Monthly Archives: June 2019

5G Network Is For Self-Driving Vehicle´s. American People To Be Put In A Internet Of Things Digital Gulag.


Will 5G be necessary for self-driving cars?

By Mary-Ann RussonBusiness reporter

September 27, 2018

Proponents of 5G say it will offer ultra-fast connections, speedier data downloads, and be able to handle millions more connections than 4G mobile networks can cope with today. One use for 5G is self-driving cars, but will they really need it?

The telecoms industry envisions autonomous cars equipped with hundreds of sensors collecting and receiving information all at once over a network.

It calls this concept “Vehicle-to-everything” (V2X).

To achieve this, the car needs to detect blind spots and avoid collisions with people, animals or other vehicles on the road.

As the car drives, its sensors will pick up information about:

weather and road conditions


obstacles and objects moving near the car

Once the information is gathered, either an on-board computer will make an instant decision, or the data could be sent into the cloud to be processed, and then a decision would be sent back to the vehicle.


Smarter than humans

Imagine a scenario where Car A is travelling down a highway at 80mph. Suddenly, Car B pulls out in front of Car A.

To avoid an accident, the sensors on both cars would need to talk to each other. As a result, Car A would brake, and Car B would speed up, in order to avoid a collision.

“We need to look at how long it takes for the message to be transmitted between sensors and then get to the computer in each car, and then how long it takes for the computer to make a decision, and all of this has to be in less time than a human would take to make a decision – 2 milliseconds,” Jane Rygaard, of Finnish tech firm Nokia, tells the BBC.

“We need a network supporting this, and 5G is that network.”

UK national mapping agency Ordnance Survey agrees: “When you switch a light on, it turns on immediately. That’s what you need with autonomous cars – if something happens, the car needs to stop immediately. That’s why the high frequency 5G signals are required.”

But it’s not just about the car itself – technology firm Ericsson says that in the event of a major disaster, or severe congestion around a football stadium, authorities could send instant alerts to autonomous cars, warning them to use alternative routes instead.

Ericsson has conducted tests in Stockholm, Sweden with car manufacturer Volvo and truck maker Scania, using a counter-terrorism scenario whereby police were able to disable a hijacked connected truck or prevent it from entering certain geo-fenced locations.

Levels of automation

US engineering organisation SAE International has set out six categories of automation for cars:

Level Zero: not automated at all

Level One: some driver assist features

Level Two: car can accelerate and steer by itself, but driver must pay attention

Level Three: car can drive by itself on safe road conditions under 37 mph, but driver is still needed

Level Four: car can drive completely by itself, but only within a well-mapped area

Level Five: car can drive completely by itself, over any terrain, anywhere in the world

Research firm Gartner expects Level Three and Level Four autonomous vehicles to begin appearing in late 2018 in very small numbers, and by 2025, it expects that there will be more than 600,000 autonomous vehicles on the roads worldwide.


Millimetre wave antennas

Ordnance Survey says autonomous vehicles are possible with 5G, but initially, they will only be able to run in a well-mapped geographic area, such as a densely populated city.

The government agency is building a detailed 3D map of the UK that visualises all permanent fixtures like buildings, street signs and bridges, as well as temporary objects like Christmas decorations, cranes and hanging flower baskets – all of which could affect the strength of the 5G signal a car receives as it drives by.

In order for autonomous cars to simultaneously connect to the mobile network, existing 4G mobile antennas on buildings will not be enough – there will need to be lots of smaller millimetre wave antennas, located 200-300m apart from each other.

“For every one mobile base station we have today, you’ll probably need 60 or 70 millimetre wave transmitters and receivers,” explains Richard Woodling, a managing consultant with the Ordnance Survey.

It is unlikely that fully-autonomous cars will be possible for a long time to come, but Ford is hoping to launch a Level Four car in 2021.

To this end, Ford is mapping the roads and environment in Miami.

It has developed simulation software to try to predict all possible situations that a car might find itself in, so that it can eliminate unsafe outcomes.

But Mr Woodling is sceptical that an autonomous car in a city will be ready so soon.

“I don’t see it happening in my lifetime,” he says. “There’s no way you could put that in London and say we’re ready for everyone to have an autonomous vehicle – we’re a long way away from that.


5G or Wi-Fi?


Some people in the industry argue that self-driving cars don’t need 5G.

Since the automobile industry is already making connected cars today that use 4G to access weather and road updates, 5G critics say it can continue to use 4G, together with Wi-Fi protocols.

“Self-driving cars have to be completely safe and reliable without mobile coverage, and if this is possible, then why do they need mobile coverage at all?” says Prof William Webb, a consultant and author of the book The 5G Myth: When vision decoupled from reality.

“I agree car-to-car communications would be sensible and enhance safety, but that communication is available now within Wi-Fi protocols or 4G.

“For car-to-car communications you don’t need a network – the cars connect directly to each other.”

Enrico Salvatori, president of Qualcomm Europe, whose chipsets are already being used by 33 automobile makers worldwide, strongly disagrees with Prof Webb.

“Wi-Fi can address short-range communications, but V2X includes vehicle to the network, to the city, to the cloud, so you need to have a standard that is including all the possible applications end-to-end,” he tells the BBC.


“It needs to be able to connect to any distance, near or far.”

Ford says that it sits somewhere in the middle of these two sides of the argument.

“We were previously proponents of the Wi-Fi protocol because it was the only technology available at the time,” explains Ford’s executive director for connected vehicle platform and product Don Butler.

“We do believe that a mobile approach to vehicle-to-vehicle communications is a better alternative than Wi-Fi.”

Research firm Gartner agrees 5G will have an impact on self-driving cars, but there’s a catch.

“5G will indeed be essential to the development and use of autonomous vehicles, with two important caveats – the network must truly be 5G, and the vehicle must truly be autonomous,” Gartner analyst Will Hahn.

“Neither of these appear to be likely in the near term.”

People Who Support Gay Pride Movement Also Support Marxist Family Planning Methods.


Americans Buy Into Marxist Family Planning.

By Paul Kengor
JUNE 29, 2015

Marx and Engels’ ten-point plan for imposing Communism includes drastic anti-family measures many Americans support today.

If you’ve never read “The Communist Manifesto” by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, published in 1848, you should—especially right now.

To be sure, reading this awful screed against human nature can be confusing, let alone unsatisfying and thoroughly unedifying. What do the authors mean, for example, when they screech: “Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists”?

What, precisely, Marx and Engels meant by “abolition” is a subject for debate, which I detail in my book, “Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage.” There, I discuss at length the communist founding fathers’ disturbing views of family, marriage, sexuality, and more.

They are but one stop in a long line of leftists such as Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Alexandra Kollontai, Margaret Sanger, Margaret Mead, Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse, Betty Friedan, Kate Millett, the Bolsheviks, the Frankfurt School of cultural Marxists, Mao Tse-Tung, assorted ’60s radicals from Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn to Mark Rudd and Tom Hayden, and on to modern groups like the Beyond Marriage campaign and various gay-marriage activists—all just for starters—who have engaged in a long march to fundamentally transform natural, traditional, biblical marriage and the family.

Although they varied in their beliefs, all bristle at the idea of a God or absolute designer who has devised eternally established standards for male-female marriage and family. Communists today, in places like People’s World, at the website of Communist Party USA, and even in once militantly anti-gay places like Castro’s Cuba, are embracing same-sex marriage as the long-awaited vehicle they’ve sought for centuries to reshape, redefine, and take down natural-traditional-biblical marriage—and to attack religion and religious believers. They are beside themselves in a mix of befuddlement and joy to see the mainstream culture finally with them, at long last, in one of their numerous efforts to redefine family and marriage.

This is not say, of course, that you’ll find support for same-sex marriage in the writings of Marx and Engels. Please. Don’t be silly. No group of radicals ever in the 2,000-year sweep of the Judeo-Christian West ever contemplated that. The mere fleeting contemplation, the mere momentary notion, the slightest passing fancy of a man legally marrying another man (with widespread cultural acceptance) in the 1850s or 1950s, or as recently as the 1980s or 1990s, would have been scoffed at as inanely incomprehensible.

Marx and Engels’ Hatred for Family

Nonetheless, along the road that prodded civilization toward this historically extreme spot, some influential forces emerged on the far Left that cannot and should not be ignored. Among certain elements was a pronounced sexual radicalism that arguably helped surface the road, or at least broke the ground. One such element was the neo-Marxists of the Frankfurt School, which had an especially strong impact upon American universities, particularly in the 1960s.
‘Blessed is he who has no family,’ Marx wrote to Engels.

But that would come later, a century after Marx and Engels. For this article, let’s stick with Marx and Engels. I cannot here reiterate what requires many pages to detail, but, in short, Marx and Engels were no great fans of marriage and family. “Blessed is he who has no family,” Marx wrote to Engels, where he was at best joking (funny, eh?).

Their final semi-partnership was an 1884 book published by Engels a year after Marx’s death. Titled, “The Origin of the Family,” Engels in the preface makes clear that the book reflected Marx’s views. Engels there stated that Marx had wanted to undertake this particularly important work and had produced extensive extracts up until his death, which Engels had reproduced in the book “as far as possible.” In fact, many of the ideas in “The Origin of the Family” can be found in the first joint work by Marx and Engels, “The German Ideology,” which was not published during their lifetimes. Scholars of the work are certain that “The Origin of the Family” was essentially a joint work of the two founders of Marxism, one scholar calling it “an impressive unity and continuity over four decades in the basic outlines of their thoughts.”

