Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Gen. Boykin: First Transgender Man Enters My Daughter's Bathroom Won't Have to Worry About Surgery

Gen. Boykin: First Transgender Man Enters My Daughter's Bathroom Won't Have to Worry About Surgery

Gen. Boykin: First Transgender Man Enters My Daughter's Bathroom Won't Have to Worry About Surgery

By Michael W. Chapman | March 8, 2016 | 11:28 AM EST
Lt. Gen. (ret.) William G. "Jerry"
Boykin.  (Photo: Defense Dep't.) 
Commenting on anti-Christian attacks in America and the radical LGBT agenda that says transgender men can use women’s bathrooms,  Lt. Gen. (ret.) William “Jerry” Boykin, former chief of U.S. Army Special Operations Command and a top member of Delta Force, said Christians need to fight this “evil,” and added that the first transgender man that walks into his daughter’s bathroom won’t have to worry about sex-change surgery.
“I’ve already said, and somebody will be recording this and this’ll be on YouTube before it’s all over with,” said Boykin atThe Awakening 2016 conference.  “But I will tell you what: the first man that walks in my daughter’s bathroom, he ain’t going to have to worry about surgery.” 
Earlier in his remarks, Boykin said, “Where is the Christian world today? Where are the Christians of America today? They should be flocking to people like Kim Davis.”
“They should be flocking to the city council and say, ‘No, you’re not going to let a man go in my daughter’s bathroom just because he feels like a man today,’ said the lieutenant general.
“Where are the Christians that are standing up to this kind of evil?” he said.
As he continued, “And I’ve already said, and somebody will be recording this and this’ll be on YouTube before it’s all over with. But I will tell you what: the first man that walks in my daughter’s bathroom, he ain’t going to have to worry about the surgery.”
“That’s not right,” said Boykin. “That is not right. It’s not right. It’s ungodly. But it’s also just unnatural. This is crazy. Where are the Christians that are standing up?”
(AP photo.) 
Lt. Gen. Boykin served in the U.S. Army from 1971 to 2007. He was one of the founding members of Delta Force. He headed the U.S. Army Special Forces Command, and participated in Operation Urgent Fury, Operation Just Cause, and Operation Restore Hope.
He has been awarded the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star, and two Purple Hearts, among other military honors. 
“Jerry” Boykin currently serves as the executive vice president of the Family Research Council
Michael W. Chapman
Michael W. Chapman
Michael W. Chapman

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

U.S. Policy Made 2015 the Worst Persecution of Christians "in Modern History"

U.S. Policy Made 2015 the Worst Persecution of Christians "in Modern History"

  • In 35 nations Islamic extremism "has risen to a level akin to ethnic cleansing" of Christians.
  • Something else stands behind this rise of genocidal "Islamic extremism": U.S. foreign policy. In every Muslim nation where the U.S. has intervened in the name of "freedom and democracy," Christian life has exponentially worsened.
  • For years the Obama administration has refused to list Boko Haram as a terrorist organization, and has argued that its violence had nothing to do with Islam and was a result of poverty and grievances. Instead, the U.S. pressured the Nigerian government to make concessions.
  • The primary achievement of U.S. foreign policies, apart from wasted American blood and treasure -- is the unprecedented rise in Muslim nations of Islamic forces outspokenly bent on destroying America.
2015 was the "worst year in modern history for Christian persecution," according to Open Doors, a human rights organization that has been documenting the persecution of Christians since 1955.

According to its latest data, more than 7,000 Christians were killed for their faith in 2015 — almost twice as many as in 2014. In addition, more than 2,400 churches were attacked, damaged or destroyed — again, more than double the number of the previous year.

In the words of Open Doors' CEO, David Curry:

The 2016 World Watch List [which ranks the 50 nations where Christians are most persecuted] documents an unprecedented escalation of violence against Christians, making this past year the most violent and sustained attack on Christian faith in modern history. ... This research has concluded that after the brutal persecution of Christians in 2014, 2015 proved to be even worse with the persecution continuing to increase, intensify and spread across the globe. ... The level of exclusion, discrimination and violence against Christians is unprecedented, spreading and intensifying.
Who or what is behind these unprecedented levels of persecution? Some of it is related to the tendency of non-Western nations to associate Christianity with the "hated West." Four are Communist nations — Vietnam (ranked #20), Laos (#29), China (#33), and North Korea (#1), where "Christianity is not only seen as 'opium for the people,' as is normal for all communist states, it is also seen as deeply Western and despicable," notes the report. Three are reclaiming their religious heritage in contradistinction to what is portrayed as a depraved West — Hindu India (#17), Buddhist Bhutan (#38) and Myanmar (#23). And two — Mexico (#40) and Columbia (#46) — are fueled by organized crime and drug cartels.

"Islamic extremism" is cited as the source of persecution for the remaining 41 nations that make the list of 50 worst persecutors of Christians. North Korea aside, the rest of the eight nations where Christians experience the worst form of persecution ("extreme persecution") are all Islamic. In 35 nations, Islamic extremism "has risen to a level akin to ethnic cleansing" of Christians.

A close examination of the report indicates that something else stands behind this rise of genocidal "Islamic extremism": U.S. foreign policy. In every Muslim nation where the U.S. has intervened in the name of "freedom and democracy," Christian life has exponentially worsened. Put differently, those who most despise "freedom and democracy" — radical and jihadi Muslims — tend to be the ones most empowered by U.S. foreign policies.

Iraq today, according to the report, is the second worst nation in the world in which to be Christian. Afghanistan is fourth, Syria fifth, and Libya tenth. A decade ago, none of these countries even made the top 10 list. Syria and Libya — when they were ruled by secular autocrats who were eventually demonized by U.S. politicians and media, and then underwent U.S. intervention — did not even make the top 20.

