On November 7, 2020, four days after the General Election, a millennial friend who identifies as a Christian and is a devoted disciple of critical race theory and BLM posted this sacrilegious image on her Facebook page:

These were the last words of Christ before he died on the cross. The debt mankind owes to God for our sin and rebellion was finished, that is, paid in full, by Christ’s suffering and death. Jesus provided the means—the only means—for man to be reconciled to God. Satan was defeated. The sinless lamb of God’s self-sacrifice for the sins of man fulfilled all Old Testament prophecies. And this millennial Christian used that biblical allusion to celebrate the defeat of Donald Trump.

In addition to being sacrilegious, it is nonsensical as an analogy. If “it” refers to Trump’s tenure as president, in what precise way or ways is that analogous to Christ’s finished work on the cross? If Trump’s presidency is in no ways akin to Christ’s finished work—which, of course, it wasn’t—why use that allusion? Did she think it was clever? Funny? Unifying?

One thing is clear, this millennial and countless other Never-Trump, pro-Biden evangelicals believed that the country suffered under Trump’s presidency and that Biden would be America’s savior. And with their eyes blinded by rage at Trump and their minds clouded with foolish ideology, they have brought untold suffering to the world.

Cultural regressives who self-identify as “progressives” ripped Trump for his purported foreign policy ineptitude, claiming that he was destroying America’s reputation on the international stage. And here we are now with Western European leaders publicly savaging Biden’s astonishingly inept exit from Afghanistan, the effects of which worsen every day. As of this writing, two ISIS-K bomb blasts at the Kabul airport have left at least 12 U.S. service members dead, 15 injured, and an unknown number of Afghans dead or injured.

Politico has reported that “U.S. officials in Kabul gave the Taliban a list of names of American citizens, green card holders and Afghan allies to grant entry into the militant-controlled outer perimeter” of the Kabul airport. An outraged defense official who described this act as “appalling and shocking,” said, “they just put all those Afghans on a kill list.”

Rebecca Klapper writing in Newsweek Magazine—no friend of conservatism—paints a vivid picture of the dim view European leaders have of bumbling Biden and his gang of accomplices who are too busy planning the forced entrance of men in dresses into women’s locker rooms to plan an exit of soldiers and allies from one of the most dangerous countries in the world:

Markus Soeder, a leading member of German Chancellor Angela Merkel‘s center-right Union bloc, called for accountability from the United States.

Soeder said Washington should provide funding and shelter to people fleeing Afghanistan, since “the United States of America bear the main responsibility for the current situation.”

…

Even in the United Kingdom, which has always prided itself on a its “special relationship” with Washington … barbs were coming from all angles.

Former British Army chief Richard Dannatt said, “the manner and timing of the Afghan collapse is the direct result of President Biden’s decision to withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan by the 20th anniversary of 9/11. At a stroke, he has undermined the patient and painstaking work of the last five, 10, 15 years to build up governance in Afghanistan, develop its economy, transform its civil society and build up its security forces. ” Dannatt said Wednesday in Parliament.

In response to attempts to “absolve” Biden of culpability for the botched exit, Charles Cooke writing for National Review said,

The Biden administration could. … quite obviously have ensured that before our troops were drawn down we had got every American, permanent resident, and eligible Afghan out; we had removed both our weaponry and any sensitive information; and we had consulted properly with our allies. That part … was within Joe Biden’s control. And he completely and utterly screwed it up.

Allies are not angered by just the exit debacle but also by Biden’s unconscionable lies concocted to shift blame, lies that provoked unprecedented bipartisan rebukes by members of Parliament:

Biden putting much of the blame on Afghan forces for not protecting their nation has not gone down well with Western allies, either.

Conservative Parliament member Tom Tugendhat, who fought in Afghanistan, was one of several British lawmakers taking offense.

“To see their commander-in-chief call into question the courage of men I fought with, to claim that they ran, is shameful,” Tugendhat said.

Chris Bryant, from the opposition Labour Party, called Biden’s remarks about Afghan soldiers, “some of the most shameful comments ever from an American president.”

Cranky leftists with their gender-neutral underpants in a twist repeatedly croaked that Trump lied about Stormy Daniels, lied about the weather on his inauguration day, and lied about the number of attendees at his inauguration.

Contrast those lies with Biden’s. Biden lied when he said al Qaeda was gone from Afghanistan. He lied when he said, “we know of no circumstance where American citizens are—carrying an American passport—are trying to get through to the airport.” He lied when he said, “I have seen no question of our credibility from our allies around the world.” And he lied when he said, “The Afghan military gave up, sometimes without trying to fight.”

Add those lies to the mound of whoppers from leftist journalists, members of Congress, Democrat Party operatives, the CIA, and FBI (aided and abetted by the algorithmic mischief of Big Tech) throughout Trump’s presidency and the 2020 campaign—lies which were created to take down a duly elected president and then to prevent his reelection.

They lied when they claimed Trump called all illegal immigrants rapists and murderers. They lied when they said Trump put immigrant children in cages. They lied about Trump and a Russian prostitute. They lied about Russia-collusion. They lied about Hunter Biden and his colorful computer.

And now in addition to the tragic scene of suffering on our southern border created by Biden, China, Russia, Iran, the Taliban, al Qaeda, and ISIS-K are celebrating the humiliation of America. Our relations with our allies have never been worse. Americans are dead or stranded in the hellhole of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. And Afghan women and girls await their fate as sex slaves to barbarians.

I wonder if my millennial friend still thinks the election of Biden signaled the arrival of a savior who will end the suffering caused by former President Trump. It’s hard to know because she hasn’t posted a single thing about Biden since her sacrilegious post.

Written by Robert Spencer

As far back as September 22, 2011, Linda Sorsour tweeted: “shariah law is reasonable and once u read into the details it makes a lot of sense. People just know the basics.” Her position didn’t change over time. On May 12, 2015, she tweeted:

If you are still paying interest than Sharia Law hasn’t taken over America. #justsaying.

And on April 10, 2016, Sarsour tweeted about Sharia again:

Sharia Law is misunderstood & has been pushed as some evil Muslim agenda.

Sarsour tweeted on March 8, 2011:

Brigitte Gabriel = Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She’s asking 4 an a$$ whippin’. I wish I could take their vaginas away – they don’t deserve to be women.

This call for physical violence against someone she hates received no notice among her sycophants on the Left. Linda Sarsour is also an energetic purveyor of the “Islamophobia” myth and has hysterically claimed that “Muslim kids” are being “executed” in the United States. She was instrumental in prevailing upon New York Mayor Bill de Blasio to end legal and necessary surveillance in Muslim communities in New York. She was also a frequent visitor to the Obama White House, and even claimed that the jihad underwear bomber was a CIA agent — part of what she claims is a U.S. war against Islam.

Sarsour is a practiced exploiter of the “hate” smear against foes of jihad terror and Islamic supremacism and has never apologized for using the Islamic honor murder of Shaima Alawadi to spread lies about the prevalence of hate crimes against Muslims in America. She is also an enthusiastic supporter of the “Palestinian” jihad against Israel and has even claimed that feminists cannot and must not support Israel.

But this is the Left today. Sarsour’s anti-Semitism, her embrace of Sharia, her paranoid “Islamophobia” conspiracy-mongering – all that is the mainstream Left now.

BLM Founder Fawns Over Linda Sarsour, Calls Her ‘Excellent… Badass… Friend,’
by Natalie Winters, National Pulse, September 11, 2020:

Black Lives Matter founder Alicia Garza has repeatedly praised far-left activist Linda Sarsour,
calling her a “badass,” “excellent,” and “resilient,” while helping Sarsour promote a new book.

Garza’s remarks came during an April 22nd virtual interview hosted by the Commonwealth Club of California.

The hour-long exchange between Garza and Sarsour served to promote Sarsour’s new book, We Are Not Here to Be Bystanders: A Memoir of Love and Resistance.

Throughout the event, Garza repeatedly fawned over the controversial activist, known for leading the 2017 Women’s March, being openly hostile to Jews, and affiliating with virulent anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan. Even the CEO of the far-left Anti-Defamation League has accused her of “fomenting” anti-Semitism.