There, and elsewhere, we see, among other things, a fanatical push to abolish all right of inheritance, to end home and religious education, to dissolve monogamy in marriage, to pursue pre- and extra-marital sex, to foster and “tolerate” (as Engels put it) the “gradual growth of unconstrained sexual intercourse” by unmarried women, to nationalize all housework, to shift mothers into factories, to move children into daycare nurseries, to separate children into community collectives apart from their natural parents, and, most of all, for society and the state to rear and educate children.

As Engels envisioned, “the single family ceases to be the economic unit of society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and education of the children becomes a public affair; society looks after all children alike, whether they are legitimate or not.”

Communists’ Ten-Point Plan for Erasing Families

Some of these ideas were already emerging in “The Communist Manifesto.” There, Marx and Engels included a shocking but telling 10-point plan for their new ideal of humanity. Here it is, in direct quotation:

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Abolition of all right of inheritance.

Confiscation of all property of emigrants and rebels.

Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Equal obligation of all to work….
… gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.

Free education for all children in public schools…

That is what The Communist Manifesto really says, and, worse, desired for not one country but the whole world. It is a prescription, obviously, for despotism, as Marx himself conceded, prefacing his ten points: “Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads.”

Marxism was not hijacked by despots; Marxism demanded despots. Only a fool would not instantly, intuitively realize that implementing this vision would necessarily generate mass bloodshed. This is why, I imagine, most Marxist professors dare not have students read “The Communist Manifesto.” Their students tell me all the time: “‘The Communist Manifesto’ is actually a pretty good book with good ideas if you simply take the time to read it.” My response: “Really, have you read it? I have.” That response always elicits a blank stare.

But back to the point on marriage and family. Note that severalof these ten points in the Marx-Engels plan would directly impact the family. Look at points one, two, three, nine, and ten. Among them, just a few highlights and comments.

How Communism Destroys Families

Note the call in point three to terminate “all right of inheritance.” Marx and Engels saw inheritance as a menace that perpetuated the role of traditional family. How could a classless society guarantee equality of income when some persons at birth were unjustly handed more income from their parents than others?

How could a classless society guarantee equality of income when some persons at birth were unjustly handed more income from their parents than others?

This is ironic, given that both Marx and Engels existed and operated off Engels’ inheritance, which subsidized their work, especially after Marx sucked as much money as he could from his own financially drained parents, who were very bitter at how he exploited them. Marx’s relationship to his parents was plainly parasitic. Marx’s mom openly expressed the wish that Karl stop writing about capital and start accumulating some of it for him and his family. Nonetheless, there was their recommendation: abolish all right of inheritance.

Of course, inheritance was about private property, which Marx and Engels despised. In fact the central goal of “The Communist Manifesto” is just that. The authors summed up: “the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”

Point nine in the ten-point plan of Marx and Engels called for “gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.” This obviously and painfully affected families. For Communist regimes in nations like Cambodia, this “gradual abolition” took the form of immediate overnight mass deportations at the tip of automatic rifles, a sickeningly drastic action that was vividly captured in the 1984 film “The Killing Fields.”

Separate Children and Parents

Another who took this advice to extremes was Leonid Sabsovich, the leading Soviet urban planner under Lenin and Stalin. In a series of influential writings published by the Kremlin in the late 1920s, Sabsovich argued for a total separation of children from parents starting in the earliest years of child development. Sabsovich excoriated those who disagreed. Those who found his suggestion of full child-parent separation unnatural and unwelcome were unprogressive cretins “soaked in petit bourgeois and ‘intelligentsia-like’ prejudices.” They were bigots. Likewise befitting a diehard leftist, he advocated absolute state power to steamroll those in his way.

Leonid Sabsovich argued for a total separation of children from parents starting in the earliest years of child development.

Sabsovich insisted that because the child should be and was the property of the state, rather than the family, the state had the right to compel parents to turn over their offspring to specially designed “children’s towns.” These towns needed to be built “at a distance from the family.” Such extreme family proposals by this urban communist would be incorporated within his plans for creating the ideal “socialist city.”

Finally, and briefly, look at point ten in the grand plan of Marx and Engels: They wanted “free education” for every child in “public schools.” No more of what they denounced as the “hallowed correlation of parent and child” and “bourgeois claptrap about the family and education.” Overall, stated Marx and Engels, “The communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional relations; no wonder that its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.”

Yes, no wonder.

Among those ideas, at the epicenter, was natural, traditional, biblical family and marriage. It had to be targeted. Alas, only now, two centuries later, is it finally being redefined. In perhaps the most radical rapture of all, those pushing the redefinition are not crackpot German atheistic philosophers in European cafes but everyday mainstream Americans, Mr. and Mrs. Mainstreet.

What they are not only advocating but vigorously and often militantly pushing is the most radical rupture of traditional relations of all—so radical that Marx and Engels would be dumbfounded at the mere thought of where America and the West stand today on same-sex marriage. We are breaking entirely new ground in the long, long sweep of human history, and the groundbreakers act as if it is no big deal whatsoever; to the contrary, they portray those against gay marriage as the extremists, and, of course, as the “hatemongers.”

This is an especially exciting time for extreme leftists. They are no doubt dizzied by their success and, even more so, by their unexpected allies in the mainstream culture. They are genuinely transforming human nature. And they are doing it with the unwitting support of a huge swath of oblivious citizens. It has been a long time coming.

The War To Destroy Christianity In America.

Written by Troy Anderson
Tuesday, 04 June 2019

In his new book Dark Agenda: The War to Destroy Christian America, New York Timesbest-selling author David Horowitz wrote that the liberal establishment and their radical allies envision a “godless, heathen American society” in which Christianity is banished.

Their success, he argues, could destroy the very fabric of America’s political order and culture. He warns that the rising attacks on Christians and their beliefs threaten all Americans — including Jews such as himself — because these are attacks on the founding principles of America.

“Since its birth in the fires of the French Revolution, the political left has been at war with religion, and with the Christian religion in particular,” wrote Horowitz, a former 1960s radical-turned-conservative and president of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

“In a symbolic, revolutionary act, the Jacobin leaders of the French Revolution changed the name of the Cathedral of Notre Dame to the ‘Temple of Reason.’ Then, in the name of ‘reason,’ they proceeded to massacre the inhabitants of the Vendee region of west central France because its citizens were Catholics.”

Considered the first modern genocide, it was far from the last. Inspired by this hatred, revolutionaries have regarded religion as the “enemy of progress and the mask of oppression” ever since, Horowitz wrote.

In Russia, socialist revolutionary Karl Marx’s followers scrubbed religious teaching from the schools, forbade criticism of atheism, and burned over 10,000 churches. When priests demanded freedom of religion, they were executed. Between 1917 and 1935, 130,000 Russian Orthodox priests were arrested, 95,000 of whom were shot by firing squads.

“Radicals in America today don’t have the political power to execute religious people and destroy their houses of worship,” Horowitz wrote. “Yet they openly declare their desire to obliterate religion. In their own minds, their intentions are noble — they want to save the human race from the social injustice and oppression that religion allegedly inflicts on humanity. ‘Religion must die in order for mankind to live,’ proclaimed left-wing commentator and comedian Bill Maher in Religulous, the most-watched documentary feature of 2008.”

Frank Gaffney, president and chief executive officer of Save the Persecuted Christians coalition, told The New American that the coalition has been making the case since it was formed in January 2018 that the persecution of Christians in other parts of the world is a “precursor to what can happen closer to home if we’re not careful, and if we don’t do a better job than we have to date in trying to stop” persecution around the world.

“That said, obviously what’s happening in the United States at the moment is nowhere near what is taking place in Nigeria or China or parts of the Middle East where people are being routinely brutalized, tortured, raped, sold into slavery, murdered, even on a genocidal scale,” Gaffney says.

“But I’ve been in any number of meetings where public interest law firms have described what is happening in case after case after case after case that is clearly on the leading edge of kind of a targeted effort to make the lives difficult of people who are practicing Christianity. They are doing things that their faith calls them to do but are not approved of by whoever it is that is suing them or getting the government to prosecute them.”

Is Persecution Coming to America? 

At a time when experts say 245 million Christians worldwide are experiencing severe persecution, Christian communicators at the recent National Religious Broadcasters “Proclaim 19” convention in Anaheim, California, said Christians in America are facing increasing “soft” persecution and restrictions on religious freedom.

“It’s gotten a lot worse,” Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, told The New American. “I think it’s part of a change of attitude in our society, which is one of hostility toward the gospel. In the past, our society was either accepting toward the gospel or complacent with the gospel culturally.”

“But now we have large parts of America where people openly despise the gospel and see church people as symbols of hatred. They feel they are doing a good and righteous thing by attacking and silencing people preaching the gospel. To me it’s not just uncomfortable, but they see it as an affront to their lifestyles and their very self-identity.”

One of the most egregious examples involves multiple arrests of ministers preaching the gospel in public places.

The Apostle Paul would have had a difficult time in the United States preaching the “good news” because so many ministers have been arrested in recent years for preaching in public places, Dacus says.

“In the past, if someone would preach the gospel on a public sidewalk, some people may not like their particular style, but they were never arrested,” Dacus says. “But now criminal arrests for public preaching have become very common.”

Over the last few years, the Pacific Justice Institute has successfully defended 12 individuals who were criminally prosecuted for public preaching. In two other cases, the legal defense organization did not prevail and has filed appeals.