In 2004, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was ranked 32 and scored only 35.5 (out of 100). After a decade's worth of American lives and treasure were wasted, Iraq now scores 90 and is the worst Muslim nation in which to be Christian. The situation is the same in those other Muslim nations that the U.S. government brought "freedom and democracy" to -- and with Syria, which it continues trying to bring "freedom and democracy" to:

  • Syria: A decade ago it was ranked #47 and scored only 24.5. A nation must score at least 50 to count as containing "sparse persecution." Today it is ranked #5 and scores 87 , or "extreme persecution."
  • Libya: A decade ago it was ranked #22 and scored 41; today it ranks #10 and scores 79.
  • Afghanistan: A decade ago it ranked #11 and scored 53; today — a decade after the U.S. declared "victory" over al-Qaeda and the Taliban — it is ranked #4 and scores 88.
Even in nations where U.S. intervention is not obvious, Christian persecution has reached unprecedented levels. In Nigeria, Boko Haram — an Islamic group possibly more savage than ISIS — slaughtered more Christians in 2015 than any other terrorist group. Yet for years the Obama administration has refused to list Boko Haram as a terrorist organization, and has arguedthat its violence had nothing to do with Islam and was a result of poverty and grievances. Instead, the U.S. pressured the Nigerian government to make concessions, including by building more mosques — the very structures, as the Nigerian lawyer Emmanuel Ogebe said, where Muslims are radicalized and recruited for the jihad.

Some of the hundreds of Christian Nigerian schoolgirls who were abducted last year by Boko Haram. (Image source: Boko Haram video)

In May 2013, soon after Nigerian forces killed 30 Boko Haram members in a particularly strong offensive, Reuters reported that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry "issued a strongly worded statement" to the Nigerian president: "We are ... deeply concerned by credible allegations that Nigerian security forces are committing gross human rights violations, which, in turn, only escalate the violence and fuel extremism" from Boko Haram.

Those many Americans indifferent to all this persecution "over there" would do well to connect the dots: Globally empowering forces hostile to Christians is synonymous with globally empowering forces hostile to America. Those Muslims who hate and persecute Christians alsohate, and seek to persecute, Americans for exactly the same reason: Westerners all are hated non-Muslim infidels.

In short, the primary achievement of U.S. foreign policies, apart from wasted American blood and treasure -- is the unprecedented rise in Muslim nations of Islamic forces outspokenly bent on destroying America.

Raymond Ibrahimauthor of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War in Christians (a Gatestone Publication, published by Regnery, April 2013), is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Judith Friedman Rosen Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Saturday, March 12, 2016

The Ignorant Fishermen Blog: The Dominance of the Godless American Woman and the Fall of America

The Ignorant Fishermen Blog: The Dominance of the Godless American Woman and the Fall of America

The Dominance of the Godless American Woman and the Fall of America

Today there are absolutely no shortages of godless women in our post Judeo/Christian American culture. These women occupy all of society’s genres from politics to Hollywood, from the music industry to the fashion world, from the faculty lounge to the masses. They are very out spoken and preach a subtle - yet tyrannical - delusion of liberation and freedom by the application and adherence of lawlessness, immorality, tolerance and political correctness; none of which can bring TRUE fullfillment but only tyrrany(Rom. 1:18-32, Gal. 6:7-8). Since the sixties, the women of American have become heavily indoctrinated by secularism and they have changed dramatically into godless, licentious, narcissistic, angry and lewd individuals. Society - even here in America - has always had its social problems, but the masses in general always adhered to an objective morality based on the Bible and its Judeo/ Christian values. American society (in general) since our founding had always frowned upon lewdness and moral secularism.

Since the sixties, the women of American have become heavily indoctrinated by secularism and they have changed dramatically into godless, licentious, narcissistic, angry and lewd individuals.

It was after the American civil war that our American culture began to break away from the healthy social restraints of Judeo/Christianity that had preserved our nation and its family unit and secularism and human rationalism began to take hold. As time went on, we began to see the seduction of this ideology on the women of America and though woman did deserved more personal rights and freedoms as granted by Almighty God and the constitution, a group of women sought the extreme end of this spectrum which was unhealthy, toxic and enslaving to its posterity.

Today we have seen where this extreme and harmful secular feminism has taken us to and what and who it has produced. This godless ideology has infiltrated all aspects, genres and traditions of our once great American society and those who have joined its legions have been a fifth column sabotage unit in a war to destroy America and all that has made her great. Tragically these godless women of America have been co-labors right along with fallen man’s lawless bent, sexual rebellion, unbridled passions and have raised the bar of depravity to levels unimaginable, even to the point of succeeding in their mission to redefine and legitimize the demonization of America’s once healthy social order, morality and even Almighty God (Rom. 1:18-32, Jude 1:7,10).

This godless ideology has infiltrated all aspects, genres and traditions of our once great American society and those who have joined its legions have been a fifth column sabotage unit in a war to destroy America and all that has made her great.

Tragically here in America these women have gone right along redefining morality, virtue and etiquette and have sold themselves to be willing accomplices with godless man in the indoctrination of a whole entire generation (Rom. 1:18-32). These cultural Marxist and secular feminist deviants who come across as social "angels of light" have transformed themselves into an army of elite intellectuals, social justice crusaders, armed with Alinskyite tactics, sexual appeal and a subjective hatred of Judeo/Christian values. They are cruel, sophisticated, well dressed and well educated, groomed and godless and have become the subtle secular trendsetters whose vindictive mindset and passion is to overturn ALL that Almighty God and Judeo/Christianity stands for here in America (Rom. 1:18-32). The overwhelming majority of these women are not from the slums of society. They have not been raised in poor and meager settings, but are from some of the richest families, well privileged and lacking nothing. They have been raised and bred with an instilled hatred of true Americanism in them and in their heart of hearts are in a continual war with our nation’s founding principles, conservatism, the Constitution, moral absolutes and absolutely despise all that Almighty God (the Creator) stands for (Rom. 1:18-32). In these last 50 years we have seen the EXPONENTIAL rise of these elitist godless women in our nation to the point of obtaining respectability and normality and this lawless spirit has come to dominate our Judeo/ Christian heritage which has led our nation to the brink of destruction (2 Tim 3:1-7, Jude 1:10).

