Friday, April 18, 2014

That Kansas City "Nazi" Shooting: Why Don't You Know The FBI Says Leftist Terrorism Far More Common?

An interesting article from about the Kansas City shooting. This follows this post about the University of Michigan requiring students to take a course on America's "racism." You can follow me at blogspot here and at twitter here Please consider following both in case one goes down!

That Kansas City "Nazi" Shooting: Why Don't You Know The FBI Says Leftist Terrorism Far More Common?

By James Fulford    
A shooting rampage in Kansas has produced some unusually accurate reporting in the Main Stream Media. Reports identify the race of the shooter, race (or religion or ethnicity, if you prefer) of the victims, and the ideology behind the attack. That's because the shooter was white:
In contrast, when a black person shoots large numbers of people out of hatred of whites, it's a constant struggle to find out if they're black at all. Even then, their motives don't appear, or are suppressed by the MSM, or denied by the police.
A classic anti-Semitic hate crime  which was also an "Immigrant Mass Murder", was the Empire State Building shooting by Ali Abu Kamal in 1997. Kamal was a Palestinian terrorist who hated the US  for its support of Israel, went to New York and shot 7 people. See 1997 Empire State Building Shooter And The NYPD.
But the rare terrorist who can be linked to the "right wing", like the Holocaust Museum Shooting, is happily promoted by the media.
Terrorism of all kinds is actually fairly rare, especially compared to such deliberately underreported phenomena as  (a) regular minority hate crimes not called terrorism, and (b) immigrant mass murder. This pie chart shows what kinds of terrorism there are out there, according to official FBI figures. [Chronological Summary of Terrorist Incidents in the United States 1980-2005 ]
Loonwatch Pie Chart
The chart is produced by "Loonwatch", a group of haters who hate people like me, Bill O'Reilly, and especially "Islamophobes":
You don’t live in constant fear of radicalized Latinos (unless you’re Lou Dobbs), even though they commit seven times more acts of terrorism than Muslims in America.  Why then are you wetting yourself over Islamic radicals?
[All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 94% that Aren’t, by Danios on January 20, 2010].
Well, Lou Dobbs has been both shot at and fired from his job because of Hispanic radicals, so his concern is justifed. But any crimes by white guys like the guy who shot up the Jewish Community Center in Kansas are buried in "others" section, which at 18% is smaller than "Communists" and "Extreme Left Wing Groups" (29% combined). The FBI doesn't even bother breaking out "Extreme Right Wing Groups."
David Sirota wrote in Salon before the Tsarnaev's were arrested: "Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American" [April 16, 2013]
He quoted anti-white activist Tim Wise to the effect that
“White privilege is knowing that even if the bomber turns out to be white, no one will call for your group to be profiled as terrorists as a result, subjected to special screening or threatened with deportation,” writes author Tim Wise.
None of that is true. White activists are profiled as terrorists by the FBI and SPLC, they are subjected to special screening, and if not born in the United States, they're frequently actually deported. We can expect calls for more in the next few days.
Here are some previous articles:
about attacks similar to the Kansas City Attack (the Freddie's Fashion Mart Killings and the Crown Heights Pogrom) which were definitely inspired by Al Sharpton.
Result? Al Sharpton is on MSNBC.

Something Better Than Easter

An interesting article from about Easter observance. This follows this post about the likelihood of a war in Asia. This follows this post about Jesus statement about "three days and three nights" as his proof of being the Messiah. For a free magazine subscription or to get the book recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632. You can follow me at blogspot here and at twitter here Please consider following both in case one goes down!

Something Better Than Easter

Exactly how did Easter - a holiday not found in the Bible and never celebrated in the early Church - come to replace the Passover, an observance that is plainly found in the Bible?

Bust of Constantine in the Vatican Museum.
Bust of Roman emperor Constantine in the Vatican Museum.