“In one case out of San Diego the man was preaching, and he mentioned a whole bunch of sins,” Dacus says. “Well, because one of the [Bible] verses mentioned was homosexual conduct, the police were called, and he had criminal charges brought against him for attempting to incite violence and hate speech.”

Initially, the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office would drop the charges only if Dacus’ client was willing to go to an LGBT reorientation program, Dacus says.

“I mean that’s the way George Orwell’s 1984 book ends — the exact same way,” he says. “And our client said, ‘No.’ We were prepared for trial. The day before the trial the DA dropped the charges. That’s their tactic. These aren’t accidental. These criminal cases are dragged on — usually until the day of or the day before the actual trial.”

Dacus’ remarks come as a new report by the Pew Research Center finds 50 percent of Americans say evangelical Christians are discriminated against in the United States, up from 42 percent in 2016. Nearly one in five — 18 percent — say evangelicals, who constitute about a quarter of America’s population, face “a lot” of discrimination.

Religious Freedom Under Fire 

This discrimination is taking many forms.

Across the “land of the free,” according to the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), religious freedom is under fire. Some recent cases, according to the ADF, include:

In Idaho, ordained ministers Don and Lynn Knapp, who were threatened by the City of Coeur d’Alene with fines and jail time for declining to officiate same-sex weddings at their wedding chapel.

After cake artist Jack Phillips politely declined a same-sex couple’s request to design a cake to celebrate their wedding, a Colorado civil rights commissioner stated at a hearing that religious freedom is a ‘despicable piece of rhetoric’ that slave owners, Nazis, and Jack used ‘to hurt others.’ He was also ordered to stop ‘discriminating,’ ‘reeducate’ his staff, and file quarterly compliance reports.

Five pastors in Houston, Texas, had their sermons and personal communications with churchgoers subpoenaed as part of a campaign by the mayor to silence them on important moral issues.

In California, Dacus says, a “new education framework, which states across the country are considering adopting, is hostile to children from Christian families.”

In the past, parents could opt their children out of sex-education courses in schools, Dacus says. But California lawmakers recently approved the California Healthy Youth Act, requiring a “pro-LGBT indoctrination curriculum that on its face parents cannot opt out of,” Dacus says.

“It’s totally divergent from a biblical, Christian worldview,” he says. “The spiritual casualties from this kind of indoctrination are horrific, but it gets worse. The new education framework will have children from kindergarten through third grade taught story books like Princess Boy where it teaches children it’s okay for them to be a boy on the inside but be a girl on the outside. Transgender persons putting on presentations to these young children with a worldview totally divergent from the Christian worldview is already in process and becoming commonplace with this new framework.”

Further, the California Department of Education is proposing a curriculum that recommends using Planned Parenthood personnel to teach students about sexual health. As part of this curriculum, students would be taught to view religious boundaries of sexual activity as “spiritual abuse,” Dacus says.

“It would authorize the removal of a child from a family, a religious family, that constrained the sexual relationships that their children wish to have,” Dacus says. “This is curriculum [that] is in [the] process of being adopted and proposed in other states as well, but California is leading the way.”

Meanwhile, Dacus says, he’s seen a purging of college professors with Christian worldviews in recent years.

College campuses used to be the marketplace of ideas. Now, public colleges and universities are becoming the “most repressive places in the country” when it comes to sharing and living the Christian faith, Dacus says.

“An example of that are universities setting up little, six-by-six-foot free speech zones to attempt to limit where students can share their faith,” he says.

Christians have also faced discrimination on social media, Dacus says.

“The Big Tech companies have been blatant in their hostility and silencing of Christian biblical worldviews and have limited organizations and ministries,” Dacus says. “We’ve seen a number of cases of organizations, including our own, that at times have suffered from such blatant, hostile discrimination against those customers with religious messaging and biblical worldviews.”

One of the primary drivers behind this larger phenomenon of discrimination against Christians is the “LGBT agenda,” Dacus says.

“The LGBT agenda has become very hostile to traditional Christianity and those who believe in the teachings of the Bible,” Dacus says. “Christians and the biblical worldview are what stand in the way of total sexual transformation in the United States.”

Recently, the ADF and others have expressed concerns about the proposed “Equality Act.” H.R. 5, if passed, would amend the Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, and public education. The ADF says it “poses a devastating and unprecedented threat to religious freedom.”

The act adds “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected classes to existing nondiscrimination laws, the ADF’s Sarah Kramer wrote.

This would prohibit employers, individuals who rent out apartments in their homes, preschools, and even religious schools and organizations from making choices based on biology, bodily privacy, and their beliefs about the nature of marriage.

The act would force women to share private spaces with men, Kramer wrote. The act would also open shower facilities, restrooms, and locker rooms to members of the opposite sex in schools and churches.

“Essentially, the ‘Equality Act’ gives people of faith an ultimatum: Change your faith-based practices or face government punishment,” Kramer wrote.

Stephen Black, executive director of First Stone Ministries in Oklahoma City, told The New American that the Equality Act would put “LGBT on the same level equal to race and gender.”

“As an ordained Christian minister this is intolerable in being able to preach the Bible because what H.R. 5 would do is it would — bottom line — make Christian speech and proclaiming the truth about homosexuality, or any form of sexual sin and brokenness, criminalized,” Black says. “You wouldn’t be able to preach against it because it would be considered hate speech.”

Stigmatizing Opponents

In Dark Agenda, Horowitz explains that the Left likes to label its political opponents as “phobic” and divides America into two kinds of people — those who care about gay rights, minorities, and other victim groups and “un-American ‘deplorables’ who hate and oppress society’s victims.”

“Stigmatizing one’s opponents is a classical radical tactic,” Horowitz wrote. “That is why radicals paint their political opponents as homophobes, xenophobes, and Islamophobes.”

“According to the Left, in other words, people who oppose abortion and same-sex ‘marriage’ have a kind of mental illness…. Calling critics ‘phobic’ is a rationale for denying their First Amendment rights. Shouts of ‘No free speech for homophobes or Islamophobes’ are already heard from leftists on college campuses. Or, to put them all in one fearful basket: ‘No free speech for fascists.’”

Ironically, by suppressing the First Amendment rights of Christians and labeling them as “fascists,” the Left are themselves becoming fascists and following the example of their Jacobin predecessors in the French Revolution.

Christianity Under Attack – U.S. Fake News Media Refuses To Cover The Persecution.

download (18)

A Dangerous Time To Be Christian
Written by Troy Anderson
Tuesday, 04 June 2019

Though its incidence is not shared by major media, violence — including torture and murder — against Christians around the world is at historic levels.

This past Easter will live in infamy — as an omen and wake-up call for global Christendom and Western civilization.

At a time when many of the world’s 2.5 billion Christians were celebrating the resurrection of their crucified savior Jesus Christ, two shocking events just days apart sent reverberations around the world.

First, a few days before Easter, the world watched as the iconic Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris was largely consumed in flames. In an article the following day, nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Dennis Prager captured the tragic irony of the disaster. “The symbolism of the burning of Notre Dame Cathedral, the most renowned building in Western civilization, the iconic symbol of Western Christendom, is hard to miss,” Prager wrote in his column “Notre Dame: An Omen.”

“It is as if God Himself wanted to warn us in the most unmistakable way that Western Christianity is burning — and with it, Western civilization.”

A few days later, on Easter Sunday, over 250 people were killed, including nearly 50 children, when three Christian churches and three luxury hotels in Sri Lanka were targeted in a series of coordinated Islamic terrorist bombings.

“What you have in these kinds of events are people who have a radical agenda who want to attack churches, attack Christians, and destroy the freedom of religious expression of Christians,” David Curry, president and chief executive officer of Open Doors USA, told The New American.

“This attack on these churches, by the way, is not rare. It’s happening regularly in various parts of the world where Christian churches are attacked, not just on Easter, but many times throughout the year. It’s based on this radical idea that they think Christians are infidels and they want to eradicate them.”

This attack on Christians, among the worst in modern history, came amid reports that persecution of Christ’s followers globally is worse today “than at any time in history.”

Not only are Christians more persecuted than any other faith group, but ever-increasing numbers are experiencing the very worst forms of persecution, according to the authors of a study by Aid to the Church in Need.

“There is a war being waged against the world’s Christians and unfortunately American Christians have been lulled or shamed into silence while secular and progressive voices in media and our own government have sought to keep us in the dark about the brutal, worldwide war being waged against Christianity in a growing and record number of countries,” Dede Laugesen, executive director of Save the Persecuted Christians (STPC) coalition, said at the recent National Religious Broadcasters “Proclaim 19” convention in Anaheim, California.

“Rest assured, the cake baker here in the United States, the 15-year-old school girl being held by jihadists as a slave for life in Nigeria, and the imprisoned North Korean being slowly starved to death for the crime of being Christian, are casualties of the same brutal war that has been festering for centuries. This war, most accurately, a war between love and hate, a war between good and evil, is raging and spreading like a wildfire left to burn uncontrolled.”

All this has occurred, Laugesen continued, as the citizens of the only nation in the world built upon the principles of Christian love and justice, are safely sleeping in a “carefully constructed bubble of ignorance and distraction.”

This may be the most dangerous time in history to be a Christian. 

“More Christians have died for their faith over the last 100 years than in all prior centuries since Jesus’ time,” Laugesen says.

An April 2019 study commissioned by the United Kingdom’s Foreign Office echoed this assessment, noting Christians are “by far the most persecuted” religious group and are experiencing what amounts to genocide in some parts of the world.