My dear friend, Satan is no dope or buffoon. He is a diabolical genius who fully comprehends the inner workings of Adam’s fallen race and knows how to perfectly play humanity like a fiddle to fulfill all of his demonic anti-God agenda (Isa. 14:12-15, Matt. 4:9, Eph. 2:2-3, Rev. 13:4). He is a human hunter and a destroyer and knows exactly what bait to use to bring down a culture and society which has had the Bible and Almighty God in its beginnings and founding (John 8:44). As one reads through the biblical account of Adam’s fallen race one satanic tactic is always used and tragically is 95% effective. That demonic tactic is to corrupt the woman's moral bearings and use her sexual appeal to seduce, corrupt and bring down a godly or even a godless social order and to render that society useless for Almighty God’s plan and out working for it (Rom. 1:18-32). The woman was used in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3). She was used to corrupt the holy seed of Seth in the pre-flood world (Gen. 6), She was used to derail Sampson (Judges 16), David (2 Sam. 11, 12:1-13), Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-11) and the nation of Israel (Numb 25, Ezra 9:1-2) and the Church (Rev. 2:20-22). Almighty God’s Word gives ample warning for the man to guard ones heart and fallen nature from the ways and traps of the godless women (Proverbs 6) while instructing the man to find a godly and virtuous women for the health and betterment of a society (Prov. 31:10-31). We have seen – in the last 50 years - with our own eyes the horrific ramifications and social fallout that has taken place here in America when the woman has abandoned and forsaken her Divine calling (Prov. 31:10-31). One of these horrific results has been the murder and barbaric infanticide of 55 million unborn children since 1973 under the euphemistic title of "choice".

That demonic tactic is to corrupt the woman and use her sexual appeal to seduce, corrupt and bring down a godly or even a godless social order and to render that society useless for Almighty God’s plan and out working for it.

We have seen since the beginning of the social and sexual revolution here in America that the American man has been made base, feminine and weak by the subtle charms of the lawless intellect, licentious behavior, dominating spirit and position in the new social order of our post Judeo/Christian culture. Satan’s hand is all over this. Tragically with this rise of the godless woman and the promotion of secular feminism here in America there has come a ravishing price tag for this delusional “liberation”. The American woman of today is plagued with compounding guilt, personal unfulfillment, sex, drug and alcohol addiction, plaguing STD’s, physical abuse, deep dark depression, psychological trauma, rage, hatred, bitterness, a vindictive spirit and emotional instability. They are personally unfullfilled and spiritually vacant (Gal. 6:7,8). These women have drunk the lawless  kool-aid of the secular liberation movement's message and have been sold a demonic bill of wares. They have forsaken and rebelled against Almighty God’s Divine purpose and design for them and it has affected them all according to their own personal application of this secular and lawless ideology. Tragically they have become shipwrecked on the lawless shores of godlessness and have been reaping the lawless consequences continually (Gal. 6:7-8). Instead of humbling themselves to the love, mercy and grace of Almighty God  they have tragically only hardened their hearts and have become bitter and even more vile in their manner of living.

Almighty God created the woman to be finer than the man. She was created to balance the dominate nature of man, to hold him accountable, to be his help meet, to be loving, motherly, caring, compassionate and the anchor of the Divine design of the family unit (Almighty God being the bedrock) - Prov. 31: 10-31, Matt. 7:24-26). One can always tell the temperature of a culture and society by the state and condition of its women. When women are in a right relationship with Almighty God and adhere to the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God there is a healthy restraint, order and harmony in a fallen society, to preserve it and to keep it from corruption. Since 1962 - when prayer and Almighty God was removed from our nation’s schools - the lawless dam here in America has broken wide open and the American woman has been swept away and has been its greatest victim. The delusional and lawless ambitions for godless liberation have only shackled these women with iron battleship chains and have self imposed a lawless tyranny upon themselves(Gal. 6:7-8).

When women are in a right relationship with Almighty God and adhere to the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God there is a healthy restraint, order and harmony in a fallen society, to preserve it and to keep it from corruption.

Let’s just take a look at what makes up the many faceted genres (socially, politically, culturally) which the American godless woman of today out works her existence. The godless American women of today (in general) practices a moral relativistic mindset and can be found in all areas within the cultural spectrum (some more extreme than others). She is reprobate in all moral absolute logic. She is godless in her ideology. She is humanly subjective in all of her worldly opinions; she’s ignorant, brutish, callus, blind and foolish. She is driven by personal ambition, envy, jealousy, anger and rage. She is vindictive, spiteful and merciless to any who oppose her lawless mindset and will destroy, ravish and slander any who challenge her lawless ideals. She is always a victim in her mind and must have retribution. She champions and exercises compassion for lawless and godless causes, while expressing zero compassion for moral and godly ones. She has been hardened by the consequences of her lawless ways. She is – at her heart – unhappy, self loathing and miserable. She is lewd, rude and licentious even though she may seem moderate in her opinions. She has given herself over to the unbridled passions of her fallen nature and has become callus to shame and never blushes. She is a hypocrite, always masquerading her godless intentions with a compassionate facade. She is a hunter of men’s souls, a destroyer of families, a murder of the unborn, she prostitutes her humanity for lawlessness, she is a promoter of social and moral lawlessness and anarchy. She is guided by an illogical, unstable and unbalanced emotional roller coaster and is always hypocritical while seeking to be sincere (Isa. 5:20, Rom. 1:18-32). Her mindset and abandonment of the Laws of Nature and of Natures God has opened her up to be influenced and used by the god of this world(John 8:44, 2 Cor. 4:3-4, Eph. 2:2-3).

The godless American women of today (in general) practices a moral relativistic mindset and can be found in all areas within the cultural spectrum (some more extreme than others).

