- ‘Ali Harbi Ali, a 25-year-old Muslim man of Somali descent, lunged at and repeatedly stabbed British MP Sir David Amess with a knife. Amess, 69, died soon after…. It is worth noting that, when it comes to severely persecuting and slaughtering Christians, Somalia is the world’s third-worst ranked nation, after Afghanistan (#2) and North Korea (#1) . — United Kingdom.
- “The Christians are treated as slaves bounded to Muslims… Christians enjoy no rights, no dignity, and no protection in this country. The overall system of society is based on religious hatred against Christians and other minorities.” — Asif Muniwar, local human rights defender; International Christian Concern, October 12, 2021, Pakistan
- [T]hree Christian workers died after Muslim emergency staff refused to rescue them because Christians are supposedly “ritually unclean.” Problems began when the Muslim employers of sewage worker Michael Masih, aged 33, threatened to fire him unless he entered a highly toxic sewer without any personal protective equipment or masks…. “An emergency team got to the sewer within 10 minutes but on arrival they looked down the pipe and could see the men but refused to save them. This was on account that they were choorah [dirty cleaners] and would cause the Muslims to become ritually impure.” — British Asian Christian Association, October 8, 2021, Pakistan.
- “Many shops were looted after they set them on fire. Church of Christ in All Nation (COCIN) was also burned down…. “[M]any houses were set ablaze. Bulls used for farming were also killed.” A local eyewitness said the murderers were dressed in Nigerian army uniforms and traveling in two vans owned by the Nigerian army. — International Christian Concern, October 17, 2021, Nigeria, which U.S. Secretary of Antony Blinken just removed from its 2021 List of “Countries of Particular Concern”.
- “[T]he herdsmen returned and shot [Dr. Habila Solomon, a medical doctor who also served as a Christian pastor] in his chest, killing him instantly. He was the reason why many people saw hope…. In the course of doing missions, God used him to provide drinking water, shelter, free education and feed the poor…. [and] also provided the [Muslim] herdsmen and their families with free medical care.” — Morning Star News, October 25, 2021, Nigeria.
- “Nigeria’s government seems unable or unwilling to stop the growing carnage…. More Christians have been killed for their faith in Nigeria in the last year than in the entire Middle East. Unless we find our voice, what is happening in Nigeria will move relentlessly toward a Christian genocide.” — Former U.S. Under Secretary of Education, Gary L. Bauer, calling Nigeria a “killing field” of Christians;” The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom 2021 annual report; Nigeria.
- Although the abduction, rape, and forced conversion to Islam of Christian girls and other religious minorities is rampant in Pakistan—with Muslim police, judges, and authorities often siding with the kidnappers and rapists—the nation is now witnessing record breaking numbers…. a nearly 300% increase from 2020…. This report comes on the heels of the Pakistani government’s rejection of an anti-forced conversion bill, which would have helped protect such minor girls. — Union of Catholic Asian News, October 14 and 18, 2021, Pakistan.
- “My cross has been with me for 40 years. It is part of me, and my faith, and it has never caused anyone any harm…. At this hospital there are members of staff who go to a mosque four times a day and no one says anything to them. Hindus wear red bracelets on their wrists and female Muslims wear hijabs in theatre. Yet my small cross around my neck was deemed so dangerous that I was no longer allowed to do my job.” — NHS nurse Mary Onuoha, who had fled from Uganda to the UK for religious freedom; Daily Mail, October 5, 2021, United Kingdom.
- “Why do some NHS employers feel that the cross is less worthy of protection or display than other religious attire?” — Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre; Daily Mail, October 5, 2021, United Kingdom.’https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17980/persecution-of-christians-october
‘Big Bird Gets Covid Shot; Aaron Rodgers Throws Covid Touchdown; Homeschooling 101; Disruption of our DNA & Other Sins of Science
Guests: Dana & Chelsea Broussard, Sam Sorbo’https://rumble.com/vp3mlp-episode-241-sins-of-science.html?mref=6zof&mc=dgip3&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=HighWire&ep=2
Follow the science say those in authority, but whose science? Wear a mask and then don’t wear a mask! This stuff is scary!
‘Quoting from the results of a study carried out in 1963 by Stanley Milgram, Chuck Colson predicted the kind of C0V1D-19 lockdown authoritarianism that was birthed by Communist Chinese authorities and copycatted all around the world.
The Milgram ‘shock experiment’ was a study into “the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience.”
Milgram’s aim was to see how “easily ordinary people could be influenced into committing atrocities, for example, Germans in WWII.”