“The eradication of Christians and other minorities on pain of ‘the sword’ or other violent means was revealed to be the specific and stated objective of extremist groups in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, north-east Nigeria and the Philippines,” Bishop of Truro Reverend Philip Mounstephen wrote. “An intent to erase all evidence of the Christian presence was made plain by the removal of crosses, the destruction of Church buildings and other Church symbols…. Where these and other incidents meet the tests of genocide, governments will be required to bring perpetrators to justice, aid victims and take preventative measures for the future.”

“The main impact of such genocidal acts against Christians is exodus. Christianity now faces the possibility of being wiped out in parts of the Middle East where its roots go back furthest. In Palestine, Christians number below 1.5 percent; in Syria the Christian population has declined from 1.7 million in 2011 to below 450,000 and in Iraq, Christian numbers have slumped from 1.5 million before 2003 to below 120,000 today.”

Pockets of Christianity Facing Extermination 

Today, according to Open Doors, which supports persecuted believers around the world, Christians are the most persecuted religious group on the planet.

While Christian persecution takes many forms, it is defined as any hostility experienced as a result of identification with Christ. The persecution of Christians is a serious issue for believers throughout the world, many of whom are beaten, tortured, beheaded, crucified, raped, imprisoned or enslaved, or wind up losing their livelihoods, homes, and assets as a result of their faith.

Trends show that countries in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa are intensifying persecution against Christians, and perhaps the most vulnerable are Christian women and girls, who often face sexual assault and double persecution for their faith and sex.

Each month, on average, 345 Christians are killed for faith-related reasons, 105 churches and Christian buildings are burned or attacked, and 219 Christians are detained without trial, arrested, sentenced, or imprisoned, according to Open Doors.

Today, nearly a quarter billion Christians experience high levels of persecution in the countries on Open Door’s World Watch List.

“It’s severe and we base that on the fact that there are more Christians being persecuted than ever before and the intensity is higher,” Curry says. “Sometimes it’s governments that are doing it, other times it’s non-state actors and radical groups like ISIS, and others. Persecution has been spiking for the last seven to eight years in record numbers and every year it seems to be getting more intense.”

Christians in a record number of countries are being subjected to brutal human rights abuses and even genocidal violence by authoritarian regimes and radical groups, according to STPC, a coalition of over 130 faith leaders and community influencers.

“There have been 26 million martyrs over the past 100 years which is more than the previous 1,900 years combined,” says Kevin Jessip, chairman of the Board of Directors of STPC, which endeavors to provide American policymakers with the popular support they need to effect real change worldwide and alleviate the suffering being experienced by so many of those following Christ.

“If you think of the worst atrocities in the history of the world — what Pol Pot did in Cambodia, what Adolf Hitler did in the Third Reich, what Joseph Stalin did in the Soviet Union, what Mao Tse-tung did in China — and if you put the numbers of people that they killed together, they would pale by comparison to the number of lives that are being destroyed — not in every case people being killed — but their lives are being destroyed around the world today,” says Frank J. Gaffney, president and chief executive officer of STPC and former deputy assistant secretary of defense for nuclear forces and arms control policy during the Reagan administration.

In 2018, Open Doors estimated there were 215 million Christians who were heavily persecuted — not just inconvenienced or suffering, but heavily persecuted, meaning tortured, raped, sold into slavery, crucified, murdered, expelled from their homes, and harmed in egregious ways, including genocide, Gaffney says.

“But their estimate [in 2019] is there are now 245 million Christians who are experiencing that kind of persecution,” he says.

One in Nine Christians Experiences High Levels of Persecution 

Globally, one in nine Christians experiences high levels of persecution, and Islamic oppression fuels Christian persecution in eight of the top 10 countries on Open Doors’ World Watch List.

Open Doors has identified many factors behind the increase in persecution, including the rise and spread of radical Islam.

“It’s more than just whether ISIS owns territories,” Curry says. “They don’t need territory to share their ideas. These ideas — first recognized in Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda — are now widely spread and it’s like a cancer that has metastasized.”

“That’s a driver that is still in place and it’s driving persecution in a number of countries in the world, so when you look at the top countries on the World Watch List, North Korea is number one, but then you jump to Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Pakistan, Sudan, Eritrea, Yemen, Iran. All those countries are driven by radical Islam. They have a radical ideology that wants to force Islamic belief on other people, attack Christians and restrict the rights of Christians.”

This means that for millions of Christians — particularly those who grew up Muslim — openly following Jesus can have painful consequences.

But it’s not just adherents of radical Islam that persecute Christians. For the first time since the start of the World Watch List over two decades ago, India has entered the top 10. Additionally, China jumped 16 spots, from 43 to 27.

Hindu nationalists in India continue to attack Christians with what seems like no consequences, and in China, the increased power of the government and the rule of Xi Jinping continue to make open worship difficult in some parts of the country, according to Open Doors.

And while the violent excesses of ISIS and other Islamic militants have mostly disappeared from headlines in the Middle East, their loss of territory there means the fighters have dispersed to a larger number of countries not only in the region but, increasingly, into sub-Saharan Africa.

“Despite broad-based agreement that people should not suffer for their faith, in spite of most of the world’s countries signing on with the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights, more than 80 percent of the world’s population lives in a religiously-restricted atmosphere,” Sam Brownback, the U.S. ambassador-at-large for International Religious Freedom, told hundreds of mostly Christian television and radio broadcasters at the NRB International Christian Media Convention.

“As I travel the world, I’m struck with stories of men and women who suffer restrictions, discrimination and persecution, yet their souls are beautifully crafted through pain. It is their voices that spur me on in our office and work, and I believe it is their voices that will help turn the tide of religious persecution around the world.”

Voices of the Persecuted

One of these voices is American Pastor Andrew Brunson, who spent a couple of years in a “nightmare prison” in Turkey until President Donald Trump intervened late last year.

Afterward, Brunson, who had been in Turkish custody since October 2016, returned to the United States. He was accused of being party to a failed coup attempt against Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, charges he denied.

Brunson’s imprisonment sparked a diplomatic conflict between the United States and Turkey, with Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Trump’s Twitter accounts all calling for Brunson’s release, while Erdoğan insisted on a prisoner exchange. Then, in October 2018, a Turkish court ordered Brunson’s release amid reports of a “secret deal.”

“President Trump got this done,” Brownback said. “I was pushing, pushing, but he just got fed up and said, ‘I’m going to slap these tariffs on, tank the economy, and wait for them to do the right thing.’ And they eventually did. No other president has ever put tariffs and sanctions on a fellow NATO ally, but this president did.”

While Brunson’s story has a happy ending, many of the believers imprisoned for their faith around the world face horrifying conditions.

Hea Woo, a pseudonym Open Doors created for a woman who spent time in North Korean prisons, lost her husband and daughter and narrowly escaped with her own life.

In 1997, amid a famine in North Korea, her daughter starved to death. Woo’s husband fled to China, where he became a Christian, but he was caught by the secret police and thrown in a North Korean prison. He died there.

It wasn’t long after that Woo also escaped to China. A short time later, she was also caught by the secret police, sent back to North Korea, and put in a prison camp. In an interview with Open Doors, she explained what the conditions were like:

“There were different parts within the prison,” Woo says. “Some [sectors] did agriculture, some did construction work, some did mining. Men and women were separated; all the inmates seemed like they were about to faint. They were all hopeless and in despair. And plus, they were starving. Each person received one handful of rotten corn [and] there was nothing else to eat.”

“We got something watery — it wasn’t even a soup. We got those as food for the whole year. Nothing else. And people are obligated to work more than cows or animals. Because everyone is forced to labor, people die from malnutrition. People died from accidents while working, too…. So many died — and there was no hope in the prison. All [inmates] were on the verge of death.”

Open Doors estimates about 250,000 people are suffering in North Korea’s “Nazi-style prison camps,” 50,000 of whom are imprisoned for their faith.

A 2017 report by the International Bar Association War Committee noted that a child survivor of the World War II concentration camp Auschwitz said the conditions in North Korea were as bad — or even worse — than what he experienced at the hands of the Nazis.

The report described routine public executions carried out in front of both children and adults, designed to “subdue the prison population.”

Dominic Sputo, director of STPC and author of Heirloom Love: Authentic Christianity in This Age of Persecution, visited persecuted believers in the Middle East several years ago and met a man who had been “shot by men with beards and machineguns for preaching the gospel.”

“The Lord miraculously healed him and when I arrived, I met him in the same place and he was still preaching the gospel,” Sputo says. “I was scared hanging out with him that day.”

Sputo went to his home and visited with him, his wife, and three children.

“It just etched something deeply in my spirit to see and meet with brothers and sisters who, for them, the normal Christian life is taking up the cross and denying themselves in ways that I never would have imagined,” Sputo says. “After I left them, a couple of weeks later, a brother in their church was clubbed to death on his driveway in front of his family. Another was shot in the back of the head.”

China and Social Credit Scores

The violent persecution of Christians in the Middle East and other parts of the world is just one aspect of the persecution that believers are experiencing globally.

In China, the world’s largest country, with 1.4 billion people, the nation’s rapidly growing Christian population has recently experienced serious persecution. China’s Communist Party is intensifying religious persecution of Christians, closing and demolishing churches, jailing pastors, and proposing a new state translation of the Bible that will establish a “correct understanding of the text.”

“Think about the 90 million Christians in China who are followers of Jesus who are now facing growing restrictions, having to deal with facial recognition technologies and having a social credit score,” Curry says.