Source: Wikimedia
How did Easter become the popular holiday it is today? Have you ever looked into it?
Isn't it important to know the truth of the matter? Jesus Christ Himself said that the truth would make us free (John:8:32). He was speaking of being free of wrong ideas that mislead, entrap and enslave us.
If we look back in history, one key date regarding Easter is the year A.D. 325. At that time, the Roman emperor Constantine held an assembly with some 250 bishops at Nicaea, a town in what is now northwestern Turkey, close to present-day Istanbul. This meeting is known in history as the Council of Nicaea.
What does this Council have to do with Easter? It actually set the stage for the removal of God's biblical feasts and the establishing of alternative feasts not found in the Bible, including Easter. Yet the Bible reveals what our practice ought to be.

Constantine and the Nicene Council reject biblical practices

At the Council of Nicaea, under the dominating eye of Constantine, the majority of the bishops backed replacing the biblical and Christian observance of Passover with the celebration of Easter, among other issues.
Actually, it should be understood that while they called the new celebration of Jesus' resurrection Pascha or Passover, it was certainly not the Passover of Scripture, but a religious celebration derived from pagan origins. Later it would become known as "Easter," the Germanic name for this festival and what it is commonly called today. (Other languages still call it Passover of the Resurrection, which can cause some confusion. Some English sources refer to the true Christian Passover, a memorial of Christ's death, as Easter, but this is clearly a misnomer, as we'll see.).
The dispute over this matter in the early Christian centuries is known in history as the Paschal Controversy. Regrettably, we virtually have only one side of the story.
James Carroll, writing about the Nicene Council in his book Constantine's Sword, explains the Roman emperor's motives: "Immediately upon coming to power as the sole ruler of the empire [A.D. 324], but only then, Constantine asserted the right to exercise absolute authority over the entire Church. He did this despite the fact that he was not baptized, and, as was not unusual, would not be until shortly before he died" (2001, p. 188, emphasis added throughout).
After this Council, Constantine wrote a blatantly anti-Semitic letter to the churches in the Roman Empire letting them know his thoughts about the Easter-Passover controversy.
Here is part of what he wrote as to the rationale for Christians to abandon the biblical feast of Passover, which the Jewish people had long observed in fulfillment of God's commands: "And truly, in the first place, it seemed to everyone a most unworthy thing that we should follow the custom of the Jews in the celebration of this most holy solemnity, who, polluted wretches!, having stained their hands with a nefarious crime, are justly blinded in their minds.
"It is fit, therefore, that, rejecting the practice of this people, we should perpetuate to all future ages the celebration of this rite in a more legitimate order ... Let us then have nothing in common with the most hostile rabble of the Jews.
" We have received another method from the Savior. A more lawful and proper course is open to our most holy religion ... Let us withdraw ourselves, my much honored brethren, from that most odious fellowship" (quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History , "Council of Nice," 1974, p. 52).
At first glance, it appears Constantine was attacking only Jews of the Jewish faith, but notice what Mal and Donna Broadhurst insightfully point out: "The fact that Christianity never had religious fellowship with non-Christian Jews means the Jews referred to were the Christian Jews . The reference to Jews instructing Christians how to observe the Christian Passover feast could only be applicable to Christian Jews, as non-Christian Jews did not tell Christians how to observe the Passover. The fellowship from which Constantine wanted the Church to withdraw was fellowship with Christian Jews" ( Passover Before Messiah and After ,1987, p. 147).
In fact, the leaders of Jewish Christianity, the successors of the group who had held the prevailing beliefs for the first century after the Church was founded, were either not invited to this Council or knew better and did not appear.
As the Broadhursts point out: "Constantine apparently began his plan to unify the church by simply not inviting any [Christian] Jewish representatives to the Council. (It is possible Jewish church leaders were invited and refused to come, but other facts about the Council lead to the former conclusion.) The lists of those present at the Council shows them all to have had Greek names. None of those present had characteristic Jewish names. The Palestinian delegates were from the coastal cities where mainly Gentiles lived. It is known that there were Jewish bishops in Palestine at the time" (p. 146).

