberties, we let them die with their rights on.

A tiny percentage of the mentally ill become mass killers. Just about everyone around Tucson shooter Jared Loughner sensed he was mentally ill and dangerous. But in effect, he had to kill before he could be put away — and (forcibly) treated.

Random mass killings were three times more common in the 2000s than in the 1980s, when gun laws were actually weaker. Yet a 2011 University of California at Berkeley study found that states with strong civil commitment laws have about a one-third lower homicide rate.

…We live in an entertainment culture soaked in graphic, often sadistic, violence. Older folks find themselves stunned by what a desensitized youth finds routine, often amusing. It’s not just movies. Young men sit for hours pulling video-game triggers, mowing down human beings en masse without pain or consequence. And we profess shock when a small cadre of unstable, deeply deranged, dangerously isolated young men go out and enact the overlearned narrative.

…If we’re serious about curtailing future Columbines and Newtowns, everything — guns, commitment, culture — must be on the table. It’s not hard for President Obama to call out the NRA. But will he call out the ACLU? And will he call out his Hollywood friends?

What did our Founding Fathers have to say about our “Right to Bear Arms”, as found in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

“A free people ought to be armed.”

– George Washington

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

– George Washington

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

– Benjamin Franklin

“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

– Thomas Jefferson

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

– Thomas Jefferson

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”

– Thomas Jefferson

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

– Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”

– Thomas Jefferson

“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

– Thomas Jefferson

“I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence … I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.”

– Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense.”

– John Adams

“To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.”

– George Mason

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe.”

– Noah Webster

Mr. President, I understand that you believe yourself smarter than all of the gentlemen I quoted, and, additionally, you believe that our Constitution is a “fluid” document, meant to be revised regularly. However, I would suggest you go do something about the 49 gun-related homocides, occurring  every weekend, in your hometown of Chicago, a city with strict gun control laws, before you try to take away the guns of law-abiding Americans.

Try to confiscate the criminals’ guns, first. Good luck.

If you do wind up attempting to confiscate law-abiding Americans’ guns….

“There will be resistance” is putting it mildly, Scooter.

Until He Comes,


The Oregon Massacre: #IAMACHRISTIAN…Would I Be Willing to Give My Life For Christ?

October 4, 2015

thG58U0JIHThis past week, America was rocked, once again, by a school shooting, in which a crazed individual, fueled by evil, killed 9 Americans, and wounded dozens more.

The New York Post reported that those who were slain, had something in common.

A gunman singled out Christians, telling them they would see God in “one second,” during a rampage at an Oregon college Thursday that left at least nine innocent people dead and several more wounded, survivors and authorities said.“[He started] asking people one by one what their religion was. ‘Are you a Christian?’ he would ask them, and if you’re a Christian, stand up. And they would stand up and he said, ‘Good, because you’re a Christian, you are going to see God in just about one second.’ And then he shot and killed them,” Stacy Boylen, whose daughter was wounded at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore., told CNN.

A Twitter user named @bodhilooney, who said her grandmother was at the scene of the carnage, tweeted that if victims said they were Christian, “then they were shot in the head. If they said no, or didn’t answer, they were shot in the legs.”

Gunman Chris Harper-Mercer’s disdain for religion was evident in an online profile, in which he became a member of a “doesn’t like organized religion” group on an Internet dating site.

Kort­ney Moore, 18, said she saw the teacher of her Writing 115 class get shot in the head at the college’s Snyder Hall before the gunman started asking people to state their religion and opening fire, the city’s News-Review newspaper reported.

Harper-Mercer, 26, was killed in a shootout with police outside one of the classrooms, said Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin.

“There was an exchange of gunfire,” he said. “The shooter threat was neutralized.”

Although police put the death toll at 10 — including Harper-Mercer — with seven people injured, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum had said 13 people died.

I have written in the past that American Christians are fighting a war against an effort to undercut our faith, severely limiting our practice of it in everyday life.

With the present Administration spearheading the effort, Christian Americans are being marginalized , and our faith ridiculed and attacked as being against “diversity”, as the First Lady alluded to in her speech at a Topeka, Kansas Graduation Ceremony, which I wrote about in May of 2014.