“China is increasing the pressure and trying to force Christians into a ‘China first’ kind of idea — and that’s because there are now more Christians in China than the Communist Party, and they quickly realized they needed to control the Christian movement. So, they are starting to force unregistered churches to register with the government, allowing cameras to be posted in the churches and outside the churches, and trying to approve the theology and sermons of pastors.”

One of the biggest concerns among proponents of religious freedom involves China’s social credit scores that rate a person’s trustworthiness. In China, the government and private companies collect data about people’s finances, social-media activities, credit history, online purchases, health records, legal matters, tax payments, and the people they associate with — information gleaned from the nation’s hundreds of millions of surveillance cameras.

This data is used to determine citizens’ social credit scores. Generally, higher scores give people advantages, such as avoiding deposits on rental properties. Those with lower scores may find their ability to purchase a new house restricted or be prohibited from buying airline tickets.

“For a long time, China viewed Christians as a great part of society,” Curry says. “They taught a moral framework that the Chinese didn’t teach, drug use wasn’t as prevalent in the Christian population, and so they saw it as a valuable thing.” He added:

Now they see it as a threat to their communist system. The fear is that anybody with a low social credit score will be denied rights that others would otherwise have. Now that sounds like a new thing to us in the West, but this is what has happened in other places like North Korea where Christians are considered enemies of the state. They’re the last to get food in a famine and are put in labor camps, sometimes for up to three generations because their grandfather was a Christian or was found with a Bible.

Brownback says it’s “truly scary what is taking place” in China and could be exported to other countries.

“I saw a report recently that nearly 400 million security cameras are being deployed in China by the end of next year,” Brownback says. “And then there are the facial-recognition systems behind it to be able to recognize who is going into the church, who is going into a mosque, and then be able to sort through that data.”

“And now they have the social credit score system that they are saying is to make people better people, but it can also be used to remove you from your apartment, keep you from your job, and not allow your children in school. So, they’ve got these systems they’re developing as a security apparatus and are using artificial intelligence to sort through the data to really focus on persecuting people of faith, to marginalize you in society. How do you participate in society with this?”

Brownback says he’s concerned that China may sell the system to other countries, and those nations will be able to “use this system to put down populations that governments don’t like.”

“The Chinese Communist party does not trust its own people to allow them to choose their own path for their souls,” Brownback says. “There are over one billion souls at stake. It seems the Chinese government is at war with faith, and it is a war they will not win.”

“A War They Will Not Win”

In response, Brownback says, the Trump administration is committed to helping persecuted Christians throughout the world and is “pursuing this aggressively,” with economic sanctions on countries that persecute Christians and other measures.

“Religious freedom is a top foreign policy priority for this administration,” Brownback says. “We believe this is a universal and natural right. When I reflect on my own faith, I think about how God gave man the free will to choose to believe or not. That freedom is a beautiful one, a sacred right. If God has given man this freedom, how much more should governments leave it to their citizens this freedom to do with their own soul as they choose?”

Western media, many elected officials, and even some faith leaders have been silent for too long about this anti-Christian plague of oppression and death sweeping the globe. These crimes against humanity have thus festered and proliferated, according to the STPC.

To combat this, STPC ( is determined to raise America’s awareness of the plight of the world’s Christians and call them to join in a movement to hold the persecutors accountable and create real costs for their crimes. The group seeks not only to alleviate the suffering, but also to discourage and ultimately stop those responsible. The movement is bringing political pressure to bear on governments that are engaged as a matter of state policy in the persecution of Christians, on those who allow it to take place on their watch, and on those who persecute with impunity. One of the strategies STPC is encouraging the Trump administration to use, as it did with Turkey, involves the imposition of economic sanctions.

“The problem clearly isn’t being ameliorated just by trying to relieve some of the suffering,” Gaffney says. “Our theory is that’s because the persecutors don’t perceive any particular downside to doing what they’re doing. They see the upside — it’s good for the party, it’s good for the leader, it’s good for their service to Allah — whatever their particular rationale may be, but they just don’t see real costs associated with doing so. And our job, it seems to me, is to create those costs, to hold the persecutors accountable, and to create penalties for engaging in this kind of behavior.”

Many organizations in America and elsewhere, including Open Doors, are doing important work on behalf of persecuted Christians, helping feed, clothe, shelter, and otherwise help them. What is needed is more awareness on the part of the American faithful to drive charitable giving, and to apply political pressure to enact policy that will relieve the suffering, obtain justice for those harmed, and exact heavy costs on persecutors of Christians, according to STPC.

As part of this effort, STPC is building a movement such as one in the 1970s that helped free another population suffering from heavy persecution — Soviet Jews — to impel policy changes that will hold the persecutors accountable and increase the costs for their crimes against humanity. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union ruthlessly persecuted the religious, particularly those of the Jewish faith. However, in the 1970s, the “Save Soviet Jewry” campaign launched an effort that would one day help free the Soviet Union’s oppressed Jews. This campaign began with banners and signs outside synagogues and other houses of worship across America.

“Over time it developed into a powerful political force and a guy I happened to work for later by the name of U.S. Senator Henry ‘Scoop’ Jackson turned it into the kind of punitive sanctions on the Soviets that we’re talking about,” Gaffney says. “It was called the Jackson-Vanik Amendment and what it said was simply that the Soviets would not get most-favored nation status unless they let the Jews out and anybody else who wanted to go.”

President Ronald Reagan used “economic warfare against the Soviet Union decisively to not only free a lot of Jews, but hundreds of millions of other people who were enslaved in the Soviet empire, the ‘Evil Empire,’ as it was famously called.”

The same thing could happen today with persecuted Christians, Gaffney says.

At the first-ever Help the Persecuted Summit in Washington, D.C., in March, Vice President Pence said no people of faith face greater hostility or hatred than followers of Christ. “In Iraq, we see monasteries demolished, priests and monks beheaded, and the two-millennia-old Christian tradition in Mosul clinging for survival,” Pence said. “In Syria, we see ancient communities burned to the ground and believers tortured for confessing the name of Christ.”

“It’s heartbreaking to think that the Christian population in Syria has been cut in half in just the past six years, and many of those who remain have been displaced from their ancient homes. In Iraq, the followers of Christ have fallen by 80 percent in the past decade and a half.”

Like the “miracle” that helped free millions of Soviet Jews and others, Gaffney believes “another miracle is entirely possible.”

“Now maybe it’s not going to stop all the persecution all over the world,” he says. “Christ said that won’t happen, but we could alleviate it in any of the places where it’s currently happening, save lives — and save a few souls too.”

In addition, the group is lobbying Trump and Congress to serve notice that those responsible for persecution of Christians will jeopardize the benefits they garner from U.S. foreign aid, military sales, bilateral relations and the opportunity for the leaders of these countries, their family members, and citizens of their nations to visit the United States, go to college and maintain bank accounts in America.

Critics of America’s foreign policy in the Middle East have noted that the policies couldn’t be intentionally designed to do a better job of liquidating Christians.

Many of the Christians who have suffered and died have lived in countries that receive billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars every year. After trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives were sacrificed by the U.S. government over the last few decades intervening in the Middle East — the birthplace of Christianity — Christian communities now face genocide and serious persecution.

In many cases, U.S. taxpayers are either subsidizing the slaughter by distributing billions of dollars to oppressive regimes, or worse, helping to create the conditions that allow the persecution to happen in the first place.

In response, Gaffney says, STPC is urging Trump and Congress to withhold foreign aid from those nations that are persecuting believers.

“The point is that when Christians are persecuted in places around the world like these we find that they often feel as though they have been abandoned by the rest of us, which only further emboldens their persecutors,” Gaffney says. “So, I’m very pleased to say I’m leading an organization that aspires to become a movement that will change the calculus with these persons, not simply by helping people who are providing symptomatic relief to those suffering, but by holding the persecutors accountable and creating real costs for what they’re doing.”

SaveUs Banner 

The SaveUs movement asks houses of worship and concerned Americans to place a SaveUs banner in a prominent place to build awareness.

People can encourage their pastors to visit the STPC website and order a free banner to display in front of their houses of worship. These banners feature a graphic “SaveUs” plea with a cross and the coalition’s website where Americans can learn about the global persecution of Christians and find out what they can do to help stop the violence.

STPC also invites people and groups to host their traveling exhibit, “The People of the Cross.” This exhibit shows what millions of Christians are suffering.

In the summer of 2018, as a side event to the U.S. Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom, STPC debuted an exhibit at the U.S. Capitol that featured a series of more than 20 7-foot-by-32-inch vertical banners showing what millions of people experience simply because they follow Christ. Since then, the banners have toured the nation and been featured at 21 events in 10 states, reaching an audience of at least 14,500.

Also, with such staggering statistics, and the knowledge that most of these crimes are not covered in the media, STPC developed a special news aggregator — — to capture those present-day stories of persecution that do make the news and to provide STPC coalition members an easy way to share these heartbreaking stories with others.

Proof U.S. Colleges Are Nothing More Than Communist Front Organizations For Youth Indoctrination.

download (17)

College Tries to Destroy “White Privilege” Family — Instead Loses $44 Million Judgment

Written by Selwyn Duke

Saturday, 15 June 2019

Chalk one up for the deplorables. Imagine you’re victimized by a criminal who shoplifts from your store and who then, when you intervene, beats you with the help of two other men. Now imagine that though they end up pleading guilty and admitting you did no wrong, you’re targeted by their nearby college with defamation and for destruction. This is precisely what befell the owners of Gibson’s Bakery in Oberlin, Ohio. Yet this story has a happy ending (well, almost an ending): A jury has just awarded the Gibsons $44 million, to be paid by their tormentor, Oberlin College. (Five Gibsons are shown here with their attorney in the foreground.)

