Monday, June 6, 2016

Mob of Liberal Protesters Attack and Bloody Donald Trump Supporters After Rally

An interesting story from www.lifenews.com about the CONTINUED attacks on Donald Trump supporters This follows this post about Sarah Silverman. For two very interesting books click HERE.
Please follow me here.


The violence from liberal protesters is continuing at events for supporters for Donald Trump. After a rally in San Jose, California, a left-win mob threw bottles at Trump backers — bloodying one Trump voter who spoke with the media after the violence.

Liberal activists have created a tense and violent-prone environment outside rallies for presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for weeks. That potential for violence came to a head in New Mexico recently when one Trump voter in a wheelchair was assaulted.
Now the violence has spread to San Jose, according to the Daily Caller:
A Donald Trump supporter was attacked from behind and left bleeding after leaving a campaign rally in San Jose on Thursday.
Journalist Tim Poole was filming as a man is seen running up behind the Trump supporter and hitting him on the side of the head with an unidentified object. The victim is seen turning to look at his attacker and grabbing the side of his head, which had started bleeding.
Reporters circled the man after the attack and asked him if he had provoked the anti-Trump protesters.
“I was just walking out with my Trump sign and he grabbed my Trump sign and started following me and calling me a racist and stuff,” the man said.
Asked if he said anything when leaving the event, he said he was merely cheering the Republican.
SIGN THE PLEDGE: I Pledge to Vote for a Pro-Life Candidate for President
“I was just like ‘Yeah Trump, yeah Trump,’” the man said.
Conservative activist Erick Erickson is calling on pro-abortion Democrat Hillary Clinton ton condemn the attacks:
Last night at a Trump event, one of Trump’s supporters was surrounded by left-wing protestors. They threw eggs at the Trump supporter and bottles at her head.
This is unacceptable violence. Donald Trump did nothing last night to provoke this behavior. The lady in question did nothing to provoke this behavior. It is unacceptable.
In the past twenty-four hours, Democrats have begun targeting prominent donors to Donald Trump for public shaming and have now started assaulting Trump supporters.
Hillary Clinton and, frankly, Bernie Sanders need to forcefully condemn this behavior just as they demanded Donald Trump denounce his supporters’ behavior months ago.
donaldtrump46

Friday, June 3, 2016

World News and Trends: Anti-Semitic, anti-Israel riots erupt in California, New Mexico, Chicago

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about riots. This follows this post about proper judgement. This follows this post about Facebook and Transgendered people. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

The Jewish Chronicle called it “The Worst Wave of Hate for Quarter of a Century.” Hatred of Jews suddenly became much more evident in the wake of the air strikes and Israeli incursion into Gaza. One observer said that anti-Semites are “using an overseas conflict as an excuse for their racism” (Leon Symons, Simon Rocker and Jonny Paul, Jan. 16, 2009, p. 1).
A demonstration in London against the Israeli action attracted 12,000 protestors. Over a period of about two weeks more than 150 anti-Semitic incidents were recorded across Britain—including arson, personal attacks on individuals, graffiti and abusive telephone calls (ibid.).
The “State of the Union” column in The Wall Street Journal reported: “A Pew study from September [2008] shows that 25% of Germans and 20% of French are still affected by the [anti-Semitic] virus. In Spain, 46% have unfavourable views of Jews.
“Is there really no connection between this statistic and the fact that the Spanish media and government are among Europe's most hostile toward the Jewish state? Is it just a coincidence that Europe's largest anti-Israeli demonstration took place Sunday in Madrid with more than 100,000 protestors?” (Daniel Schwammenthal, “Europe Reimports Jew Hatred,” Jan. 13, 2009, p. 12).
It is increasingly difficult to conveniently separate anti-Israeli feelings and anti-Semitism, as London's chief rabbi has pointed out for many months. The Wall Street Journal piece plainly concluded that “the rejection of Israel's right to exist is what drives their attacks.”
A Time feature article observed that “the threat posed by Hamas is only the most immediate of the many interlocking challenges facing Israel, some of which cast dark shadows over the long-term viability of a democratic Jewish state” (Tim McGirk, “Can Israel Survive Its Assault on Gaza?” Jan. 19, 2009, pp. 13-16).
For a comprehensive understanding of the immediate dangers and the biblically foretold, positive long-term outcome, please see our May-June 2008 Good News cover article “Can Israel Survive?” Also, to comprehend the historic and prophetic background of Israel's position in the world, request or download our free booklet The Middle East in Bible Prophecy . (Sources: The Jewish Chronicle [London], The Wall Street Journal, Time. )

You might also be interested in...