The sword drawn against "Fourteeners"

As emperor, Constantine tolerated no dissent. So he soon drew his sword against those not following his wishes in not conforming to the teachings of the Catholic, or universal, church. The historian Robin Lane Fox notes: "At Nicaea, the Emperor himself imposed criminal sentences of exile on the bishops who refused to sign . He also investigated other reports of heresy" ( Pagans and Christians, 1986, p. 656).
Eventually, those bishops who did not agree with the decisions made in Nicaea were exiled and their works banned. A vicious persecution against Christian Jews and others branded as heretics began. So the Catholic Church, which previously had been persecuted, became the chief persecutor of those who chose to obey the commands of the Bible rather than the commands of a deeply compromised church.
"The Paschal Controversy was 'settled' at the Council of Nicaea—not theologically, but politically," the Broadhursts further explain. "It was settled by eliminating one of the viewpoints. Church law had been laid down. No longer could any Christians celebrate [the] Christian Passover the way [the apostle] John, Philip and other [Christian] Jews had celebrated it. All were required to celebrate on the Sunday following the 14th [of the Hebrew first month of Nisan]. Once respected 'Quartodecimans' ["Fourteeners"] who persisted in the belief handed down to them from the Apostles, would henceforth be called heretics" (p. 148).
What was the result of this Council? Historian Jesse Hurlbut candidly describes the consequences: "But while the triumph of Christianity resulted in much that was good, inevitably the alliance of the church and state also brought in its train many evils. The ceasing of persecution was a blessing, but the establishment of Christianity as the state religion became a curse.
"Everyone sought membership in the church, and nearly everybody was accepted ... The forms and ceremonies of paganism gradually crept into the worship. Some of the old heathen feasts became church festival s with change of name and of worship ... As a result of the church sitting in power, we do not see Christianity transforming the world to its ideal, but the world dominating the church" ( A History of the Christian Church, 1918, pp. 78-79).

A.D. 325 as the beginning of the Dark Ages

So the year 325 is crucial in the outcome of what traditional Christianity has become.
"As far as [the] Christian Passover is concerned , "the Broadhursts conclude, "the beginning of the Dark Ages can be set at 325 A.D. with the Council of Nicaea. Along with turning their backs on [Christian] Jews, the Gentiles turned their backs on the Jewish Scriptures [the Old Testament].
"They disallowed Jewish input to their faith, lifestyle, and worship ... It took a major reformation centuries later [in the 1500s] to begin to undo the horror and destruction the church brought on the world when the Gentiles at Nicaea formally adopted the policy of 'having nothing in common with the Jews'" (p. 149).
A few years later, in 332, Constantine again sternly rebuked those who opposed Catholic teachings with this warning and threat: "Forasmuch, then, as it is no longer possible to bear with your pernicious errors, we give warning by this present statute that none of you henceforth presume to assemble yourselves together.
"We have directed, accordingly, that you be deprived of all the houses in which you are accustomed to hold your assemblies: and [ we ] forbid the holding of your superstitious and senseless meetings, not in public merely, but in any private house or place whatsoever.
"Let those of you, therefore, who are desirous of embracing the true and pure religion, take the far better course of entering the catholic Church, and uniting with it in holy fellowship, whereby you will be enabled to arrive at the knowledge of the truth" (quoted by Eusebius, Life of Constantine, sect. 3, chap. 65).
A bloodbath eventually occurred. Those who did not conform to the Church of Rome, now united with the powerful Roman Empire, suffered implacable persecution. Regarding the aftermath of the Council of Nicaea, famed historian Will Durant stated, "Probably more Christians were slaughtered by Christians in these two years (342-3) than by all the persecutions of Christians by pagans in the history of Rome" ( The Story of Civilization, Vol. 4: The Age of Faith, 1950, p. 8).

The Roman calendar adopted by the Roman Church

Due to the decisions of the Nicene Council, the pagan Roman calendar was adopted instead of the Jewish calendar to determine the dates of what were now deemed to be Christian festivals. Those who continued keeping the true Christian Passover as handed down from the apostles had to go into hiding, for they were targeted along with other "heretics" by the church under Constantine and his successors.
Church historian Henry Chadwick points out about the Easter controversy: "Victor of Rome's intervention [referring to the earlier Roman bishop Victor's ruling to observe Easter instead of the Christian Passover or be excommunicated] turned out to be successful in the sense that his view was eventually to prevail. But it was a long time before those who kept Easter [i.e., the true Passover, it being misnamed here] on the fourteenth day (nicknamed Quartodecimans) died out.
"The group still existed in the ninth century despite the vigor with which church councils deplored them. It was impossible in so weighty a practical question for diversity to be allowed, but there can be little doubt that the Quartodecimans were right in thinking that they had preserved the most ancient and apostolic custom. They had become heretics simply by being behind the times" ( The Early Church, 1967, p. 85).
So from approximately 325 to 1585, a period of 1,260 years, Christians who continued to follow the Bible's instruction about Passover had to flee and hide from the vicious church and state persecutions during those ensuing centuries.