As bad as things are getting in our country, Christians are not facing the choice of whether to renounce Jesus Christ as our Savior or die a martyr…yet.

On May 15th, 2014,  in front of a judge in a Sudanese court, Meriam Yahia Ibrahim forthrightly declared that she was still, and always will be, a follower of Jesus Christ. The judge at the Public Order Court in El Haj Yousif Khartoum then confirmed her sentence of 100 lashes for adultery and death by hanging for apostasy.

Ibrahim told the judge after a Muslim scholar spent 40 minutes persuading her to recant,

I am a Christian, and I have never been a Muslim.

In response, the judge told her,

The court has sentenced you to be hanged till you are dead.

The sentence is to be carried out two years after her second child’s birth later this month.

Christian Solidarity Worldwide reported that the death sentence in the case, which is drawing international attention, and called the ruling a “violation of the Sudanese Constitution and of international conventions to which Sudan is party.”

According to Middle East Concern, Ibrahim’s lawyer is appealing the ruling. Ibrahim’s American husband was also not permitted to witness the hearing, and has been denied visitation rights to see his wife and son while they are detained in prison.

Ahead of the hearing on the 15th, Amnesty International condemned Ibrahim’s death sentence and called for her immediate release. According to Manar Idriss, Amnesty International’s Sudan researcher:

The fact that a woman could be sentenced to death for her religious choice, and to flogging for being married to a man of an allegedly different religion is abhorrent and should never be even considered. ‘Adultery’ and ‘apostasy’ are acts which should not be considered crimes at all, let alone meet the international standard of “most serious crimes” in relation to the death penalty. It is flagrant breach of international human rights law.

In July 2012, Saeed Abedini, an American pastor who is a dual Iranian-American citizen, went back to Iran to visit family and continue his work on a government approved orphanage. While in that  Radical Islamic county, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps placed Saeed under house arrest without charge. He was then sent to Evin Prison in September 2012.

In January, Saeed was sentenced to eight years in prison. He was charged with preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Saeed is not guilty of breaking any Iranian law. However, he was convicted of endangering national security because of gathering with other believers in private homes.

While in prison, Saeed has suffered internal bleeding from beatings and endured solitary confinement in an effort to make him recant his faith.

Although he has been denied medical attention, Saeed’s faith remains as strong as ever, as he continues to lead people to Christ while in prison.

His beloved wife, Naghmeh, and their children have not seen Saeed in over a year. During his most recent time in solitary confinement, Saeed once said that he felt many people praying and the time in solitary was a time of intimacy with God. When he came out, the other prisoners said he was glowing. In fact, Saeed said he was filled with more joy and peace after solitary than going in.

In a letter to Naghmeh, Saeed shared how he has hope despite the daily beatings he endures.

I heard that the persecution, my arrest and imprisonment has united churches from different denominations, from different cities and countries that would never come together because of their differences. That the churches have united together in prayer to put one request (my freedom) on one day (Pentecost) before God. You don’t know how happy I was in the Lord and rejoiced knowing that in my chains the body of Christ has chained together and is brought to action and prayer.

Would I be willing to die for my Savior?

Believe it or not, I have actually been asked that question by other Americans before by non-believers, both young and old, on Facebook Political Pages, who could not fathom a faith comprised of unconditional love, supplied by a Triune God, who accepts his imperfect children, just as we are, without one plea. Bring a Love that will not let me go, no matter how many times I stumble, no matter how many times I fall, He always picks me back up, and helps me to continue to walk in faith, hope, and love. But, the greatest of these is love.

There was a “libertarian” (actually, a Liberal) who made fun of believers on a Facebook Political Page which I post on, by posting the words, “Onward Christian Soldiers”, attempting to point out Christian Hypocrisy…or something.

This “self-proclaimed genius” evidently neglected to read the lyrics of this great old hymn

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
forward into battle see his banners go!
Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus going on before.

