Biden Planning to Push “Police Reform” Via Executive Order This Month

Biden Winter of Death

“Our country is suffering from a far-left radical movement … that is trying to defame, demoralize, defund, dismantle and dissolve our great police departments.” – Former President Donald J. Trump, August 15, 2020

FoxNews.com reports that

President Joe Biden is reportedly planning to push his police reform agenda via an executive order as early as this month.

The executive actions are still being finalized, according to NBC News, but are expected to be rolled out at the start of Black History Month in February as the administration tries to achieve policy goals leading up to the president’s State of the Union address in March.

The House passed a sweeping police reform measure earlier this year in response to the death of George Floyd, but months of negotiations among a bipartisan group of senators failed to produce a bill.

“I still hope to sign into law a comprehensive and meaningful police reform bill that honors the name and memory of George Floyd, because we need legislation to ensure lasting and meaningful change,” Biden said when the bill stalled in September. “But this moment demands action, and we cannot allow those who stand in the way of progress to prevent us from answering the call. That is why my Administration has already taken important steps, with the Justice Department announcing new policies on chokeholds, no-knock warrants, and body cameras.”

News of the executive actions comes at the conclusion of a difficult week for the president during which he suffered numerous setbacks.

The president was widely panned by Republicans, and some Democrats, for a racially-charged speech urging Senate Democrats to suspend the filibuster to push through his party’s legislation that would overhaul federal election laws.

That speech failed to sway Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema which essentially left the election legislation dead in the water.

Additionally, Biden was hit with dismal polling numbers that showed him underwater with a 33% approval rating as his administration attempts to navigate record inflation, a record surge in coronavirus cases, and a Supreme Court ruling this week blocking his coronavirus mandate on employers with over 100 workers.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News.

Of course they didn’t.

They are attempting to protect Biden from his own flip-flopping hypocrisy.

Sleepy Joe became chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the late 1980s and as Delaware Senator supported a crime bill in 1994, saying at the time that his aim was to control violent crime.

Thomas Frank, a Liberal, wrote an op ed for The Guardian back on April 15, 2016, about the unexpected results of the 1994 Crime Bill. In the article he wrote that…

…what is most shocking in our current journo-historical understanding of the Clinton years is the idea that the mass imprisonment of people of color was an “unintended consequence” of the 1994 crime bill, to quote the New York Daily News’s paraphrase of Hillary Clinton. This is flatly, glaringly false, as the final, ugly chapter of the crime bill story confirms.

Back in the early 1990s, and although they were chemically almost identical, crack and powder cocaine were regarded very differently by the law. The drug identified with black users (crack) was treated as though it were 100 times as villainous as the same amount of cocaine, a drug popular with affluent professionals. This “now-notorious 100-to-one” sentencing disparity, as the New York Times put it, had been enacted back in 1986, and the 1994 crime law instructed the US Sentencing Commission to study the subject and adjust federal sentencing guidelines as it saw fit.

The Sentencing Commission duly recommended that the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity be abolished, largely because (as their lengthy report on the subject put it) “The 100-to-1 crack cocaine to powder cocaine quantity ratio is a primary cause of the growing disparity between sentences for black and white federal defendants.” By the time their report was released, however, Republicans had gained control of Congress, and they passed a bill explicitly overturning the decision of the Sentencing Commission. (Bernie Sanders, for the record, voted against that bill.)

The bill then went to President Clinton for approval. Shortly before it came to his desk he gave an inspiring speech deploring the mass incarceration of black Americans. “Blacks are right to think something is terribly wrong,” he said on that occasion, “… when there are more African American men in our correction system than in our colleges; when almost one in three African American men, in their twenties, are either in jail, on parole, or otherwise under the supervision of the criminal system. Nearly one in three.”

Two weeks after that speech, however, Clinton blandly affixed his signature to the bill retaining the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity, a disparity that had brought about the lopsided incarceration of black people. Clinton could have vetoed it, but he didn’t. He signed it.

Today we are told that mass incarceration was an “unintended consequence” of Clinton’s deeds.

Uh huh.

Now, isn’t the President of the United States supposed to be on the side of Law and Order?

Biden certainly isn’t.

Neither is the man pulling his strings, the 44th President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm).

Why would Barack Hussein Obama not support local law enforcement during his “first” presidency?

Perhaps, because he wanted to build a National Municipal Law Enforcement Organization, under his command and the command of the Department of Justice.

Fast forward to today…

All of the cities and states which have experienced “trouble”  with police departments happen to be Blue States with Democrats in charge of State and Municipal Governments.

Instead of relying on traditional police departments and the American System of Law and Order, Democrats like those in the Minneapolis City Council want to have the power to circumvent the American System of Justice because of their issues in the past with it.

The death of ex-convict George Floyd gave them the excuse to attempt to defund police departments.

And now, with a Democrat in office, those who oppose Law and Order are all taking the side of the criminals.

Even the Democrat sitting behind the Oval Office…when he is not taking a nap.

Just like a criminal does not represent an entire race, neither do bad policemen represent an entire nation’s Law Enforcement Officers.

They are heroes.

So, please allow me to end today’s post with the text of a classic narration by the late, great Paul Harvey  titled “What is a Policeman?”

“A policeman is a composite of what all men are, I guess, a mingling of saint and sinner, dust and deity. What that really means is that they are exceptional, they are unusual. They are not commonplace. Buried under the froth is the fact, the fact is that less than one half of one percent of policeman misfit that uniform, and that is a better average than you’d find among clergymen.“What is a policeman?