He designed the study to answer questions raised by the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, and the defence’s justification that those on trial “were only following orders.” [i]
In 1974, Milgram himself wrote:
“I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist.
“Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ [participants’] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects’ [participants’] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not.”
Colson explained that up to 80% of those who participated in Milgram’s experiment were willing to “inflict painful electric shocks on another person if an authority figure told them to do so.” [ii]
In 2007, Santa Clara University’s, Jerry Burger ‘replicated the experiment, and Burger’s results were nearly identical with Milgram.’
This prompted New York Times’ Adam Cohen to conclude that “ordinary Americans are about as willing to blindly follow orders to inflict pain on an innocent stranger as they were four decades ago.”
Colson, not surprised by the results said, “the two experiments are a huge cautionary tale of how people respond to authority.”
The studies, he said, show that “nothing changes about human nature; we really do blindly follow authority, and very few people challenge it.”
Colson wrote, “when there’s social chaos, people will choose order over liberty. It’s the reason why, if you give a prison guard or a government clerk a little power, they become abusive.”
The “only real barrier preventing people from inflicting pain is conscience,” which Colson explains is our God-given “internal moral bearings” (see Romans 2:15) that have to be nurtured into maturity.
The problem and its cause are, as the Milgram/Burger studies infer, a lack of Godly nurturing, which is the consequence of “the breakdown of the family and moral decay in American life.”
The abdication from nurturing our God-given internal moral bearings blinds us to tyranny and binds us to sinful participation in it.
People will obey a lawful authority without question because there’s no acknowledgement of God; no other authority or power higher than Government fiats and stuffy, bloated Bureaucratic rules.
This is God vs. Government-become-god territory.
Where unjust laws are obeyed because, as Colson argued, “people have lost the concept of a law beyond the law.”
Which, says Colson, leads to a rejection of civil liberties, because “given a choice between order and chaos, Americans will always choose order – even if it shuts down some of our freedoms.”
The act of civil disobedience, he said, also becomes a farce, because “in a morally relativistic era, there’s nothing that kicks in and tells us that something is wrong.”
A docile, conditioned polis simply can’t know what they’re protesting, or find reasons to justify why.
It was a dismal prediction. Now a C0V1D-19 reality.
Atheist, secular humanist Governments following their Communist Chinese counterparts turned neighbour against neighbour. The police were weaponised against the people they’re paid to protect, and fighting the virus became about denouncing people perceived to be lockdown “lawbreakers.”
The highest civic duty was the surrender of civil liberties, wearing a mask, not questioning the mandated medical advice from bureaucrats, applauding their disaster porn, and staying glued to the media’s daily “briefings.”
As Milgram, commenting on the outcome of his experiment noted: “The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.”
To paraphrase Colson, the only sure-fire way to protect civil liberties, and live out just civil disobedience, is by ‘courageously asserting the law beyond the law’; disobeying unjust laws that are contrary to our internal moral bearings, informed as they are, by the self-revealing God of Grace, and His objective moral law.
Though it may seem like we are being “plunged into the abyss of hell,” Charles Spurgeon once said, “God does not leave us there alone.”
The “star of hope is still in the sky when the night is blackest. Surely out of death, darkness, and despair, we shall yet arise to Life, light and liberty.”’https://caldronpool.com/follow-the-science-obedience-to-authority-vs-personal-conscience/
[i] McLeod, S. 2017. The Milgram Shock Experiment, Simply Psychology
[ii] Colson, C. 2015. My Final Word, Zondervan (pp.58-59)
[iii] Spurgeon, C. Not Left to Perish, Faith’s Checkbook March 3rd
‘Two days ago, Avi Yemini turned up to the Extinction Rebellion’s campsite in Melbourne to point out some of their glaring hypocrisies.’
One must truly wonder if there are any conservative governments left in this world. Australia’s Federal government likes to spout that it is conservative but in reality it is not conservative in finances or culture. The Morrison government may not be as left as Labor is but it isn’t far behind. And when you consider the states that have Liberal governments it isn’t any better. The climate scam has taken over all the state governments as well as the Federal. I wrote to our state Federal member who is supposedly a conservative concerning the direction the Federal government was going in renewable stupidity and he wrote back saying the science is in. Well, anyway, here is Episode 3 of Spectator Australia TV and HOW SCOTT MORRISON IS FAILING AUSTRALIA IN 2021!
Dr. Boys sure knows how to STIR the pot!
