- ‘None of Wilders’s speeches incites violence against anyone; the violence that
surrounds him is directed only at him. - The only person talking about these problems is Geert Wilders. Dutch political leaders and most journalists seemingly prefer to claim that Geert Wilders is the problem; that if he were not there, these problems would not exist.
- What adherents of this view, that the West is guilty, “forget” is that Islam long oppressed the West: Muslim armies conquered Persia, the Christian Byzantine Empire, North Africa and the Middle East, Spain, Greece, Hungary, Serbia and the Balkans, and virtually all of Eastern Europe. The Muslim armies were a constant threat until the marauding Ottoman troops were finally turned away at the Gates of Vienna in 1683.’ https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10179/geert-wilders-suicide-europe
Lest we forget!
Uncategorized
Dr. Don Boys is right when he writes ‘Damascus is the world’s oldest city, more than 6,000 years old, and it will be destroyed to the point of being a “ruinous heap.” Unattended sheep will wander in the streets with no one to shepherd them. Isa. 17:1 declares, “The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.” We may have been watching that passage become reality as war has raged in Damascus and other Syrian cities.
Now we see heart-wrenching videos of babies, children, and innocent men and women dead from a chemical attack on the northern city of Khan Sheikhoun that would make a stone cry. It is alleged that Assad, the dastardly, devious dictator of Damascus dropped the deadly gas, but no one has proved that and Syrian officials have vehemently denied responsibility. The Local Coordination Committee, a monitoring group, said the airstrike was carried out by Russia–a supporter of Assad.
Frankly, it doesn’t make any sense for Putin to order such an attack. He has nothing to gain and much to lose by such irresponsible violence. Same with Assad, after all, he seems to be winning in the very vicious civil war. Could the chemical attack be a false flag operation whereby rebel terrorists attacked their own people to place blame upon Assad and/or Russia?
The conflict is not between two groups but involves Assad’s forces fighting a rebel group consisting of hundreds of groups numbering about 100,000 fighters. Then ISIS got involved and it’s now at least a three-way fight. There are no “good guys.” Now, both Assad’s forces and the rebels are fighting a separate battle against ISIS at the same time. It’s a major mess in the Middle East.
President Trump authorized an air strike against the Assad regime Thursday night in retaliation of the chemical attack; however, some Americans think he may have acted without all relevant facts. Trump’s attack upon Syria was a benefit to ISIS terrorists! Something’s wrong here because ISIS is a far greater threat to the U.S. than is Syria.
Trump must remember that his first priority is protecting the U.S.; however, the gas attack, while horrendous, was no threat to Americans. At least his response sent a needed message to the world: the U.S. will respond when U.S. officials deem it essential–but was it essential?
Are only Americans outraged about innocent deaths to the extent of doing something about it? Other national leaders are acting as cheerleaders but not getting “into the game.”
Meanwhile, an assortment of U.S. politicians from across the political spectrum has joined in beating the war drums. But then, older politicians have always managed to find the guts to send younger men to fight their wars.
Are we to do what others are responsible to do? Isn’t the United Nations supposed to keep the peace, protect the innocent, and bring the bad guys to justice? Alternatively, doesn’t the pecking order demand that surrounding Muslim nations bring the dictator to justice? Of course, other Muslim leaders have bloody hands also. Does any sane person believe that Assad will be replaced by a devotee of peace, justice, and freedom after he is greeted by his 72 virgins in Paradise?
Events are taking place that I predict will escalate the war, eliminate the Christians, exclude any voice of reason, and engage Israel in constant confrontations. Assad is not a good guy but he is preferable to the alternative. He is a known entity and he has not been shelling Jews on the Golan Heights. A new Syrian strongman might break the treaty and the shelling of Israel could again become a daily event as in the past.
Will we see Damascus totally destroyed? What a tragedy to see this historical and biblical city in total ruins! Will the UN get involved and escalate the disturbance into a catastrophic event or will they help provide peace, protection, and prosperity? We may soon know the answer.