The curtain finally rises on the period of religious persecution

It was only during the time of Elizabethan England that a measure of religious tolerance was granted and the inheritors of the legacy of those early Jewish and gentile Christians, who followed the original practices of Jesus and the apostles, could finally emerge.
In 1585, England and Spain went to war, mainly over the attempt of Spain to militarily impose the Catholic faith on England. Spain lost the war, and also its famed Spanish Armada, so England was free to continue its religious tolerance—which eventually spread to its colonies abroad, including what became the United States and Canada.
Interestingly, there is a prophecy in the Bible which describes how the Church, symbolized by a woman, would have to flee and hide in safety for 1,260 days (Revelation:12:1-6). According to Scripture, a "day" in a prophetic context can represent a year (see Numbers:14:34; Ezekiel:4:6). So this period mentioned in Revelation 12 could well refer to the Church having to flee from the vicious persecutions during those terrible 1,260 years—until those dark ages ended and a new era of religious tolerance began.
In large part thanks to what happened then, we enjoy those same freedoms of worship in advanced nations of the world today.

The returning Christ will lead the world to keep God's festivals

Let's move forward to the 21st century. From what we have read, dare we ask if there is something better and more biblical to observe than Easter?
To answer this, just imagine in your mind the following scene: Jesus Christ has finally returned to rule on the earth, just as He had promised (Matthew:24:30).
And note what will happen, as foretold in Zechariah:14:3-19: "Then the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations, as He fights in the day of battle. And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which faces Jerusalem on the east ... And the Lord shall be King over all the earth ...
"And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles [one of God's annual festivals, listed in Leviticus 23]. And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, on them there will be no rain.
"If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the Lord strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. This shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles."
Yet that is not the only festival all will be required to observe. Jesus will command all to celebrate God's weekly Sabbath and all His appointed annual feasts, and those who don't will be sternly disciplined. At last, all the nations will accept His rule and will observe His teachings. Then there will finally be joy, peace and harmony on the earth.
Included then among the required festival observances will be not Easter, but the true Christian Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread immediately following.

What Easter replaced—the Christian Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread

Shortly before His death, Jesus prophesied to His disciples what feast He would keep when He returned. Again, it was not the manmade counterfeit Easter. Rather, He said, "With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God" (Luke:22:15-16). Clearly, one of the festivals Christ will again celebrate when He establishes His Kingdom is the Christian Passover!
Similarly, the apostle Paul reminded Church members in Corinth to keep the Christian Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread that followed it. He wrote: "Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth" (1 Corinthians:5:7-8).
These true feasts of God were banished from the mainstream Christian calendar when the Council of Nicaea ruled that people were not to follow biblical instruction with regard to the feasts, but rather to eventually set up a different reckoning of time. As we have seen, the Nicene Council targeted the first of the annual biblical feasts—the Christian Passover—and there they chose instead Easter Sunday. Logically, since the seven annual feasts of God are grouped together as a unit in Leviticus 23, this decree would also affect the keeping of the other listed feasts as well.
This substitution of manmade feasts for the feasts of the Bible should not be taken lightly. It was prophesied centuries earlier in the book Daniel that such change would eventually be attempted, when a future haughty ruler would try to change the biblical dates and laws. (And considering that much of Bible prophecy is dual, these changes may be a forerunner of similar changes to occur during the end times.)
Speaking of this development, God had foretold in Daniel:7:25: "He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, shall persecute the saints of the Most High, and shall intend to change times and law"— dates on the calendar and biblical festivals, among other vile revisions. Remember, only the Bible, as the inspired Word of God, should determine which days are God's Holy Days and when they are to be kept—instead of looking to manmade traditions.
So yes, there is something available that is far better and more satisfying than Easter, and that is the Christian Passover, which was celebrated by the apostles of Jesus and the early Church. And although it was largely stamped out after the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325, God's faithful people continued to celebrate this deeply meaningful biblical festival in spite of the threat of persecution and even death.
We can look forward to the day when Jesus Christ returns and restores all the genuine Christian feasts that were changed by deceived and deluded men in the distant past. The good news is that we can now celebrate all His feasts and rejoice in them every year—having wonderful fellowship and, as Jesus foretold in John:4:23-24, truly worshipping God in spirit and truth.