We have seen in our society of today and in our past women who have taken on this mindset and have been the leading cultural trendsetters in the ways of lawlessness. Though, many vary in their positions of secular feminism these women have had the greatest negative impact on our Judeo/ Christian culture.

Margret Sanger, Madelyn Murray O’Hare, Jane Fonda, Liz Taylor, Hillary Clinton, Madonna, Michele Obama, Janeane Garofalo, Rachel Maddow, Nancy Pelosi, Katie Couric, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, Sandra Fluke, Angeline Jolie, Ophra Winfrey, Beyonce etc.

These women influence millions of women daily with their subtle secular relativistic morality, godlessness, euphemistic virtues, lawless secular feministic liberation and “do as thou wilt” ideology. These women are the heroes of a post Judeo/ Christian lawless society, role models for all those who thirst for liberation from their Creator and His moral absolutes which were instilled at the creation of the world (Gen. 1, Psalm 19). Be not surprised when these rally women and a nation to hate and despise god-fearing women such as Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, and a host of other conservative Christian women. Everything is turned upside downtoday and there is absolutely no stopping it (Psalm 11:3, Isa. 5:20). Expect evil men and women to get worse and worse as the day continues (2 Tim 3:1-7). The Day of the Lord is at hand and His time for global judgment on all those who hold the TRUTH, physical and spiritual ABSOLUTES and RIGHTEOUSNESS of Almighty God in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-32, Rev. 6-16). When the women of a society have sold themselves to lawlessness as we have seen for these last 50 years, we are indeed at the end of our nation’s journey.

The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!!


The Virtuous Woman Bible Study 

A Tale of Two Women
The Extinction of the Godly Woman

Friday, March 11, 2016

A Century Before Donald Trump, Churchill Warned 'No Stronger Retrograde Force Exists in the World' Than Islam - Breitbart

A Century Before Donald Trump, Churchill Warned 'No Stronger Retrograde Force Exists in the World' Than Islam - BreitbartA Century Before Donald Trump, Churchill Warned ‘No Stronger Retrograde Force Exists in the World’ Than Islam
April 1939: British Conservative politician Winston Churchill. (Photo by Evening Standard/Getty Images)Getty Images
by MICHAEL PATRICK LEAHY28 Dec 20153,050
A century before GOP front runner Donald Trump called for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration to the United States, Winston Churchill diagnosed the dangers of radical Islam.

In September 1898, the 23-year-old Churchill was one of the officers leading the 21st Lancers cavalry charge that secured a British victory over 19th century Islamic terrorists at the Battle of Omdurman in Sudan.

Some 13 years earlier Muhammad Ahmad, “the Mahdi of Allah,” had established the first modern Islamic caliphate governed by sharia law when he beheaded British General George Gordon after his dervish jihadi army captured Khartoum. Only superior British military power stopped Ahmad’s successor, Ibn Muhammad, from spreading the caliphate throughout Africa, and elsewhere.

Writing in The River War, his account of the British retaking of Sudan, published in 1899, Churchill noted the threat to Western Civilization radical Islam poses:

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die: but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science—the science against which it had vainly struggled—the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

(emphasis added)

Islam, Churchill wrote, “is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog.”

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedanism law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property–either as a child, a wife, or a concubine — must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Writing earlier in the River War, the conduct of the Mahdi who led this modern caliphate was beneath contempt, in Churchill’s view:

After the fall of Khartoum and the retreat of the British armies the Mahdi became the absolute master of the Soudan. Whatever pleasures he desired he could command, and, following the example of the founder of the Mohammedan faith, he indulged in what would seem to Western minds gross excesses. He established an extensive harem for his own peculiar use, and immured therein the fairest captives of the war.

In his first book, a description of British battles in Afghanistan, The Story of the Malakand Field Force, an Episode of Frontier War, published a year earlier in 1898, Churchill explained how local tribesmen were mesmerized by the call of Islam:

The Mullah will raise his voice and remind them of other days when the sons of the prophet drove the infidel from the plains of India, and ruled at Delhi, as wide an Empire as the Kafir holds to-day: when the true religion strode proudly through the earth and scorned to lie hidden and neglected among the hills: when mighty princes ruled in Bagdad, and all men knew that there was one God, and Mahomet was His prophet. And the young men hearing these things will grip their Martinis, and pray to Allah, that one day He will bring some Sahib (prince) – best prize of all – across their line of sight at seven hundred yards so that, at least, they may strike a blow for insulted and threatened Islam.

Churchill compared Islam unfavorably to Christianity:

Indeed it is evident that Christianity, however degraded and distorted by cruelty and intolerance, must always exert a modifying influence on men’s passions, and protect them from the more violent forms of fanatical fever, as we are protected from smallpox by vaccination. But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness.

In the same book, Churchill also offered this on Islam:

That religion, which above all others was founded and propagated by the sword—the tenets and principles of which are instinct with incentives to slaughter and which in three continents has produced fighting breeds of men—stimulates a wild and merciless fanaticism. The love of plunder, always a characteristic of hill tribes, is fostered by the spectacle of opulence and luxury which, to their eyes, the cities and plains of the south display. A code of honour not less punctilious that that of old Spain is supported by vendettas as implacable as those of Corsica.

Some current academics seek to “rehabilitate” Churchill as not firmly aware of the threat to constitutional liberty inherent in Islam, but careful students of Churchill, whose leadership saved England from Hitler in World War II, are having none of it.

Steven Hayward at Powerline, for instance, recently exploded the myth that “Winston Churchill quietly flirted with Islam — to the point that relatives feared he might convert.” The myth was based on a recently discovered 1907 letter sent to him by his future sister-in-law in which she wrote ““Please don’t become converted to Islam; I have noticed in your disposition a tendency to orientalise, Pasha-like tendencies, I really have.”

As Hayward wrote:

This is complete and utter nonsense. Let’s go in reverse: why might Churchill wish to be a pasha? It requires only 10 seconds to grasp why a junior cabinet minister (as he was at the time)—or even a prime minister—might well think this: you don’t have to drag your cabinet colleagues along, or get “consensus” for what you want to do. It certainly has nothing to do with the tenets of Islam.