“He of all men is at once the most needed, and the most wanted, a strangely nameless creature who is sir to his face and pig or worse behind his back. He must be such a diplomat that he can settle differences between individuals so that each will think he won, but, if a policeman is neat, he’s conceited, if he’s careless he’s a bum, if he’s pleasant, he’s a flirt, if he’s not, he’s a grouch.

“He must make instant decisions that would require months for a lawyer but if he hurries he’s careless, if he’s deliberate, he’s lazy. He must be first to an accident, infallible with diagnoses. He must be able to start breathing, stop bleeding, tie splints and above all, be sure the victim goes home without a limp.

“The police officer must know every gun, draw on the run and hit where it doesn’t hurt.

“He must be able to whip two men twice his size and half his age without damaging his uniform, and without being brutal. If you hit him he’s a coward, if he hits you, he’s a bully. The policeman from a single human hair must be able to describe the crime, the weapon the criminal, and tell you where the criminal is hiding but, if he catches the criminal he’s lucky, if he doesn’t he’s a dunce.

“He runs files and writes reports until his eyes ache to build a case against some felon who will get dealt out by some shameless shamus. The policeman must be a minister, a social worker, a diplomat, a tough guy, and a gentle man. And of course, he’ll have to be a genius, because he’ll have to feed a family on a policeman’s salary.”

Until He Comes,

KJ

DONATIONS ARE WELCOME AND APPRECIATED.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00

Or enter a custom amount

$

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Rep. Ilhan Omar Blames Defunded Minneapolis PD for a Rise in Crime While Backing a Measure to Replace the Entire Department With a “Department of Public Safety”

Ilhan Omar Police

You reap what you sow.

FoxNews.com reports that

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., blamed police for the recent rise in crime in Minneapolis, accusing the city’s officers of not fulfilling their oath of office.

“What we must also recognize is that the reduction in policing currently in our city and the lawlessness that is happening is due to two things,” Omar said during a town hall event Saturday in Minneapolis.

One of them, she said, is that “the police have chosen to not fulfill their oath of office and to provide the public safety they are owed to the citizens they serve.”

The lawmaker’s comments come as violent crime has surged in Minnesota over the last year, rising 17% in total while setting records for murders.

Omar’s approach to crime includes backing a Nov. 2 ballot measure to replace the entire Minneapolis police department with a “Department of Public Safety.” The measure would remove the requirement that the city have a minimum number of officers based on the city’s population.

Minneapolis, the state’s largest city, has had to fight the surge while its police department suffers from staffing and morale problems after the death of George Floyd in the city, something some say has fueled the crime surge. Others have pointed to a rise in unemployment and other stresses brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that other large cities have experienced similar issues.

But Omar pinned the blame squarely on the shoulders of the city’s police department, accusing it of being “dysfunctional.”

The Democratic lawmaker blasted the department for a lack of accountability, saying that it is something that “doesn’t exist in this moment.”

“And I do believe that the current charter that we have does tie the hands of those who want want to have that accountability,” Omar continued. “We are mandated to have a specific amount of policing. We are mandated to have this kind of union contract, that you have right now.

So, Representative Omar Biden and the rest of you Far Left Democrats, how are you going to protect the citizens of Minneapolis when you take their municipal law enforcement officers off their jobs?

What are you going to do? Post “This is a Gun-Free Zone” signs all over your city to discourage the criminals?

Tell all of the Gang Bangers to hand over their guns?

I know.

Since Minnesota Attorney General and his family are all Muslims, perhaps they plan on installing Sharia Law in Minneapolis.

After all, they do have a large Somalian population there, who gave us the America-hating, Anti-Semite, Far Left Democrat Congressional Representative Ilhan Omar.

They should have kept her to themselves.

Anyway, where did this idea that the Liberals are pushing of “community policing” come from?

On July 2, 2008, Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama proclaims in a speech:

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set,” he said. “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

This part of Barack Hussein Obama’s political platform was quickly hidden away, never to be spoken of again.

At least, not openly.

Fast forward to today…

All of the cities and states which have experienced “trouble”  with police departments happen to be Blue States with Democrats in charge of State and Municipal Governments.

Instead of relying on traditional police departments and the American System of Law and Order, Democrats like Rep. Omar want to have the power to circumvent the American System of Justice because of their issues in the past with it.

The death of ex-convict George Floyd gave them the excuse to attempt to defund police departments.

And now, with a Democrat in office, those who oppose Law and Order are all taking the side of the criminals.

Even the Democrat sitting behind the Oval Office…when he is not taking a nap.

Just like a criminal does not represent an entire race, neither do bad policemen represent an entire nation’s Law Enforcement Officers.

They are heroes.

So, please allow me to end today’s post with the text of a classic narration by the late, great Paul Harvey  titled “What is a Policeman?”

“A policeman is a composite of what all men are, I guess, a mingling of saint and sinner, dust and deity. What that really means is that they are exceptional, they are unusual. They are not commonplace. Buried under the froth is the fact, the fact is that less than one half of one percent of policeman misfit that uniform, and that is a better average than you’d find among clergymen. “What is a policeman?

“He of all men is at once the most needed, and the most wanted, a strangely nameless creature who is sir to his face and pig or worse behind his back. He must be such a diplomat that he can settle differences between individuals so that each will think he won, but, if a policeman is neat, he’s conceited, if he’s careless he’s a bum, if he’s pleasant, he’s a flirt, if he’s not, he’s a grouch.

“He must make instant decisions that would require months for a lawyer but if he hurries he’s careless, if he’s deliberate, he’s lazy. He must be first to an accident, infallible with diagnoses. He must be able to start breathing, stop bleeding, tie splints and above all, be sure the victim goes home without a limp.