‘Daegan Miller’s This Radical Land is said to be “an outstanding literary achievement”; however, that can’t be true since it is based upon a whopper. The reader is told, “we are reminded of the true origin story of the American landscape: we all live on land stolen from Native people.”
Afraid not. That is fake history to make snowflakes feel good.
Another writer referred to white men who “took over their [Indian] world,” but where did he get the idea that this world (America) belonged to the Indians? There is an abundance of evidence that today’s Indians replaced another group altogether. How far back must we go to be highly principled—doing the right thing?
However, let’s assume the commonly held belief that the Indians were the original occupiers and “owners” of the land until we choose, at another time, to get into the almost unknown, undesirable, and unpleasant details of prior ownership.
Merely living on the land does not confirm ownership. This issue is the most important factor in the discussion. Riding on horseback across land does not confer or confirm ownership. The land is “owned” when occupied by families in homes and is controlled, defended, tilled, and fenced.
After expulsion from the Garden, God told Adam and Eve that in the future, they and all ancestors would have to live by the sweat of their brow. God was saying, Adam, this is your new home, and as punishment, you will live by the sweat of your brow to produce food to keep your family alive. You will have to fight the bugs, beetles, briers, and brambles until you return to the ground from which you were taken.
Englishman John Locke lived in the 17th century and agreed with God. Locke is known as the “Father of Liberalism,” who greatly influenced the French and American Revolutionary leaders. He argued in the late 1600s in his Second Treatise of Government that God gave the earth for man’s common good, but land can only be “owned” when a man’s labor, which obviously belongs only to him, is mixed with the land to improve it. That would be removing stones, swamps, trees, and other obstacles. It would involve building a home or other structures on it. The land would be his when he tills the ground, plants seed, and brings in a harvest.
Locke taught that each person has property in his own person—that is, each person literally owns his own body. With that body, he can acquire or own property by using his body to improve the land. That means a man purchases land not with silver but with the sweat of his brow.
With that accomplished, the land is his. He has put himself into the land. He has removed it from common property and made it his by working it with his own hands.
Locke lived when the king claimed a divine right to rule everything and everyone, and the king owned everything. The land was held by tenants who used the land and served in the king’s army when needed. The tenants had sub-tenants who actually worked the land, but the king owned everything.
After 1492, Spain and Portugal started making outrageous ownership claims throughout the Western Hemisphere. They claimed vast territory that they had not seen and had no plans on settling. Pope Alexander VI stepped into the morass, hoping to untangle the knots by dividing the hemisphere between Spain and Portugal. Of course, Alex had no authority to deal with international and national land claims. Unless a nation built a substantial permanent settlement on the land they claimed and were willing and able to defend it, a claim meant little to nothing.
On the North American continent, the various Indian tribes made the same bogus claim as European kings about owning the land.
The same principle of land ownership applicable to our world would also apply to the Moon or Mars. Who can claim ownership of either? The first nation that landed on the Moon was America, followed by Russia and Japan; however, landing there could not justify ownership. However incredible it was, only a fool would suggest that success could qualify as ownership.
If a nation lands on the Moon, it must explore the land, erect buildings, build streets, water systems, power stations, and produce breathable oxygen from the soil and rocks since there is no breathable atmosphere. Oxygen on the Moon is abundant, but it is very difficult to become usable to men. There is more than 40 percent oxygen on the Moon’s mass, but the soil and rocks must be heated, thereby forcing oxygen to emerge so it can be useful to humans. Various scientific entities are looking at different ways for extracting oxygen from Moon rock, so researchers are examining potentially cheaper ways to produce oxygen on the Moon.
NASA scientists have many ideas about how to extract it. Simply heating lunar soil to a very high temperature causes gaseous oxygen to emerge. Or, they can collect the rocks and “either treat it with chemicals or blast it with heat, and you can free up unlimited quantities of oxygen both for breathing and for rocket fuel.”
The first nation to make the Moon livable can claim “ownership” to that portion of it.
The Indian tribes who fought for “ownership” of the land could not legitimately claim ownership only because they rode across the land on horseback or claimed to have been the first men to occupy the land. Furthermore, they believed if any land was not used or occupied for a year or more, anyone could claim it. War between Indian tribes was almost constant because they believed that the stronger tribe had a natural right to subdue the weaker ones. Fighting was a way of life for Indians. They kept resisting the Whites because to admit Whites were stronger was to admit the white man’s right to occupy the land the Indians had traditionally used.