Second, can anyone really see Churchill giving up alcohol, as Islam demands? To the contrary, one famous story recalls Churchill, dining with King Feisal of Saudi Arabia, who informed Churchill that his religion forbade the consumption of alcohol during meals. To which the sensible Churchill replied, while having his own supply of wine poured, that his religion required the consumption of alcohol before, during, and after all meals.

You will scour Churchill’s voluminous writings in vain looking for the slightest approval of Islam. To the contrary, his books are full of assessments that are politically incorrect today.

In the River War, Churchill also wrote:

For I hope that if evil days should come upon our own country, and the last army which a collapsing Empire could interpose between London and the invader were dissolving in rout and ruin, that there would be some—even in these modern days—who would not care to accustom themselves to a new order of things and tamely survive the disaster.

“Who does that sound like, if not the defiant Churchill of 1940?” Powerline’s Hayward asks rhetorically.

Two decades later at the 1921 Cairo Conference, while serving as foreign secretary for colonial affairs, Churchill made clear his views on the dangers of Islam had not changed.

“They hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children … Austere, intolerant, well armed, and bloodthirsty,” Churchill said of adherents to Islam.

Such sentiments about the threat of Islam, expressed by the British leader who saved England and America from Nazi conquest in World War II, are not shared by many Western leaders today.

“Former [German] president Wulff said Islam belongs to Germany. That is true. I also hold this opinion,” German chancellor Angela Merkel said in January, in advance of the arrival of an estimated 1 million refugees to her country in 2015.

In November, after the Paris attacks, the Express reported on British Prime Minister David Cameron’s qualified critique of contemporary Islam:

Discussing what drives Islamic extremists at the annual Lord Mayor’s Banquet, Mr Cameron said: “Of course, this extremist ideology is not true Islam.

“That cannot be said clearly enough.

“But it is not good enough to say simply that Islam is a religion of peace and then to deny any connection between the religion of Islam and the extremists.

“Why? Because these extremists are self identifying as Muslims.”

In America, Barack Obama began his presidency by traveling to Cairo to apologize to Muslims for past American strength and promise new and improved relations. That promise, enabled by Obama’s premature withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, has yielded the bitter fruit of the rise of ISIS as it stepped into the American created power vacuum.

This is the same Obama whose father and step father were Muslims, was raised four years during his childhood in Muslim majority Indonesia, and told the United Nations General Assembly in 2012 that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Obama’s sympathy for Islam was known before he was elected president, as Nicholas Kristoff wrote in this 2007 New York Times article:

“I was a little Jakarta street kid,” he said in a wide-ranging interview in his office (excerpts are on my blog, He once got in trouble for making faces during Koran study classes in his elementary school, but a president is less likely to stereotype Muslims as fanatics — and more likely to be aware of their nationalism — if he once studied the Koran with them.

Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on earth.”

Moreover, Mr. Obama’s own grandfather in Kenya was a Muslim. Mr. Obama never met his grandfather and says he isn’t sure if his grandfather’s two wives were simultaneous or consecutive, or even if he was Sunni or Shiite. (O.K., maybe Mr. Obama should just give up on Alabama.)

This current generation of Western leaders, soft in their support for constitutional liberty, are now demonstrating their self-destructive weakness in the face of radical Islamic strength.

If Western Civilization is to survive, it will only be as a consequence of leadership that demonstrates overwhelming power to defeat the unceasing efforts of the Islamists who seek to enslave us all in the modern caliphate first envisioned by Muhammad Ahmad in Sudan more than a century ago.

It was the cold steel of Churchill’s charge at Omdurman 117 years ago that brought that first attempt to create a modern caliphate to an end.

The West will need leaders with the courage of Churchill to prevent that modern caliphate from overwhelming Europe and the United States in the decades to come.

Read More Stories About:
Big Government, Donald Trump, barack obama, Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister David Cameron, Winston Churchill, Muhammad Ahmad, modern caliphate, The Story of the Malakand Field Force

Thursday, March 10, 2016

Franklin Graham: I have no hope in the Republican Party... The only hope for this country is God | Christian News on Christian Today

Franklin Graham: I have no hope in the Republican Party... The only hope for this country is God | Christian News on Christian Today

Franklin Graham: I have no hope in the Republican Party... The only hope for this country is God

Franklin Graham
The only hope for this America is God, evangelist Franklin Graham told top broadcaster Fox News. "We have taken God out of the political debate. We have taken Him out of the public space. And I want to put Him back in."
Speaking on Fox and Friends, the president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan's Purse addressed the Donald Trump phenomenon. "Millions of people are fed up with Washington and the status quo." He added: "They want honesty but they also want strong leadership."
Graham is currently on his Decision America tour of the US aimed at putting God's voice back in politics.
He invites the public to hold hands and join him in prayer in every state capital.
He explained why he had controversially resigned from the Republican Party.
He said: "I'm fed up. I don't think I can go to all 50 state capitals and stand and ask for people to pray and be affiliated with one of the parties. I don't want people to think, he's doing this for the Republicans or he's doing it for this group or that group. I'm not. I'm doing this for God."
He continued: "I have no hope in the Republican Party. I have no hope in the Democratic Party or any political party. The only hope for this country is God. And we have taken God out of the political debate. We've taken Him out of the public space. And I want to put Him back in."
He quote the Bible: "This is what Nehemiah did in chapter one of Nehemiah and God gave him favour, and we need God's favour."
He will not endorse a particular candidate but simply wants people to engage.
"I want Christians to not only vote in the national elections, I want them to vote in the state elections and local elections. How important it is to get Christian mayors, to get Christian city council people, to get Christians on the school boards. I want Christians to run for office, and I want them to vote."