Despite this, Garza fawned over Sarsour, who she labeled her “badass friend”:

Garza lauded Sarsour again, asking how she went from “dope homegirl” to leading “incredible movements”:

“How did you go from dope homegirl to leading all these incredible movements that have literally changed the landscape of this country?”

“I am so so excited to be in conversation today with my sister Linda Sarsour,” she continued, unable to contain her excitement over the prospect of interviewing Sarsour.

Garza also inquired about “the resilience [Sarsour’s] been able to generate that makes [her] a badass leader,” signaling admiration for her “unabashedness”:

“How did you find the power inside of yourself and in your community to be resilient and even more unabashed in the face of those really really terrible attacks?”

“You are literally unstoppable. Look at you, building like the largest civic engagement organization in the country, mobilizing, activating, and engaging Muslim communities in democracy. You’re also, you know, out here just like making things happen,” she opined.

While Sarsour’s past comments provide no shortage of controversy, even leading Democratic Presidential candidate Joe Biden to rebuke her appearance at the Democratic National Convention, her remarks during the interview were equally striking.

Declaring “I’m radical, and I’m proud of it,” Sarsour insisted “you’re never too young to be radicalized” before telling viewers she was writing a version of her book oriented for a younger audience of “fourth, fiffth grade through maybe seventh grade” along with a picture book.

Sarsour also insisted that she is so deeply committed to her activism she is “not afraid to die”:

One of the things that has kept me going and it’s something that I tell people and that scares people when I say this because they want to know how did I get here. I’m actually not afraid to die. I really am not and because of that I continue to go back out, back out, back out, and continue to do the work. And if a consequence means I’m going to lose my life for it, I have come to terms with that.

When Garza asked Sarsour to surmise a “60-second idea to change the world,” Sarsour responded that she’d make “every mayor, every governor, and the White House black women.”

As Black Lives Matter continues to attract attention in light of its role in riots plaguing the U.S., unearthed links continue to reveal the group’s affiliation with Marxist and anti-Semitic elements on the left.

This article was originally published by JihadWatch.org.

Written by Anne-Christine Hoff

As the four-year anniversary of the mass shooting of Dallas police officers passes, a lawsuit has been reopened which alleges that social media outlets allowed the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas to radicalize Micah Johnson, leading the former U.S. Army reservist to take the lives of five police officers while injuring nine others.

Plaintiffs in Retana v. Twitter, Inc. allege that about two years before the attack, Johnson – a black nationalist – began sympathizing with Hamas. According to court documents, Johnson told a woman that he had just returned from Afghanistan and that “he was very much pro-Gaza,” leading her “to believe that he had been radicalized to the Palestinian cause supporting violence against Israel.”

Although three separate lawsuits have yet to present conclusive evidence of connections between Hamas and the Dallas shooting, black identity extremists from Dallas have expressed appreciation for the terrorist group’s violent revolutionary tactics, while Hamas’s local Islamist proxies have co-opted black civil rights causes to bring attention to their own radical agenda.

Plaintiffs in these cases discuss the long-standing connections between Hamas and national black separatist organizations. They point to Hamas sympathizers who furnished advice and support in 2014 to police protestors in Ferguson, Missouri, and they refer to “black separatist hate groups” which took a 10-day trip  in 2015 to the Palestinian Territories and Israel. Led by a guide from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, activists from the black civil rights group Dream Defenders participated in a riot against Israeli soldiers and law enforcement.

In Dallas, black identity extremists continue to sympathize with Hamas while lauding its violent tactics.

Founded in 1989 in Dallas, the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) advocates an anti-white, anti-Semitic message of “black unity, collective action and cooperative economics.” Its leaders openly sympathize with the Palestinian resistance while demonizing the “crackers over in Israel” who oversee a “Synagogue of Satan.”

In 2014, NBPP Chief of Staff Chawn Kweli praised the insurgent tactics employed by Hamas and said that African Americans should “learn to fight for [their] land” from the Palestinians. “They don’t have all them tanks … but they got heart. They got will. They got guerilla tactics,” he said.

The Huey P. Newton Gun Club is a black nationalist militia that made headlines in 2014 for carrying out armed community patrols in predominantly African American neighborhoods of South Dallas. Johnson was reportedly affiliated with this racist hate group, and after his death HPNGC co-founder Yafeuh Balogun praised the cop killer and predicted that, “He will be celebrated one day.”

In 2018, Michael Thervil of Voda Consulting trained HPNGC members in marksmanship, community patrolling, and counter protests.  As with NBPP members, Thervil praised Hamas as a model for African American insurrectionists to emulate “in terms of combat,” professing his “deepest love for Hamas and those fearless fighters in Hezbollah.”

Just one month after HPNGC members were drilled in “counter protesting,” the black militia put its training to the test when it appeared alongside NBPP members at the George R. Brown Convention Center in downtown Houston. Armed with assault rifles, the black nationalists provided security for the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) during its annual conference.

As recently as the early 1990s, ISNA sent checks to the “Palestinian Mujahideen,” the former name for Hamas’s military wing, and in 2009 a federal judge ruled that there is “ample evidence” tying ISNA to Hamas.

Hamas also has deep roots in the non-black Dallas Islamic community. The most well-known and earliest connection is documented in USA v. Holy Land Foundation (HLF), the largest terrorism finance case in U.S. history  In 2008, the founders of the Richardson, Texas, charity were convicted of numerous charges related to financing Hamas, including conspiracy, money laundering, providing material support for terrorism, and tax evasion.

Ghassan Elashi, a founding board member of the Dallas chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), was sentenced to 65 years in prison for his role in funneling $12 million to Hamas after 1995, when the U.S. Department designated it as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. CAIR is listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the same Hamas financing trial, a label that was subsequently upheld in federal appellate court.

Does Hamas now depend on its U.S. proxies to influence black nationalists?

As with CAIR and ISNA, American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) is an outgrowth of the now-defunct Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP), a Hamas propaganda front group that was dissolved in 2004 for funding terrorism, and several AMP board members were members of IAP before its dissolution.

On June 12, AMP-Texas organized a Black Lives Matter rally with local mosques, including Dallas’s Nation of Islam chapter, a black separatist, quasi-Sunni religious movement commonly rejected by mainstream Muslims. During a similar protest one week earlier, AMP-Dallas Director Fadya Risheq repeated an anti-Semitic smear that effectively holds Israeli Jews responsible for police violence against African Americans.

Risheq was merely parroting views expressed on Hamas’s English-language website, which dismissed racial animosity as the primary cause of police brutality, pointing out that the “militarization of the U.S. police and its use of deadly violence … is a relatively new phenomenon that has been largely imported from Israel.”

Celebrity Imam Omar Suleiman, the founder and president of the Irving-based Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research, is perhaps the most celebrated Muslim cleric in Texas – if not the U.S. Suleiman has been a vocal advocate of Hamas proxies such as AMP, and he is featured on its website soliciting donations. He headlined a 2017 AMP rally in Washington D.C., before appearing one year later as a guest speaker at AMP’s annual conference.

Suleiman is also a vocal supporter of Black Lives Matter, and he has tweeted his support for violent Palestinian resistance. On July 14, 2014, he gave this prayer on Twitter:

“God willing on this blessed night as the 3^rd Intifada begins, the beginning of the end of Zionism is here. May Allah help us overcome this monster, protect the innocent of the world, and accept the murdered as martyrs. ameen.”

On May 14, 2018, Suleiman posted a Facebook post in support of the Hamas-led Hamas-endorsed March of Return riots, claiming that Israel wanted to “kill off” Palestinians and encouraging resistance “by any means necessary.”

Historically, Dallas has been an incubator for both Islamic extremism and black supremacism. These two movements may not share the same aspirations, but they certainly share many of the same hatreds. Their alliance is an abstract one, drawn together through the demonization of both the Israeli military and American law enforcement, under whose jackboots Palestinians and African-Americans are, ostensibly, jointly oppressed. This conspiracy would link Gaza and Minneapolis as two battlefields in a single war.

