Did Bill Bennett Really Write this In Support of Donald Trump?

A very dear and respected friend picked up an article allegedly written by the much-threspected Bill Bennett, former Secretary of Education in the Reagan Administration, which turns out he is not the author. Bloggers and writers are doing today exactly what people did during the first century. They would write letters and then put the name of a well-respected individual in order to give it credibility and to compete with real writers and genuine letters that would one day become our Holy Bible. When the early church councils and fathers determined what books to include in the Bible, this was one of the first things they looked for. Any book not written by the author ascribed was automatically set aside. This letter allegedly written by Bill Bennett is such a post. It is fallacious without credibility.

The following note and attachments I shared with my fiend. She honestly wants to make the right decision and wondered since the pot is being radically stirred, how can one know whom to vote for? This is my response.

“This is not something just hitting the web. It came from an essay in Nov. 14, 2015 and Bill Bennett had nothing to do with it. We have to be very careful what we read on the web and especially when it doesn’t sound like it came from the attributed writer. Having heard Bennett speak about the Trump’s run, I said to myself, “This can’t be from the Bennett I’ve respected and followed most of his career.” So I did what I usually do when I see something like this come across my screen, I check it with the fact checkers, in this case TruthorFiction.com. If you go to https://www.truthorfiction.com/bill-bennett-theyd-kill-trump-before-they-let-him-be-president/ you will get the truth on this phony piece.

In the beginning I was leaning toward Trump, but the more I listen to his litany of non policy statements and absolute melt downs, e.g., the last debate on Thursday, there is no way I could vote for him in the primaries since we have at least four other candidates that understand and practice Christian values and in my mind have a better chance of beating Hillary in the General. If it comes down to Hillary vs. Trump, I will vote for Trump, but that tells you how strongly I feel about the Clintons and where the Democratic party has gone in leaving planet earth. The Republican party may be no better, but they have candidates running with integrity and character.

Let me invite and encourage you read the next two brief post that follows this one.  The first two articles are written by people I respect and who actually wrote the articles. I have many articles written by people we all respect that are falling on their faces to become Trump supporters. They may be impressive to you. But for all of Trumps lack of humility and business accomplishments, some to be admired and some very questionable, let me share with you just one piece written by a very right of the center politician and who happens to be a Christian not because he waves a Bible and then grossly misquotes it, but because like the other four remaining candidates are Christians as evidenced by their lives and behavior. If values mean anything, you will want to read the following, How Much Must We Compromise Our Values?” And then don’t miss the final link below!

I am not suggesting that the litmus test for candidates is that they must be a born-again believer (that would help until someone reminds us of the peanut farmer), but I am suggesting that a person cannot lie in order to be compatible with the circumstances and people he is with at the time. So if I am wrong in my assessment of The Donald, I pray for handwriting on the wall, a bolt of lightening or any other minor event that might be convincing. Until that happens, I pray for God’s will for the sake of our country,”


P.S. I’m confident you feel you are overloaded now, but if you are dedicated in your search to find the truth about candidates, then the following will be more important than anything above. See Steve Berman’s

Why Evangelical Christians Would Not Vote for Donad Trump

Note: You will not be surprised since I am including another post from one who I consider to be one of the brightest evangelicals and Biblical scholars of our time. In this post he trumps Trump. You may not agree with him, but for the thoughtful person who believes it is important to allow one’s faith to enable him/her to make decisions based on a Christian world view, then you may find this thought provoking. Here is Dr. Browns thoughts on “Why Evangelical Christians Should Not Support Donald Trump.

I understand the tremendous popularity of Donald Trump in Ameria in 2015.

I understand the tremendous popularity of Donald Trump in Ameria in 2015.

He is a larger than life reality TV star; he is incredibly rich and not beholden to anyone; he is fearless and speaks his mind; he articulates the frustrations and anger of millions of his countrymen; he gives the impression that he can fix our economy and will put an end to illegal immigration; he is not a Washington insider; he could be a strong leader who could face down our global enemies; he can even be winsome and self-effacing at times.

Yes, I do understand all this to the point that, for some weeks, I wondered to myself if I could get behind Trump as a candidate. And the question still remains, if the presidential race was between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, could I cast a vote for Trump? (I could not possibly vote for Hillary Clinton.)