Unquestionably, the Indian/White conflict about land is a mixed bag. There was a clash of cultures and disagreements as to right and wrong. Moreover, there were many failures and massacres on both sides, with numerous treaties made and broken by each group. Fools and bigots claim that it was the Indians’ fault, while others declare it all the fault of Whites.
According to Indian law, the white men owned the land because they were stronger and could hold it by force. Of course, white men were not bound by Indian law, but they are bound by discovering (or claiming) land, removing the stones, trees, and debris, building homes, barns, and corrals, farming and fencing it.
Early Americans “bought” the land by their own sweat. They didn’t steal it from anyone.’http://donboys.cstnews.com/native-american-indians-did-not-own-land-because-they-rode-across-it-on-horseback
I have personally sought to speak to several Australian Federal Parliamentarians about the abortion issue with no success. However, a Queensland senator says “I am asking my parliamentary colleagues, and in fact, our entire community to consider the painful question: ‘what happens to a child born alive during a late term abortion?’ The uncomfortable truth is that the child is left to die.” – George Christensen
Most Australians are unaware that hundreds of documented cases exist of babies being born alive after botched abortions and then left to die.
Federal and state guidelines say no treatment is required. Just let them die.
Courageous and compassionate state parliamentarians Nick Goiran of Western Australia and Dr Mark Robinson of Queensland, both Liberals, have been shining light on this practice for years.
Sadly, their parliamentary colleagues and the media avert their eyes.
Regardless of which side of the abortion debate one is on, only those with the hardest of hearts don’t find the practice heart-wrenching and tragic.
I believe that if most Australians knew the truth about abortion and the harm it inflicts on mothers, they would demand reform.
It is a practice fiercely protected by our cultural and media elites; and by men, whose convenience is the primary beneficiary. Alternative views on abortion are mostly suppressed in the public discourse.
I documented Goiran and Robinson’s work in my recent book, I Kid You Not – Notes from 20 Years in the Trenches of the Culture Wars.
Liberal National Party member for Dawson, George Christensen, read of this while preparing to speak at the Brisbane launch of the book last July.
He promised that night he would push for law reform and this week he delivered, releasing the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2021. You can read the bill here.
He also released research from the Parliamentary Library which independently validates the figures Gioran and Robinson have been quoting for years as well as providing new statistics from Victoria.
In WA, 27 babies had been born alive and left to die between 1999 and 2016.
In the 10 years to 2015, 204 Queensland babies died this way while 33 in Victorian perished after botched abortions between 2012 and 2016.
Christensen’s bill requires medical practitioners to treat a baby surviving abortion the same way they would any other patient. Who would oppose this?
Currently the federal government’s advice to a doctor or nurse encountering a baby born alive after abortion is to “not offer treatment”.
I wonder if Scott Morrison is aware of this.
Christensen appeals to provisions in the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Both support the right to life. Both have been signed by Australia. But when it comes to the human rights of our most vulnerable citizens, we have chosen to look away.
In a media release issued yesterday and ignored by the mainstream media, Christensen says:
“I am asking my parliamentary colleagues, and in fact, our entire community to consider the painful question: ‘what happens to a child born alive during a late term abortion?’
“The uncomfortable truth is that the child is left to die.
“As one state agency (South Australia) so brutally puts it: ‘the baby … is wrapped in a blanket and the mother is given the opportunity to hold the baby as it dies’.
“This issue has been on my heart and mind for a long time.
“Now that I have more information on the number of children we are talking about, though those figures understate the problem, I must act.”
Christensen’s bill points out that Australia is in breach of both the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
“I have provided the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Act 2021 bill to the Prime Minister and other key ministers, seeking their support on adopting this bill, or allowing a conscience vote on it,” Christensen said.
“The bill makes it an offence not to provide life-saving treatment punishable with penalties of higher than $400,000 for health practitioners and higher for corporations.
“It also could see health practitioners who breach the law deregistered in Australia.
“I encourage others to lend their support for this action via my website www.georgechristensen.com.au/bornalive.”
Please support this initiative.
The tide is turning.’https://www.lyleshelton.com.au/proposed_law_to_save_babies_born_alive_after_botched_abortions
The China Virus was developed and let out of Wuhan to stop President Trump and install a CCP puppet and it worked. However, the battle isn’t over.
‘UNITED STATES, February 2, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – A former Navy surgeon who studied bioweapons says there is evidence that the Wuhan coronavirus represents the next stage in military evolution, which veils not only the assailants but even the perception that an actual attack is occurring.
Dr. Lee Merritt, former president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons who currently practices orthopaedic surgery and anti-aging medicine in Omaha, Nebraska, stated in a Jan. 14 interview with New American that she believes “we are at war.”