And yet black supremacists are largely not Islamist; and Islamists are certainly not truly committed to the idea of black supremacism. One is exploiting the other, using African American grievances to deflect criticism of radical Islam. And Micah Johnson may not be the last radical to be drawn in.

Anne-Christine Hoff is the Dallas Counter-Islamist Grid Research Fellow of Middle East Forum. This article was originally published at JihadWatch.org.

Written by Darrell Pack

GainPeace, an enterprising Islamic organization in Chicago, has found a way to use coronavirus to promote Islam in the United States. The activist organization is a leading dawa (Islamic proselytizing) group that has placed billboards which sponsor a message from the prophet of Islam about health precautions. Excellent timing during the COVID-19 pandemic, but dangerously deceptive.

The overly simplistic advice is essentially good and in keeping with modern health standards. But many Muslim groups and pro-Islam spokespersons like Dr. Craig Considine are twisting it to advocate for Muhammad’s divine knowledge about health issues.

Dr. Sabeel Ahmed, GainPeace director, is a prolific public speaker and apologist for Islam. He has made the organization a pace-setting advocacy group for Muslims, and a dynamic promoter of Islam in the USA.

GainPeace and Dr. Ahmed are determined to find views that modern Western audiences respect and apply them to add credibility to Muhammad as a prophet. Coronavirus billboards around Chicagoland, sponsored by GainPeace say: “Coronavirus, Muhammad advised: Wash hands frequently, Don’t leave infected areas, Don’t visit infected areas.” It is reasonable, albeit rudimentary information, something your grandma would have said.

Noteworthy is that Muhammad’s words are taken out of context. The prophet of Islam was urging his followers not to flee from Allah’s punishment, and accept it by staying in the infected town.

Twisting scriptures to serve his purpose is not something new for GainPeace director. Dr. Ahmed has before published online videos that extol the wisdom of Muhammad’s medical guidance as a means to acclaim the Prophet’s role as the spokesperson of Allah; the Creator.

Religious zealots of any religion are susceptible to bias, which leads them to make absurd claims. In the West, Muslims who are practicing Dawa are often extreme examples of this.

Unfortunately, GainPeace and Ahmed are attempting to make credible the terrible idea that Muhammad is a trusted source for modern medical guidance. This would not be a matter of concern except that it also raises Muhammad’s medical views to the level of divine guidance. Therein lies the danger.

For example, Muhammad mistakenly thought that water was always healthy and pure. No exceptions. A Sahih (authentic) saying of Muhammad clearly makes such bad advice:

“I heard that the people asked the Prophet of Allah: Water is brought for you from the well of Buda’ah. It is a well in which dead dogs, menstrual clothes and excrement of people are thrown. The Messenger of Allah replied: Verily water is pure and is not defiled by anything.”

In a second example, based on a hadith report that is considered sahih (authentic), Muhammad prescribed camel urine as a cure. In light of the present COVID-19 crisis it is hard to even recall the 2012 Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) issue, but at the time, MERS was a viral respiratory illness new to humans. First reported in Saudi Arabia, it spread to several other nations, including the U.S.A. The World Health Organization repeatedly cautioned Muslims to not drink camel urine, which in the view of many Muslims went against the medical advice of Muhammad.

Both the authoritative compilations on hadith Al-Bukhari and Muslim record this event:

“Some people from the tribe of `Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milk) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy).”

This recommendation for camel urine, as so-called Prophetic Medicine, is still a live issue in Muslim-majority societies. Proof is a 2018 Newsweek article that reported on the Muslim religious leader Bachtiar Nasir drinking camel urine.

This is what makes Dr. Ahmed’s promotion of Muhammad as a legitimate source of medical expertise so unsafe for American Muslims. We must not encourage a pseudo-scientific promotion of Prophetic Medicine. While the GainPeace billboards give practical advice, they are taken out of context, and readings of sahih, would draw Muslims to dangerous behavior. Posting them to promote Muhammad’s medical insight is not just irresponsible but deadly.

Darrell Pack is an Arabist and an Illinois’ Islamic Reform Forum Board Member. This article was originally published at JihadWatch.org.

Islam is on the rise around the world, whether it be terrorist activity in the Middle East or the increasing number of followers here in United States. Though these trends open up many opportunities to share the Gospel, Christians also have reason for concern. We cannot ignore the fact that Christians are being targeted by radical jihadists. Additionally, some of the public policy changes that have been proposed endanger our civil liberties of speech and religious practice.

Dr. Erwin W. Lutzer shared his wisdom and insights on how Christians can respond to radical Islam in this special video presentation below. We originally recorded this event in May 2015, and are thrilled to now make his timeless message available to you via the IFI YouTube channel. During this time of “shelter-in-place,” we have an opportunity to get our thoughts off of the COVID-19 crisis and intentionally augment our Christian worldview while enjoying an encouraging exhortation from Dr. Lutzer about how we can joyfully shine the light of Jesus to a world lost in darkness.

Please watch and share with your family!

Dr. Lutzer is Pastor Emeritus of The Moody Church, where he served as the Senior Pastor for 36 years. He is the best selling author of dozens of books, including The Cross in the Shadow of the Crescent: An Informed Response to Islam’s War with Christianity. Without a doubt, this is one of the most pressing issues facing the church and our nation today.

“Remember that the real threat to the United States is not so much terrorism, but Islamism,
which intends to challenge our constitutional liberties and take advantage of political correctness
to silence discussion and debate about Islam and to undermine our national security…”
~Dr. Erwin W. Lutzer

If you appreciate the work and ministry of IFI, please consider a tax-deductible donation to sustain our endeavors.  It does make a difference.

In this video, Brigitte Gabriel – author, commentator on politics, culture, terrorism, and national security, as well as the founder and chairman of ACT for America – gives one of the most energetic, impassioned, and motivating presentations you will watch all year.

Ms. Gabriel speaks about the transformation that altered her childhood in Lebanon, the transformation that has turned Europe into “Eurabia,” and the transformation that is occurring in America as Muslim groups work to change the DNA of our country through various means, most especially through public school curriculum.

As the largest grassroots national security organization in the country, ACT for America strives to protect Americans from all threats, foreign and domestic, by pairing education with action. Ms. Gabriel wants to light a fire under Americans so we can take back our country! Visit ACT for America for more information and to sign up to be an activist – and please share this video with others.

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

I recently had a Facebook debate with Leftist government employee (is that redundant?) Jeffery Moore, Senior Department Coordinator at Illinois Housing Development Authority. Moore alleges that I and the Illinois Family Institute are divisive, unloving, un-Christlike advocates for “Christian sharia law.” Wowzer.

I felt a response was in order, so here’s how it went down.

Jeffery Moore:

“You are so divisive. How about working together for one Illinois?”

Laurie:

I hope your comment is directed at “progressives” who are the most divisive force in America today and have been for the last 40-50 years.

Legalized human slaughter is divisive. Forcing taxpayers to pay for human slaughter is divisive. Identity politics is divisive. Critical Race Theory is divisive. Judging people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character is divisive. Demands for “reparations” are divisive. Legally recognizing intrinsically non-marital unions as marriages is divisive. Introducing leftist assumptions about homosexuality and gender dysphoria to children in government schools is divisive. Forcing owners of small businesses to use their labor in the service of celebrations that violate their religious convictions is divisive. Forcing Christian adoption agencies to place children in the homes of men and women who affirm as good that which God condemns is divisive. The absurd, science-denying “trans”-ideology is divisive. Sexually integrating private spaces is divisive. Forcing people to use incorrect pronouns (i.e., to lie) when referring to men and women who pretend to be the sex they are not is divisive. Allowing men to ruin women’s athletics is divisive. Allowing Illinoisans to obtain falsified birth certificates and driver’s licenses is divisive. “De-platforming” conservative speakers is divisive. Misnamed “safe spaces” are divisive.

It’s fascinating that if conservatives refuse to roll over and submit to the jackbooted and divisive efforts of “progressives” to recreate America in their own ideological image, they are deemed divisive.