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Get Off of Your Screen!

An interesting article from about too much technology. This follows this post about the likelihood of a war in Asia. This follows this post about Jesus statement about "three days and three nights" as his proof of being the Messiah. For a free magazine subscription or to get the book recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632. You can follow me at blogspot here and at twitter here Please consider following both in case one goes down!

Get Off of Your Screen

Printer-friendly version

Source: Rudy Rangel
I noticed it recently, and it happened more than once. I was spending time with my daughter. She was riding her bike in our driveway. But I wasn’t there. I was on my phone. Sure, I took her picture, tweeted it and iMessaged it to her grandparents. But I wasn’t enjoying this special moment, sharing in her joy as she was overcoming the trepidation of her “big girl” bike. There was my beautiful daughter riding her bike, and I was staring at my screen. Lost moments.
A recent article popped up on my news feed from NPR about a Vermont cafe that banned laptops. It started off as a fiscal decision. When tables are taken by one person on their computer working, that leaves no seating for customers coming into the store. But the store owner, Jodi Wahlen said it's not just about money.
“To walk into a place and see people looking at their screens with a blank stare, it takes away just kind of the community aspect of it—of you being in a place with other people.” I’m sure you have seen the same scenario in a coffee shop. It’s quiet, no one talking. Just the clickety-clack of keyboards dispersed around the remote island-tables in the store. A coffee shop with a computer ban will have life and vibrancy of people sharing together, building relationships.
We are more social than ever, you may say. But as we are more social on digital networks it can take away from real-life personal connections. I noticed it when I was spending precious time with my daughter. She is a gift from God.
“Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward” (Psalm:127:3).
Spending quality time with our children is a fleeting opportunity. Get off of your screen and enjoy them. Spend quality time with the people that are around you as well. Social networks and your screens will always be there. The real-life moments will not.

Ann Coulter: Don't Primary Republicans —Unless They're For Amnesty!

An interesting article from about Ann Coulter's take on immigration. This follows this post about foreign workers being increased despite Congress's objections. REMEMBER, “Amnesty” means ANY non-enforcement of existing immigration laws! This follows this comment and this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more about what you can do click here and you can read two very interesting books HERE.
You can follow me at blogspot here and at twitter here Please consider following both in case one goes down!

Ann Coulter: Don't Primary Republicans —Unless They're For Amnesty!