“The police officer must know every gun, draw on the run and hit where it doesn’t hurt.

“He must be able to whip two men twice his size and half his age without damaging his uniform, and without being brutal. If you hit him he’s a coward, if he hits you, he’s a bully. The policeman from a single human hair must be able to describe the crime, the weapon the criminal, and tell you where the criminal is hiding but, if he catches the criminal he’s lucky, if he doesn’t he’s a dunce.

“He runs files and writes reports until his eyes ache to build a case against some felon who will get dealt out by some shameless shamus. The policeman must be a minister, a social worker, a diplomat, a tough guy, and a gentle man. And of course, he’ll have to be a genius, because he’ll have to feed a family on a policeman’s salary.”

Until He Comes,

KJ

DONATIONS ARE WELCOME AND APPRECIATED.

 

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00

Or enter a custom amount

$

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Europeans Charged With “Disparaging Religious Doctrines” for Criticizing Islam…Could That Happen Here?

 

untitled (233)

This Sunday Morning, before I share my thoughts, I would to share the following op ed which I read on ChristianPost.com, written by John Stonestreet and G. Shane Morris. I found it to be very interesting.

We think of Europe as secular, progressive, and confidently post-religious. But try criticizing Islam.

Should governments be in the business of protecting people’s feelings? Most Americans, I think would say no. The European Court of Human Rights, however, thinks otherwise. In a historic move last month, the international court affirmed a conviction by a lower court in Vienna against a right-wing speaker who criticized the prophet Muhammad.

Identified only as “E.S.,” the woman, at a seminar in Vienna in 2009, described the founder of Islam as a “pedophile.” According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad was in his fifties when he married his third wife, Aisha, who was six years old at the time. Tradition also says Muhammad waited to consummate their union until the girl was nine.

For describing this relationship in direct though accurate terms, “E.S.” was reported to Austrian authorities, who charged her with “publicly disparaging religious doctrines,” which, believe it or not, is illegal in that country. The Austrian court convicted, describing her statement as “a malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance,” which was “capable of hurting the feelings” of Muslims, and of putting religious peace in Europe at risk.

After a lengthy appeal, the European Court of Human Rights reaffirmed this troubling verdict, ruling that the speaker’s remarks about Muhammad were not only “without factual basis,” but went “beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate,” thereby putting religious peace in jeopardy. So, peace is in jeopardy because Muhammad is critiqued, and not because of how his followers react to the critique?

Set aside for a moment the factual basis of Muhammad’s treatment of his nine-year-old child bride, and the fact that child brides are still shockingly common throughout the Muslim world. The rationale behind these rulings is genuinely scary for another reason.

This idea that speech should be illegal because it threatens “religious peace” is a capitulation to religious violence. Islamic extremists are well known for rioting and even killing whenever they believe someone has “insulted” the prophet Muhammad. Exhibit A: Asia Bibi, the woman who was just acquitted by the Pakistani supreme court and taken off death row, where she sat for eight years after an alleged slight against the founder of Islam. Bibi now faces the very real possibility of retaliation or assassination by Pakistani radicals and remains trapped in the country.

What the European Court of Human Rights has essentially done is enact a blasphemy law like Pakistan’s, only in the West! Extremists who get violent over perceived insults have been granted veto power over citizens’ free speech. This, just a few years after the Charlie Hebdo massacre in which twelve people—including journalists—were gunned down in Paris over cartoons mocking (ironically!) the violent tendencies of Muhammad and many of his followers.

If guarantees to freedom of speech—which Europe has—do not include the right to say offensive things about religion, such guarantees are not worth the paper they’re written on. If anyone can shut someone else up simply by complaining of hurt feelings, your society is a dictatorship of the easily offended, not free. Caving to the threat of violence will ultimately embolden the violent, not appease them.

Protecting members of a minority religion from hurt feelings is unique to the West. Islamic extremists take advantage of Europe’s indulgence, demanding legal penalties against anyone who criticize Islam. They won’t, of course, ever return the favor. In countries like Saudi Arabia—the birthplace of Islam—a Muslim who converts to Christianity still, to this day, faces the death penalty.

Of course, religious tolerance and free speech arise historically from only one religion, and it isn’t the one founded by Muhammad. Those who think giving up freedom of speech will preserve peace in the long term aren’t insulting our religion. Just our intelligence.

Very well written and spot on, isn’t it?

European Leaders have surrendered their countries and culture to Islamic “Migrants”.

They should have listened to United States President Ronald Reagan when he warned that

To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

If America’s Far left Democratic Party had their way, we would be in the same position as Europe.

Lord knows, Former President Barack Hussein Obama tried….but he failed. And, there is a good reason why he did.

Islam and Christianity present two very different Deities, who may share some similarities, but who have different identities and ultimately different standards. To pretend they are the same is not only to be clueless of the faith of 75% of the citizens of this nation, but, to be ignorant of an integral part of our American Heritage, the legacy of Christian Faith, which our Founding Fathers bequeathed us.

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

He was absolutely right.

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

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

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

First Amendment: Freedom of religion

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

First Amendment: Freedom of speech   

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

First Amendment: Freedom to dissent

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

Second Amendment: Right to self-defense

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

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

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

Eighth Amendment: No cruel and unusual punishment 

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

Fourteenth Amendment: Right to equal protection and due process 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Liberal leaders in both Europe and America to deny that, is disingenuous at best, and just plain dangerous at worst.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

The San Bernadino Massacre, Sharia Law, and the U.S. Constitution (A KJ Sunday Morning Op Ed)

American Christianity 2

Tonight, the President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, is going to deliver a speech from the Oval office, to address this past week’s massacre of innocent Americans in San Bernadino, California, as the result of a merciless attack by Radical Islamists.