As ruthless a dictator as his father was, President Bashar al-Assad should be called Bashar the Butcher. While all people of good will want to see him assume room temperature, it is not wise for the U.S. to assume the role of paladin of the world. Those rebels in Syria without a doubt are Muslim extremists. Let them fight their own battles. The choice between the two sides is not a choice between good and evil but between much evil and more evil.
The U.S. does not have a horse in this race, but we do abhor the killing of innocent people. While Assad is a vicious dictator, he has permitted Christians to practice their faith and has kept relative peace until recent years. If Assad goes, the Christians will be totally destroyed in Syria. If he is deposed, Muslim fanatics will fill his chair. Most reasonable people prefer a sensitive, peaceful conservative but in the real world that is not going to happen.
The Syrian opposition is a mixture of fanatics, freedom lovers, and criminal opportunists. Incredibly, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for supporting them with “humanitarian aid.” We have seen this movie before. Non-thinkers praised the uprisings in Libya, Sudan, Bahrain, etc., and now we realize that we got much more than we wanted. Radical Muslims have been enabled and are now in control. Sharia law will be forced on the people in all Muslim-dominated nations. Turkey is going in that direction as I write.
Russia, China, and Iran are backing Syria’s dictator while Saudi Arabia is opposed to him and supports a new government in Syria, hoping that it will not be as friendly to Iran.
When former Saudi King Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud was on his deathbed, he warned his sons “to keep your eye on Syria” since anything good for Syria is considered bad for Saudi. While both Syria and Saudi Arabia are Muslim, the Saudis are of the Sunni fanatical Wahhabi sect plus their country is the location of Mecca (birthplace of Mohammed) and Medina. There are no churches of any kind in Saudi Arabia and even other Muslim sects such as the Shiites are without mosques in most major areas!
Syria is more secular than Saudi Arabia but Sunni Muslims are the majority religious group in both countries. There are about two million citizens in Damascus and 85% are Sunni Muslims that are served by about 2,000 mosques in the city. The Grand Mosque of Damascus is one of the largest, oldest, and holiest sites for Muslims.
Fanatical, committed Muslims are dangerous, devious, and deceitful people and we are fools to waltz into the crossfire. The free world should permit these countries to work out their own differences, remove their own totalitarian leaders, and worship however they choose. The U.S. can cheer the good guys (better guys) but we don’t have the money, personnel, or authority to get involved.
Damascus will be destroyed and while that will be a major disaster, it is more preferable than Dallas, Denver, or Detroit being destroyed. And don’t be deceived, if those on the streets of Damascus have their way, it will be an American city that will be a “ruinous heap.”
President Trump should stay out of Syria. Let “peaceful” Muslims take care of Assad and hang him after a public trial for using chemical gas. If Damascus is to be destroyed, let Muslims do it!
No one elected America as the world’s moral and humanitarian watchdog.’ http://donboys.cstnews.com/damascus-will-be-destroyed-but-let-muslims-do-it
Here is what Chuck Balwin thinks about the recent attacks by the USA on Assad.
‘My comments on Trump’s missile attack against Syria:
No evidence has been presented proving that the Assad government launched chemical weapons against its own people. NONE. But there are plenty of independent sources that 
say that the chemical weapons were brought into Syria by rebels, aka CIA-supported terror groups.
In my humble opinion, one would have to be an idiot to think that President Assad would be stupid enough to use chemical weapons when he knows that the the U.S. is just looking for any excuse to bomb his government, invade his capital, and even remove him from office–meaning KILL him.
This is shades of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya all over again.
FYI, who is it that has protected the Christians in Syria? Not Trump. Not Obama. Not Bush. Assad, that’s who. And which country’s population supports its president by a whopping 80%. Not Great Britain. Not the United States. Syria, that’s who.