Never Trust a Liberal Over Three-Especially a RepublicanAs those of you who follow my hate mail know, I am opposed to running untested candidates against perfectly good incumbent Republican senators this election cycle. It will be a long time before Republicans have as good a year as this to win a Senate majority.
Unfortunately, we have idiots doing the idiot thing, pretending to be "tea partiers," while challenging sitting Republican senators over fairly minor ideological differences.
Anyone opposing an incumbent Republican for any reason other than amnesty is a fraud or an idiot. Right now, immigration and Obamacare are the only things that matter. Since every Republican voted against Obamacare, that leaves only immigration.
Conservatives who ignore amnesty while carping about the debt ceiling, TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), the Internet tax bill or Benghazi are too stupid to help their country.
Suppose the Senate had passed a bill that would cut Texas out of the Union? Would that get your attention, fake tea partiers? Without Texas, Republicans would immediately lose 38 electoral votes, two senators and 24 members of Congress. (Democrats would lose only 12 House members.)
How would you rate the prospect of repealing Obamacare if Republicans could: never win another presidential election; never win another majority in the House; and never again win a Senate majority? Oh, and how does the expression "President Nancy Pelosi" grab you?
Would that bill be slightly more important to you than the Internet tax bill?
Well, guess what? Amnesty will produce the exact same result as losing the entire state of Texas. In fact, merely continuing our current immigration policies will achieve the same result; it will just take a little longer. (But wow, I'm sure glad we got "Octomom"! What a boon she's been  to our American way of life.)
The population of Texas is about 27 million. With amnestied illegal aliens allowed to bring in their cousins and brothers-in-law under our insane "family reunification" policies, the 12 million illegal immigrants already here will quickly balloon to 30 million new voters—who happen to break 8-to-2 for the Democrats.
Consequently, before running off and staging a primary fight against a sitting Republican, anyone who truly loved his country would ask himself the following three questions:
(1) Does the incumbent Republican support amnesty? And by the way, "Supports amnesty" includes anyone who says one of the following: 
(2) Is a primary challenge unlikely to flip a Republican seat to the Democrats? 
(3) Am I fairly certain the challenger is smart enough to avoid the (apparently) rocky shoals of being asked about abortion in the case of rape? 
There are at least three Republican primary candidates who pass this test with flying colors. They're smart, attractive, articulate and unlikely to ever use the phrase "legitimate rape." 
No incumbent Republican senators are in jeopardy—the one Senate race is for a seat currently held by a Democrat, and the other two races are for House seats in reasonably safe Republican districts.
Finally, all three races represent the battle at the heart of the Republican Party: Are we the party of soulless businessmen who care nothing about the country but only want higher profits for themselves? Or are we the party of middle-class and working-class Americans?
If you don't think the Republican Party should speak exclusively for Wall Street, Silicon Valley and the Chamber of Commerce, then you have to support:
  • Dr. Greg Brannon, running in the Republican primary against foreign-labor cheerleader Thom Tillis, to challenge the Democratic senator from North Carolina, Kay Hagan. (Primary: May 6) 
  • Frank Roche, running against the lying, amnesty-supporting Renee Ellmers in North Carolina's 2nd Congressional District. (Primary: May 6) 
  • Dave Brat, economics professor, challenging the amnesty-addled Eric Cantor in Virginia's 7th Congressional District. (Primary: June 10) 
State legislator Tillis championed a bill making it easier for North Carolina employers to hire foreign workers. Instead of temporary guest workers coming in for a few months a year to do farm work, Tillis' bill expanded "farm labor" to "all industries," and expanded "seasonal" to "nine months."
This wasn't an idle vote cast thoughtlessly: After the Republican governor vetoed Tillis' job-killing bill, Tillis led the legislature to override his veto.
Tillis has been well repaid by business interests. North Carolinians can repay him for driving down their wages on May 6.
Frank Roche, who is challenging two-term incumbent Renee Ellmers, speaks more knowledgeably about immigration than almost any sitting member of Congress. (After two decades in international banking in New York, he moved to North Carolina and became an economics professor and talk-radio host—so he can talk.)
Roche has this crazy idea that a nation's immigration policies should be good for the citizens of that country. (Somebody get this guy in leather restraints!)
By contrast, his opponent, Rep. Ellmers, has dedicated herself to supporting the needs of her rich donors by being strident, rude and utterly cliched on the subject of immigration.
Naturally, she is supported by Facebook billionaire Mark Zuckerberg—because who cares about the needs of North Carolina workers more than a Silicon Valley one-hit wonder seeking cheap foreign labor? (I'm sure Zuckerberg has the very best interests of the country at heart.)
Every exchange Ellmers has about immigration seems to end in a blizzard of shouts and insults. After failing to tear at the heartstrings of talk radio's Laura Ingraham with tales of rich farmers who need cheap foreign labor, Ellmers shouted that Ingraham was "ignorant" and "emotional."
About a week later, Ellmers denounced a constituent who criticized her on immigration, telling him that he didn't have "any damn facts" and was full of "hatred and vitriol."
(Zuckerberg apparently pays his politicians better than he pays his computer programmers.)
For the cherry on top, both Ellmers and Tillis go around claiming they're opposed to amnesty—while doing everything they can to sneak foreign workers into North Carolina.
So at least they know amnesty is not popular with voters. Here's an idea! Instead of running candidates who have to lie about their position on immigration, let's run Republicans who actually agree with the voters!
Sucking up to businessmen may have brought Tillis and Ellmers a lot of campaign cash, but it's unlikely to help them with North Carolina's population, which, by the way, is 22 percent black. Recall that Mitt Romney won an astounding 20 percent of the young black male vote by being the toughest presidential candidate on immigration in 50 years. (I guess they do want the jobs "Americans just won't do.")
Dave Brat, an economics professor like Roche, is challenging Rep. Eric Cantor: Maniacal Amnesty Supporter. Cantor says "immigration reform could be an economic boon to this country."
You don't have to be an economics professor to know that bringing in millions of workers is not "an economic boon" to the workers already here. (If only we could bring in millions of workers to compete for Cantor's job.)
Brat responded to Cantor's baby-talk, saying immigration "lowers wages, adds to unemployment, and the taxpayer pays the tab for any benefits to folks coming in."
Republicans aren't at much risk of losing any of these seats, with or without primary fights. But we'll lose them all within a decade if Republicans like Tillis, Ellmers and Cantor aren't stopped.
BrannonRoche and Brat are the candidates true patriots should support with everything they have.
 Ann  Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and writes a popular syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate. She is  the author of TEN New York Times bestsellers—collect them here.
Her most recent book is Never Trust a Liberal Over Three-Especially a Republican.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