Gibson’s Bakery is a fifth-generation business established in 1885 and had long had contracts with the college. But this didn’t stop the institution of “higher learning” from taking the low road after the owner wouldn’t allow himself to be victimized by one of its students. American Greatness relatessome background:

The lawsuit stems from a November 2016 shoplifting incident in which a student tried to buy alcohol with a fake ID and shoplift items. He was chased from the store by Allyn D. Gibson. The two got into an altercation outside, and two more students joined [and beat Gibson]. The students are black, while the Gibsons are white. Following the incident, other students protested, alleging a pattern of racist behavior by the Gibsons….

The students involved in the shoplifting incident all pleaded guilty to misdemeanors, and stated their culpability in court while noting Gibson’s reaction was not racially motivated.

Despite the facts, the “college joined in with the protests against the business [and] severed its catering relationship with the bakery,” American Greatness further relates.

The school’s aggressiveness was reflected in the jury finding that “the school and Oberlin’s vice president and dean of students, Meredith Raimondo, [were] guilty of libel after Raimondo allegedly helped pass out flyers claiming that the bakery was ‘racist’ and had a history of ‘racial profiling and discrimination,’” reports Fox News.

This accusation was false. In fact, if it had been true, why would Oberlin have maintained its long relationship with the bakery?

“The jury also found that the college (not Raimondo) was guilty of intentional infliction of emotional distress for [sic] the owner, David Gibson, as well as libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress on his son,” Fox continues.

As a result, the jury awarded family members more than $11 million in actual or compensatory damages and, later, added $33.2 million in punitive damages. (Ohio law will likely limit the latter, however, to twice the $11 million figure.) Oberlin will have to pay the Gibsons’ legal fees as well.

If this seems extreme, realize how egregious the school’s behavior was. The Gibsons are hard-working, middle-American people who long woke up, probably in the wee hours, to bake goods for Oberlin’s students. Yet the school treated these victims like victimizers, participating in a pattern of destruction that forced the Gibsons to lay off most of their staff, stop taking salaries for two years, and almost go out of business.

Moreover, Oberlin then used their torments as leverage, at one point telling the Gibsons that they’d renew their lucrative contracts if the bakers dropped the charges against the criminal students (the contracts were eventually renewed, anyway). David Gibson’s post-verdict comments (video below) reflect the emotional distress the school inflicted.

Gibson praised the jury’s bravery, but his family deserves similar recognition. They could have bent to the blackmail but held firm — and beat a Goliath.

The school used every trick in the book, too. “Oberlin argued at trial that it isn’t liable because its students, not the college, were to blame for harming Gibson’s,” wrote Paul Mirengoff of Powerline. “Then, at the damages phase, Oberlin argued that the college shouldn’t be slammed with a big damages assessment because that outcome would harm its students.” (If the school is so concerned about them, perhaps it could lower the attendance costs — $71,330 annually.)

Note also when hearing Oberlin plead poverty that its endowment is $887.4 million and it has more than $1 billion in assets.

Unfortunately, the school is unrepentant and vows to appeal the verdict, in what may “turn out to be a lengthy and complex legal process,” as Oberlin’s president, Carmen Twillie Ambar, put it.

Ambar also states that “none of this will sway us from our core values.” But what might they be? What kind of “values” causes you to torment innocent victims with a hate hoax and seek their destruction? What values are represented by Dean Raimondo who, in emails released during the trial, “attacked her own colleagues who defended the Gibsons and discussed, quote, “unleashing the students on Gibson’s bakery,” as Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson reported Friday evening (video well worth watching below)?

Carlson’s guest, Cornell Law School professor Bill Jacobson, weighed in on those values. “[B]ecause of the crazed … so-called social-justice movement on our campuses,” he said, the Gibsons “were immediately designated an oppressor, in part because of their skin color, in part because they’re the owner of a business.” He said they were thus pigeonholed as “racists” and racial profilers — and no one cared about the facts.

This conclusion is inescapable. When innocent victims are viewed as unquestionably guilty, regardless of the facts — and those judging them aren’t making money off the persecution — prejudice is the only explanation.

Oberlin’s behavior reflected the vile “white privilege” racial ideology now status quo on college campuses. Leftists, who once trumpeted Martin Luther King’s enjoinment to judge others by the content of their character and not the color of their skin, have in their topsy-turvy, morally inverted world turned that on its head. White=guilty/black=innocent was all Oberlin needed to know.

As to what they know now, many commentators believe the jury verdict sends the message that normal Americans are fed up with ivory-tower types’ abuse and that social-injustice-warrior persecution won’t be tolerated. Unfortunately, here’s the message I suspect academia has gotten:

Don’t get caught.

Be more careful.

Don’t detail your malicious machinations in writing.

Also note that while Oberlin will almost assuredly have to pay out, personal accountability is unlikely here. With academia’s phenomenon of “failing upwards,” as Professor Jacobson put it, Dean Raimondo probably won’t be on the unemployment line. After all, Marvin Krislov, president of Oberlin when the Gibson persecution began, is now out of that job.

He’s now president of Pace University in New York City, a bigger institution where, if his predecessor is any indication, he’s commanding a salary of $700,000 a year.

Taxpayers To Pay For Sex-Change Surgery For Minors In Vermont.

download (16)

Written by R. Cort Kirkwood

Saturday, 15 June 2019

The same state that nearly sent a man who says he’s a woman to the governor’s mansion has just upped the ante. Vermont’s health insurance managers will now require taxpayers, via Medicaid, to pay for “sex reassignment surgery” for minors.

“Sex reassignment” is impossible of course, but that scientific fact won’t stop the state’s Dr. Frankensteins who would experiment on mentally-ill children.

So if a 10-year-old boy on Medicaid in the “Green Mountain State” says he is a girl trapped in a boy’s body, if he wants to have the reassignment surgery, and if his parents support having him mutilated, then Vermont will be there, scalpel in hand.

“Woke” Parents

The new rule came down in May. Not only will minors be allowed to get the surgery (with parental consent), the Burlington Free Press reported, but Medicaid — meaning taxpayers — will foot the bill. Twenty-five percent of the state’s residents and 50 percent of them under 18 years old use Medicaid, the newspaper reported.

Noting that the “gender-affirming surgeries include 16 types of genital surgery, as well as breast augmentation or mastectomy, a surgery that removes the whole breast,” the newspaper permitted the director of a “transgender health clinic” to explain why the plan is a great idea: “Having young people have to wait until they were 21 just didn’t really make any sense.”

Another booster noted that a “‘staggering percentage’ of transgender and non-binary youth have reported considering suicide,” which is unremarkable given that such kids are mentally ill and need psychiatric help.

The newspaper’s scribe apparently forgot to find someone who might think taxpayer-financed mutilation of children isn’t such a bright idea. One critic of the policy worried on Twitter about “woke” parents who might actually permit a doctor to butcher their child.

“So it’s within the realm of possibility that one of the toddlers identified as ‘trans’ by Woke parents and their doctors could be a candidate for genital surgery,” tweeted 4thWaveNow. “Why not? If they’re ‘true trans,’ what would be the reason to wait? Cue the next specialty: Preschool SRS surgeons.”

Unsurprisingly, the rules say, “Vermont Medicaid does not cover reversal or modification of the surgeries approved under this rule,” which inspired this skeptical tweet from 4thWaveNow:

Meanwhile, nearly every day a new detransitioner/desister appears on social media — people who transitioned as teens or even early 20s. But grammar school kids just “know” their identities and shouldn’t be questioned. How long will it take before the runaway train is slowed down?

SRS Doesn’t Help

That concern, that SRS doesn’t help these poor folks because they are severely mentally ill, is the reason John Hopkins Hospital stopped the procedures in 1979, largely because of Dr. Paul McHugh, former chief of psychiatry there.

McHugh has been fighting a losing battle against transgender ideology, but in 2015 explained in Public Discourse that sex change is not possible. The idea, he wrote, like “the storied Emperor, is starkly, nakedly false. Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men. All (including Bruce Jenner) become feminized men or masculinized women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they ‘identify.’ In that lies their problematic future.”

In other words, the surgery doesn’t help men who think they are women, and women who think they are men. When the cutting is done, they’re still mentally ill:

When “the tumult and shouting dies,” it proves not easy nor wise to live in a counterfeit sexual garb. The most thorough follow-up of sex-reassigned people — extending over thirty years and conducted in Sweden, where the culture is strongly supportive of the transgendered — documents their lifelong mental unrest. Ten to fifteen years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to twenty times that of comparable peers.

McHugh avers that “transgenders” need psychiatric care, not a surgeon with drugs, scalpel, forceps, and sutures. They need “evidence-based care,” not ideological support from left-wing activists and those who suffer the same mental illness:

Continued McHugh:

Gender dysphoria — the official psychiatric term for feeling oneself to be of the opposite sex — belongs in the family of similarly disordered assumptions about the body, such as anorexia nervosa and body dysmorphic disorder. Its treatment should not be directed at the body as with surgery and hormones any more than one treats obesity-fearing anorexic patients with liposuction. The treatment should strive to correct the false, problematic nature of the assumption and to resolve the psychosocial conflicts provoking it. With youngsters, this is best done in family therapy.

In 2017, Hopkins restarted the mutilations.