Jeffery Moore:

Laurie Higgins, your Christian sharia law is unconstitutional.

Laurie:

So, you lost the “divisive” argument and are lodging a new and equally hilarious complaint. Specifically what “unconstitutional Christian sharia law” have I proposed, and how specifically does this law violate the Constitution?”

Jeffery Moore:

Laurie Higgins, you are still divisive and you are putting your religious views into civil matters. Our founding fathers had you in mind when they separated church and state. When I was sworn into the Peace Corps I took a pledge to defend the Constitution from all threats foreign and domestic. You know, people like you and the “Family” institute. Be careful, your religious dogma has turned you away from being Christlike. God bless you. I hope you find your way back to love.

Laurie:

Duly noted that you did not identify one “Christian sharia law” proposed by me or anyone else.

You evidently assume that love has no intrinsic connection to truth, but such a view is not biblical. Are those who oppose legalizing polygamous or polyamorous marriages dogmatic and hateful? Are those who oppose allowing two loving brothers to marry dogmatic and hateful? When the bill comes down the polluted pike to legalize incestuous homosexual marriage, what if some of the people who oppose it are atheists and some who oppose it are religious? Do only atheist opponents get to vote against the bill?

The phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution. It’s in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. He was assuring them that the government would not intrude into their free exercise of religion. People of faith are not constitutionally prohibited from having their faith shape their political decisions. I never heard “progressives” argue that those who attend churches that affirm same-sex marriage were prohibited from supporting the legalization of same-sex marriage. I never heard “progressives” argue that religious opposition to the Vietnam War constituted a violation of church and state. And I never hear “progressives” caterwaul that Dr. MLK Jr. violated the separation of church and state when he opposed civil rights violations for explicitly religious reasons. Nor do they berate him for saying this in “Letter from Birmingham Jail”:

How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God.

As I have written before, people from diverse faith traditions and no faith could all arrive at the same position on a particular public policy. For example, although Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Baptists, and atheists may all oppose abortion because they value human life, the reasons for that valuation of life differ.

If there is a secular purpose for the law (e.g., to protect incipient human life or to support the inclusion of sexual differentiation in the legal definition of marriage–neither of are necessarily or exclusively grounded in religion), then voting for it does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The source of the various parties’ desires to protect incipient life or defend a view of marriage is no business of the government. It would be not only absurd but also unethical for the government to try to ascertain the motives and beliefs behind anyone’s opposition to abortion or same-sex “marriage” and equally unethical for the government to assert that only those who have no religious faith may vote to oppose abortion or same-sex “marriage.” Such an assertion would most assuredly violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

What is prohibited are laws pertaining to matters that are strictly and exclusively religious, which neither marriage nor human slaughter are.

It’s Leftists like you who pose a threat to the Constitution—particularly to the First Amendment.

Final thoughts

I believe Moore and all Leftists who share his vision for America do, indeed, want divisiveness to end. Moore and his ilk want to achieve national unity via conservative submission to Leftist ideological assumptions, particularly their assumptions about sexuality—assumptions that affect religious freedom, speech rights, association rights, marriage, adoption, foster care, parental rights, physical privacy, public education, employment, public libraries, tax policy, private Christian colleges, and women’s athletics.

Remember when sexual anarchists promised Americans that all they sought was tolerance for their wholly private sexcapades—sexcapades that never affect anyone, no way, no how? Ah, those were the days, my friends. We thought they’d never end. But then Big Brother marched in, draped in a rainbow flag and wearing a bustier, commanding Christians to call him “her” and bake a cake for his “wedding” to a man—or else.

The “or else” has emerged. It’s called The Equality Act.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Christian_Sharia_3.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

With the news last week that Amazon has banned Mohammed’s Koran: Why Muslims Kill for Islam, co-authored by British activist Tommy Robinson and Peter McLoughlin, Amazon has crossed a very dangerous and precarious line.

Two immediate questions come to mind. First, why ban a book critiquing Islam when a host of other books critiquing – no, harshly attacking – other religious faiths are available on Amazon? Second, why ban this book and not other books that critique Islam? Why draw the line here?

When McLoughlin, who helped expose the “grooming” crimes committed by some British Muslims, received word that the book had been removed from Amazon, he wrote, “This is the twenty-first century equivalent of the Nazis taking out the books from university libraries and burning them.

“Can you think of another scholarly book on Islam that has been banned by Amazon? Mein Kampf is for sale on Amazon. As are books like the terrorist manual called The Anarchist Cookbook.”

Yet Mohammed’s Koran gets banned?

According to Robert Spencer, who has authored scholarly works critiquing the Koran, Robinson and McLoughlin’s book “endeavors to illustrate how violent jihadists justify their actions by referring to Islamic texts and teachings — and that’s all. Robinson and McLoughlin call for no violence. Their book is accurate.”

Indeed, one could readily ask, if their book was banned by Amazon, why not ban Spencer’s related books, such as: The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion; or, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran; or The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades); or The History of Jihad: From Muhammad to ISIS? (Note that this last title, released in 2018, is currently #1 on Amazon under the category, “Muhammad and Islam.”)

Do you see where this is going?

More disturbingly, why ban Mohammed’s Koran while allowing books to be sold on Amazon like these, by Christian author Texe Marrs? Among his many books are: Holy Serpent of the Jews: The Rabbis’ Secret Plan for Satan to Crush Their Enemies and Vault the Jews to Global Dominion (published in 2016); and Blood Covenant With Destiny: The Babylonian Talmud, the Jewish Kabbalah, and the Power of Prophecy (published in 2018).

According to Marrs, “The Jews are on the fast track to their occult fate. They have made an agreement with hell, a covenant with death, and payments on their debt to Satan must be made in accordance with that contractual agreement.”

Yes, “The ultimate goal of the Jews is the annihilation of almost every Gentile man, woman, and child and the establishment of a satanic Jewish-led global dictatorship (the Jewish Utopia) encompassing the planet. This goal is expressed by the Jews in their most sacred books, the Babylonian Talmud and the Kabbalah.” (For the record, I’ll be addressing the writings of Marrs in the revised and updated version of my book Our Hands Are Stained with Blood: The Tragic Story of the ‘Church’ and the Jewish People, due out in September).

I own the Kindle version of Mohammed’s Koran, having purchased it in 2017. And although I haven’t read all of it, I can tell you that nothing I have seen in the book comes anywhere close to Marrs’s insidious attacks on the Talmud and Kabbalah.

Why are his books available while Mohammed’s Koran is not?

Is it that Robinson has become a marked man? Is it because of pressure from Islamic activists? Whatever the reason, it is not good enough.

By banning this book, Amazon is opening up one of two possibilities: Either Amazon will not be consistent, thereby demonstrating extreme hypocrisy. Or Amazon will start banning many other books, leading to a very dangerous precedent.

Which books and authors will be next? And what can conservative, Bible believers expect? Perhaps our books opposing LGBT activism or exposing the evils of abortion will be next?

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

Despite the rendition of Islam portrayed by the mainstream media and education system as a “religion of peace,” experts on the Muslim culture argue that the West is in denial about the sheer brutality at the core of the religion based in Shariah. [Caution: This article contains some graphic descriptions that could be unsettling to some readers.]

Radio show host Barbara Simpson, whose 20-year radio career also spans television and dailies in Los Angeles and the Bay Area, is calling out Western blindness to seemingly endless horrific deaths and threats at the hands of Islamic terrorists – atrocities that she says the West refuses to acknowledge because it will not hold Muslims accountable for their behavior or takes step to counter it due to political correctness.

Defending Islam?

Simpson – known to her audience as “The Babe in the Bunker” – argues that the mainstream media is at least partly responsible for continuing to portray Islam as if violence has nothing to do with its key precepts and prescribed behavior.

“Western nations and their media have to pay attention to the atrocities and report them accurately, [because] too often, they report the ‘news’ incorrectly or with minimum detail, and then the ‘stories’ disappear,” Simpson argued in her piece on WND titled “What will it take to admit Muslim brutality?”  “Case in point: the murders of two young Scandinavian women in Morocco on Dec. 22. The story was covered briefly by European media and even less in the United States. I first saw the story on the Internet, and there was very brief coverage in my newspapers – but then it just disappeared.”