Donald Trump is quickly living up to my worst fears about his presidency: he is escalating war all over the world. Think about it: the U.S. military launched at least 50 missiles into Syria. 50!!! When did Congress declare war against Syria? What gives a U.S. President the right to launch missiles against a foreign country without a Declaration of War from Congress? Now, we are hearing rumors that Trump is about to launch missiles into North Korea.
Read my columns. This has been my concern about Trump from Day One. Goodness gracious! The man has barely learned his way around the White House and he has sent troops (or increased troop strength) into several foreign countries (including Syria); given the CIA the power to launch drone attacks at will; given the Pentagon broad authority to use military force at its own discretion; launched 50 missiles into a country that is absolutely NO threat to the United States; and is threatening to attack more nations–and soon.
Donald Trump is G.W. Bush on steroids. I said earlier that Trump might take us into WW III before he ends his first term. But at this rate, we might be in WW III before he reaches the 100-day mark.’ https://www.facebook.com/ChuckBaldwinMT/posts/1499344543409798
I agree with Chuck Baldwin. This action will probably escalate into something worse and become another long drawn out no-win war or the end of America as it once was. Has anyone thought who takes Assad’s place if he is ousted? What is Trump’s plan, if any? As I see it, this is another excuse for more Islamic attacks on Westerners.
- ‘Can you imagine making a joke and facing death as a result?
- “During his interrogation, Sina was told that if he signed a confession and repented, he would be pardoned and let go,” said the source in an interview with CHRI on March 21, 2017. “Unfortunately, he made a childish decision and accepted the charges. Then they sentenced him to death.” “Later he admitted that he signed the confession hoping to get freed,” said the source. “Apparently the authorities also got him to confess in front of a camera as well.” — Center for Human Rights in Iran (CHRI).
- When the Islamists gain power, they immediately create their own “judiciary system” in order to “legitimize” their implementation of sharia law. In fact, the judiciary system is used less as a tool for bringing people to justice, and more as a tool to suppress freedom of speech and of the press.’ https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10170/iran-insulting-islam
‘Sina Dehghan, 21, has been sentenced to death in Iran for “insulting Islam”. There are many people like him in Iran who are currently imprisoned, tortured on a daily basis, or awaiting their execution for “insulting Islam”, “insulting the prophet”, “insulting the Supreme Leader” — the examples are endless. (Image source: Center for Human Rights in Iran)’
Australia has a couple of Muslims in government now. What does the future hold? Read again what is taking place in Iran, lest you forget.
This video pushing sodomite marriage is described as ‘Acceptance and belonging are at the heart of Airbnb. Which is why we felt compelled to throw our support behind marriage equality in Australia by creating the Acceptance Ring. This incomplete ring symbolises the gap in marriage equality that we need to close. Until the day comes when two people who love each other can celebrate that love through commitment, we want Australians to wear this ring and show their acceptance of marriage equality.’
That day when sodomites are allowed to call their sin ‘marriage’ will be another nail in the free speech/thought coffin. Airbnb ‘is an online marketplace and hospitality service, enabling people to lease or rent short-term lodging including vacation rentals, apartment rentals, homestays, hostel beds, or hotel rooms.’ https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Airbnb&rlz=1C1CHFX_enAU685AU685&oq=Airbnb&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
I believe Qantas is one of the best airlines flying but it is pushing this agenda as are other corporations. Sadly but not surprisingly ‘As one Qantas employee said in an email: “I’d hate to be a Christian flight attendant explaining to their manager why I wasn’t intending on wearing the ring… or to a gay colleague on the other end of a cart doing a meal service. Talk about a bad initiative for crew cohesion and its impact on service, let alone safety.
“Of course Qantas would say they’ll never force someone to wear the ring. But the spokesperson and the CEO are not the ones at a safety critical coalface being forced to deal with the potential fallout of rainbow ideology being shoved down people’s throats and potential conflict in an environment where teamwork is critical.”’ http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/miranda-devine-if-you-dont-wear-this-ring-youre-a-bigot-what/news-story/e3d8097796866e7ecb98c8991dc5c0bb
Photo by AAP/Paul Miller of Alan Joyce CEO of Qantas
This push for so-called same-sex marraige is really a slap in the face of the Creator God who said He ‘…also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet’ Romans 1:24-27.