2. At the sign of triumph Satan’s host doth flee;
on then, Christian soldiers, on to victory!
Hell’s foundations quiver at the shout of praise;
brothers, lift your voices, loud your anthems raise.

3. Like a mighty army moves the church of God;
brothers, we are treading where the saints have trod.
We are not divided, all one body we,
one in hope and doctrine, one in charity.

4. Crowns and thrones may perish, kingdoms rise and wane,
but the church of Jesus constant will remain.
Gates of hell can never gainst that church prevail;
we have Christ’s own promise, and that cannot fail.

5. Onward then, ye people, join our happy throng,
blend with ours your voices in the triumph song.
Glory, laud, and honor unto Christ the King,
this through countless ages men and angels sing.

I pray that God will open this unbeliever’s eyes one day. However, until He does, this unbeliever and his fellow travelers will be oblivious to the fact that the war Christians fight is not against flesh and blood, but instead against “Princes and Principalities”.

And, to answer the question I raised earlier….

Yes. I would be willing to give my life for Christ.

On Christ the Solid Rock I stand. All other ground is sinking sand.

May God continue to the strengthen those Christians, who are facing persecution and death, around the world, and may He continue to hold them and their loved ones in the Hollow of His Hand.

Until He Comes,


Obama at U.N. Calls Non-Muslims Who Equate Islam With Terror “Ignorant”

September 28, 2015

AFBrancoThe-Sword-9122014We know that ISIL — which emerged out of the chaos of Iraq and Syria — depends on perpetual war to survive. But we also know that they gain adherents because of a poisonous ideology. So part of our job, together, is to work to reject such extremism that infects too many of our young people. Part of that effort must be a continued rejection by Muslims of those who distort Islam to preach intolerance and promote violence, and it must also a rejection by non-Muslims of the ignorance that equates Islam with terror. (Applause.)

This work will take time. There are no easy answers to Syria. And there are no simple answers to the changes that are taking place in much of the Middle East and North Africa. But so many families need help right now; they don’t have time. And that’s why the United States is increasing the number of refugees who we welcome within our borders. That’s why we will continue to be the largest donor of assistance to support those refugees. And today we are launching new efforts to ensure that our people and our businesses, our universities and our NGOs can help as well — because in the faces of suffering families, our nation of immigrants sees ourselves. – President Barack Hussein Obama, Speech to the U.N. General Assembly, 9/27/2015

Gosh, Scooter. I have no idea how Americans could have ever associated Islam with Radical Islamic Terrorism.

After all, those were Southern Baptists who killed over 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, weren’t they?

What does the Islamic Book of Faith, the Koran (Quran) say about “killing in the Name of the Prophet (Mohammed)”?

  • Quran (4:76) – “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…”
  • Quran (4:89) – “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”
  • Quran (4:95) – “Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-”  This passage criticizes “peaceful” Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah’s eyes.  It also demolishes the modern myth that “Jihad” doesn’t mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle.  Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption.  (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man’s protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse).
  • Quran (4:104) – “And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain…”  Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?
  • Quran (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”
  • Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”  No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.

Concerning taking in those Syrian Refugees, Scooter…have you been paying attention to what is happening in Germany?

As attacks on Christians in asylum seeker centres increase and religious groups clash, Jörg Radek says (Syrian) refugees should be separately accommodated based on their faith

Christian and Muslim refugees should be housed separately in Germany to minimise tensions following growing levels of violence at asylum seeker shelters, a police chief has urged.

Jörg Radek, deputy head of Germany’s police union, said migrants should be divided, following increasing numbers of attacks on Christians in refugee centres.

“I think housing separated according to religion makes perfect sense,” Jörg Radek, deputy head of Germany’s police union, told German newspaper Die Welt, particularly for Muslims and Christians.

Two separate clashes erupted between refugees on Sunday at a temporary migrant shelter in Kassel-Calden in northern Germany left 14 people injured, police said.

While you were pontificating platitudes to the U.N., Scooter, out here in the Real World, a Quinnipiac University poll showed that 53 percent of American voters do not want those 10,000 Syrian refugees, that you bragged to your Muslim buddies at the U.N. about bringing here, anywhere near our shores.