She indicated that the mainstream media acts as if it is a team of Muslim militants’ defense attorneys, ultimately telling audiences, “Move on, there’s nothing to see here,” every time violence is carried out in the name of Islam – whether it is on the city streets, on the battlefield, on a hiking trail, or in the home.

This is the approach taken after the slain bodies of the 28-year-old Norwegian, Maren Ueland, and the 24-year-old Louisa Vesterager Jespersen from Denmark were discovered near their tent after backpacking high in the Atlas Mountains near Rabat, Morocco.

The head of Morocco’s Central Office for Judicial Investigating, Abdelhak Khiam, issued one of the first reports on the murders.

“The two victims were stabbed, had their throats cut and then were beheaded,” Khiam announced, according to WND.

Simpson then pointed out how this overgeneralized report only touched the tip of the iceberg regarding the brutality of the murders – and who was responsible for them.

“Short, sweet and to the point – but it wasn’t quite that simple,” Simpson contended. “The killers photographed the mayhem they perpetuated – moving pictures in living color with natural sound. Not only did they make the tape available online – where I saw and heard it – but they also sent it to the families and friends of the young women.”

Exposing the true viciousness

When Simpson came across the video of the murders online to see for herself what happened, she was amazed at the degree of the brutality used to maliciously slaughter the young women.

“I thought I had seen beheadings before in the news – the result of Islamic terrorism – those had been somewhat simple: kneeling person, long swing of a sword and off with the head,” Simpson explained. “Despite the hideousness of what was done, those videos were relatively antiseptic – [but] this was different.”

She was shocked at the carnage the Muslim attackers inflicted upon their innocent victims.

“I stared at the video and listened with total disbelief – I still almost cannot believe what I saw and heard,” Simpson continued. “It was a nighttime scene and you could see one woman lying on her stomach [partially nude]. There were two men there, speaking Arabic. Then one of them started hacking and sawing at the back of her neck. I heard screams and suddenly realized it was the victim, crying out for help. Those who heard the audio more clearly, report she cried out ‘Ow, ow’ and then ‘MOOOOR!’ – which is Danish for mother.”

But the vicious attack did not stop there.

“She tried to get away from the knife blade, but it only caused the murderer to start sawing at the front of her neck – and at that moment, the screaming stopped, but the murderer didn’t,” Simpson recounted from the Internet video. “He kept hacking and sawing her neck and there was so much blood, I couldn’t believe it. And then it was over – he cut off her head even as she tried to repel the knife with her hand. With the head off, it was thrown on the ground and one tape viewer said it was spit on.”

Simpson could not handle the brutal nature of the video.

“I didn’t see that – the rivers of blood and the cries of anguish were enough for me,” she added. “I shall never, ever get those images out of my mind, but I’m glad they’re there – for now I know for certain how evil the killers are.”

Not an Islamic attack?

Even with the publicity given to the two murders and the tape available to the public, Islam is still not being blamed for the massacre – not even in Sweden, the native country of one of the slaughtered victims.

“We’re told 22 people have been arrested in connection with the crime, yet whether they are connected with ISIS is not consistent in the news coverage,” Simpson noted. “It is reported that some of the suspects subscribe to ‘extremist ideology.’ In fact, Swedish television reported the deaths had nothing to do with Islam, and that if anyone shared the beheading video, they could face up to four years in prison. One of the reports didn’t even mention the beheading – calling the injuries ‘knife damage.’”

The liberal media in the United Kingdom made the injuries sound as if a Band-Aid might help heal the inflicted wounds.

“The BBC and the Independent in the UK reported the women died from ‘cuts to the neck,’” Simpson recalled.

With some time passing after this horrific event took place, the media has apparently decided that it will have no part in holding the brutality of Islam accountable for the attack.

“Unfortunately, the authorities report no more information on the killers – nor are the media any more forthcoming on the deaths,” Simpson divulged. “American media have virtually forgotten the story – I suspect because they don’t want to get involved in laying the blame on the steps of militant Islam, as seen in ISIS.”

More cover-ups?

Covering over Islamic violence appeared to be the trend not long after the slaying of the two young backpackers, as Simpson insists that even though fear is rampant regarding Islamic militants, the media will “never admit it.”

“Further, just last week, it was announced by Libyan authorities that they’ve discovered a mass grave with the remains of 34 Ethiopian Christians who were killed in 2015 by armed jihadists,” she relayed. “I remember the video they released back then of the prisoners kneeling in front of men with swords. We didn’t see the actual killing then – nor what happened to the bodies.”

She said that there is no longer any excuse for Americans and Europeans to turn a blind eye to the viciousness of Islamic militants.

“What is it going to take for Western nations to show proper outrage at such savagery against innocents and do something about it?” Simpson asked. “Are we so intimidated by this violence perpetrated by members of a certain religion that we just pretend these things don’t happen? Tell that to the parents of Maren and Louisa. Tell that to me after I saw and heard a horrific death, or do we just kow-tow to Morocco, where tourism is the second-largest source of income and news reports of terrorism is bad news?”

Muslims defending violence down under

Australian politicians have challenged the violence imported by Muslim refugees in the Land Down Under.

In April 2017, Australian Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce addressed the proliferating problem of domestic violence at the hands of Muslim men, insisting that refraining from beating up women is now a core Australian value – even though adherents of Islam might not agree.

“There’s no polite way to beat up your wife,” Joyce declared at the time, according to Australia’s ABC.net. “If you want to beat up your wife, you can’t become a citizen of this nation. It’s as simple as that.”

Backlash from the Muslim community in Australia was quickly waged, as Islamic adherents insisted that their religion is not sexist or brutal in nature.

“In a video posted to Facebook by the Women of Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia – a radical Islamic group – two hijab-clad women laugh off the idea that Islam is ‘gender biased,’ but claim the Koran permits men to hit disobedient women – gently, using small sticks or pieces of fabric,” ABC.net/au’s Hayley Gleeson and Julia Baird informed.

One of the Muslim women justified the violence that husbands inflict upon their wives.

“He [the husband] is permitted – not obliged, not encouraged – but permitted, to hit her [his wife],” the Islamic woman explained in the video, according to the Australian ABC network. “That is what everyone is talking about. It should not cause pain. Not harsh.”

Violence ingrained deep within Islam?

It is argued that one must look to Islam’s holy book, the Quran, to decide whether or not violence is an inherent part of Islam that Muslims are called to carry out.

“To understand whether violence is inherent in the doctrine of Islam, it is important to look at the example of the founding father of Islam, Mohammed, and the passages in the Quran and Islamic jurisprudence used to justify the violence we currently see in so many parts of the Muslim world,” ForeignPolicy.com explained in November 2015. “In Mecca, Mohammed preached to his fellow tribesmen to abandon their gods and accept his, [as] he preached about charity and the conditions of widows and orphans.”

But the call for peace was soon overridden by a call for violence, according to Islamic scriptures.

“However, during his time in Mecca, Mohammed and his small band of believers had little success in converting others to this new religion,” ForeignPolicy.com’s Ayaan Hirsi Ali explained. “So, a decade after Mohammed first began preaching, he fled to Medina. Over time, he cobbled together a militia and began to wage wars.”

Members of ISIS, al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Taliban need look no further than the Quran to “justify” the carnage they inflict upon “infidels” – those who do not submit to the god of Islam, Allah.

“Anyone seeking support for armed jihad in the name of Allah will find ample support in the passages in the Quran and Hadith that relate to Mohammed’s Medina period,” Ali informed. “For example, Q4:95 states, ‘Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit [at home].’ Q8:60 advises Muslims ‘to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know.’ Finally, Q9:29 instructs Muslims: ‘Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, [even if they are] of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.’”

Shariah law is an integral part of Muslims lives – both in Islamic nations and elsewhere … including in many Muslim communities in the United States.