But let’s not deal in hypotheticals now. The immediate question is: Should evangelical Christians support Donald Trump as the Republican candidate? I do not see how we can if the Word of God is to be our guide and if it’s important to us that a candidate have a solid moral compass and a biblically based worldview—and I mean to be our president, not our spiritual leader, since we are electing a president, not a pastor or priest.

The Scriptures teach that out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks (Luke 6:45), and so Trump’s consistent pattern of reckless speech points to deeper issues which could make him unfit for the office of the presidency.

I’m not just talking about his silly attacks on Megyn Kelly (blood), Carly Fiorina (face), and Marco Rubio (sweat) or his more serious attacks on Mexican immigrants (accusing the many of what the few do) and others. I’m talking about his character assault on Ben Carson, comparing him to a child molester who has pathological problems and, most recently, his apparent mocking of the disability of New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski.

Worse still, rather than apologizing for his most recent remarks, he claims he is being unfairly attacked for his comments and alleges that he doesn’t even know what Kovaleski looks like. Is he lying?

Notice that he referred to Kovaleski, who suffers from arthrogryposis, which visibly limits flexibility in his arms, as a “nice reporter,” before saying, “Now the poor guy, you’ve got to see this guy,” flailing his arms as he pretended to be Kovaleski.

Is this the man you want to be our president? The warnings in Proverbs are strong: “Do you see a man who is hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him” (Prov. 29:20). “A fool utters all his mind, but a wise man keeps it in until afterwards” (Prov. 29:11).

We need a statesman, not an irresponsible flame thrower, and one can be a strong political leader who is cutting and fearless with words—think of Winston Churchill—without making a fool of oneself.

What of Trump’s claim that, “I have no idea who this reporter, Serge Kovalski (sic) is, what he looks like or his level of intelligence,” and, “Despite having one of the all-time great memories, I certainly do not remember him”?

If this is true, why did he refer to him as a “nice reporter” and what did he mean when he said, “Now the poor guy, you’ve got to see this guy”? And did he merely flail his arms mocking someone who, he claimed, couldn’t quite remember things correctly—this was Trump’s defense—or was he making fun of Kovaleski’s arms? (Watch for yourself and you be the judge as to whether he is telling the truth.)

Kovaleski, for his part, states that, “Donald and I were on a first-name basis for years. I’ve interviewed him in his office. I’ve talked to him at press conferences. All in all, I would say around a dozen times, I’ve interacted with him as a reporter while I was at the Daily News.”

How could Trump have forgotten someone with Kovaleski’s condition?

Trump pointed to the large sums he has given to help people with disabilities, and I don’t doubt that he has, nor do I doubt that he cares about the disabled and handicapped.

But what is undeniable is that he is often irresponsible and reckless in his speech, something that could be utterly disastrous for the president of the United States of America. As noted by Jay Ruderman, an advocate for the disabled, “It is unacceptable for a child to mock another child’s disability on the playground, never mind a presidential candidate mocking someone’s disability as part of a national political discourse.”

Yet there’s something that concerns me even more when it comes to evangelicals supporting Donald Trump and that is the issue of pride, the sin that is often at the root of a host of other sins (Is. 14:11-15), the sin which God resists (James 4:6), the sin which leads to destruction (Prov. 16:18).

Trump seems to have little understanding of what it means to ask God for forgiveness, while his very open, unashamed boastfulness is part and parcel of his persona. Trump and pride seem to walk hand in hand, and quite comfortably at that.

So while I do understand why many Americans are behind Donald Trump and while I do believe he could do some things well as president, I cannot understand how evangelicals can back him, especially when we have a number of solid, God-fearing, capable alternatives.

(For my video commentary on this, with the relevant clips from Trump, click here The ugly comments from Trump supporters are quite telling.)

Michael Brown is the host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire and is the president of FIRE School of Ministry. His newest book is Outlasting the Gay Revolution: Where Homosexual Activism Is Really Going and How to Turn the Tide. Connect with him on Facebook at AskDrBrown or on Twitter @drmichaellbrown.