What is President Trump thinking?!
- ‘The decision to select Army Lieutenant General Herbert Raymond “H.R.” McMaster to replace retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn as national security advisor is setting into motion a cascade of other personnel decisions that, far from draining the swamp, appear to be perpetuating it.
- Trump has decided to retain Yael Lempert, a controversial NSC staffer from the
Obama administration. Analyst Lee Smith reported that, according to a former official in the Clinton administration, Lempert “is considered one of the harshest critics of Israel on the foreign policy far left.” - Sahar Nowrouzzadeh, who served as the NSC’s Iran director during the Obama administration, is now in charge of policy planning for Iran and the Persian Gulf at
the Trump State Department. Nowrouzzadeh, whose main task at Obama’s NSC was to help broker the Iran Nuclear Deal, is a former employee of the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC), a lobbying group widely believed to be a front group for the Islamic dictatorship in Iran. - “The people who are handling key elements of those conflicts now are the same people who handled those areas under Obama, despite the results of the last election. No wonder the results look equally awful.” — Lee Smith, Middle East analyst.’https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10158/white-house-islam-isis-israel-iran
‘Sahar Nowrouzzadeh, the Iran director for former President Obama’s National Security Council (NSC), has burrowed into the government under President Trump. She’s now in charge of Iran and the Persian Gulf region on the policy planning staff at the State Department. To make matters worse, Nowrouzzadeh is a former employee of the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC), a non-profit that is accused of being a lobbying group for the Iranian regime. NIAC’s current president, Trita Parsi, has long held close relationships with top officials in the Tehran dictatorship. In February, a group of over 100 prominent Iranian dissidents called for Congress to investigate NIAC’s ties to the Iranian regime.’ https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/03/iran-deal-architect-is-now-running-tehran-policy-at-the-state-department
Is Trump a true conservative and someone else is making some of these decisions or is he showing his true colors?
In Australia the left leaning ABC’s ‘…Q&A panellists launched into an emotive discussion around freedom of speech, largely powered by the absence of controversial anti-Islamic activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali who was due to appear as a member of Monday night’s panel.
While the exact “security concerns”, among other reasons, that led to Ms Hirsi Ali’s 
cancelled Australian tour remain unconfirmed, Federal Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg blamed it on the need to reform Section 18C to “protect and promote freedom of speech”.
“It is very regrettable people have sought to prevent her coming to Australia because they see her as the enemy of tolerance. I see her as an enemy of intolerance,” Mr Frydenberg said.
“Personally I don’t agree with everything that she has said about Islam but … she sends a very powerful message as well about how secular laws should be above Sharia law.
“My view is she would have received a lot of support here in Australia for airing what are somewhat controversial views. And she should be allowed to speak her mind and people who disagree with her should be able to challenge that. That’s the point of a free country like Australia.”
But Q&A host Tony Jones suggested the security concerns were exaggerated, citing a petition which expressed “disappointment” in response to Ms Hirsi Ali’s Australian tour that attracted fewer than 400 signatories.
Mr Frydenberg said he was “shocked” that the petition had garnered the support of psychologists, doctors, lawyers and community activists; all in agreement that she should not visit Australia and speak her mind.
Shadow Human Rights Minister Linda Burney said she found Mr Frydenberg’s comments “ironic”.
“It seems a little ironic that the party that was arguing against freedom of speech would propose it here tonight,” she said.
The Australian editor-at-large Paul Kelly agreed Ms Hirsi Ali’s absence was “a great shame”.
“I do think that the overwhelming majority of the Australian people would have been prepared to welcome her to this country. I am disturbed at the fact we have a petition signed by about 400 people, some of them quite prominent, suggesting that she should not come to this country.