“Mainstream Islamic jurisprudence continues to maintain that the so-called ‘sword verses’ (9:5 and 9:29) have ‘abrogated, canceled, and replaced’ those verses in the Quran that call for ‘tolerance, compassion, and peace,’” Ali continued. “As for the example of Mohammed, Sahih Muslim – one of the six major authoritative Hadith collections – claims the Prophet Mohammed undertook no fewer than 19 military expeditions, personally fighting in eight of them.”

Even Ivy League schools acknowledge the violence lying at the heart of Islam.

“In the aftermath of the 627 Battle of the Trench, ‘Mohammed felt free to deal harshly with the Banu Qurayza, executing their men and selling their women and children into slavery,’ according to Yale Professor of Religious Studies Gerhard Bowering in his book, Islamic Political Thought,” Ali pointed out. “As the Princeton scholar Michael Cook observed in his book Ancient Religions, Modern Politics, ‘the historical salience of warfare against unbelievers … was thus written into the foundational texts’ of Islam.”

Many Muslims and left-leaning Democrats only pay heed to Mohammed’s account from Mecca to dub Islam as a “religion of peace,” but they purposely ignore his call from Medina – for Muslims to wage jihad, or holy war, against non-Muslims.

“There lies the duality within Islam – it’s possible to claim, following Mohammed’s example in Mecca, that Islam is a religion of peace – but it’s also possible to claim, as the Islamic State does, that a revelation was sent to Mohammed commanding Muslims to wage jihad until every human being on the planet accepts Islam or a state of subservience, on the basis of his legacy in Medina,” Ali asserted. “The key question is not whether Islam is a religion of peace, but rather, whether Muslims follow the Mohammed of Medina – regardless of whether they are Sunni or Shiite.”

This article was initially published in americanthinker.com

Islam, Muhammad, life in Iran, Sharia – how knowledgeable are you on these topics? Anni Cyrus is well-acquainted with all of them. She was born in Iran to a father who was a sheikh and a mother who taught the Quran. At age seven she began to wear the hijab to school; at age nine she first wore the full burqa and was officially certified as an “adult woman.” When she was barely into her teens, her father married her off to a man who gave him $50 (USD) and a month’s supply of opium. Ms. Cyrus knows all too well the horrific oppression of women under the dictates of Sharia in Iran.

Anni Cyrus also knows that Muslim girls and women in the United States are not immune from the abusive and controlling tactics that Sharia inflicts on females. Forced marriage, honor-based domestic violence, honor killing, and female genital mutilation are routinely practiced not only in the Middle East and other foreign regions, but also in our own country. Ms. Cyrus’ personal story and the facts and truths she shares can be uncomfortable to hear and view, but our discomfort is infinitesimal compared to the “legally” sanctioned pain these women experience through physical and mental abuse, mutilation, and even murder. We cannot afford to remain ignorant or silent on the evil of Sharia.

Please watch and share this video of Anni’s testimony with your friends to help them become better informed about Sharia:

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-

What YOU Can Do About Radical Islam

Usama Dakdok: Born in Egypt, in an Arabic speaking, Christian home, Usama is a Christian minister and scholar on Islam. He has translated the Qur’an without sugarcoating it and travels the United States, equipping Christians, reaching Muslims and warning Americans about the destruction caused when Islam’s teachings are strictly followed and enforced. His presentation, “America: Freedom Or Surrender,” and his Qur’an translation, “The Generous Qur’an” have become must have resources that have helped tens of thousands become informed and
equipped to make a difference.

Click HERE for a printable flier.

Want to Learn About Leading an Act for America Chapter or Becoming a Chapter Member?
Leaders will be on hand to tell you about the tremendous resources and support that is available and the large variety of projects you can undertake to make a difference. Let us help you help America! Come hear Usama and then talk to us about getting involved.

RSVP required for seats – Register and invite friends!

The world is quickly becoming over-populated. There is not enough water, food, fuel or other natural resources to sustain us all. We will soon be faced with a “survival of the fittest” class struggle, as the “have-nots” contend with the “haves” for land and property rights, in an attempt to stay alive during the coming economic apocalypse that ensues. Billions will starve to death (or worse) as every blade of grass is consumed by the ever-encroaching urban sprawl and demand for limited services.

At least this is the neo-Marxist narrative the socialist / globalist journalist, politicians and educrats want you to believe.

How Did We Get Here?

Whence did all these stories of over-population, limited resources, carbon footprint, etc. originate?

Thomas Malthus (1766-1846), wrote a book in 1798 entitled, An Essay on the Principle of Population as It Affects the Future Improvement of Society. He hypothesized that “… the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man.”

Charles Darwin (1809-1888) was influenced by Malthusian theory. Darwin’s 1859 book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, created a world where only the physical reality matters. The soul of humans was diminished, and people quickly became reduced to resource-consuming units. Social Darwinism soon developed the concept that only the strongest should be allowed to survive, and that often was the “white race.” Eugenics, a practice of eliminating unwanted elements of the population through whatever pragmatic means was currently culturally accepted (or whatever you could get away with), was a driving worldview behind Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.

Eugenics advocate, Margaret Sanger (1879-1966), the founder of Planned Parenthood, invented the term, “birth control,” and raised $150,000 for research leading to the first birth control pill in 1951. Sanger promoted “a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

Radical environmentalism placed the continued survival of the species as a primary virtue (with all of the devotion of a religion). We must save the planet, so we can all survive. If that means killing off large segments of our population (through abortion or other means), so be it.

Margaret Sanger, who intentionally set up abortion clinics in African-American neighborhoods, declared: “The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children,” she continued “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 5: The Wickedness of Creating Large Families.

The Over-Population Myth

The real fact is that we have plenty of land and natural resources to accommodate our growing population. Of course, we should be good stewards of the earth, and find renewable resources, but we need to stop seeing children as a pestilence to be exterminated, and view them as they are; emerging innovators who can create a more sustainable future for us all.

The doomsayers with this message have consistently been proven wrong. Fifty years ago, Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, wrote: “The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”

He also predicted the average age of death would be 42 by 1980, and the oceans could rise 250 feet because of melting ice caps (anyone wonder where Al Gore got his nonsense?). Ehrlich was certainly a false prophet. While poverty, hunger, and lack of adequate drinking water are present realities in many parts of the globe, these problems are almost always created by corrupt and oppressive governments, poor infrastructure, inefficiency (wasted food), lack of technology (shortage of water wells), war, and even cultural superstition (like in India where their religious beliefs have created food shortages by not allowing mice and rats to be killed, or cattle to be eaten for food, ceremonial bathing in drinking water, etc.).

False over-population myths have been responsible for many of the over 60 million abortions since Roe v. Wade in 1973. The truth is, there is room for every person on this planet to stand shoulder to shoulder within the city limits of Los Angeles, CA. It’s not a space issue, it’s a stewardship issue.

Despising Children

While not self-consciously pro-eugenics, the philosophical descendants of Malthus, Darwin, Sanger and Ehrlich have produces a negative view of children in our culture.

Children are not a negative drain on a society, they are, in the words of the Psalm 127 in the Bible, “a reward.” Population growth through birth rate9 is one of the prerequisites of a healthy economy. What is scary, is not child birth, but rather a massive aging population who have trusted their government to pay for their retirement (with funds long past spent). Our current Social Security system for the immense Baby Boomer generation is being funded by the current labor and taxation of Gen X and Millennials.

The problem is, in western culture, we’ve almost either killed off, or prevented the conception of, an entire generation of scientists, doctors, nurses, farmers, technicians, engineers and inventors. If we weren’t thinking of this in theological terms (considering the sovereignty of God), one might speculate that the scientist who would have discovered the universal cure for cancer may have been murdered in the womb.

A society needs a fertility rate of 2.1 births children per (hopefully married) woman to sustain population levels and maintain a stable economy. What we see happening in many part of Europe is a society driving full speed towards an economic cliff (not to mention a moral one!).

Demographics from the World Bank demonstrate a fall in global fertility rates from about 5.0 in 1960, to under 2.5 today. In 2015 in Europe the 10 worst economies, (with their accompanying birthrates beside it) were (from worst to better): Finland (1.6), Greece (1.3), Estonia (1.6), Portugal (1.3), Austria (1.5), Netherlands (1.7), Italy (1.4), Belgium (1.7), France (2.0), and Germany (1.5). None of these countries are above the 2.1 threshold for sustainability.