Join the conversation!

Due to EXTREME Media Bias: Trump’s Strategy: Confront Main Stream Media. It’s Working

A timely post from http://www.vdare.com about media bias. This follows this post about the movie Angry Birds. This follows this post about rap songs referencing Donald Trump.
You can follow me here.


Trump-Presser-Montage

Trump’s Strategy: Confront Main Stream Media. It’s Working


The fight now is not about who will be the next President of the United States. It is about whether the American nation will continue to exist. And this battle pits confrontational conservatives like Donald Trump against anti-American “protesters” working to deny our country a future—in alliance, increasingly blatantly, with the Main Stream Media in its role of Keeper of the Cultural Marxist Narrative.
tauntingOn Tuesday, Trump threw the gauntlet at the feet of the Main Stream Media with an extraordinary press conference blasting the assembled reporters for what he said was their biased coverage. [Trump taunts media to its face, by Eli Stokols and Nolan McCaskill, Politico, May 31, 2016] While ostensibly about his fundraising for veterans, the real aim of Trump’s press conference was to target the MSM as such.
“Is this what it’s going to be like covering you if you’re president?” asked one reporter plaintively. Trump fired back: “Yeah, it is. I’m going to continue to attack the press” [Donald Trump declares war on the press, by Paul Waldman, The Washington Post, May 31, 2016]
In the aftermath, reporters who spent last week writing navel-gazing articles about how nasty it is to get mean Tweets from anonymous Twitter accounts with anime avatars began kvetching about how they are under mortal threat from the “anti-democratic” Trump. [Trump’s crazy, insane, nonsensical, bonkers, and anti-democratic press conference, by Erik Wemple, May 31, 2016]
This, of course, is nonsense. Hillary Clinton hasn’t even bothered to hold a press conference in months. The real sin: Trump calling out reporters as political actors in their own right rather than pretending they are unbiased observers.
And this calling-out is what grassroots conservatives want to hear. As Marco Rubio might say, let’s “dispel” with this fiction that most journalists are any different from far-Left Open Borders activists. They share the same premises, push the same Narrative, and conceal evidence which contradicts the story they are trying to promote. After years of pro-immigrant sob stories and selective reporting, patriotic Americans are right to distrust the MSM.
The hard reality for reporters: more people trust Trump than trust the “lying press.” According to a recent poll from Gallup, Americans have even less confidence in newspapers and television news than they do in banks—notwithstanding the financial crisis [Confidence in Institutions, Gallup, June 2-7, 2015]. According to a survey from the Pew Research Center, 65 percent of Americans say the national news media impacts the country negatively.  [PEW: 65% of Americans don’t trust media, by William Bigelow, Breitbart, November 23, 2015]
As Rush Limbaugh enthused:
That was the kind of press conference Republicans voters have been dying to see for who knows how many years…
[H]ow many years have people been begging for a Republican to just once take on the media the way Trump did? All the way from the premise, to the details, to the motivation, he took ’em all on…
But the media, the media totally wants Hillary Clinton to win, but they’re so conflicted.  The cable networks, since this thing ended, have been devoted to the press conference and how Trump was mean to them and how Trump insulted them and how Trump criticized them.
[The Press Conference Republican Voters Have Wanted To See For Years, Rush Limbaugh, May 31, 2016]
One of the most important elements driving this fury against the MSM: the absurd double standards surrounding the protests directed against Trump. While the MSM casually calls Trump a “fascist,” reporters ignore or even cover for startling acts of violence directed against his supporters and police. It’s no surprise many Trump supporters are beginning to suspect reporters and protesters are practically in partnership.