On September 25, 2012, Obama appeared before the United Nations General Assembly, to address the circumstances of the massacre at the U.S.Embassy Compound, located in Benghazi, Libya. Here are the words he spoke, before representatives of the entire world:

…At times, the conflicts arise along the fault lines of race or tribe; and often they arise from the difficulties of reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world. In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask themselves how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others.

That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

…The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

It has since been revealed that, when he gave this speech, in front of representatives of countries from all over the world, Obama already knew that the murders of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods were committed by Muslim Terrorists…members of al Qaeda.

Let that sink in for a moment.

In these waning days of Obama’s tenure as President of the United States, the bridle has come off the horse, or in Petulant President Pantywaist’s case, the jackass.

Obama, like every other Modern Liberal, truly believes that there is no difference between Islam and any other religion, even the religion which the overwhelming majority of the citizens of America, the country which he is supposed to be the advocate for, practice.

 Meanwhile, at the same time he was pontificating before the United Nations as the self-determined World’s Advocate for Islam, he and his Administration have done and are doing everything possible to minimize the role of Christianity, the “Faith of Our Fathers”, in the day-to-day lives of Americans.

Obama is truly our first anti-American President.

Until He Comes,


Pope Francis, Sharia Law, and the U.S. Constitution: Comparing Plowshares to Scimitars [A KJ Sunday Morning Op Ed]

September 27, 2015

American Christianity 2The past week, Pope Francis paid a visit to the United States of America.

During his visit, while addressing the Congress of the United States of America, he basically said that we have an “obligation” to take in the Syrian Refugees, among them Radical Muslims, who are presently rioting in Europe.

Pope Francis, like other Liberals, has been pushing a false equivalency, in equating Islam to Christianity, for a while now.

Back in June, The Washington Times reported that

On Monday, the Bishop Of Rome addressed Catholic followers regarding the dire importance of exhibiting religious tolerance. During his hour-long speech, a smiling Pope Francis was quoted telling the Vatican’s guests that the Koran, and the spiritual teachings contained therein, are just as valid as the Holy Bible.

“Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Jehovah, Allah. These are all names employed to describe an entity that is distinctly the same across the world. For centuries, blood has been needlessly shed because of the desire to segregate our faiths. This, however, should be the very concept which unites us as people, as nations, and as a world bound by faith. Together, we can bring about an unprecedented age of peace, all we need to achieve such a state is respect each others beliefs, for we are all children of God regardless of the name we choose to address him by. We can accomplish miraculous things in the world by merging our faiths, and the time for such a movement is now. No longer shall we slaughter our neighbors over differences in reference to their God.”

The pontiff drew harsh criticisms in December (2014) after photos of the 78-year-old Catholic leader was released depicting Pope Francis kissing a Koran. The Muslim Holy Book was given to Francis during a meeting with Muslim leaders after a lengthy Muslim prayer held at the Vatican.

Last February 5th, after President Barack Hussein Obama’s incendiary and decidedly anti-Christian remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, Reverend Franklin Graham spoke truth to power:

Today at the National Prayer Breakfast, the President implied that what ISIS is doing is equivalent to what happened over 1000 years ago during the Crusades and the Inquisition. Mr. President–Many people in history have used the name of Jesus Christ to accomplish evil things for their own desires. But Jesus taught peace, love and forgiveness. He came to give His life for the sins of mankind, not to take life. Mohammad on the contrary was a warrior and killed many innocent people. True followers of Christ emulate Christ—true followers of Mohammed emulate Mohammed.

As Rev. Graham said so eloquently, Islam and Christianity present two very different Deities, who may share some similarities, but who have different identities and ultimately different standards. To pretend they are the same is not only to be clueless of the faith of 76% of the citizens of this nation, but, to be ignorant of an integral part of our American Heritage, the legacy of Christian Faith, which our Founding Fathers bequeathed us.

Recently, Republican Presidential Candidate Hopeful, Dr. Ben Carson, got a lot of attention from hang-wringing Liberals in the Main Stream Media, the Democratic Party and among the Vichy Republicans, also, when he said that a Muslim should never be President of the United States of America., because Sharia Law in incompatible with The United States Constitution.