The Balkans of Asia!

An interesting article from about the likelihood of a war in Asia. This follows this post about Jesus statement about "three days and three nights" as his proof of being the Messiah. This follows this post about the prophetic implications of "Blood Moons."  For a free magazine subscription or to get the book recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632. You can follow me at blogspot here and at twitter here Please consider following both in case one goes down!

The Balkans of Asia

Could a crisis in Asia spark a larger war dragging in China, Russia and America? Many leaders feel this could happen. So why does this matter to you?

Media Download Options [ Download Media: right-click on link ]
MP4 Video
MP3 Audio - The Balkans of Asia

[Darris McNeely] There's a crisis that is brewing in Asia that could impact our lives, and you need to understand why and what is taking place.
Recent articles have talked about the fact of China's growing influence and exerting itself within Asia. There was an article I was reading in the New York Times just a few days ago that was quoting the leader of the Philippines and essentially seeking support from the United States especially in regard to certain claims that have been made in the Philippine islands by China upon certain grounds that they have there. I've got a map up here to show this. The Philippine islands are of course in the Asian area, the Southeast Asia sits over here, and just off to the west of the Philippines there's a group of islands that this larger map down here shows that are called the Spratly Islands. And even more remote in one small part of the Spratly Islands there's a very small section that China is claiming for itself in a sense taking away from the sovereignty and land that belongs to the Philippines. It deals with fishing rights. It deals with essentially power and a power grab.
And the Filipino leader Benigno Aquino has recently made an appeal to the United States to essentially help them because this in his eyes is reminiscent of another land grab that was made prior to World War II when Adolf Hitler grabbed the, what was called the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, and the western powers allowed him to do that in appeasement, but it did not prevent World War II.
This is all interesting because this region is being called kind of the Balkans of Asia and some of these events that are taking place with China's encroachment into other areas. Japan has recently had a conflict with China as well over another section of islands and land closer to Japan in dispute between China and Japan. In fact, recently just last month the Japanese Prime Minister made a comment where he said that Britain and Germany went to war in 1914 even though they had close economic ties much as China and Japan have now.
It was basically sounding an alarm that China and Japan could go to war over something like—even though they have close economic ties—they could go to war over a piece of land that is in dispute between them and drag in the larger powers of China, Russia, even the United States. The United States has treaty obligations with both Japan and the Philippines. And that's why this is important because should China assert itself and continue to encroach, grabbing land, seeking resources throughout Asia? Big problems could develop.
What happens between the Koreas and frankly all the way to India matters for our global economy. We are interconnected just as the world was in 1914 when the world erupted into World War I. The first global economy of that period was something that people felt, leaders felt at that time would prevent the great powers from going to war. It didn't happen. World War I erupted.
So there is concern that this could happen today. Again, I ask you to question why does this matter. Why is this important to you and I? Because of the global economy in which we live, and because what we are seeing is basically unbridled lust for resources and for power, economics is all intertwined in this.
It brings us back to a scripture, James chapter 3, that shows what is at the heart of war and conflict. Actually it's in James 4 where James says, "Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members? You lust and you do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war, yet you do not have because you do not ask." That's in James:4:1-2. You lust. You covet, and eventually that leads to war. That's what happens on a small level, and it certainly happens among nations at the international level.
We're watching events develop. It's important you watch and that you understand because one day it will impact you, your job, and your pocketbook, every piece of the world. That's why it matters. That's why it is something that we should understand.
That's BT Daily . Join us next time.