Where Are All the Christian Refugees From Syria?


Refugees ceross through Iraq. (Reuters)

                             Refugees cross through Iraq. (Reuters)

Christians and other religious minorities in Syria have been targeted for death, sexual slavery, displacement, cultural eradication and forced conversion by ISIS.

Many of these persecuted Christians hope to escape to the United States. They have been largely excluded. The State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration admitted to officials at The Barnabas Fund, a Christian relief agency, “There is no way that Christians will be supported because of their religious affiliation.”

According to data from the State Department’s Refugee Processing Center for Fiscal Year 2015, resettled Syrian refugees are 97 percent Muslim. The Hudson Institute’s Nina Shea, in a November 2nd article in National Review, showed that in the past five years 53 out of 2,003 Syrian refugees accepted by the United States have been Christians (about 2.5 percent of the total). But about 10 percent of Syrians are Christians.

IRD Religious Liberty Director Faith McDonnell commented:

“The U.S. government’s response has been woefully inadequate—neither helping these minorities defend themselves and stay, nor providing them asylum to leave.

“Christians cannot go to U.N.-run refugee camps because there they face the same persecution and terror from which they fled. If they are not in the refugee camps, they are not included in the application process for asylum. The State Department knows this, but continues to allow the office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees to select refugees for asylum with no regard to the endangered religious minorities.

“The blame is not just with the U.N. and the administration. U.S. organizations who resettle refuges are also to blame. This includes Christian groups that resist any focus on Christian victims of ISIS, and oppose actions by Congress to welcome not just economic migrants but also Christians and other religious minorities victimized by ISIS.

“Other religious minorities—such as Jews, Yazidis, Mandaeans, Shia Shabaks and Turkmen—are also being targeted, and largely left out of refugee resettlement. Shea notes that only one Yazidi was resettled in the U.S. in the past five years of Syria’s civil war, even though thousands of Yazidi girls are taken as sex slaves by ISIS!”

Kerry offers weak defense of US absence in Paris

By Sky News (UK) January 12, 2015 6:50 am

Sunday January 11, 2014 was a reversal of President Roosevelt’s use of the word “infamy.” He used it to describe the barbaric attack on America by the Japanese. It might be used to describe the lack of American leadership and presence  when 1.6 million marched in the streets of Paris (and elsewhere in European cities) to express solidarity against radical Muslims reigning jihad on the free world. Click the Sky News (UK) for the story.

‘Shariah-compliant’ Obama blindly fighting terror?

obama_chairBy President Barack Obama’s refusal to put a finger on the Islamic underpinnings of the Paris jihadist attacks killing a total of 17, experts are rendering the Commander-in-Chief powerless to fight an enemy that he will not identify — exposing his weakness and fear of Islam sensed in both the Western and Muslim world.
As a result, experts are saying that the Obama administration has taken America out of the war Islam has waged to gain world dominance — much like anti-war movement in the United States before World War II that wanted to leave Nazi Germany alone, insisting that Hitler was not a direct enemy of America.

And ex-Central Intelligence Agency Analyst Clare Lopez says that the White House is sitting in a similar positon eight decades later by refusing to identify Islam as a threat to America’s existence as a nation and to the world’s freedom as we know it.

“The United States is essentially hors du combat (French for ‘out of the fight’) in the jihad wars — the wars to stay free of Shariah,” Lopez informed WND. “[Obama and his administration] have withdrawn U.S. military forces, withdrawn U.S. power and influence from critical regions, abandoned former allies — Gadhafi, Mubarak, Israel — in order to favor jihadists, whether al-Qaida or the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria.”

Lopez insists that because the Obama administration strictly adheres to messaging that does not depict Islamic jihadists as the terror threat, America is in danger.

“[The administration refuses to identify the enemy as] forces of Islamic jihad and Shariah — Muslim terrorism, Islamic jihad — some combination of these that demonstrates we know that authoritative, mainstream, orthodox Islamic doctrine drives and justifies what Islamic terrorists do.”