“I think this is contrary to the fundamental values of Australian democracy.
“This is a courageous and inspiring woman. Now I don’t agree with all her positions, but she certainly raised fundamental questions about Islam which we should be prepared to debate as a society, debate and confront frankly.”
Former Danish prime minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt said freedom of speech should have no limits.
“Of course she should have the right to come to Australia to put her points of view across,” she said.
“This is what democracy is all about.”
While Nobel Peace Prize winner and social entrepreneur Muhammad Yunus said he agreed that everyone had the right to speak freely, he moved that there should be limitation when opinions were reduced to insults.
“You can come up with your opinion about certain aspects of Islam and so on. But that should not go into a level of inciting people, and kind of bringing intolerance into the discussion. The key thing is intolerance … You do it in a friendly way.
“Freedom of speech doesn’t give you the licence to insult somebody, cut down the respect and the feelings of other people.”
Ms Thorning-Schmidt argued that if freedom of speech was limited, it could silence people trying to bring about important social change.
“When women were fighting for their rights in the ’60s and ’70s, I think a lots of people thought they had a very insulting tone to some of the men they were fighting against,” she said.
“I think you have to use a language — not an insulting language if you can avoid it — but you can’t limit freedom of speech. But you can be responsible for how you use it … That’s what is lacking in the world.”’ http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2017/04/03/ayaan-hirsi-alis-absence-freedom-speech/?utm_source=Responsys&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20170404_TND
Is Ayaan Ali anti-Islam as much as she is pro-free speech and women’s rights? Australia has a very small percentage of Muslims but they carry a lot of clout and therefore people such as Ali and Gert Wilder receive death threats and much opposition when they come to Australia. So much for freedom of speech!
- ‘British multiculturalists are feeding Islamic fundamentalism. Muslims do not need to become the majority in the UK; they just need gradually to Islamize the most important cities. The change is already taking place.
- British personalities keep opening the door to introducing Islamic sharia law. One of the leading British judges, Sir James Munby, said that Christianity no longer influences the courts and these must be multicultural, which means more Islamic. Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, and Chief Justice Lord Phillips, also suggested that the English law should “incorporate” elements of sharia law.
- British universities are also advancing Islamic law. The academic guidelines, “External speakers in higher education institutions”, provide that “orthodox religious groups” may separate men and women during events. At the Queen Mary University of London, women have had to use a separate entrance and were forced to sit in a room without being able to ask questions or raise their hands, just as in Riyadh or Tehran.’ https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10124/london-mosques-churches
Islamic prayers in Birmingham, England (2016)
There is always a price to be paid for standing for truth!
‘No government entity has the authority to license, commission, accredit, and certify any Christian ministry–unless said groups go hat in hand asking for state or federal funds. A license is permission to do what would be illegal without it. No preacher should ever permit the government to license his work. Even in other professions, a license does not guarantee quality but does provide control and income for the government. In some states, a license is required to use your truck to haul dirt, rocks, etc.; to shampoo hair in a beauty shop; to own a gun; to teach school, and on and on and on.
It is obvious that a medical doctor’s license does not protect patients from sexual abuse or unnecessary medical procedures; nor protect students from incompetent or predatory teachers; nor guarantee a reasonable-looking haircut from barbers; nor assure a fair, reasonable defense by attorneys; nor, but then you get the idea.
In the mid-400s, Theodosius II, Eastern Roman Emperor from 408 to 450, made it a punitive offense for a man to teach the public without a state license; and soon such licenses were given only to “Christians.” Now that the Church was in control, they decided to keep the unbelievers out of teaching by requiring permission from the church-controlled government.
As early as 1534, the English clergy were forbidden to preach without a government license and John Bunyan got caught up in government machinery that tried to control preachers and teachers.