Facebook Watching Your Offline Activity to Label You a “Hate Agent”.

download (15)
Written by R. Cort Kirkwood

Friday, 14 June 2019

The Big Tech’s oligarchy’s campaign to code and trace the activities of social media users, then shut them down as haters, is worse than anyone thought.

Facebook is now collecting information about its users’ offline activity so it can label them “hate agents” if they run afoul of the shifting set of rules the social media giant employs to control speech.

But Facebook’s move is no surprise. The Social Justice Warriors who control social media have been waging a war against their enemies — meaning conservatives and anyone else who doesn’t agree with social justice warriors — for some time.

Indeed, what the SJW’s at Google, Twitter, and Facebook are waging isn’t just war. It’s a reign of terror. Anyone they don’t like can be deplatformed, demonetized, and, should they earn their daily bread online through those platforms, ruined financially.

Facebook’s Watching

The latest news comes from a source inside Facebook who spilled the beans to’s Allum Bokhari, who might himself be labeled a “hate agent” for publishing the truth.

Facebook, again, watches what its users do offline, not just on Facebook or other platforms. Then, it acts.

Reported Bokhari:

Facebook monitors the offline behavior of its users to determine if they should be categorized as a “Hate Agent,” according to a document provided exclusively to Breitbart News by a source within the social media giant.

The document, titled “Hate Agent Policy Review” outlines a series of “signals” that Facebook uses to determine if someone ought to be categorized as a “hate agent” and banned from the platform.

Those signals include a wide range of on- and off-platform behavior. If you praise the wrong individual, interview them, or appear at events alongside them, Facebook may categorize you as a “hate agent.”

The document also explains that Facebook has concocted myriad ways to label you a hate agent:

Facebook may also categorize you as a hate agent if you self-identify with or advocate for a “Designated Hateful Ideology,” if you associate with a “Designated Hate Entity” (one of the examples cited by Facebook as a “hate entity” includes Islam critic Tommy Robinson), or if you have “tattoos of hate symbols or hate slogans.” (The document cites no examples of these, but the media and “anti-racism” advocacy groups increasingly label innocuous items as “hate symbols,” including a cartoon frog and the “OK” hand sign.)

Facebook will also categorize you as a hate agent for possession of “hate paraphernalia,” although the document provides no examples of what falls into this category.

Even worse, Facebook might also use something you say in private to label you.

Examples of Facebook’s labeling? It banned the highly popular Paul Joseph Watson because he praised and interviewed British anti-immigration activist Tommy Robinson, and “star conservative pundit Candace Owens and conservative author and terrorism expert Brigitte Gabriel were also on the list, as were British politicians Carl Benjamin and Anne Marie Waters,” Breitbart reported.

Such is Facebook’s totalitarian dragnet that even neutral commentary can invite the label. That’s how Benjamin received his, Bokhari reported. “Facebook also accuses Benjamin, a classical liberal and critic of identity politics, as ‘representing the ideology of an ethnostate’ for a post in which he calls out an actual advocate of an ethnostate.”

Last month, Facebook banned Alex Jones and his Infowars empire, the flamboyant homosexual provocateur, Milos Yiannapoulos, and Nation of Islam crackpot Louis Farrakhan.

Other Sites, Other Targets

Last week, YouTube demonetized the videos of conservative comedian and entertainer Steven Crowder because he “bullied” a homosexual writer. The move backfired and actually helped his brand, but the Robespierres in charge of Big Tech’s cyber-guillotine have lopped off the heads of others, too.

Patreon, the video-monetizing service, banned conservative journalist Lauren Southern after she joined an effort to stop non-governmental organizations from abetting the illegal-alien invasion of Europe. Southern had produced a documentary about the illegal-alien invasion, Borderless, which showed that open-borders leftists from NGOs were coaching illegal-alien Africans in Europe to lie about needing asylum. YouTube initially censored the documentary, but Southern uploaded a backup that is still there.

After Robert Spencer of JihadWatch set up a Patreon account, the platform quickly notified him that Mastercard had said Spencer can’t use its services to collect money for his work.

David Horowitz and his Freedom Center prevailed in their fight against Visa and Mastercard, which tried to shut down his using the credit cards for donations at the behest of the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center, which now faces multiple lawsuits for its false and defamatory claims about conservatives and others it dislikes.

Climate Change Science And Politics: It’s All About Creating Fear.

Written by James Murphy
Wednesday, 12 June 2019

With the climate hysteria movement, fear is everything. How much fear can they ignite in the population is the key to their future governmental plans. Unfortunately for them, people like freedom, and it turns out and they have to be petrified in order to give it up.

On Monday, radio’s Rush Limbaugh spoke about a good example from the not-too-distant past that shows the depths to which the climate alarmist community is willing to go to instill fear in the public about climate change.

On his show, Limbaugh said, “it illustrates just how wrong and fearmongering the entire climate change, global warming (now ‘extreme weather’) crowd is.”

Back in 2015, the good folks at the Media Research Center uncovered an excellent example of the type of sky-is-falling propaganda and deceit that the climate alarmist community is capable of. In 2008, ABC News presented a documentary style program called Earth 2100, a feature that made several predictions about a dystopian future, in which mankind fails to act on global warming in time to forestall climate disaster.

The full film wasn’t actually broadcast until 2009, which makes its failed prognostications of 2015 one year more ridiculous. But in June of 2008, ABC’s Good Morning America aired a trailer of the film and interviewed reporter Bob Woodruff about the upcoming film. Woodruff narrated the film, telling then-GMA anchor Chris Cuomo that it “puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world. The first stop is the year 2015.”

The film follows a fictional character known as Lucy through her life. In the beginning of the film, Woodruff is careful to say that events shown in the story are not “a prediction about what will happen, but what might happen.”

Lucy’s 2015 was a pretty awful place, with a gallon of milk costing just under $13.00. Gasoline was over $9.00 per gallon with lines stretching for blocks to get it. In fact, gas stations were forced to close due to lack of product. Miami, where Lucy lives, is wilting under the worst heatwave in history and then, on cue Miami is hit by the largest hurricane in history.

Interspersed throughout the film are “climate experts” such as Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta and CNN’s Van Jones giving their “expert” opinions on the climate crisis. Though, technically a work of fiction, the show is presented in a dishonest documentary style.

And, of course, America is the villain in all of it. Led by America, the world doesn’t act to cut greenhouse emissions. In fact, in one of the more ridiculous prophecies contained in the film, America acts to build dozens of new coal-fired energy plants.

Had the show been promoted as a comedy with a laugh track, it would have made more sense. As some sort of prophecy based on climate science, it failed miserably, at least for its 2015 prognostications.

In the actual 2015, you could buy a gallon of milk for about $3.40. Gas at the time was selling at an average of $2.75 per gallon — no supply shortages noted. Today, in 2019, the average national price for a gallon of gasoline is only $2.72.

And, of course, Miami and indeed all of Florida rode out what storms it did see, as the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico were in the middle of a 12-year-drought of serious hurricanes, which ended in 2017 when Hurricane Maria hit Texas.

Much like their failed climate models, the climate hysterics behind this show couldn’t get anything right. ABC’s Earth 2100 was nothing but fear-porn based on misunderstood science. Though it claimed not to make “predictions,” the scientists, politicians, and journalists involved with the show were clearly hinting that such things were going to happen.

Despite being continually wrong, the climate alarmist movement persists. Any extreme weather event is treated as “proof” that the climate is changing for the worse. And those claims are always anchored to calls for the governments of the world to “do something.” It must be terrible being a part of a movement which has to root for disaster and death to occur in order to make their point.

And even if any of this were true, the governments of the world would be the last entities we should trust to do anything about it. Especially any corrupt “global” government based out of the United Nations.

Climate hysterics like to claim that their assertions are all about “science.” But the ironic reality shows us that it’s true scientific inquiry that the movement fears. When President Trump, an anthropogenic global warming skeptic, suggested a special White House panel to study the issue and determine if climate change (so-called) is truly an existential threat, climate hysterics went predictably bananas. NASA climate scientist Katie Marvel said such a panel was “like assembling a panel of gravity skeptics who insist it’s safe to jump off tall buildings.”

Marvel’s reaction is not that of a true scientist but more like a religious fanatic whose beliefs are challenged. Real scientists welcome review of their work, especially skeptical review. If the science is truly “settled” and conclusive, why the fear of another climate panel?

Photo: Meindert van der Haven/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Communist Party USA Is 100 Years Old This Year.

Written by Steve Byas
Thursday, 23 May 2019

It was in 1919 that a majority of the membership of the Socialist Party of the United States voted to join the Comintern, established by the Bolsheviks who had seized power in Russia in late 1917, as a way of promoting world revolution.

This year, 2019, marks 100 years of the Communist Party USA, founded as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Soviet Union, yet the importation of communist ideas to America precedes even the founding of the United States. The notion that communal, or communist, ownership of property was morally and practically superior to the private ownership of property actually goes back to the earliest days of American history. Both the colonists at Jamestown and the colonists at Plymouth attempted what can best be described as “small c” communism, leading to starvation.

Despite this example of the foolhardiness of such a plan, when the Pilgrim Fathers landed at Plymouth, they believed that they could make a communal system work. They couldn’t, of course, and Governor William Bradford explained what happened in his book, Of Plymouth Plantation: “This community … was found to breed such confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense.… They deemed it a kind of slavery.”

One would think that such history would have been enough, yet throughout American history there have always been some with sympathy for such a system. For example, Horace Greeley was the publisher of the New York Tribune and a member of the Communist International. He even hired Karl Marx, the author of The Communist Manifesto, as a European correspondent. Another prominent American member of the Communist International was Senator Charles Sumner.