Currently serving with the Center for Security Policy as its vice president for research and analysis in Washington, D.C., Lopez argues that America cannot fight “what we will not name,” insisting that those under attack in the “Dar al-Harb” (Arabic for territory of war) are unwilling to admit openly that war is taking place. She also notes that it is inaccurate for Western nations to call Muslim terrorist attacks “radical” or “extreme” because jihad is not a diversion from the norm in the religion of Islam.

“But jihad is the norm in Islam,” Lopez stressed to WND. “History shows that it has been for over 1,300 years, and we must acknowledge and confront that if we wish to preserve Western civilization for our children and children’s children.”

Lopez then defined jihad as Muslims know it from Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveler in Arabic) found in the classic Manual of Sacred Islamic Law.

“Jihad resurgent — Islamic Jihad — by definition is ‘warfare against non-Muslims to spread Islam,’” Lopez stressed, noting that because the Cold War, colonialism and 20th-century wars are no longer in Muslims’ way, jihad is in “resurgence.”

She warns that because Western nations have bowed down to self-condemnation and rejected the very founding principles that have made them strong, they are headed on a one-way road to submission to Islam.

“The West appears to the enemy to have lost its appreciation for itself and its own principles and willingness to defend them,” Lopez observed. “We need to prove them wrong on this, as soon as possible.”

‘Shariah compliant’

Joy Brighton, who penned Sharia-ism Is Here: The Battle to Control Women; and Everything Else last year, contends that Obama’s refusal to call the Paris terrorist attacks Islamic provides more proof that he has resigned himself to a “Shariah compliant” speech code.

“President Obama defends free speech vehemently, and the press lauds him for this; however, he refuses to use the words ‘Islam,’ ‘radical Islam,’ ‘Muslim,’ ‘jihad’ or ‘Shariah’ when condemning the Shariah-driven shootings in Paris,” Brighton informed WND, pointing out that Shariah is Islamic law — a strict code of morality by which all Muslims must submit concerning every facet of their lives (personal, economic, political, criminal).

Brighton also used a piece of Obama’s September 25, 2012 speech to the United Nations General Assembly to demonstrate that the President is well aligned with pro-Muslim messaging.

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” Obama declared to the U.N. before remembering to save face by mentioning the religion upon which America was founded. “But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.”

Brighton argues that Obama’s Muslim-leaning policies and rhetoric impede his ability to champion free speech, which he claimed he stood for after the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

“Barack Obama is complying with Shariah law in suggesting that criticism of Islam could be a criminal hate-speech offense,” Brighton argues. “In his statement to the United Nations, Obama does not defend free speech, has given in to Shariah law, and doing so as president is unconstitutional, because with this statement Obama abandons the First Amendment and the defense of free speech.”

The author directs Americans to look at the totalitarian movements of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini and their suppression of free speech to see where Obama’s policies are leading.

“Communism succeeded by shutting down free speech criticism of communism the same as Nazism succeeded by shutting down free speech criticism of Nazism,” Brighton told WND. “Shariah-ism, what I call the global political movement of radical Islam, will also succeed by shutting down criticism and political debate.”

Brighton extrapolated further to illustrate the link between Shariah and totalitarianism and how they have fed into the current political movement sweeping through the U.N., Europe, the U.S. and the rest of the Western world.

“I don’t condemn Shariah law,” Brighton continued. “If you want to pray five times a day because it’s Shariah law, you are practicing your religion. If you want me to pray five times a day, you are not practicing your religion. You have crossed the line and now what you are doing is unconstitutional, because you’re trying to impose the totalitarian edicts of your political movement on me. ‘Shariah-ism’ uses Shariah law to justify the complete control of others.”

A key distinction was then made that many Americans and especially the Obama administration just don’t get or acknowledge.

“Islam is protected under the First Amendment definitions of free speech and free religion,” Brighton noted. “‘Shariah-ism’ is a totalitarian political movement that is not protected under the First Amendment.”

Refusing for a bruising?

Lopez points to the Fort Hood, Texas, massacre to demonstrate that “individual jihad” has already come to America. This is another jihadist attack the Obama administration denied and covered up, despite the fact that the Islamic Maj. Nidal Hasan yelled the name of Allah while spraying 13 U.S. military members with fatal shots. Obama called it “workplace violence.” Hasan was praised for his attack by al-Qaida leader Anwar al-Awlaki, of whom he claimed to be a follower.