Muslims are quickly taking over population centers in Europe through a much higher than average birth rate. Muslims recognize the value of child-birth as a means for cultural domination. America only slightly exceeds a 2.1 growth rate, but that is due to immigration, not birth rate. As our birth rate slows to match that of Europe, we can expect to see our productivity decrease as well.

The Solution

Many nations, including China, Japan, Israel and others are seeking to encourage their citizens to have more children now, not less. The problem is, the anti-child and anti-family worldview is so ingrained in many cultures, people are now avoiding marriage and child-bearing altogether. STD’s are on the rise (so sexual activity is likely on the rise) but marriage and raising children within a committed marriage is despised.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that birth alone solves these complex economic problems. There is far more to a stable society, and robust economy that human bodies taking up land mass. What is needed is for a healthy family culture to emerge. Committed, monogamous, heterosexual marriages provide the best context for raising good citizens. Children need both fathers and mothers to help guide them into life’s complex maze of choices. We do not merely need to give birth to babies; we need to train them well how to become contributing adults. Divorce and parental absenteeism has given us a generation of lost young adults who are struggling to find their way through emotional pain, and subsequent substance abuse. They need the stability only a loving family can provide.

The key is to raise the next generation to understand their responsibility to be producers and nor mere consumers. Entertainment, government subsidies and dumbed-down educational systems have created youth who have a major entitlement complex. They’ve had free daycare, free government schooling, free meals at school, and even in many cases, free college that wasn’t merit-based. The growing acceptance of marijuana and other addictive substances have sapped ambition and is crippling what is left of the American work ethic. Many of them sit back, waiting on the government to take care of them throughout their life. Young adults like this will never successfully lead us into the future.

While information is essential for our global economy, we must also continue to produce goods and services. This is where parents are going to have to work hard to combat the indoctrination towards government dependency being inculcated in our nation’s youth from a very young age.

I’ve never been one to merely preach at others, while not taking my own advice. At the time of this writing, my wife and I are eagerly awaiting the birth of our tenth child in just a few short months. We have never been on government assistance, and we support them all, and teach them a good work ethic (age appropriate of course) from the time they are young. We homeschool them entirely by ourselves and will save taxpayers over a million dollars just between K-12 by not putting them into government schools.

We patiently endure the sarcastic and snarky comments of perfect strangers who ask us, “Do you know what causes that?!” or “Are they all yours?! Surely you aren’t planning to have more?!” Many of those casting shade at us have children who are on drugs or have been in jail for felonies. We don’t take offense at their rudeness and ignorance. We have our eyes set on a higher goal. We are preparing these young ones to be successfully in life: Physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually. We are teaching them how to love and care for their neighbors, and how to solve problems, rather than create them. It’s not for the faint of heart, but our great country wasn’t built by people who shrank back from challenges. It was built by people of strong moral courage and tenacious convictions.

It is my hope that conservatives will stop reading from the playbooks of the progressive, leftist, Eugenic, social engineers, and will return to what make America great: Faith, family (including children) and freedom. These universal principles never fail. Join with me in helping to make America great again…by seeing once again that value of our children (our future).

IFI’s Annual
Faith, Family & Freedom Fall Banquet

Friday, October 5, 2018
The Stonegate in Hoffman Estates

Featuring special guest, George Barna

Secure your tickets or table now – click here or call (708) 781-9328.

Program advertisements & banquet sponsorships available.

How did you come to faith in Jesus? For most of us, a parent, grandparent, Sunday school teacher, or other influential person in our life shared the Gospel with us, answered our questions, encouraged and prayed over us, leading us to the point where we were ready to embrace Jesus as our Lord and Savior. No doubt we’ve heard of someone who came to faith in Jesus by reading a tract, watching a Billy Graham crusade on television, maybe listening to Ray Comfort ask probing question, or hearing a teaching program on a Christian radio station, but usually decisions to follow Christ are the result of frequent, personal interaction with an established believer.

In the video below, Mark Issa gives his testimony of how he became a disciple of Christ. His story is fascinating, and far from typical by the standards of western Christianity. Issa was born in Kuwait, but grew up in war-torn southern Lebanon in a secular Muslim home – his father didn’t take him to pray in the mosque or teach him Islam or the Quran. At age 16, after 9/11, Issa’s latent spirit of anger and resentment toward Israel, the United States, and other Israeli allies was kindled. He decided to learn more about Islam, becoming a radical Muslim, and then, jihadist, from information he gleaned from Islamic jihadist websites on the deep web.

Disillusioned that the Arab Spring freedom uprisings didn’t bring about the changes he anticipated, Issa decided to relearn Islam. This time, with a more objective perspective, Islam was revealed to him as “nothing but a large Ponzi scheme … falsely labeled as a religion of peace.” He embarked on an agnostic journey, examining various philosophies and religions solely by means of YouTube videos and online media. The teaching programs of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, along with his reading of the Word of God, were instrumental in Issa’s decision to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior in 2016.

Liberated from the lies of Islam by the freedom found only in Jesus, Issa now serves the Lord in a media ministry that targets Muslims. Striving to “win back the Middle East to Jesus Christ,” Issa uses media to reach Muslims and Arabs with the truth about the Lord he loves.

Praise God for our brother in Christ and his testimony to the Lord’s grace and love!

A Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) investigation discovered that the left-wing nonprofit is closely tied to four of the largest tech platforms on the planet, which routinely consult or collaborate with the SPLC in policing their platforms for “hate groups” or “hate speech,” and the findings were corroborated by Facebook itself.

“[The SPLC is on a list of] external experts and organizations [that Facebook works with] to inform our hate speech policies,” Facebook Spokeswoman Ruchika Budhraja informed the DCNF in an interview.

Facing users away from the right

Budhraja explained how outside groups are consulted by Facebook through one to three meetings in order to fashion its hate speech policies, but she would not name which specific organizations it worked with and insisted that they represent all political affiliations.

She then used a May 8 SPLC article that accused Facebook of inadequately censoring “anti-Muslim hate” in an attempt to prove the social media giant does not fully submit to the SPLC.

“We have our own process, and our processes are different and, I think, that’s why we get the criticism [from the SPLC], because organizations that are hate organizations by their standards don’t match ours,” Budhraja insisted, according to the DCNF. “That doesn’t mean that we don’t have a process in place, and that definitely doesn’t mean we want the platform to be a place for hate, but we aren’t going to map to the SPLC’s list or process.”

Following right-leaning users’ numerous complaints over the years about the bias of Facebook, Twitter, Google and YouTube, dozens of nationally renowned conservative leaders banded against the Internet platforms last month by issuing a statement condemning them for their censorship and suppression of conservative speech.

“Social media censorship and online restriction of conservatives and their organizations have reached a crisis level,” their joint statement read, according to Newsbusters. “Conservative leaders now have banded together to call for equal treatment on tech and social media.”

At the time, the SPLC was already suspected for contributing to the platforms’ liberal bias.

“The participants called for the tech giants to address the key areas of complaint, including lack of transparency, when removing content and deleting accounts and the imbalance of liberal content advisers – such as the Southern Poverty Law Center,” Fox News reported.

Amazon and the SPLC – a perfect left match

But Amazon trumps Facebook when it come to collaborating with the SPLC.

“Of the four companies, Amazon gives the SPLC the most direct authority over its platform, the DCNF found,” the DCNF’s Peter Hasson reported. “While Facebook emphasizes its independence from the SPLC, Amazon does the opposite: Jeff Bezos’ company grants the SPLC broad policing power over the Amazon Smile charitable program, while claiming to remain unbiased.”

In fact, an Amazon spokeswoman announced where the Internet giant gets its final word, but she would not say whether her company considers its leftist source as being unbiased.

“We remove organizations that the SPLC deems as ineligible,” the company’s spokeswoman told the DCNF. “[Amazon grants the SPLC that power] because we don’t want to be biased whatsoever.”