The Corner | National Review Online

THE CORNER THE ONE AND ONLY. Ted Cruz Can Win It All PRINT ARTICLE ADJUST FONT SIZEAA by STANLEY KURTZ March 10, 2016 9:59 AM Be of good cheer. Ted Cruz can win the Republican presidential nomination and the presidency. With the DC Presidential Preference and Delegate Selection Convention scheduled for this weekend, it’s time for me to make my selection and lay my cards on the table. I choose Ted Cruz. For many conservatives and Republicans, this is a moment of distress and pessimism. The prospect of Donald Trump as the Republican nominee for president raises the specter of an electoral disaster that allows Hillary Clinton to entrench permanently all of President Obama’s policies. Notwithstanding the enthusiasm of Trump’s followers, many of them new voters and new Republicans, Trump remains unacceptable to the larger part of the electorate. I doubt this problem can be overcome by November. On the contrary, I believe Trump’s negatives will grow. Even should Trump be elected, I have no confidence that he will govern as a conservative. Trump’s supporters like to say that no other issue matters if we lose our country through the continuation of our de facto open-borders immigration policy. Unfortunately, it’s equally true to say that no other issue matters if we lose our Constitution through the consolidation of an activist liberal Supreme Court. I have no confidence that Donald Trump will appoint the sort of justices who would save the court from liberal judicial activism. For that matter, I have no confidence that Trump will pursue a genuinely conservative immigration policy. I don’t deny that Trump could win the Republican nomination, but I believe that result is far from certain. Only one man can stop Trump now, and that is Ted Cruz. Perhaps more important, I do not believe that a Republican ticket led by Cruz is destined to lose in November, bringing the congressional ticket down with him. Cruz’s biggest handicap has been the idea that he appeals to only a narrow slice of the Republican electorate, and so can’t win in November. This is very much an “establishment” analysis, yet oddly, many grassroots voters have bought into it. They’ve turned to Trump instead of Cruz in the false belief that only Trump can win in November. Actually, Cruz has a vastly better chance of defeating Hillary Clinton than Trump. Once Rubio drops out, Cruz will begin to pull ahead of Trump. As primary voters begin to compare Trump’s massive November negatives with Cruz’s general-election positives, Cruz’s lead will grow still stronger. The knock on Cruz’s electability goes back to the same flawed theory that did in Marco Rubio. This theory claims that, demographically, Republicans represent an ever-shrinking portion of the electorate. In order to win, this theory goes, the GOP needs to compromise on immigration, get that issue out of the way, and get on to the business of persuading Hispanic, minority, and centrist voters to sign onto a modernized array of conservative policies. It’s true that the country’s demographics are changing. The flaw in the establishment theory of the American electorate, however, was its refusal to recognize that going squishy on immigration and failing to take the fight to Obama on a wide range of issues would drive away the Republican base. Republican strategists denied that liberal immigration policies would lead to electoral disaster. They pointed to evidence that Mitt Romney’s 2012 loss was not the result of the Republican base staying home. It may well be that conservative voters rallied to Romney against Obama despite their misgivings, but it was a terrible mistake to take the base’s continued support for granted. Romney’s failure to win, combined with the Gang of Eight bill, and the failure of the Republican Congress to force President Obama to veto a conservative legislative program, broke the confidence of the base. The result has been the base’s secession from the party leadership via the shift to Cruz and Trump. The other flaw in the establishment’s theory of the electorate was the failure to consider alternative ways of expanding the party’s appeal. Foreign policy has been oddly absent from the drive for conservative reform, as has been a principled conservative stance against corporate welfare, and the need to fight the creeping federalization of our education system via Common Core. For various reasons, the relatively small but disproportionately influential party leadership—many donors included—was at odds with the conservative base on each of these issues. In contrast, Ted Cruz is in a unique position to broaden the party’s appeal by campaigning on a reformed conservative foreign policy, opposition to corporate welfare, and opposition to Common Core. For all its importance, there has been relatively little debate in conservative media on America’s overall strategy for the Middle East. Yet the Republican base has long since abandoned democratization as a major instrument of policy in that region. I believe that Ted Cruz’s hawkishness, in combination with his reluctance to opt for cultural transformation as a strategy, is both substantively and politically right (and nothing like Rand Paul’s neo-isolationism). Not only is Cruz’s foreign policy closer to where the Republican electorate is right now, it’s closer to where the country is right now. A general election campaign in which Cruz raked Hillary over the coals for her Libyan misadventure would smash stereotypes about Republican foreign-policy, and about Cruz himself. Cruz, in fact, is at the forefront of crafting a sensible conservative foreign policy. The best way to get Americans to support the strong stance we need against Iran’s nuclear program is to show them that Republicans have learned from experience the difference between our essential and our non-essential security interests in the Middle East. Unfortunately, the Trump spectacle has so far diverted attention from Ted Cruz’s extraordinarily courageous stand against the ethanol mandate during the Iowa primary—even though Iowa was absolutely critical to Cruz’s electoral plan. Should Cruz become the nominee, his willingness to take a huge political risk to stand for the average taxpayer against corporate interests will become an object lesson in conservative principle—and in authentic populism. Once again, this sort of campaign could break silly stereotypes about conservatives and capture moderate voters in a year when the Democrats are buying into snake-oil socialism. There is a huge movement against Common Core among the conservative grassroots in this country. Here again, the economic interests of the donor class have drawn the party establishment away from the base on an issue that drives voters to the polls. Despite the relative silence, don’t think that Common Core hasn’t been a factor in this campaign. Common Core has everything to do with why Jeb’s candidacy never took off. Governors like Mike Pence, Chris Christie, and John Kasich never got traction, in part, because they openly favored Common Core, or came to be regarded as hopelessly dishonest about their stand on it. Hillary Clinton has spent decades supporting the nationalization of American education through the Common Core and its precursors. What’s more, Democrats are deeply divided on this issue, with teachers’ unions and many ordinary parents dead set against the Common Core. Hillary will equivocate, but Ted Cruz’s steadfast opposition to Common Core puts him in an ideal position to use this issue in a national campaign. What a perfect way to introduce a larger argument about Hillary’s life-long love of big government, from her early radical writings undermining parents’ rights, to her most recent tilt to the Elizabeth Warren left. So on a wide range of issues, Cruz is well-placed to make the kind of case that GOP establishment candidates have never yet dared to make. And on each of these issues, the conservative stance is also the stance best calculated to appeal to the electoral center. Every time Cruz makes these points, he’ll be breaking through bogus stereotypes about his so-called extremism. This is to say nothing of Hillary’s vulnerability after having been pulled to the left by Bernie Sanders. The public still doesn’t recognize the extent to which the Sanders campaign has been powered by Bill McKibben’s young army of climate activists and their crusade against fossil fuels. Cruz will now be able to put Clinton in a tremendously awkward position by forcing her to affirm or repudiate the anti-fossil fuel stance of all those Bernie voters she’ll be desperate to win back in the general election. You may think the anti-fossil fuel crowd has no place to go but Clinton. But these are exactly the sort of folks who will look for an opportunity to punish Hillary for refusing to embrace their questionable crusade against America’s entire energy industry. These folks literally want to shut down America’s oil companies, not just coal. The Democratic Party has gone off the deep end, and a candidate with Cruz’s policy chops will be able to take advantage of this in debates with Hillary. Cruz has run a superb campaign, even under the onslaught of Trump. He’s built the kind of ground game that neither Trump nor Rubio could, which leaves him particularly well placed for the general election. Cruz is a champion debater and policy wonk, yet totally comfortable with the rough-and-tumble of politics nonetheless. Yes, Cruz sometimes comes off as too scripted, but his hilarious and brilliant campaign ads show off a side that surprises. Cruz has the advantage of having been underestimated and caricatured by all. The more he shows who he really is, the more the brittle stereotype breaks. It’s already working. I’ve had the pleasure of hearing Heidi Cruz speak on behalf of Ted. She humanizes him in a completely believable way. And Heidi Cruz herself is a force to be reckoned with—wonderfully poised, and completely comfortable in the world of politics as well. The future eludes us, but this much I think I know: Ted Cruz can win it all. The claim by liberal and conservative opponents alike that Cruz is an unappealing extremist is a bum rap. Cruz is absolutely right that Republicans haven’t really run a genuinely conservative general election campaign since Ronald Reagan. And there are a great many ways in which a full-throated conservative stance would be every bit as appealing to America’s electoral center as the strategy preferred by today’s party establishment. It’s just that no-one’s tried it. Trump is a false prophet, not simply because he’s a fake conservative, but because he’s destined to be a loser. He’ll lose the election, lose the party, and lose the country. But Ted Cruz can win. He can beat Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, too. I choose Cruz, because Ted can win it all. Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He can be reached at