The Boston Marathon was another Islamic cover-up by the Obama administration, as Lopez says that the living Tsarnaev brother (about to go to trial) — who was not fatally shot by police — is another example of fardayn, an Islamic doctrine that demands Muslims around the world to fight whenever other Muslims or Muslim lands are under attack by “infidels.”

She contends that if Muslims are not in the midst of jihad, they must travel to it or wage it at their present locale.

“Both Al-Qaida’s Inspire magazine and the Islamic State’s Dabiq (magazine) have been publishing these themes in recent issues,” Lopez reported. “The response both in terms of fighters from dozens of countries going to Iraq and Syria and in terms of those returning from those battlefields and those Muslims who maybe never went but are inspired by those calls to battle has been simply enormous.”

Lopez argues that even though the West cannot change the Islamic principles by which Muslims live, a comprehensive strategy must be implemented if the world does not want to submit to it one day.

“We must defeat it by using every means at our disposal — a whole of civilization response to a whole of Islamic civilization assault,” Lopez insists. “That means we engage with diplomatic measures, economic/financial responses, intelligence operations, legal means, military offensives, political tactics, in cyberspace and most importantly of all in the information battle space, because that is the primary arena of this fight and the one in which we are not even present at the moment.”

She declares that this new war needs to be fought tactically from a number of angles — led by leaders and militias who define and know the enemy and aren’t afraid to offend Islam and use all the innovative resources at their disposal.

“I think we need to begin fighting smart — not just kinetically and not just massively, but in a sophisticated way, that understands we are in a new era of asymmetric warfare that demands new strategy,” Lopez concludes.

—- Copyright OneNewsNow.com. Reprinted with permission.

Washington National Cathedral Scheduled to Host Friday Muslim “Service”

We stand incredulous at the astounding naïvete’ exhibited by the hosts of the National Cathedral extending the welcome mat to several Muslim organizations for the purpose of having a Friday prayer service this Friday at the very sacred place where we give funerals to our presidents and national heroes.

We challenge those running the nation’s one and only National Cathedral to find a mosque – anywhere in the world – inviting a rabbi, priest or pastor into that mosque to conduct a service.

Until Billy Graham is invited to deliver a sermon at the Grand Mosque in Mecca, this discussion should be closed. No capitulation. No political correctness. No submitting to this insanity!

If this has you as fired up as we are, we need your help.

Click Here to stand with us with a monthly pledge of $19 or more in support of our efforts to rise against this systematic approach to force this one-way street down our collective throats.

We are only as strong as our supporters. Your financial support is so needed to stand up and fight this insanity. Please click here to support. Any amount is appreciated.

Read the story here

Something to Think About and Then Act On

Worth your time. If you’ve been watching Fox News, you’ve seen the news about what Obama and company are doing to further disrupt our economy. He has sent lawyers to defend illegals at taxpayers’ expense. Very likely, all the children swarming over the Arizona-Mexico border will become anchor babies; their entire families, including aunts and uncles and grandparents will be welcome into the US. Obama is helping the Mexican economy by attracting people who otherwise are a drain on their economy.

This is frightening.

Watch and let this sink in! The person in this video is a professor at Yavapai College in Prescott, Arizona. He puts a different spin on what Obama is doing to Arizona and must be why he’s rated highly by his students – 3.8 on a 4.0 scale. This may be the best video produced on the illegal alien problems that are being experienced. Watch the video, it is short and makes a lot of sense. Forward the email to at least ten people you know. We need to get the word out.

Click here for Professor Terry J. Lovell


WND Exclusive: Jerome R. Corsi

NEW YORK – With secularism on the rise in the United States, Satanists increasingly appear willing to challenge Christians for equal time and space in the public square, under the rubric of asserting First Amendment rights of religious freedom.


Now, under the auspices of a student group, Harvard University is going to allow a Satanist group from New York to perform on Monday a Black Mass on campus.

It will take place in the basement of Memorial Hall, despite strong objections voiced by the Roman Catholic Church.

“It’s unacceptable,” Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights headquartered in New York City told WND.