As has been his pattern, I look for Obama to 1. Deny that Radical Islam is actually a part of Islam and 2. Draw a false equivalency between the Christians who founded our Sovereign Nation and the Syrian Muslim “Refugees”, whom he is forcing our states to take in.

This past year, Pope Francis paid a visit to the United States of America.

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

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

Back in June, The Washington Times reported that

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not too long ago, Republican Presidential Candidate Hopeful, Dr. Ben Carson, got a lot of attention from hang-wringing Liberals in the Main Stream Media, the Democratic Party and among the Vichy Republicans, also, when he said that a Muslim should never be President of the United States of America., because Sharia Law in incompatible with The United States Constitution.

He was absolutely right.

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

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

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

First Amendment: Freedom of religion

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

First Amendment: Freedom of speech   

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

First Amendment: Freedom to dissent

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

Second Amendment: Right to self-defense

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

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

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

Eighth Amendment: No cruel and unusual punishment 

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

Fourteenth Amendment: Right to equal protection and due process 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It becomes even more dangerous when that Liberal is the President of the United States of America.

Until He Comes,

KJ

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

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

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

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

Back in June, The Washington Times reported that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He was absolutely right.

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

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

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

First Amendment: Freedom of religion

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

First Amendment: Freedom of speech   

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

First Amendment: Freedom to dissent

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

Second Amendment: Right to self-defense

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

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

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

Eighth Amendment: No cruel and unusual punishment 

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

Fourteenth Amendment: Right to equal protection and due process 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until He Comes,

KJ

The Irving “Clockmaker” Comes From a Family of Muslim Activists

th (29)Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive! – Sir Walter Scott

Breitbart News reported yesterday that

Irving Mayor Beth Van Duyne appeared on The Blaze and was interviewed by Glenn Beck on Tuesday. During the interview, Beck put forward the idea that the incident involving the clock might be part of an orchestrated conspiracy of creeping Islamist jihad. He likened the incident to a dog whistle event for jihadists around the world. He speculated the incident could be part of Democratic efforts to turn Texas blue or for Muslims to have a “boogeyman” to gin up, Mediate reported.

The Irving mayor would not quite sign on to that theory but questioned the rapid attention the incident garnered from the White House.  “In fact,” Van Duyne responded, “I don’t even think the picture of the hoax bomb was released before [President Obama] tweeted out, ‘Cool clock, kid.’”

Jim Hansen with the Center for Security Policy sided with Beck and questioned why Ahmed would bring the clock to school in the first place.

Van Duyne implied there is more to the story than has been released. She said the Mohamed family should allow the school to release all of the information related to the incident. “This is one side of the story,” the mayor said, “but the other side of the story is not coming out.”

Beck asked Hansen if there was “Any doubt in your mind that this is really kind of the final throes of weakening us to the point to where we don’t ask any questions, to be ready for final confrontation? Total confrontation?”

“No,” Hanson replied. He continued, explaining that Mohamed was a “pawn” who had been put up to creating the incident.

Mohamed’s clock has been the subject of skeptical criticism, even from members of left media icons like Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins, according to Mediaite. On his show, Real Time with Bill Maher, the host became the surprising voice of reason, saying, “”Could we have a little perspective about this? Did the teacher really do the wrong thing?”

“What if it had been a bomb?” Maher continued, “So the teacher is supposed to see something that looks like a bomb and go, ‘Oh wait, this just might be my white privilege talking? I sure don’t want to be politically incorrect, so I’ll just let it go?’”

Breitbart Texas contacted the Irving Police Department. Spokesman Jame McLellan responded that the case surrounding the controversial clock is closed and no charges will be filed.

Why have the hairs on the back of this ol’ Southern Boy’s neck been standing up since the start of this convoluted mess?

Perhaps, it is just my old reporter’s instincts.

And, this time they paid off.

Last week, Pamela Gellar  reported that

In what has become one of the most egregious of the faked hate narratives, the bomb hoax clockster has a family with a history of supremacist stunts.

“One of the earliest instances of the standout citizen making national news was in 2011, when he sensationally stood up to an anti-Islamic pastor and defended the Koran as its defense attorney. That mock trial at a Florida church ended with the book’s burning, to ElHassan’s claimed shock. In an interview with the Washington Post at the time, the devoted Muslim said he’d take on Rev. Terry Jones’ challenge because the holy book teaches that Muslims should engage in peaceful dialogue with Christians.”

Also in 2011, ElHassan debated Robert Spencer on “Does Islam Respect Human Rights?” Clearly, he was trying to score against a famous “Islamophobe” and thus win a name for himself.  ElHassan has been looking for publicity and chances to fight against “Islamophobia” for a considerable period. Now he has seized it, going so far as to claim his son was “tortured” by school and law enforcement officials.

In February of 2015, the local mosque in Irving, Texas, set up a Sharia Law Tribunal, insisting that Sharia Law would trump Texas State Law in any case which they heard. Irving Mayor Beth Van Duyne stood against them, refusing to allow that to happen in her city.

During all of this, on February 23, 2015, the North Dallas Gazette reported that

Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed, born in Sudan in 1961 but long time resident of Irving, has announced plans to run for President of the African nation Sudan. The oldest of nine boys, he is now the father of seven children.

Mohamed’s journey in America has taken him from selling hot dogs on the street corners of New York City to driving cabs in Dallas before he went on to own a cab company. The company grew to 200 drivers in the ranks before he sold Jet Taxi to Yellow Cab.