Read more at:

Report: “Obama sees Netanyahu as most disappointing of all Mideast leaders” | Pamela Geller

Report: “Obama sees Netanyahu as most disappointing of all Mideast leaders” | Pamela Geller

Report: “Obama sees Netanyahu as most disappointing of all Mideast leaders”

ByPAMELA GELLER on March 10, 2016
Netanyahu Obama finger
It’s to laugh, it’s to cry.
Obama sees Netanyahu as most disappointing of all Mideast leaders. Not Rouhani, not Morsi, not Assad, not Abbas, not Erdogan, not Mashal,  not Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi — the Jew.
I sees Obama as the most disappointing and antisemitic President of all U.S. president. This anti-semite is in a league of his own.
“In recent days,” Goldberg continues, “the president has said privately, ‘All I need in the Middle East is a few smart autocrats.’ A true dictator at heart. Obama was instrumental in overthrowing autocrats in order to install jihad terror rule. And now he weakly and pathetically laments? Colour me skeptical.
“Obama sees Netanyahu as most disappointing of all Mideast leaders — report,” Times of Israel, March 9, 2016:
The Atlantic: Israeli PM is ‘in his own category’ when it comes to those who frustrate US president; article cites ‘condescending’ lecture by PM, asserts that Obama sees Netanyahu as ‘too fearful and politically paralyzed’ to secure two-state solution
Disregarding, of course, daily terror attacks against the Jews, the vow of the Israel’s enemy to never recognize the Jewish state and their charter which vows to annihilate the Jews. 
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “is in his own category” when it comes to the Middle East leaders who have most deeply disappointed President Barack Obama, according to a major overview of the Obama presidency, featuring numerous interviews with the president, published online Thursday by The Atlantic.
In the piece, headlined “The Obama Doctrine,” writer Jeffrey Goldberg goes to great lengths to trace the president’s growing disillusionment, over the course of his presidency, with the possibility of changing the region for the better. “Some of his deepest disappointments concern Middle Eastern leaders themselves,” Goldberg writes. Of these, “Benjamin Netanyahu is in his own category.”
According to Goldberg, “Obama has long believed that Netanyahu could bring about a two-state solution that would protect Israel’s status as a Jewish-majority democracy, but is too fearful and politically paralyzed to do so.”
To illustrate Obama’s impatience with Netanyahu, one of several Middle Eastern leaders said to have questioned the president’s understanding of the region, Goldberg relates an incident during an undated Obama-Netanyahu meeting, at which the Israeli prime minister “launched into something of a lecture about the dangers of the brutal region in which he lives.”
Obama, relates Goldberg, “felt that Netanyahu was behaving in a condescending fashion, and was also avoiding the subject at hand: peace negotiations. Finally, the president interrupted the prime minister: ‘Bibi, you have to understand something,’ he said. ‘I’m the African American son of a single mother, and I live here, in this house. I live in the White House. I managed to get elected president of the United States. You think I don’t understand what you’re talking about, but I do.’”
obama erdogan
The piece does not single out Netanyahu as the only regional leader to “frustrate him immensely.” Obama now thinks of Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdo─čan, who he had hoped could bridge the East-West divide, as “a failure and an authoritarian, one who refuses to use his enormous army to bring stability to Syria,” Goldberg writes.
He also says Obama two years ago took Jordan’s King Abdullah II aside at an international summit because he was unhappy that the monarch was badmouthing him. “Obama said he had heard that Abdullah had complained to friends in the U.S. Congress about his leadership, and told the king that if he had complaints, he should raise them directly. The king denied that he had spoken ill of him.”
“In recent days,” Goldberg continues, “the president has taken to joking privately, ‘All I need in the Middle East is a few smart autocrats.’ Obama has always had a fondness for pragmatic, emotionally contained technocrats, telling aides, ‘If only everyone could be like the Scandinavians, this would all be easy.’”
Screen Shot 2016-03-10 at 1.09.32 PM
US President Obama delivering his famed Cairo Speech in 2009. The president highlighted the need for social progress in his first major address to the Muslim world. (photo credit: screen capture, YouTube)
According to Goldberg, Obama now acknowledges that a goal of his Cairo speech in 2009, early in his presidency, in which he sought to persuade Muslims to look honestly at the sources of their unhappiness and stop blaming Israel for all their problems, has proved unsuccessful.
Liar. This was nowhere in his speech. His speech was submission and apologia.
He quotes Obama as follows: “My argument was this: Let’s all stop pretending that the cause of the Middle East’s problems is Israel… We want to work to help achieve statehood and dignity for the Palestinians, but I was hoping that my speech could trigger a discussion, could create space for Muslims to address the real problems they are confronting — problems of governance, and the fact that some currents of Islam have not gone through a reformation that would help people adapt their religious doctrines to modernity. My thought was, I would communicate that the U.S. is not standing in the way of this progress, that we would help, in whatever way possible, to advance the goals of a practical, successful Arab agenda that provided a better life for ordinary people.”