Jewish Center Shooting is Aberration From Real Threat to Jews, Christians, US: Islam

A very interesting post from about a shooting in Kansas. This follows this post about a shooting in about a terrorist who attempted to use drones. This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries. For more about what you can do to get more involved click here and you can read two very interesting books HERE. You can follow me at blogspot here and at twitter here Please consider following both in case one goes down!

Jewish Center Shooting is Aberration From Real Threat to Jews, Christians, US: Islam

By Debbie Schlussel
Yes, yesterday’s hate crime shooting at the Overland Park, Kansas Jewish Community Center and a nearby Jewish senior citizens home was committed by a White supremacist/neo-Nazi and not a Muslim. But it is an aberration. The real threat facing Jews worldwide and here in America is Islam, not a tiny group on the fringe. Although I’ve gotten threatening hate mail from neo-Nazis in America, I’ve gotten death threats–many of them–from Muslims.


Despite the Non-Muslim Identity of Yesterday’s JCC Shooter, the Real Threat to Us All is Islam, Jihadists
Organized Muslim groups around America, including CAIR, the unindicted co-conspirator in HAMAS terrorism, condemned the shooting (in which all three dead victims were Christian, by the way). But all of these groups openly support HAMAS, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and others which on a daily basis shoot up, bomb, and otherwise murder Jews in ways similar to and/or far more bloody than yesterday’s attack. And they are not on the fringe. This is what the mainstream of 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide, including those in America, believe. This is what they support. And HAMAS CAIR not only won’t condemn it, the group raised money for HAMAS terrorism against Jews, as confirmed in the Holy Land Foundation trial.
There is no difference for Muslims in murdering Jews in America versus murdering Jews in Israel, Buenos Aires, Bulgaria, or elsewhere–all places where Jews were deliberately murdered in cold blood by the groups that CAIR and the other Arab and Muslim groups in America support. None of these groups will condemn those murders. And so it is phony and laughable that they condemn similar deliberate killings here. There are no borders in the Jew-hatred and massacres of Jews for these groups, not even the borders of America. Perhaps you’ve forgotten the shootings at the Jewish Community Center in Seattle in 2006 by a jihadist Muslim, Naveed Afzal Haq. He shouted, “I’m a Muslim American. I’m angry at Israel!” Then he shot six women, one of them fatally. And none of us would have been surprised at all had a Muslim been the shooter yesterday at the Kansas City area Jewish Community Center.

Muslims like Haq are growing to a critical mass in America. Klansman like Frazier Glenn Miller a/k/a Frazier Glenn Cross, the 73-year-old man who perpetrated yesterday’s attack are rare. Their numbers are shrinking, and even the Klan condemned the attack, which is noteworthy, since CAIR’s condemnation rings as true as that of the Klan condemnation: not very sincere, mere lip service.
In any event, there is a reason anti-Semitic acts against Jews in America are on the rise. Muslims all over the world are attacking Jews, and they’ve created this atmosphere where it is okay, including here on American soil. As I’ve noted, there are no real borders in Islam, and the groups that CAIR openly supports and refuses to condemn, attack Jews here. In 1997, Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer, who was paroled inside the U.S. border by the INS because the agency ran out of detention space, planned attacks on Jews in New York’s subway system. He nearly carried the attacks out but for the last minute reports to police by his roommate.
HAMAS CAIR never condemned and won’t condemn the planned attacks by Abu Mezer. How are those planned attacks different from those carried out yesterday by the 73-year-old Klansman? Not different at all. And yet CAIR only condemns one and in reality condemns neither.
Make no mistake. The real threat to Jews–and Christians–and anyone else in America who loves life and wants to live it out in peace, isn’t the fringe of the Klan. It’s Muslims and Islam.
Admit it. Face it. Deal with it.