His childhood in the African village was filled with hardships and struggles, but Mohamed aspired for more and gained his degree from Cairo University in Khartoum in philosophy.

Education has it’s benefits, but it is not a magic bullet to solve all problems, Mohamed shared, “My struggle did not decrease, but my ambition increased. I worked at Khartoum International airport as an employee of assistance clearance customs until I became the director of clearance customs, and the president of workers. Once I realized my dream was bigger than what Sudan had to offer I immigrated to America in the mid-1980’s.”

Unfortunately his degree was not accepted in America so he found himself selling hot dogs, candy, and newspapers in Manhattan.

“I realized this wasn’t enough for me, and I packed my bag and moved to Dallas, Texas y’all,” Mohamed shared.

And then, there’s the fact that his sister got suspended from school for threatening to blow it up.

According to Robert Spencer at judicialwatch.org

“I got suspended from school for three days from this stupid same district, from this girl saying I wanted to blow up the school, something I had nothing to do with…I got suspended and I didn’t do anything about it and so when I heard about Ahmed, I was so mad because it happened to me and I didn’t get to stand up.”

She had nothing to do with the threat and yet did nothing about being suspended? Where were her parents? If I had a child in school who was suspended over a false accusation, I’d be at the principal’s office in a matter of minutes. And would the school really suspend her on a hearsay accusation from one other girl — even in what The Daily Beast hysterically calls “a hotbed of Islamophobia”? It is unlikely, given the risk of complaints and even litigation from the parents, that they would have taken such a step without substantial evidence.

And so the plot thickens further. Why didn’t Ahmed’s father exploit this accusation in his ongoing quest to fight “Islamophobia”? Could it be because the accusation was true?

“‘Man, I Went Viral’: My Day With Ahmed Mohamed, the Most Famous Boy on Earth,” by Randy R. Potts, Daily Beast, September 17, 2015 (thanks to all who sent this in):

…After the MSNBC segment, Eyman and I sit down in the hallway where she says the same thing happened to her as Ahmed.

“I got suspended from school for three days from this stupid same district, from this girl saying I wanted to blow up the school, something I had nothing to do with.”

Eyman talks with the slightest lisp, almost imperceptible, but it becomes stronger as she gets emotional.

“I got suspended and I didn’t do anything about it and so when I heard about Ahmed, I was so mad because it happened to me and I didn’t get to stand up, so I’m making sure he’s standing up because it’s not right. So I’m not jealous, I’m kinda like—it’s like he’s standing for me.”

Eyman said her suspension was in her first year of middle school, “my first year of attempting middle school in America. I knew English, but the culture was different, the people were different.”

This part of Texas is a hotbed of Islamophobia. Irving Mayor Beth Van Duyne in March claimed Muslim clergy were “bypassing American courts” by offering to mediate disputes between worshippers according to Islamic law. Residents of Farmersville last month fought against creation of a Muslim cemetery in their town. Garland was the site of a “draw Muhammad” contest hosted by anti-Islam activist Pamela Geller that was subsequently attacked by two gunmen inspired by ISIS….

So, what does all of this mean?

As I’ve written before, this was a setup.

The young clockmaker’s father is a Muslim Activist, with a long history of getting his mug in front of the cameras. Add to that, the fact that Barack Hussein Obama sent his congratulations tweet out before the photo of the actual device made the national headlines, is suspicious at best, and condemning at worst.

This would not be the first stunt like this that Obama has pulled, in order to make the American public more comfortable with Muslims living among us.

However, this sort of covert White House-sponsored charade seems to be happening more and more, as Obama’s tenure as president draws to a close, and, thanks to the World Wide Web, it is not as easy for him to pull the wool over Americans eyes as it used to be.

Unfortunately, for all of those involved, this propaganda stunt has been revealed for all to see.

And, unfortunately, for the Dhimmi-in-Chief, the truth of the matter is, it does not make Obama look open minded and magnanimous, rather, it makes him look close minded and duplicitous.

Americans are a very accepting people, but that acceptance hinges on those coming into our society, pledging their loyalty to our nation, and having respect for our Traditional Values and American Way of life.

Obama’s attempt to turn the Great American melting pot into the Tower of Babel, in the name of “diversity”…and Democratic Voters….is beginning to fail more every day.

And, that is a good thing.

Until He Comes,

KJ

After the Paris Attack: Europe’s Islamic Backlash

AFBrancoFrance182015In the wake of Tuesday’s Muslim Terrorist Attack in Paris, Europe’s Liberal Governments are now having second thoughts about their lax Immigration Policies as regards the followers of Mohammed.

Businessweek.com reports that

The murder of 12 people at a French satire magazine put Europe’s fragile politics on display, mobilizing the opponents of the EU’s much-heralded open borders and driving mainstream backers of often ill-defined “fundamental values” onto the defensive.

Europe is more vulnerable than the U.S. to radical, anti-immigration leanings. Abutting the newly aggressive Russia and across the Mediterranean Sea from the upheavals of the Arab world, the EU inhabits a dangerous neighborhood, with potential troubles that dwarf what the U.S. faces along its southwestern border.

‘Dirty Entanglements’

“One of the problems of Europe today is it is surrounded by regions, in North Africa, the Balkans, the Middle East where these dirty entanglements of corruption, crime and terrorism interact in such a potent way to destabilize the societies,” Louise Shelley, a professor at George Mason University in Virginia, told Bloomberg Television.

Historically, Europe was a place people emigrated from. While countries that make up the pacified post-World War II EU have long since entered the multi-ethnic era, with France home to 5 million Muslims, the melting-pot mythology isn’t part of the typical European state’s DNA.