John Bunyan has been one of my major heroes all my adult life. But, I recently discovered that 
John, after spending more than 12 years in jail for preaching the Gospel, finally accepted a license to preach! While that was wrong in my opinion, it does not diminish Bunyan’s courageous stand against King Charles II and the king’s demand that John and other dissidents (those who disagree) not preach the Gospel. Preaching the Gospel was very costly to all except the Church of England preachers and even they did not have total freedom of conscience since they had to obey the King and Parliament regarding religious matters.
In the seventeenth century, all religious groups hated the Roman Catholics who like all dissidents met in homes. Everyone in England and Europe remembered the Inquisition where “the papists” mangled, mauled, and murdered hundreds of thousands of “heretics.” All the dissidents and the Church of England preachers agreed–“No popery, no popery!” Of course, everyone should have had freedom of conscience–Catholics, Anglicans, Quakers, Baptists, Presbyterians, and even the religious weirdos. Moreover, all the groups were against the Baptists because of their insistence on baptism by emersion of only those who had trusted Christ as Savior. No babies under any circumstance.
King Charles I had feuded, fussed, and fought with Parliament and ended up being beheaded in 1649 followed by Oliver Cromwell becoming Lord Protector until his death in 1658. Although a strict Puritan, Cromwell provided religious freedom for everyone. Into this religious mix, mess, and maelstrom walked two men who would make their mark on English history–a preacher and a king.
When Charles II restored the monarchy in 1660, he reneged on his promise of religious freedom he had made in his Declaration of Breda a few weeks earlier (a mistake I hope Trump does not make). The people had experienced about twenty years of freedom of worship but now nonconformist (Baptist, Presbyterian, Independent, etc.) services were banned, and ministers were rounded up and arrested. The major hero in this religious mix was a born-again tinker, a Baptist preacher named John Bunyan. The resultant clash was titanic.
Soon after his conversion, Bunyan began preaching in 1655 and was arrested in 1660 while preaching in an unapproved religious meeting (conventicle). He served a prison stretch until 1672 when he was released with other dissidents. He was jailed again for a few months in 1675.
The Act of Uniformity 1662 required every preacher to adhere to and accept the doctrine of the Church of England or leave the country. That included all preachers of the Church of England (many of them Puritans) and all the various independent groups. Everyone had to attend the Church of England regularly with fines, banishment, and then hanging for a third offense. (That would sure help one decide whether or not to sleep in on Sunday morning!) The act required all clergymen to use the Book of Common Prayer; consequently, about 2,000 Puritan clergymen were forced to resign. Some of them recanted while others became dissident preachers, others got other employment.
As to unbiblical ceremonies in the Church of England, Puritans (and all dissidents) objected to kneeling during the Lord’s Supper, the observation of holy days, the use of the surplice (outer garment worn by priests), and the signing of the cross in baptism.
The noose got tighter when the Conventicle Act 1664 became law forbidding more than five people, not members of the same family, to meet for worship. This was followed the next year by the Five Mile Act that forbade any preacher from coming within five miles of any incorporated town or their former place of abode. The noose was now tight and the preachers were standing on a very fragile, shaky platform.
The Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and other dissidents from the Church of England continued to meet surreptitiously in homes, barns, and abandoned buildings while the Quakers very bravely continued to meet openly. This was a time of persecution without parallel as Protestants (Anglicans) persecuted Protestants (Puritans and dissidents).
However, Charles and the Anglicans did not have it easy in hounding, hunting, and harassing the dissidents. In 1668, the Bawdy House Riots proved that sane citizens recognized the insanity of persecution of decent people. London crowds attacked brothels as they protested against a government which had tolerated prostitution while persecuting devout, principled preachers!
Present day parallels are numerous as the state asserts its authority to control religious colleges, license Christian counsellors, certify Christian teachers, regulate school curriculum, prohibit anti-homosexual regulations, restrict military chaplains, etc.
The modern state is as arrogant, asinine, and aggressive as King Charles II was and it’s time for principled Christians to resist to the point of jail.’ http://donboys.cstnews.com/government-cannot-license-a-ministry-john-bunyan-was-wrong
whatyareckon 