Trump’s strategy of confrontation was on display again recently in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Screaming protesters waved Mexican flags, started fires, and even attacked police horses [Mexican Flag-Waving Mob Attacks Police, Horses Outside Trump Rally, by Derek Hunter, Daily Caller, May 25, 2016].
One particularly apropos image: a group of Hispanic protesters holding obscene signs cursing Trump, with one even calling to “Free El Chapo.” Next to that was a young girl holding a sign claiming, “I am not a rapist or drug dealer!”
signsell, obviously not. But a drug dealer is still more respectable in the eyes of the MSM and academia than someone who simply calls for enforcing immigration laws.
Indeed, even as the fires and flags burned and the blood flowed, the MSM worked quickly to pin the blame on Trump. Partially, this was done through the passive language so beloved by reporters—it wasn’t violent protesters who created chaos at the Trump rally; it was the Trump rally itself which somehow “turned” violent.
It was the same story a few days later when Trump held a rally in San Diego. Trump’s presence and rhetoric about immigration (i.e. build the wall and enforce the law) was held to be responsible for the chaos, rather than the people who actually perpetrated it [Violence as Trump brings immigration rhetoric to border, CBS News, May 28, 2016].
On television and in the press, reporters lectured Trump and his supporters about “civility” and worked hard to present a deliberately misleading version of events. One reporter for Telemundo, the Fifth Column Spanish-language network inside the United States, was even caught staging the news by covering up obscenities to present an attractive image of young children holding a Mexican flag. [Watch: Telemundo cameraman helps Trump protesters holding Mexican flag upside-down, by Brett T., Twitchy, May 28, 2016]
What makes Donald Trump different is that he refuses to let this Narrative be perpetuated. Trump called the protesters in New Mexico “thugs who were flying the Mexican flag” and “criminals.” The tweet received over 13,000 retweets and 35,000 likes, large numbers even for Trump’s Twitter account.
Trump’s campaign also slammed the MSM for consistently blaming Trump.
As Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski put it:
“Mr. Trump and the campaign do not condone violence,” Mr. Lewandowski said. “The campaign rallies are attended by tens of thousands of people, and it’s no surprise the dishonest media is intent on focusing on a few professional agitators.”
Protests backfire as anti-American images push undecided voters to Trump, by Seth McLaughlin, Washington Times, May 30, 2016
Trump’s ability to call his enemies what they are is emboldening his supporters. As one man who attended the New Mexico rally said: “This was not a protest, this was a riot. These are hate groups” [Protests Turn Violent Outside Trump Rally in New Mexico, Newsmax, May 25, 2016]
Donald Trump’s strategy of confrontation is highlighting the reality that Fourth Generation War has already begun in the United States. From the New Mexico to Chicago, the anti-American Left and the revanchist street soldiers of foreign countries are making their intentions all too clear. [The truth is in the streets, by Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, May 10, 2016]
The MSM is doing their best to pretend anti-Trump protesters are the mainstream and Trump is the extremist. But simply showing the protesters on the screen reveals the fanatical hatred for America, and for Whites, driving the anti-Trump Left.
And that’s why the more Trump takes his patriotic message into the heart of the enemy, the more Americans rally to his cause.
In his famous “Liberty or Death” speech, Patrick Henry mocked those who believed the American Revolution hadn’t already started. “Gentlemen may cry ‘Peace, peace,’ but there is no peace! The war is actually begun!”
And so it has. The only question is how long the Main Stream Media can continue to conceal the obvious truth.
Donald Trump is doing his best to ensure their time of living on lies will soon be at an end.
James Kirkpatrick [Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc.