“In Europe right now there’s a tremendous amount of anti-immigration sentiment,” Daniel Benjamin, a former U.S. counter-terrorism official now with the Brookings Institution in Washington, said on Bloomberg Television. “The danger here is that we see ever greater confrontations, provocations and the like, and that will drive radicalization. That is a very difficult thing for the authorities to manage.”

EU Splits

There is little chance of EU governments uniting around a coordinated immigration policy in the foreseeable future, said Timo Lochocki, a fellow at the German Marshall Fund in Berlin. Nor would a clampdown catch native-born radicals like the suspects in yesterday’s attack.

“There’s no effect whatsoever of increasing border controls if you’re concerned about terrorist threats with a domestic source,” Lochocki said. “This applies to the French case and will likely apply in future cases.”

Immigration has split Europe between north and south, but not in the way the euro debt crisis did. The protest parties that grew up in financially stricken Greece, Spain and Italy have fed on socialist traditions of justice and welfare, making them largely supportive of newcomers.

The backlash has been concentrated in the better-off north. Some countries like Denmark and the Netherlands fought these battles in the late 1990s and early 2000s, curbing migration but rewarding those that assimilate. Barely concealed anti-Muslim prejudice was behind France’s National Front by Jean-Marie Le Pen, founded in 1972 but long a fringe phenomenon.

The following excerpt is from an article titled, “Europe’s Inexorable March Towards Islam” by Soeren Kern, posted December 29, 2011…

Post-Christian Europe became noticeably more Islamized during 2011.

As the rapidly growing Muslim population makes its presence felt in towns and cities across the continent, Islam is transforming the European way of life in ways unimaginable only a few years ago.

What follows is a brief summary of some of the more outrageous Islam-related controversies that took place in Europe during 2011.

In Austria, an appellate court upheld the politically correct conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a Viennese housewife and anti-Jihad activist, for “denigrating religious beliefs” after she gave a series of seminars about the dangers of radical Islam. The December 20 ruling showed that while Judaism and Christianity can be disparaged with impunity in postmodern multicultural Austria, speaking the truth about Islam is subject to swift and hefty legal penalties.

Also in Austria, the King Abdullah Center for Inter-Religious and Inter-Cultural Dialogue was inaugurated at the Albertina Museum in downtown Vienna on October 13. The Saudis say the purpose of the multi-million-dollar initiative is to “foster dialogue” between the world’s major religions in order to “prevent conflict.” But critics say the center is an attempt by Saudi Arabia to establish a permanent “propaganda center” in central Europe from which to spread the conservative Wahhabi sect of Islam.

In Belgium, it was revealed that Muslims now make up one-quarter of the population of Brussels, according to a new book published by the Catholic University of Leuven, the top French-language university in Belgium. In real terms, the number of Muslims in Brussels — where half of the number of Muslims in Belgium currently live — has reached 300,000, which means that the self-styled “Capital of Europe” is now the most Islamic city in Europe.

Also in Belgium, the most popular name in Brussels for baby boys in 2011 was Mohammed. It was also the most popular name for baby boys in Belgium’s second-largest city, Antwerp, where an estimated 40% of elementary school children are Muslim.

Separately, the Islamist group Sharia4Belgium intensified a propaganda and intimidation campaign aimed at turning the country into an Islamic state. In September, the group established an Islamic Sharia law court in Antwerp, the second-largest city in Belgium. Leaders of the group say the purpose of the court is to create a parallel Islamic legal system in Belgium to challenge the state’s authority as enforcer of the civil law protections guaranteed by the Belgian constitution.

In Britain, a Muslim group launched a campaign to turn twelve British cities — including what it calls “Londonistan” — into independent Islamic states. These so-called Islamic Emirates would function as autonomous enclaves ruled by Islamic Sharia law and operate entirely outside British jurisprudence.

Separately, it was revealed that more than 2,800 so-called honor attacks — punishments for bringing shame on the family — were recorded by British police last year, according to the first-ever national estimate of the problem. The highest number of honor crimes — which include murder, mutilation, beatings, abductions and acid attacks — was recorded in London, where the problem has doubled to more than five times the national average.

The data comes on the heels of another report which shows that tens of thousands of Muslim immigrants in Britain are practicing bigamy or polygamy to collect bigger social welfare payments from the British state.

The September 24 report shows that the phenomenon of bigamy and polygamy — which are permitted by Islamic Sharia law — is far more widespread in Britain than previously believed, even though it is a crime there, punishable by up to seven years in prison.

The rapid growth in multiple marriages is being fueled by multicultural policies that grant special rights to Muslim immigrants who demand that Sharia law be reflected in British law and the social welfare benefits system.

Think about this…this report is from four years ago, before the European dhimmis clamped down on reports detailing the “Muslim Problem”.

Europe’s “Muslim Problem” is a demonstration as to what happens when a non-indigenous population moves into a country and does not assimilate into the normal traditions and customs of that nation, but, instead, keep their own traditions and laws, separating themselves from the indigenous population in the name of “multiculturalism”, the opposite of the “Melting Pot”, which helped to form the greatest nation on the face of the Earth, the United States of America.

By bringing “their own country” with them, they have no impetus to become patriotic citizens of their host country, and are therefore, in their own minds, not subject to the laws of that nation, leading to their own internal justification of any acts of violence that they may take against the indigenous citizens of their host country.

Furthermore, because this nation-within-a-nation separatism has been tolerated, it has allowed the truly Radical Mohammedans to move in and out of these European Nations without detection.

And, this was a lesson which was harshly and terribly learned by the citizens of France two days ago.