He was absolutely right.

The Center For Security Policy issued the following PDF, ” “Sharia Law Vs. The Constitution”,

Article VI: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land

  • Constitution: Article VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby”
  • Shariah: “The source of legal rulings for all acts of those who are morally responsible is Allah.” (a1.1, Umdat al-salik or The Reliance of the Traveller, commonly accepted work of Shariah jurisprudence); “There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Sharia.” (Seyed Qutb); “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program.” (Seyed Abul A’ala Maududi)

First Amendment: Freedom of religion

  • Constitution: First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ”
  • Shariah: “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.” Quran 4:89 ; “Whoever changed his [Islamic] religion, then kill him” Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:84:57.  In historic and modern Shariah states, Shariah law enforces dhimmi status (second-class citizen, apartheid-type laws) on nonMuslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, building or repairing churches, raising their voices during prayer or ringing church bells; if dhimmi laws are violated in the Shariah State, penalties are those used for prisoners of war: death, slavery, release or ransom.(o9.14, o11.0-o11.11, Umdat al-salik).

First Amendment: Freedom of speech   

  • Constitution: First Amendment: Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech.”  
  • Shariah: Speech defaming Islam or Muhammad is considered “blasphemy” and is punishable by death or imprisonment.

First Amendment: Freedom to dissent

  • Constitution: First Amendment: “Congress cannot take away the right of the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” 
  •  Shariah: Non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility toward the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.

Second Amendment: Right to self-defense

  • Constitution: Second Amendment: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” 
  • Shariah: Under historic and modern dhimmi laws, non-Muslims cannot possess swords, firearms or weapons of any kind.

Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments: Right to due process and fair trial

  • Constitution: Fifth Amendment: “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime… without due process of law.”  Sixth Amendment: guarantees a “public trial by an impartial jury.”  Seventh Amendment: “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.”
  • Shariah: Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari: Muhammad said, “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel).”  Non-Muslims are prohibited from testifying against Muslims.  A woman’s testimony is equal to half of a man’s.

Eighth Amendment: No cruel and unusual punishment 

  • Constitution: Eighth Amendment: “nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
  • Shariah: Under Shariah punishments are barbaric: “Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done – a deterrent from Allah.” Quran 5:38; A raped woman is punished:”The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication – flog each of them with a hundred stripes” (Sura 24:2).

Fourteenth Amendment: Right to equal protection and due process 

  • Constitution:  Fourteenth Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. “
  • Shariah: Under dhimmi laws enforced in modern Shariah states, Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims before the law.  Under Shariah law, women, girls, apostates, homosexuals and “blasphemers” are all denied equality under the law. 

Given this incompatibility between Sharia Law and the Constitution of the United States of America, which our Freedom and our System of Laws are based upon, if given the choice, which would Muslims currently living in the Land of the Free and the home of the Brave choose to be faithful to?

Back on June 23, 2015, the Center for Security Policy released the following findings for a poll they took of 600 Muslims, who current live in America.

The numbers of potential jihadists among the majority of Muslims who appear not to be sympathetic to such notions raise a number of public policy choices that warrant careful consideration and urgent debate, including: the necessity for enhanced surveillance of Muslim communities; refugee resettlement, asylum and other immigration programs that are swelling their numbers and density; and the viability of so-called “countering violent extremism” initiatives that are supposed to stymie radicalization within those communities.

Overall, the survey, which was conducted by The Polling Company for the Center for Security Policy (CSP), suggests that a substantial number of Muslims living in the United States see the country very differently than does the population overall.  The sentiments of the latter were sampled in late May in another CSP-commissioned Polling Company nationwide survey.

According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”  When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).

More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.

These notions were powerfully rejected by the broader population according to the Center’s earlier national survey.  It found by a margin of 92%-2% that Muslims should be subject to the same courts as other citizens, rather than have their own courts and tribunals here in the U.S.

Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”

By contrast, the broader survey found that a 63% majority of those sampled said that “the freedom to engage in expression that offends Muslims or anybody else is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and cannot be restricted.”

Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.

In conclusion, I am not saying that every Muslim is on a jihad against “the infidels”, and, wish to invade our Sovereign Nation and over-throw our Government.

However, there is a difference between being an average Christian American and a Muslim, living in America.

When Christians become “radicalized”, we want to share the testimony of what God has done for us through His love, with everyone we meet. We get involved in our local church and we become better fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, and American Citizens.

When Muslims become “radicalized”, they want to “kill the Infidels” in the name of “Allah the Merciful”.

In the case of the Chechen Muslim brothers who bombed the Boston Marathon, their immersion into Radical Islam led them to “kill the infidels” that horrendous day.

In the case of the barbarians of ISIS, it has turned them into doppelgangers of the Nazi Butchers of Dachau.

For Liberals, including Pope Francis, to deny that, is disingenuous at best, and just plain dangerous at worst.

Until He Comes,


Pope Francis Speaks to Congress, Urges “Compassion” For “Immigrants”

September 25, 2015

untitled (3)Francis spoke to Congress, yesterday.

The Daily Mail reports that

Pope Francis delivered a stinging blow to nativist conservatives bent on keeping illegal immigrants and Middle Eastern refugees out of the United States, saying Thursday in a landmark address to Congress that Americans should show compassion to immigrants of all stripes.

‘When the stranger in our midst appeals to us, we must not repeat the sins and the errors of the past,’ the Roman Catholic pontiff said. ‘We must resolve now to live as nobly and as justly as possible, as we educate new generations not to turn their back on our “neighbors” and everything around us.’

Speaking in English – a language he has learned only recently – Francis also dropped coded messages to conservatives about gay marriage and abortion, and made an impassioned plea for a left-leaning approach to capital punishment in an unprecedented visit to Capitol Hill by a sitting Pope.

‘I cannot hide my concern for the family, which is threatened, perhaps as never before, from within and without,’ Francis told a packed House chamber filled with legislators, Supreme Court justices and multiple presidential candidates.

‘Fundamental relationships are being called into question, as is the very basis of marriage and the family.’ 

And without mentioning abortion by name – or the name of the embattled domestic Planned Parenthood organization – Francis told lawmakers that the ‘Golden Rule … reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development.’

Francis spoke calmly but emphatically, never raising his voice as presidents often do in their State of the Union addresses to joint congressional sessions.

He was greeted by polite applause at certain points – particularly when he began reciting the Golden Rule but was interrupted before he could finish – ‘do unto others as you would have done unto you.’

Also, notably, applause broke out after these words: ‘The Golden Rule reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of development.’ 

But the applause was never raucous, a sign that members heeded party leaders’ directive not to applaud effusively or ‘glad-handle’ Francis if they got close to him.

Behind him on the raised speaker’s dais, close watchers got a different show during the speech, as both Vice President Joe Biden and House Speaker John Boehner – both well-known emotional men – proved to be almost as watchable.

Throughout the speech, Biden gravely nodded his head and looked down as if in serious thought. But Boehner appeared to tear up at several points, and was openly crying later on the Speaker’s Balcony after the address.

Francis’s speech was sprinkled with references to American history, as the pontiff repeatedly referenced and occasionally quoted from President Abraham Lincoln, civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr., Catholic Worker Movement founder Dorothy Day and Cistercerian monk Thomas Merton.

The pontiff made clear his firmness on the sanctity of human life, not only the veiled reference to abortion but also his opposition to the death penalty. 

 Biden, a Roman Catholic who co-presided over the Joint Session of Congress as the constitutionally appointed president of the U.S. Senate, caused a stir this week by declaring that he believes life begins at conception.

But it’s Francis’ comments about immigrants that will be most sharply felt as the U.S. deals with the twin crises of Syrian refugees and an immigrant invasion from Mexico and Central America, both of which the Obama administration has taken steps to pacify by loosening America’s borders as a show of compassion.