Thursday, June 2, 2016

What does it mean to "judge," and why does the Bible say to "judge not"?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about godly judgement. This follows this post about ending slavery. This follows this post about Facebook and Transgendered people. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

Jesus Christ said in His Sermon on the Mount: “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you” (Matthew 7:1-2). Therefore, many assume that it is wrong to pass judgment of any sort, and that all people should be allowed to do whatever they feel is right.
Strong's Concordance notes that the word translated “judge” in Matthew 7:1 can also mean “condemn.” What Christ was saying was that, as we are incapable of seeing a person's heart or knowing his or her relationship with God, we are not to take the place of God in making judgments about someone's motives or eternal salvation. And we should be humble, knowing our own weaknesses and sins.
However, in other sections of the Bible, Christ says very clearly, “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matthew 12:34) and “a tree is known by its fruits” (Matthew 12:33). While we cannot see hearts, we can see—and judge—actions. There are times God calls on us to discern others' actions because of their effects on us. For example, the Bible tells us to avoid angry people and those whose sins may rub off on us (Proverbs 22:24; 1 Corinthians 5:11-12). Hebrews 5:14 tells us that the spiritually mature are “those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”
We are not to judge where a person stands with God, because we are simply incapable of doing so. But we must be able to “discern both good and evil” in the actions of ourselves as well as others in order to grow in wisdom and avoid falling into problems ourselves.
For an additional study tool, please read our booklet The New Covenant: Does it Abolish God's Law?

You might also be interested in...

Twitter and Facebook Vow to Eliminate ‘Hate Speech’, but only by Conservatives!!

A timely post about from www.jihadwatch.org about the defense of Western or Christian values being considered "hate speech" by facebook and twitter. This follows this post about Jihad and Japan. This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries. For more, you can read two very interesting books HERE.You can follow me here.

Robert Spencer in FP: Twitter and Facebook Vow to Eliminate ‘Hate Speech’

Henceforth only far-Left and pro-jihad views will be allowed. My latest in FrontPage:
Vera Jourova
Could it soon be illegal to oppose jihad terror on the Internet?
AP reported that “the European Union reached an agreement Tuesday with some of the world’s biggest social media firms, including Facebook and Twitter, on ways to combat the spread of hate speech online.”
Not only Facebook and Twitter, but also YouTube and Microsoft, “have committed to ‘quickly and efficiently’ tackle illegal hate speech directed against anyone over issues of race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin. The sites have often been used by terrorist organizations to relay messages and entice hatred against certain individuals or groups.”
Vera Jourova, whom AP identifies as “the EU commissioner responsible for justice, consumers and gender equality,” explained: “The internet is a place for free speech, not hate speech.” She added that the new rules would “ensure that public incitement to violence to hatred has ‘no place online.’” But incitement to violence isn’t all that the social media giants are planning to stamp out: Karen White, Twitter’s European head of public policy, declared: “We remain committed to letting the Tweets flow. However, there is a clear distinction between freedom of expression and conduct that incites violence and hate.”