That unrelenting truth is what all of the discussion is about.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Israel Defends Itself Against Hamas. American Liberals Whine. European Muslims Riot.

IsraelHamas1Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country] and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” – Genesis 12: 1-3

As America faces the current Illegal Alien Invasion, the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe is dealing with one of their own, as Middle Eastern Muslims are immigrating to European Nations, bringing Sharia Law and their Political Ideology, masquerading as a religion, with them.

The truth of my preceding statement was made quite evident, as Muslim-sponsored protests broke out across Europe, yesterday.

The website, timesofisrael.com reports that

Tens of thousands protested in London Saturday afternoon against Israel’s military operations in Gaza, denouncing Israel as a terrorist state and castigating British Prime Minister David Cameron for backing Israel’s right to self-defense against Hamas rocket fire.

Led by speakers on a podium, protesters holding placards and banners chanted pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel slogans.

At one point, a woman on the podium shouted “from the river to the sea” — a call for the elimination of Israel — and protesters responded by yelling “Palestine will be free.”

The crowd also directed shouts of “Shame on you” at Cameron, who publicly backed Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas rocket fire aimed at the Israeli civilian population.

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which organized the demonstration, said that since the protest began at 12 p.m. (GMT), tens of thousands of people had gathered, more than the 20,000 anticipated. The demonstration began outside Downing Street and was to march to the Israeli embassy.

“London has already shown its outrage at Israel’s attacks on the mostly refugee population of Gaza, with people turning out in their thousands last week,” PSC Director Sarah Colborne said in a press release on the organization’s website. “Today’s national demonstration will give people from across the country the chance to say enough is enough, Israel’s siege of Gaza and its occupation of Palestinian land has to end now.”

Since Israel began Operation Protective Edge 12 days ago, 337 people have died in Gaza. Hamas has fired around 1,400 rockets into Israeli territory, aimed mostly at southern cities, but also frequently reaching the population centers of the Tel Aviv metropolitan area and Jerusalem. Several Hamas rockets have also struck almost as far north as Haifa. Two Israeli civilians have died in rocket attacks, including a Bedouin man near Dimona Saturday.

Saturday’s demonstration in London came on the heels of numerous protests Thursday and Friday worldwide, including Cairo, Istanbul, Cape Town, Berlin, New York and Washington. Many of the protests have turned violent.

In Istanbul, police warded off hundreds of rioters who attempted on Thursday to storm the Israeli embassy building. Demonstrators in Ankara and Istanbul also hurled stones at several compounds where Israeli officials reside. Calls for the destruction of the Jewish state were heard in both Turkish cities. Police responded by firing tear gas canisters and water cannons at the crowds. Israel decided Friday to pull some of its diplomatic staff out of Turkey in the wake of the protests.

These protests were on behalf of the “Palestinian People”. An area known as Palestine is referenced in the BIble…

Yea, and what have ye to do with me, O Tyre, and Zidon, and all the coasts of Palestine? will ye render me a recompence? and if ye recompense me, swiftly and speedily will I return your recompence upon your own head. – Joel 3:4

Palestine was a conventional name, among others, used between 450BC and 1948AD to describe a geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and various adjoining lands.

However, was there ever really such a “race” as the “The Palestinian People”?

According to disoverthenetworks.org,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This past week, in my discussions on political websites, I have found that Liberals and those who claim to be “l”ibertarians are siding with these “Palestinians”, following the example of their “fallen messiah” and his administration, who want God’s Chosen People to give half of their country to the people who want to kill them.

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

For example, last week,

A CNN reporter, speaking live from Israel and overlooking the Gaza border, called Israelis ‘Scum’ for cheering IDF strikes against Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip.

During her live report, the reporter, CNN’s Diana Magnay, said, “I think you can probably see there are lots of Israelis gathered around who are cheering when they see these kinds of Israeli strikes.”

A few minutes later, she tweeted: “Israelis on hill above Sderot cheer as bombs land on #gaza; threaten to ‘destroy our car if I say a word wrong.’ Scum.”

In an  article, which posted June 2, 2011, on americanthinker.com, “Why Does the Left Hate Israel?”,  Richard Baehr attempts to answer that very question…

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

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

As a Christian American Conservative, I know whom I support:  Israel, home to God’s Chosen People.

You see, I’ve read The Book all the way through, several times.  I know how all of this ends.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The UK: A Harbinger of America’s Future?

americanenglishflagsAs I sit here writing this post, up on the wall to my right, sits my family crest, bought at the York, England Insignia Shoppe, in July of 1978.

My ancestors, Lords of York and Oxford, (England, not Mississippi) would not recognize their country anymore. If fact, they would probably think that they had traveled back in time to when barbarians ruled the land.

…And, they would be exactly right.

Exhibit A, courtesy of Reuters.com…

A campaign by opponents of late Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to get the song “Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead” to the top of the British pop charts to celebrate her death failed on Sunday although it did manage to reach second place.

Thatcher, who died aged 87 on Monday, deeply divided Britons and while some have paid warm tributes to the achievements of her right-wing Conservative governments, others said her privatization of swathes of industry had destroyed communities.

That opposition was manifested in a Facebook campaign to propel the witch song, from the 1939 film “The Wizard of Oz”, to number one in the charts, provoking anger from politicians of all parties, right-leaning media, and members of the public.

The Official Charts Company said 52,605 copies of the song had been sold, but that was about 6,000 shy of the chart-topping track “Need U” by British DJ Duke Dumont and singer A*M*E.

The top 40 best-selling singles are played weekly on BBC Radio but the broadcaster said on Friday it would only pay a five-second clip of the song as part of a news item, leading to accusations it had caved into political pressure.