‘Thousands of persons are led to travel north in search of a better life for themselves and for their loved ones in search of greater opportunities’ in in North America, he said. ‘Is this not what we want for our own children?’

‘We must not be taken aback by their numbers, but rather view them as persons, seeing their faces and listening to their stories, trying to respond as best we can to their situation. To respond in a way which is always humane, just and fraternal.’

WIthout naming Syria, the Muslim faith, the ISIS terror army, or any of the European nations that have hedged their bets again welcoming the tide of migrants displaced by Islamist armies, Francis noted ‘a refugee crisis of a magnitude not seen since the Second World War.’

‘This presents us with great challenges and many hard decisions,’ he said. 

Ultimately the shepherd of more than 1.2 billion Catholics counseled adherence to a Biblical do-unto-others philosophy.

‘Let us treat others with the same passion and compassion with which we want to be treated,’ he implored Congress. ‘Let us seek for others the same possibilities which we seek for ourselves. Let us help others to grow, as we would like to be helped ourselves.’

‘In a word, if we want security, let us give security; if we want life, let us give life; if we want opportunities, let us provide opportunities. The yardstick we use for others will be the yardstick which time will use for us.’ 

Francis did warn against religious fundamentalism of the type that drew ISIS into the fight that has displaced an estimated 4 million Syrians, mostly young men.

‘Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities, committed even in the name of God and of religion,’ he said. 

‘We know that no religion is immune from forms of individual delusion or ideological extremism. This means that we must be especially attentive to every type of fundamentalism, whether religious or of any other kind.’

Since this happens to be my blog, please allow me to state the following, as I believe it to be:

Friends have asked me if I believe that Christ would be in favor of this “Social Justice” movement that has consumed some churches in America, replacing Christian Doctrine with a Modern Liberal Political Agenda. No. I do not believe that Jesus would be a part of the social justice movement. His was and is a soul-saving movement. One that still brings hundreds of thousand of people to individual salvation on this terrestrial ball every day. A movement that, in fact, was embraced by the founders of this cherished land.

Regarding his comments concerning “immigrants”, the Pope left out a very important word: ILLEGAL.

The last bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform happened during President ill “Bubba” Clinton’s tenure. Bubba appointed former congresswoman and Democratic icon Barbara Jordan as its chair. Jordan came from humble beginnings to become a lawyer and the first Southern black woman elected to the House of Representatives. A DEMOCRAT, she was a leader in the civil rights movement, a professor of ethics, a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and a world-class orator (two of her speeches are considered among the greatest of the 20th century). Her appointment gave the commission instant credibility. According to Jordan, she believed her responsibility as the head of the commission was to restore credibility to the U.S. immigration system. On the issue of illegal immigration, Jordan was very clear and succinct:

Unlawful immigration is unacceptable. Those who should not be here will be required to leave.

I understand that people want a better life for themselves and their children.  We are all immigrants in this land, except for American Indians, and they got here by crossing the Bering Straight.  But there is a huge difference between immigrating here legally and sneaking in illegally, between assimilating into an existing culture, and insisting on replacing a country’s existing culture with that of the country you left.

Do you want to have access to the blessings of American Citizenship, such as the right to attend our schools? Fine. Become an AMERICAN CITIZEN.

Regarding the Syrian “Refugees”:

Why did the Pope only concentrate on the Muslim Refugees from Syria? Why did he not mention the Christian Refugees from Syria, presently in our country, whom Obama is sending back to their home country to most certainly be killed?

And, why did he not mention Pastor Saeed, and the other three prisoners, being held unjustly in Iran, when Obam and Kerry are lauding their “Genbtleman’s Agreement” with that country of Muslim Barbarians, giving them nuclear capability?

With all due respect, sir, Christ threw the money changers out of the temple. He hated sin. Yes, he spent time with sinners…TO LEAD THEM TO REPENTENCE. JESUS CHRIST DID NOT CONDONE SIN. BREAKING THE  LAWS OF A SOVEREIGN NATION IS COMMITING A SIN.

So is entering a country to commit violent acts, in order to spread Islam throughout the world.

I’m just saying.

Until He Comes,




Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,704 other followers