What unfolded over the following three years, Goldberg goes on, “as the Arab Spring gave up its early promise, and brutality and dysfunction overwhelmed the Middle East,” left Obama bleak. “The unraveling of the Arab Spring darkened the president’s view of what the U.S. could achieve in the Middle East, and made him realize how much the chaos there was distracting from other priorities,” Goldberg writes.
When reality meets fantasy, it is a bloody smash-up. It was never a “spring,” it was an Islamic winter. And that was plain from the start. Read all of my writings and those of my colleagues. We knew but this plant didn’t?
Screen Shot 2016-03-10 at 1.07.58 PM
Undated file image posted on a militant website on January 14, 2014, shows Islamic State fighters marching in Raqqa, Syria. (AP/Militant Website)
More recently, says Goldberg, the rise of the Islamic State terror group has “deepened Obama’s conviction that the Middle East could not be fixed — not on his watch, and not for a generation to come.”
 Thanks to his complicity and hatred for freedom. The rivers of blood are on his hands.
In the piece, Goldberg quotes Obama castigating Islamic State in the most bitter tones, as “the distillation of every worst impulse.” Says Obama: “The notion that we are a small group that defines ourselves primarily by the degree to which we can kill others who are not like us, and attempting to impose a rigid orthodoxy that produces nothing, that celebrates nothing, that really is contrary to every bit of human progress— it indicates the degree to which that kind of mentality can still take root and gain adherents in the 21st century.”
It’s pure Islam. Authentic Islam. And Obama still cannot bring himself to identify the ideology behind this supremacist holy war. Still.
Obama is also quoted praising Israelis’ ability to withstand a relentless climate of terrorism. Writes Goldberg of the US president: “Several years ago, he expressed to me his admiration for Israelis’ ‘resilience’ in the face of constant terrorism, and it is clear that he would like to see resilience replace panic in American society.”
Screen Shot 2016-03-10 at 1.07.10 PM
A worker outside the Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran (photo credit: AP/Vahid Salemi)
Relating to last July’s nuclear agreement with Iran, on which he and Netanyahu disagreed so profoundly and so publicly, Obama told Goldberg as recently as January that he wasn’t bluffing when he said in 2012 that he would have attacked Iran to prevent it from getting a nuclear weapon. “I actually would have,” Goldberg quotes Obama saying, in reference to a strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities, “If I saw them break out… This was in the category of an American interest.”
Where he and Netanyahu differed, Goldberg elaborates, is that “Netanyahu wanted Obama to prevent Iran from being capable of building a bomb, not merely from possessing a bomb.”
Much of the article relates to Obama’s decision not to strike at Syria after President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against his own people in the summer of 2013 — a landmark volte face in his presidency. Goldberg reveals, however, that Secretary of State John Kerry has continued to press Obama “to violate Syria’s sovereignty” and “launch missiles at specific regime targets, under cover of night, to ‘send a message’ to the regime.” The president has insistently refused these requests, Goldberg writes, “and seems to have grown impatient” with Kerry’s lobbying. “Recently, when Kerry handed Obama a written outline of new steps to bring more pressure to bear on Assad, Obama said, ‘Oh, another proposal?’”
Obama blames everyone except himself. These are his picks to execute his disastrous policies.
Screen Shot 2016-03-10 at 1.21.18 PM
US President Barack Obama and US Secretary of State John Kerry (photo credit: AP/Carolyn Kaster)
Goldberg concludes the piece by arguing that Obama “has placed some huge bets” in foreign policy — notably where the Iran deal is concerned. When Goldberg told him last May that he was “nervous” about the deal, Obama replied: “Look, 20 years from now, I’m still going to be around, God willing. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it’s my name on this… I think it’s fair to say that in addition to our profound national-security interests, I have a personal interest in locking this down.”
So he knows. And he sounds proud that the Iran nuke will have his name on it.
For supporters of the president, Goldberg sums up, “his strategy makes eminent sense: Double down in those parts of the world where success is plausible, and limit America’s exposure to the rest. His critics believe, however, that problems like those presented by the Middle East don’t solve themselves — that, without American intervention, they metastasize.”
“For supporters of the president, Goldberg sums up, “his strategy makes eminent sense…” Of course, these people are nuts.
Stay on top of what's really happening. Follow me on Twitter here. Like me on Facebook here.