The problem with both Jourova’s and White’s statements is that they assume that “hate speech” is an entity that can be identified objectively, when actually it is a subjective judgment based on one’s own political preconceptions. And given the years-long insistence from Leftists and Islamic supremacists that any honest discussion of how Islamic jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism constitutes “hate speech,” these new rules could mean the end of opposition to jihad terror on the Internet.
Consider, for example, what Twitter does not consider to be “hate speech.” A Muslim named Obaid Karki, @stsheetrock on Twitter, who runs a website headed “Obaid Karki St.Sheetrock’s Painfulpolitics Offensive Comedy Hepcat” and another called is called “Suicide Bombers Magazine” posted this on one of them last Sunday: “Robert Spencer mustn’t [be] featured but lynched from his scrotum along with Zionists scumbags, Pamela Geller, Pat Condell, Daniel Pipes, Debbie Schlussel and JIHADWATCH Jackass duo Baron Bodissey & Geert Wilders for inspiring Anders Behring Breivik to [kill] innocent students in 2011.”
Neither Bodissey or Wilders actually run Jihad Watch – I do — and I didn’t inspire Breivik to do anything, but what is interesting about Karki’s loony message is that he posted this call for me and others to be lynched on Twitter.
Twitter supposedly has a policy against death threats. “The Twitter Rules” say: “Violent threats (direct or indirect): You may not make threats of violence or promote violence, including threatening or promoting terrorism.” I therefore duly reported this one – but as of this writing, it has not been taken down (in fact, Karki posted it along with variants of it several times). I reported Karki’s tweet (which he republished on Twitter several times), and on Monday received this message from Twitter: “Thank you for letting us know about your issue. We’ve investigated the account and reported Tweets for violent threats and abusive behavior, and have found that it’s currently not violating the Twitter Rules (https://twitter.com/rules).”
This has happened before. On May 12, 2014, Karki tweeted this: “Robert Spencer must be arrested and lynched along the Zionists Dumbasses Daniel Pipes, Geert Wilders and JIHADWATCH …” And here’s another Karki tweet from September 18, 2013: “Robert Spencer must be shot head not only for comparing Alnoor 24:35 to Corinthians 11:14-15 satanically but for…”
Calling for me to be lynched and shot in the head – that’s not “hate speech” as far as Twitter is concerned. Meanwhile, the antipathy of both Twitter and Facebook to conservatives is well established. It’s therefore a very real question: will our social media masters use their new censorship initiative to shut down foes of jihad terror, while allowing jihadis and their sympathizers to speak freely?
It could happen. In some ways it is already happening: the free speech news site Epoch Times reported last March that “while Twitter says it is making strong efforts to shut down terrorist accounts, activists say that not only is the microblogging company not taking down the accounts that matter, but it has even been shutting down accounts of users trying to report terrorists.”
The idea that Vera Jourova enunciated, that hate speech is not free speech, is a dangerous one that paves the way for tyranny. One man’s “hate speech” is another man’s lone voice crying out against oppression and injustice. If “hate speech” is removed from the Internet and eventually criminalized, the foremost protection against tyranny will have been removed, and free society effectively ended. If Facebook and Twitter continue kneecapping voices on the Right and allowing death threats to remain online if they’re directed against people the Left hates, Leftists will have gone a long way toward achieving what they’ve been working toward for a long time: the death of dissent, and the beginnings of an authoritarian society.
And if any of the naïve and unthinking among them awaken to what they’ve done, it will be too late. Maybe as early as 24 hours from now.
Vox Clamantis In Deserto
Islamic Republic of Iran arrests eight people for producing music videos