One of Amazon’s charitable programs under scrutiny for being in cahoots with the SPLC’s political agenda was targeted.

“The Smile program allows customers to identify a charity to receive 0.5 percent of the proceeds from their purchases on Amazon,” Hasson pointed out. “Customers have given more than $8 million to charities through the program since 2013, according to Amazon. Only one participant in the program, the SPLC, gets to determine which other groups are allowed to join it.”

It was found that the Smile program frowns upon conservatives, Christians and Jews, alike.

“Christian legal groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom – which recently successfully represented a Christian baker at the U.S. Supreme Court – are barred from the Amazon Smile program, while openly anti-Semitic groups remain, the DCNF found in May,” Hasson noted. “One month later, the anti-Semitic groups – but not the Alliance Defending Freedom – are still able to participate in the program.”

Another excuse was also given by Amazon for the way it directs its users to charities using its own – and the SPLC’s – standards and criteria.

“Charitable organizations must meet the requirements outlined in our participation agreement to be eligible for AmazonSmile,” an Amazon spokesperson told Fox News. “Organizations that engage in, support, encourage or promote intolerance, hate, terrorism, violence, money laundering or other illegal activities are not eligible. If at any point an organization violates this agreement, its eligibility will be revoked. Since 2013, Amazon has relied on the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control and the Southern Poverty Law Center to help us make these determinations. While this system has worked well, we do listen to and consider the feedback of customers and other stakeholders, which we will do here as well.”

Tweeting for the SPLC

The other social media giant also determines its enemies and allies, according to the SPLC.

“Twitter lists the SPLC as a ‘safety partner’ working with Twitter to combat ‘hateful conduct and harassment,’” Hassan impressed. “The platform also includes the Trust and Safety Council, which ‘provides input on our safety products, policies and programs,’ according to Twitter. Free speech advocates have criticized it as Orwellian.”

Twitter admitted it worked with some social policy groups, but would not single out the SPLC.

“[Twitter is] in regular contact with a wide range of civil society organizations and [nongovernmental organizations],” a Twitter spokeswoman told the DCNF.

Googly over the SPLC

And the world’s biggest web browser also taps into the SPLC’s political profiling scheme.

“Google uses the SPLC to help police hate speech on YouTube as part of YouTube’s ‘Trusted Flagger’ program … citing a source with knowledge of the agreement, [and] following that report, the SPLC confirmed [in March that] they’re policing hate speech on YouTube,” Hassan recounted. “The SPLC and other third-party groups in the ‘Trusted Flagger’ program work closely with YouTube’s employees to crack down on extremist content in two ways, according to YouTube.”

The strategic process effectively weeds out conservatives so users can get their fill of leftist content.

“First, the flaggers are equipped with digital tools allowing them to mass flag content for review by YouTube personnel,” he continued. “Second, the groups act as guides to YouTube’s content monitors and engineers who design the algorithms policing the video platform, but may lack the expertise needed to tackle a given subject.”

But this underhanded scheme has gone virtually undetected – with good reason.

“The SPLC is one of over 300 government agencies and nongovernmental organizations in the YouTube program – the vast majority of which remain hidden behind confidentiality agreements,” Hassan divulged.

The SPLC’s fake labels abound

Adding insult to injury, the SPLC has a track record showing that its designations are based more on left-leaning sentiments and emotions than on fact.

“The SPLC has consistently courted controversy in publishing lists of ‘extremists’ and ‘hate groups,’” the DCNF reporter maintained. “The nonprofit has been plagued by inaccuracies this year, retracting four articles in March and April alone.”

The SPLC’s anti-Trump agenda was recently exposed when it had to retract a series of its stories a few months ago.

“The well-funded nonprofit – which did not return a request for comment – deleted three Russia-related articles in March after challenges to their accuracy followed by legal threats,” Hassan recalled. “All three articles focused on drawing conspiratorial connections between anti-establishment American political figures and Russian influence operations in the United States.”

Its pro-Muslim bias was exposed the following month.

“The SPLC removed a controversial ‘anti-Muslim extremist’ list in April, after British Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz threatened to sue over his inclusion on the list,” Hassan continued. “The SPLC had accused the supposed-extremists of inciting anti-Muslim hate crimes.”

Those who have been vocal against Islamic Sharia law and Muslim militancy have regularly been targeted by the SPLC – including Somali-born women’s rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who also made SPLC’s list.

“Ali – a victim of female genital mutilation who now advocates against the practice – is an award-winning human rights activist, but according to the SPLC’s since-deleted list, she was an ‘anti-Muslim extremist,’” Hassan informed.

Last August, Ali condemned Apple CEO Tim Cook for donating major funds to the SPLC and described the leftist nonprofit the following way:

“[The SPLC is] an organization that has lost its way, smearing people who are fighting for liberty and turning a blind eye to an ideology and political movement that has much in common with Nazism,” Ali declared, according to the DCNF.

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Dr. Benjamin Carson was emblazoned on the SPLC’s “extremist watch list” in 2015 because his political worldview aligns with conservatives.

“When embracing traditional Christian values is equated to hatred, we are approaching the stage where wrong is called right and right is called wrong,” the neurosurgeon Carson proclaimed on Facebook after discovering his name on SPLC’s list. “It is important for us to, once again, advocate true tolerance. That means being respectful of those with whom we disagree and allowing people to live according to their values without harassment. It is nothing but projectionism when some groups label those who disagree with them as haters.”

It took four months of backlash from conservatives for the SPLC to apologize and remove the “extremist” label from the 2016 Republican presidential candidate, who is now serving under the Trump administration.

And there have been severe consequences to the SPLC’s intentional mislabeling, as witnessed six years ago.

“Floyd Lee Corkins – who attempted a mass shooting at the conservative Family Research Center in 2012 – said he chose the organization for his act of violence because the SPLC listed them as a ‘hate group,’” Hassan noted.

Anyone or any group not aligned with the SPLC’s ultra-leftist ideas is a prime candidate for the nonprofit’s smear campaign, and its credibility has been challenged on a regular basis.

“The SPLC receives criticism from across the political spectrum for its smearing of conservative and centrist individuals and organizations,” Breitbart News reported.

As a result of the smears, some nonprofit organizations are hit financially by receiving less contributions.

“Conservative groups, like the Alliance Defending Freedom, also face regular smears by the SPLC,” Breitbart’s Allum Bokhari stressed. “As a result, they are barred from Amazon’s charity program.”

Even former President Barack Obama at one time chastised the SPLC for its extremist agenda.

“The far-left Southern Poverty Law Center was [even] too extreme for the Obama administration – but it’s just fine for Silicon Valley,” Fox News commented. “The Obama-era Justice Department once scolded the SPLC for overstepping ‘the bounds of zealous advocacy,’ after the organization labeled the non-profit Federation for American Immigration Reform a ‘hate group.’”

This article was originally published at OneNewsNow.com

Philip Haney is a former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) whistle blower and counter-terrorism expert. Haney studied Arabic culture and language while working as a scientist in the Middle East before becoming a founding member of the DHS in 2002. He has specialized in Islamic theology and the strategy and tactics of the global Islamic movement. He retired in July 2015 and is the author of See Something, Say Nothing.

Haney was the last to make a presentation, and he opened his remarks by telling the audience that “this is how it feels to be on the receiving end of a missionary — are you going to receive what they say? “The question, I’m sure, in all of our minds will be, “well, what are we supposed to do about it?”

Haney noted that Christians must be clear about Sharia law. “What is the threat? What are we fighting against? What are we fighting for?” He said that “we are obligated by duty to be participants in the government that the Lord himself instituted in order to protect the liberties that he gave us. Jihad is the tactic, Haney said, and the goal is “world domination.”

You can watch his presentation here below, or click HERE to see it on our YouTube channel.

Haney’s Twitter account is @TheDHSExposed.

You can learn more about Anni Cyrus’ presentation HERE, and/or the presentation given by Pastor Usama Dakdok HERE.

The Left is working overtime to silence and/or marginalize conservative voices in America
The time to support IFI is now!