“We’re in an unconventional, unrestricted war, the kind that the military Chinese generals talked about 30 years ago,” she said. Though Dr. Merritt emphasized that she didn’t believe these attacks were just coming from China, she did say that, in her opinion, the CCP provides “the proximate militarization” of this attack.’ https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-navy-surgeon-covid-19-acts-as-perfect-bioweapon-aimed-to-takedown-america?utm_source=lifefacts
What exactly is hate speech? How inclusive is an inclusive environment? What is negative behavior in writing? Those are questions Wikipedia must have the answers to as ‘The Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit behind the world’s biggest online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, has announced a new code of content for Wikipedia that prohibits “hate speech” and “false” information on the site and also heavily promotes identity politics.
Under the new code of conduct, Wikipedia contributors are expected to “respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves” and this includes “the use of people’s preferred gender identity using distinct names or pronouns.”
When announcing the new code of conduct, Wikimedia’s CEO Katherine Mayer focused heavily on the identity politics aspect of this policy by describing on how it will create an “inclusive environment” and reduce “negative behavior”:
“Our new universal code of conduct creates binding standards to elevate conduct on the Wikimedia projects, and empower our communities to address harassment and negative behavior across the Wikimedia movement. Through this effort, we can create a more welcoming and inclusive environment for contributors and readers, and a more representative source of knowledge for the world.”
In addition to encouraging contributors to use people’s preferred pronouns, gender identities, and more, the new policy also bans a range of “unacceptable” behaviors which include:
- “Hounding” which is defined as “following a person across the project(s) and repeatedly critiquing their otherwise satisfactory work mainly with the intent to upset or discourage them.”
- “Trolling” which is defined as “deliberately disrupting conversations or posting in bad-faith to intentionally provoke.”
- “Hate speech in any form, or discriminatory language” which is defined as speech or language that is “aimed at vilifying, humiliating, inciting hatred against individuals or groups on the basis of who they are or their personal beliefs.”
Of course, all of these so-called unacceptable behaviors are based on the subjective interpretations of those enforcing the rules. Only the contributor can know the intent of their post. But if the enforcers decide that a contributor intended to act in bad-faith, disrupt, discourage, or humiliate via their posts, then they’ll face sanctions.
The code of conduct also has several new prohibitions on what the enforcers deem to be “biased, false, inaccurate or inappropriate content.” These prohibitions include a ban on “systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view.”
Ironically, this ban on so-called false information points to one of the biggest areas for which Wikipedia is often criticized. The platform prevents certain sources from being cited which often means that the remaining sources that can be cited will favor specific interpretations or points of views.
A cursory glance of the introductory paragraph on many Wikipedia pages will also show a clear favor towards interpreting the facts to support a specific point of view. For example, the introductory paragraph for Big Tech platforms often focuses on neutral factors such as the platform’s history, functionality, and founders while the introductory paragraph for alt-tech platforms usually focuses on criticism and negative media coverage.
While these new rules claim that they’ll stamp out biased, false, and inaccurate content, they’re based on the subjective interpretation of those enforcing the rules. And to date, those who have enforced the rules have allowed certain points of view to be selectively amplified for years via the introductory paragraphs on Wikipedia pages.’ https://reclaimthenet.org/wikipedia-new-code-of-conduct/
Australia’s Sky News’ Outsiders had Andy Ngo on recently where he was in London having to escape the good ole USA for his own safety. Andy knows full well ‘Antifa is the muscle, the Southern Poverty Law Center and other non-profits help pick the targets, and anyone who points out their totalitarian intolerance is called a fascist, promptly canceled, or burned in effigy. That’s the crazy Leftist triangulation playing out these days on the streets of Portland and in many other riot-prone American cities. Journalist Andy Ngo knows this all too well.
The angry red communist comrades of antifa and BLM have tried to cancel the Portland-based journalist but Ngo told PJ Media that it obviously hasn’t worked out too well for them. Antifa “protesters” beat him senseless and sent him to the hospital with brain damage in 2019, engaged in a sustained smear campaign against him due to his coverage of the group, and basically put out a hit on him, but Andy Ngo’s still standing. And thriving.
Instead of being canceled, Ngo wrote a book about antifa and BLM. Unmasked: Antifa’s Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy has just hit bookstores.’ https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2021/02/02/andy-ngo-unmasks-antifa-in-new-book-and-warns-antifa-lives-and-thrives-only-if-america-dies-n1422325