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

How One of Today's 'Bad Guys' Ended the Scourge of Slavery

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about how Great Britain ended slavery. This follows this post about Memorial Day. This follows this post about Facebook and Transgendered people. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

There is no doubt about it—the slave trade was abhorrent. Millions of people were transported across the Atlantic in the most horrific of conditions, taken against their will and sold like cattle. Indeed, cattle were treated better than the victims of this despicable trade.
March 25 was the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade throughout the British Empire—marked throughout the month with commemorative events. One such event was held in Elmina Castle, Ghana, a castle built by the Portuguese in the late 15th century and used for the holding of slaves before transit to the New World.
The following day a service of thanksgiving was held in London, attended by Queen Elizabeth and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The service was interrupted at one point by a man of African descent demanding the British monarch apologize for slavery.
Today it's popular to bash the West, and the major English-speaking nations in particular, and to blame them for many of the world's problems. In line with this, demands for an apology for slavery and reparations have been increasing in recent years.
Such demands overlook a crucial point.
Before the British parliamentary vote to abolish the slave trade, slavery was a fairly universal practice, as it had been throughout history. What Great Britain did, at a time when the slave trade was highly lucrative for all participants, was a totally radical, progressive and bold step. We can be thankful for the foresight shown by men like William Wilberforce, the leader of the antislavery movement.
Wilberforce's fight to end slavery is portrayed in the recent movie Amazing Grace. His friend John Newton, a former slave trader, wrote the famous hymn of that name following his repentance. He devoted the remainder of his life to serving others in an attempt to atone for his contribution to the slave trade.
In reviewing the 2005 book Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the Fight to Free an Empire's Slaves by Adam Hochschild, African-American columnist Thomas Sowell wrote: “To me the most staggering thing about the long history of slavery—which encompassed the entire world and every race in it—is that nowhere before the 18th century was there any serious question raised about whether slavery was right or wrong. In the late 18th century, that question arose in Western civilization, but nowhere else.”
The book, Sowell notes, “traces the history of the world's first anti-slavery movement, which began with a meeting of 12 'deeply religious' men in London in 1787.”
It took 20 years for these men to achieve their goal of ending the slave trade. Sowell continues: “Even more remarkable, Britain [then] took it upon itself, as the leading naval power of the world, to police the ban on slave trading against other nations. Intercepting and boarding other countries' ships on the high seas to look for slaves, the British became and remained for more than a century the world's policeman when it came to stopping the slave trade” (“Today's 'Bad Guys' Ended Slavery,” Lansing State Journal, Feb. 12, 2006.)
Noted French historian Alexis de Tocqueville described the decision of the British parliament to end the slave trade as “absolutely without precedent . . . If you pore over the histories of all peoples, I doubt that you will find anything more extraordinary” (quoted by Hochschild, p. 1).
Freedom, “a peculiar institution”
With this historic perspective, we can be thankful that, at last, after thousands of years of human history, a nation had the moral conscience to do something about it—to end the trade in human beings.
What was the magnitude of Britain's undertaking? “At the end of the eighteenth century, well over three quarters of all people alive were in bondage of one kind or another, not the captivity of striped prison uniforms, but of various systems of slavery or serfdom. The age was a high point in the trade in which close to eighty thousand chained and shackled Africans were loaded onto slave ships and transported to the New World each year. In parts of the Americas, slaves far outnumbered free persons.
“The same was true in parts of Africa, and it was from these millions of indigenous slaves that African chiefs and slave dealers drew most of the men and women they sold to Europeans and Arabs sailing their ships along the continent's coasts.
“African slaves were spread throughout the Islamic world, and the Ottoman [Turkish] Empire enslaved other peoples as well. In India and other parts of Asia, tens of millions of farmworkers were in outright slavery, and others were peasants in debt bondage that tied them and their labor to a particular landlord as harshly as any slave was bound to a plan-tation owner in South Carolina or Georgia.
“Native Americans turned prisoners of war into slaves and sold them . . . In Russia, the majority of the population were serfs, often bought, sold, whipped, or sent to the army at the will of their owners. The era was one when, as the historian Seymour Drescher puts it, 'freedom, not slavery, was the peculiar institution'” (Hochschild, p. 2.)
Britain and the African slave trade
Slavery existed in Africa well before the arrival of the Europeans. “The Atlantic slave trade depended on the fact that most of the societies of Africa—chiefdoms and kingdoms large and small, even groups of nomads—had their own systems of slavery. People were enslaved as punishment for crimes, as payment for a debt, or, most commonly of all, as prisoners of war . . .