“I understand the concerns about this campaign. I personally believe it is distasteful and inappropriate,” BBC Director-General Tony Hall said in a statement.

“However, I do believe it would be wrong to ban the song outright as free speech is an important principle.”

Exhibit B, courtesy of dailymail.co.uk…

Britain’s Got Talent has been hit by a huge backlash from viewers after broadcasting a performance from an 11-year-old schoolgirl singing a song about a one night stand, and a highly sexualised lapdancing performance – all before the 9pm watershed.

The first episode of this year’s ITV talent contest, which was shown at 7pm on Saturday night and watched by more than 13 million people, was branded ‘totally unsuitable’ by outraged parents.

It has also emerged that contestant Keri Graham, whose provocative performance saw her stripping down to her underwear, writhing semi-naked on a chair and gyrating on Simon Cowell, is a professional stripper who has posted a series of raunchy pictures of herself on a ‘stripagram’ agency website.

Appearing on stage shortly after 7.30pm, the 43-year-old, who was joined at the audition by her husband and teenage son Callum, told the show’s judges and audience members that she teaches ‘chair fitness classes’, before launching into the routine and dancing to explicit song Freak Me, by Another Level.

A second act featured 11-year-old Arixsander Libantino performing a rendition of Jennifer Hudson song One Night Only, which features the lyrics: ‘You’ve got one night only, that’s all you have to spare, let’s not pretend to care, come on, big baby, come on, we only have ‘til dawn.’

Provocative: Keri Graham stripped down to her underwear and danced to explicit song Freak Me, by Another Level

Miss Libantino’s parents Aristotle and Elma, who are from the Philippines, and were watching off-stage, received a standing ovation from Simon Cowell and his fellow judges, but viewers immediately took to the internet to express their disgust that she was allowed to sing a song which featured such adult lyrics, with one member of the public condemning the show by branding it ‘Britain’s Got Sleaze’.

Helen Marianne from Eastbourne, wrote online: ‘The song this young girl sang was totally unsuitable for her age – She’s 11 for Heaven’s sake. However good her voice is, something much more appropriate should have been chosen for her. It gave me the creeps if I’m honest.’

Another wrote: ‘Marvellous isn’t it? Viewing images of children online is deemed wrong and rightly so, yet TV put up an 11-year-old girl who then sings a very adult-themed song. All very wrong. Her parents should not have condoned this.’

Controversial: Arixsandra Libantino, 11, sang a Jennifer Hudson song about a one-night stand

A further comment said: ‘The child was singing an adult song and should NOT have been allowed to sing it as it make her look like a Lolita.’

Viewers were equally appalled by Mrs Graham’s lapdance routine, with richbrownowl writing: ‘This show is pre-watershed, so the appropriateness of a half-naked woman doing a sexually provocative act needs to be called into question. This is a family entertainment show after all. No, I am not a prude.’

Family viewing?: Lyrics in the schoolgirl’s song included ‘let’s pretend not to care, come on big baby, come on, we only have til dawn’

Another post read: ‘Nice Saturday night family viewing as your child asks, “Mummy, why has that lady got hardly any clothes on, and what is she doing with those men?” So even a simple talent show has to have some sleaze.’

Jojo Moyes added on Twitter: ‘I hate that lapdancer moves are somehow considered family entertainment.’ Former X Factor winner Steve Brookstein also condemned the show, saying: ‘Family entertainment and BGT have a lap dancer. Stay classy ITV.’

Both acts were put through to the next round of the talent contest, with contestants competing for the £500,000 prize money and a place in the Royal Variety Show, which will be performed in front of the Queen.

Exhibit C, courtesy of cbn.com…

Stoning for adultery. Amputations for theft. Death for apostates. And second-class status for Christians and Jews. This is life under Sharia law, the Islamic system practiced in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Great Britain.

Yes, Great Britain.

There are reportedly some 85 Sharia courts now operating there, with Islamic judges ruling on cases ranging from financial to marital disputes among British Muslims.

“We went into some proceedings and there were a couple of Islamic judges sitting up above the rest,” said Alan Craig, who recently stepped down as leader of the Christian Peoples Alliance party. “And there was one Muslim woman who was suing for divorce.”

Craig is a former city councilor in East London, home to several Sharia courts where women face open discrimination.

“A woman’s witness value is half that of a man,” Craig told CBN News. “So [the courts] will tend, therefore, to take the man’s position in a divorce.”

Craig is working with Baroness Caroline Cox to pass a bill in Britain’s House of Lords protecting women from this Sharia oppression.

Muslim women in Great Britain often face intimidation within their communities to settle things the Sharia way. According to Craig, some wrongly believe Islamic courts are their only option.

“What we’re trying to do is say, Muslim women, especially in this country, need to be informed,” he explained. “They actually have other rights and our view, better rights, under English law.”

Sharia courts operate outside of British common law. Their defenders say the courts are legal under a 1996 Arbitration Act that allows people to settle differences through methods of their own choosing.

The UK is an classic example of decades of Liberalism run amok.

What was a proud sovereign land, has seemingly degenerated into a shell of its former self, ripe pickings, as the Roman Empire was, for the barbaric horde.

Is it possible that what is happening in the UK, is a harbinger of America’s future?

The UK already allows homosexual marriage,has stringent gun control, and allows abortions, up to the 24 week s (6 months).

In fact, surveys show that Christians could be a minority in the UK by 2018.

The clash between the Muslim faithful and the unchurched of the UK should be horribly fascinating to watch.

Unfortunately, just like our blessed land…they have brought this upon themselves.

God save the UK…and America, too.

Until He Comes,

KJ