Many such examples could be offered, but it was not until the Bolsheviks staged a violent coup d’etat against the Russian government in 1917 that revolutionary communism had actually captured a country. They quickly formed the Third Communist International (the Comintern), and plotted world revolution. Hungary briefly went communist and Germany almost followed.

Cooking Up Communism in America

But no greater prize could be imagined in the Communist Conspiracy to establish their one-world government than to take over the United States, and this was the avowed goal in the establishment of the Communist Party USA in 1919.

This group was led by John Reed and Benjamin Gitlow, but they were denied admission into the Socialist convention. Reed had been in Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution, and was so thrilled with what had transpired that he wrote a book about it — Ten Days That Shook the World. (Not surprisingly, Hollywood eventually made a laudatory movie, Reds, based on Reed’s book). Reed, Gitlow, and others then met on August 31 and formed the Communist Labor Party of America (CLP).

Among those who helped swell the ranks of this new fledgling Communist Party were members of the communistic International Workers of the World (I.W.W.). I.W.W. members, sometimes known as “Wobblies,” had used sabotage and violence to protest during the First World War. The Soviet Union’s leaders quickly saw how important an American Communist Party would be to their ultimate goal of world revolution and world government, and dispatched C.A. Martens to give the American communists direction.

Before the new American Communist Party was allowed full membership in the Comintern, however, its officers were required to sign the “Twenty-one Conditions of Admission.” These 21 conditions of admission to the Comintern made it quite clear that the Communists in the Soviet Union would dictate what happened in America’s Communist Party. In 1953, the U.S. Subversive Activities Control Board concluded after several hearings and investigations, “We find upon the whole record that the evidence preponderantly establishes that [the leaders of the Communist Party USA] and its members consider the allegiance they owe to the United States as subordinate to their loyalty and obligations to the Soviet Union.”

Among the 21 conditions were the following: “The Communist Party [of the USA] must carry on a clear-cut program of propaganda for the hindering of the transportation of munitions of war to the enemies of the Soviet Republic.” Another said, “All decisions of the Communist International … are binding upon all parties belonging to the Communist International,” while another stipulated that, “The duty of spreading Communist ideas includes the special obligation to carry on a vigorous and systematic propaganda in the Army. Where this agitation is forbidden by exceptional laws, it is to be carried on illegally.”

Labor unions were to be targeted for takeover: “Every party wishing to belong to the Communist International must systematically and persistently develop a Communist agitation within the trade-unions.” Similar agitation was to be employed in rural areas. “Iron discipline” was to be maintained, and “periodic cleanings” of membership rolls were necessary to get rid of dissenters. Finally, any member who rejected these conditions and the “theses of the Communist International, on principle, must be expelled from the party.”

From the very beginning, however, American communists had to contend with factionalism and differences in advancing their cause. A rival to the Communist Labor Party did not believe that the Labor Party was truly communistic, and the CLP responded in kind. The rival group called itself the Communist Party of America. It was led by Charles Ruthenberg (he died in 1927 and his ashes are buried in the Kremlin), and was launched on September 1, 1919.  Yet another splinter group in Michigan was the Proletarian Party.

Another problem was that a strong majority of the “American” communists were not native-born, with some even having difficulty speaking English. The Communist lamented in June of 1920, “The Communist Party, from the very beginning of its existence found its work hampered because it had in its ranks only a few men capable of expressing Communist principles in the English language.”

The Executive Committee of the Com-intern soon ordered the rival parties to consolidate “in the shortest possible time.” In case there was any misunderstanding, the directive was emphatic: “Unity is not only possible, but absolutely necessary. The Executive Committee categorically insists on its immediate realization.”

With a representative of the Comintern present, a “unity” convention was held in May 1920 at Bridgman, Michigan, which resulted in the formation of the United Communist Party of America. Still, some refused to go along with this “united” Communist Party, with some desirous of the right to leave the party, or differ with the Comintern on some issues.

It took another year of bickering, but finally, in May 1921, the United Communist Party and some splinter groups formed the Communist Party of America, at Woodstock, New York. They agreed to work together for violent revolution, as “armed insurrection” was the “only means of overthrowing the capitalist state.” They also reiterated their complete subservience to Moscow.

The party would have both a legal element, which would disseminate communist propaganda in the public arena and run candidates for office (the Workers Party), and an underground aspect to conduct illegal activities, such as operating a spy network for the Soviet Union. In this regard, many American communists — William Z. Foster, Earl Browder, Jay Lovestone, Benjamin Gitlow, and John Reed — made several trips to Moscow.

Foster remarked that a 1921 visit with  Soviet dictator Vladimir Lenin “was one of the most inspiring moments” of his life.

Gitlow, who later left the Communist Party, wrote in his book The Whole of Their Lives about the very early days that he was inspired by what Lenin had accomplished in Russia and believed a successful revolution was imminent in the United States. “On September 2, 1919, the communist movement was officially launched. September 9 the Boston Police strike began. September 22, the nation-wide Steel strike led by William Z. Foster started. At the end of October, the soft-coal miners under the leadership of John L. Lewis staged a nation-wide coal strike stretching from the Appalachian coal range to the Pacific in defiance of a government order not to strike.”

Taylor Swift Just Another Anti-Christian, Anti-Family Mouth Piece For Communist Gay Pride Movement.

Related Articles From &

Did you know that the ‘Gay-Pride’ Flag Actually Mocks God?

Ben Carson Explains How Gay Marriage Is A Communist Plot To Impose The ‘New World Order’.


Dear Taylor: Please stop being a hateful, intolerant, anti-Christian bigot.

By FireBreathingChristian

-April 10, 2019

What once was a crowd of God-hating nutjobs screeching incessantly about “keeping religion out of politics” has interestingly (but not surprisingly) metastasized into a raging mob that’s all too willing to use its religion as a political tool by which to bludgeon, shame, and crush all who dare dissent from their more-obviously-insane-by-the-minute agenda. (Remember: These people actually think that Bruce Jenner is a woman…and that to publicly oppose that flagrantly moronic position is an expression of “hate”.)

In recent weeks we’ve been treated to several examples of this newfound public/political religious zealotry on the Left, including Taylor Swift’s open promotion of hate, intolerance, and anti-Christian bigotry…all in the name of promoting peace, love, and tolerance, of course.

The Washington Post, property of Jeff Bezos (another prominent advocate of marriage/family-destroying “progress”), glowingly covered Swift’s religion-and-politics mingling attack on orthodox Christianity this way:

“Look what you made her do.

Taylor Swift, the pop megastar whose recent political awakening has been something to watch, donated $113,000 on Monday to an LGBTQ advocacy group in her adopted home state of Tennessee.

Swift informed the Tennessee Equality Project of her donation — the equivalent of one year’s operating budget for the organization — in a handwritten note addressed to its director, Chris Sanders.

“I’m writing to you to say that I’m so inspired by the work you do,” Swift wrote. The TEP and a group of Tennessee’s religious leaders are actively opposing bills moving through the state’s Republican-run legislature that specifically target LGBTQ individuals.

In her letter, Swift refers to the “Slate of Hate,” six bills that advocates say are discriminatory. The legislation covers topics such as adoption by LGBTQ parents, transgender students and workplace protections.

For years, Swift kept her politics close to the vest — or sparkly leotard in her case — and critics pounced. But in a piece published last month in Elle magazine, Swift wrote that she had wanted to educate herself before speaking up.”

To get a better sense of Taylor’s infusion of religion into her attack on orthodox Christianity, here’s her letter:


It’s hard to overstate the amount of hate, intolerance, and bigotry flowing through both Swift’s letter/check combo and WaPo’s coverage of it.

For them, openly venting hatred against the most basic of orthodox Christian views on family, sexuality and marriage is…get this: an expression of love.

For them, openly trampling the religion of orthodox Christians is infinitely less significant than “hurting the feelings” of an LGBTQRSTD-type anywhere at any time.

For them, intolerance of orthodox Christianity is essential to…the pursuit of tolerance.

See how that works?

They get to be aggressively intolerant…in the name of opposing intolerance.

They get to use their religion to crush and silence ours…in the name of promoting tolerance.

Neat, huh?

Makes almost as much sense as claiming Bruce Jenner is a woman…

But wait, it gets better:

For them, anti-Christian bigotry is not only a viable option, but a necessity.

Orthodox Christianity and those unenlightened enough to cling to it must be shamed and politically oppressed at every turn.

That’s how “tolerance” works best in the depraved minds of Swift & Company.

Orthodox Christianity must be silenced.

It must be shut down.

That’s what happens when you let satanic worldviews out of the closet (see: Romans 1). Once out, they inevitably strive toward shaming, persecuting, and hating Christianity into silence. They inevitably strive to make evil into good and good into evil.

In this context, the bizarrely hypocritical and destructive actions of programmed slaves to the Progressive agenda like Taylor Swift should come as no surprise, but they should be pointed out for what they are at every opportunity.

Taylor Swift funds and encourages anti-Christian hate groups.

Taylor Swift is passionately intolerant of orthodox Christians.

Taylor Swift is openly hateful toward orthodox Christianity.

These are simple facts.

Taylor Swift is a hateful, intolerant, anti-Christian bigot.

We need not be angry or snarl when we share such truths. We should instead be as gracious and sober-minded as possible as we go about the important business of clearly, calmly, and publicly confronting the likes of Taylor Swift and her many advocates in dinosaur media with the fact that we see them for what they are.

« Older Entries