“Once European ships started cruising the African coast offering all kinds of tempting goods for slaves, kings and chiefs began selling their human property to African dealers who roamed far into the interior. Groups of captives, ranging from a few dozen to six or eight hundred, were force-marched to the coast, the prisoners' hands bound behind their backs, their necks connected by wooden yokes. Along the coast itself, a scattering of whites, blacks and mulattos worked as middlemen for the Atlantic trade” (Hochschild, p. 16).
And then William Wilberforce and his compatriots entered the picture. Driven by a resolute Christian morality, within a generation they persuaded the British government to outlaw slavery in 1807, when the slave trade was still enormously profitable. Playing a hugely important role, the British Royal Navy also served the cause, patrolling the coast of Africa for slave ships and freeing slaves wherever they encountered them. By the end of the century, slavery was outlawed nearly everywhere.
Britain's enthusiasm for ending the slave trade “led it to much greater involvement in African affairs. Additional colonies were acquired (Sierra Leone, 1808; Gambia, 1816; Gold Coast, 1821) to serve as bases for suppressing the slave trade and for stimulating substitute commerce.” This “contributed to the expansion of both its commercial and colonial empire” ( The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition, Macropedia, “Colonialism,” p. 892).
Certainly, many British people profited from the slave trade before its abolition, but the British Empire became much wealthier after the trade was ended. The abolition of the slave trade advanced the growth of the Empire as the British people, descendants of biblical Ephraim, were receiving the birthright promise of becoming “a multitude of nations” (Genesis 48:19; and see our free booklet The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy ). Many of the peoples of the new colonies would later serve alongside Britain in both world wars.
After the abolition of the slave trade, it took another 26 years to end slavery itself throughout the British Empire. The end of the four-year transition period coincided with Queen Victoria's ascension to the throne, giving the new queen a prestigious boost at the beginning of her 64-year reign.
One runaway slave fleeing the United States settled just outside of Windsor, Ontario, and founded an institute for others who followed. Josiah Henson's headstone bears a replica of Victoria's crown, in appreciation of the freedom he found within the British Empire, whose head was Victoria, whom he later met while on a visit to London. His autobiography was the inspiration for Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin.
America follows Britain's lead
A quarter-century later, America would also overturn its history of slavery. Some 365,000 mostly white males of British descent died fighting for the Union side in the American Civil War, enabling peoples of African descent to be free. No other nation sacrificed so many people for such a noble cause.
The United States, descended from the biblical Manasseh (again, see our free booklet), was to follow Great Britain as the world's dominant power. A history of both nations, written by historian Angus Calder, is appropriately titled Revolutionary Empire. The two branches of the Anglo-Saxon “empire,” the British Empire and the United States, were a fulfillment of the promises made to the patriarch Joseph's sons, by his father Israel (Genesis 48:15-19). They were to be a blessing to the world, as promised to their ancestor Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3).
It wasn't only on the high seas that the British were stamping out slavery. Toward the end of the 19th century the British high commissioner for Northern Nigeria, Frederick (later Lord) Lugard, made it a priority when administering the 300,000 square miles of his territory.
“In the south were pagan tribes and in the north, historic Muslim city-states with large walled cities whose emirs raided the tribal territories to the south for slaves … His policy was to support the native states and chieftainships, their laws and their courts, forbidding slave raiding and cruel punishments . . .” Lugard was “following the explorer David Livingstone's lead in fighting Arab slave raiders in eastern Africa” ( Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition, Macropedia, “Lord Lugard,” p. 176).
Slavery returns to Africa
Sadly the story doesn't end there. Once again, five decades after Britain gave its colonies independence, slavery is back in every single African nation, according to the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF).
“The trafficking of human beings is a problem in every African country, says UNICEF”, states an April 23, 2004, BBC News article. “The report, which covers 53 African nations, says children are the biggest victims in what is a very complex phenomenon. It describes how they are forced into slavery, recruited as child soldiers or sold into prostitution. In Africa, children are twice as likely to be trafficked as women.”
The report “found that 89% of the countries had trafficking to and from neighbouring countries, but 34% also had a human trade to Europe . . . Of the countries surveyed, 26% said trafficking was taking place to the Middle East.” Sadly, few voices are being raised in Africa calling for an end to this despicable trade.
The trade in human beings, which includes the sex trade, is now estimated to be the biggest business in the world, accounting for a full 10 percent of the world's total commerce. The biblical book of Revelation foretells an end-time trading system that includes trafficking in “the bodies and souls of men” (Revelation 18:13).
Clearly, the world is long overdue for another William Wilberforce and another nation to take the initiative in ending the modern-day slave trade as Great Britain did 200 years ago. GN

You might also be interested in...

“Trump Is Our ‘Hail Mary Pass,’ Our Last Desperate Attempt To Salvage Something Of What America Was Before The Whirlwind Destroys The Last Of It”

An interesting article from http://www.vdare.com about Donald Trump's candidacy. This follows this post about Bernie Sanders and visas. This follows this post about Hillary Clinton's open borders. This follows this post about this year's black vote. Remember, “Amnesty” means ANY non-enforcement of existing immigration laws! This follows this comment and this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! Also, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
Please follow me here.


Donald Trump speaks during the National Rifle Association's annual meeting in Nashville, Tennessee

“Trump Is Our ‘Hail Mary Pass,’ Our Last Desperate Attempt To Salvage Something Of What America Was Before The Whirlwind Destroys The Last Of It”


In late January, “crunchy conservative” journalist Rod Dreher took a stab at understanding the disconnect between the conservative “elites” [ha, ha—oops, I mean “sic”] and the long-suffering Generic American Party grassroots.  Writing in The American Conservative (Trump & the Conservative Intelligentsia, January 23, 2016), Dreher got to the nub of his quandary with these four paragraphs:
Conservative elites—GOP leaders, donors, journalists and others—are in the heat of battle now. I certainly understand why they feel that they don’t have the luxury of going all introspective at this moment. But at some point very soon they (again, we) should all ask ourselves why none of us saw Trump coming, and what that says about how out of touch we are with the conservative-leaning people of this country.
Last summer, as my father lay dying, I sat by his hospital bed watching a Trump rally in Mobile with him and my mother. I listened to the things Trump was saying, and thought it was absurd, and surely the American people would wake up to the demagoguery. But my parents liked what he had to say. Trump’s words resonated with their own thoughts and experiences.
You know what? They might have been wrong in their political judgment. I believe they were. The point here is not that my parents were wrong and I was right. The point is that I could not grasp how anybody could believe what Trump was saying. Nobody I knew from my circle of intellectual conservatives could grasp it either. We assumed it would evaporate. And here we are, on the verge of the Iowa caucuses, with Trump poised to sweep to the nomination.
Trump voters may be blind, but so are we who did not see him coming, or foresee the political, economic, and cultural conditions that produced him.
Dreher then ruminated, unmemorably, about the quandary before reaching an unmemorable, split-the-differences conclusion.  But apparently a reader’s comment later induced him to extend the article.  The comment, by “Borachio,” strikes me as just right:
As an intellectually serious conservative who supports Trump, I’ll tell you the problem with “intellectually serious conservatism” as practiced on K Street, Wall Street, and the various precincts of power and money:
It’s a pack of lies.
Establishment conservatism is just an ideological smokescreen to camouflage the pauperization and dispossession of the American middle class for the benefit of a kakistocracy at the top and various special-interest client classes at the bottom.
My support for Trump is not based on his being an intellectually serious conservative, which he obviously isn’t.
I’m not sure if Trump can help our country. However, I DO know for sure that none of the establishment-approved candidates will do anything but enrich themselves and their friends at the expense of what is still the American majority.
Trump is our Hail Mary pass, our last desperate attempt to salvage something of what America was before the whirlwind destroys the last of it.
VDARE.com’s Peter Brimelow made the same point—Trump? Maybe/ Everyone else? NO—in his talk at the recent American Renaissance conference, as quoted in the conference report:
[C]an [Trump] be trusted if he wins? “Absolutely not,” said Mr. Brimelow. “No politician can be trusted.” The important difference is that we know exactly what the other candidates would do, whereas there is at least some uncertainty with Trump.
A month ago, Ted Cruz supporter Andrew McCarthy wrote at PJ Media that actually Trump is the most pro-amnesty candidate (Where Would Trump Be If He Had Run as What He Is: the Amnesty Candidate?, May 2, 2016).  That might seem startling, but McCarthy was, with some justice, keying on Trump’s casual remarks in mid-February favoring what amount to a “touchback” amnesty, a la former Republican Congressman Mike [Immigration Goober] Pence, now governor of Indiana; NumbersUSA’s Roy Beck analyzed Trump’s utterances on the subject—and invoked Pence’s disastrous and instructive experience with his touchback proposal—at the time.
I think the conclusion regarding Trump and immigration must be that he actually knows almost nothing about the (admittedly vast) subject, so he’s really no different on that score from the vast majority of our beloved politicians and of our inspiring fellow citizens.  (The exceptions to this rule among national politicians can probably be counted on, at most, two hands: Senator Jeff Sessions, Congressman Steve King, Congressman Lou Barletta, Congressman Lamar Smith, Congressman Louie Gohmert, …)
511nk5odwLL._SY344_BO1204203200_-198x300[1]But Trump, crucially, has read Ann Coulter’s essential, civilization-rescuing book, ¡Adios America!.
So America’s future may well rest on Trump and a Hail-Mary-pass of an election.  All in all, I’m glad to be 67 …