“Harvard would never allow an anti-gay event on the campus sponsored by an independent student organization and then have Harvard conclude, ‘Well, that’s the way the student’s feel about the issue and we believe in academic freedom.’”

Donahue said that if Harvard doesn’t stop it, the university should at the very least put out a statement condemning the event.

Donohue said he was particularly upset because Harvard’s first reaction was to misrepresent the event.

“Leaving aside the in-your-face assault to the Catholic Church that is being made here, I don’t like it when people lie,” he said.

“Harvard put out a statement initially that made it sound like the controversy related to a controversy over a Buddhist presentation or a Shinto presentation, without mentioning in their statement that it was the Satanic Temple of New York sponsoring a Black Mass on the campus,” Donahue said.

He noted that Harvard then “got so much flack they revised their statement, but they lied again saying the ceremony was meant to be educational.”

“There’s nothing educational about allowing Satanists to celebrate a Black Mass any more than it would be to allow the enemies of Muslims or the enemies of Jews to conduct an anti-Muslim or an anti-Semitic ceremony on campus,” he said. “How about Holocaust deniers? Is Harvard going to give them a forum on campus, too?”

The Harvard Cultural Studies Club, a student group organized under the auspices of the Harvard Extension School, has invited the Satanic Temple of New York City to conduct the Black Mass on Monday at the Queen’s Head Pub, a student eatery and beer hall located in the basement of Memorial Hall, a Victorian Gothic structure built north of Harvard Yard in Cambridge in the 1870s to commemorate Harvard students who fought for the Union in the Civil War.

WND contacted Harvard University for comment and received no response.

“We are hosting a reenactment of a historical event known as a Black Mass,” the Harvard Extension Cultural Studies Club said in a press release. “The performance is designed to be educational and is preceded by a lecture that provides the history, context and origin of the black mass.”

The Harvard statement denied the Black Mass would include a desecration of a consecrated host, an aspect of the typical Satanic Black Mass ceremony that is widely seen as an attack on the Catholic Church in particular.

“While a piece of bread is used in the reenactment, the performance unequivocally does not include a consecrated host,” the Harvard Extension Cultural Studies Club continued.

“Our purpose is not to denigrate any religion or faith, which would be repugnant to our educational purposes, but instead to learn and experience the history of different cultural practices. This performance is part of a larger effort to explore religious facets that continue to influence contemporary culture.”

Satanic activists

The Satanic Temple of New York appears particularly determined to promote Satanism under the guise of supporting the First Amendment.

The decision of Harvard University to allow the Cultural Studies Club to host a Satanic Mass on campus follows the continuing request by the Temple of Satan in New York to install their nearly finished seven-foot statue of Baphomet cast in bronze in a place of honor on the lawn in front of the Oklahoma state Capitol, next to a carving of the Ten Commandments that was erected in 2012.
Satanic Temple of New York unfinished statue of Baphomet intended for Oklahoma state Capitol grounds
“Should Holocaust deniers, for instance, be allowed to speak on a college campus?” Donohue asked. “No, they shouldn’t. But there should be a place in our society where they could speak? Yes, in New York, places like Madison Square Garden, Central Park and the Beacon Theater can be open to anyone to speak. But a university is about the pursuit of truth.”

Former Harvard student Doug Mesner, who has changed his name to Lucien Graves in his capacity as a leader and spokesman for the Satanic Temple of New York, told ABC News that the efforts to erect the Baphomet statue on the grounds of the Oklahoma state Capitol reflect an effort by the group to “celebrate our progress as a pluralist nation founded on secular law.”

Graves said: “I would argue that the message behind our monument speaks more directly to the formation of U.S. constitutional values than the Ten Commandments possibly could.”

Ryan Kiesel, the executive director of the ACLU’s Oklahoma state chapter, which is currently contesting in court the Ten Commandments monument on the Oklahoma state Capitol grounds, said the monument should be removed, because it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The ACLU has not filed a similar lawsuit against the Baphomet statue.

“I think that our position is there shouldn’t be any religious monuments at the state Capitol, that anytime the government has a monument representing one faith it creates an atmosphere that is not welcoming to people of all faiths or non-believers,” Kiesel told the Tulsa World.

“If, at the end of the day, the Ten Commandments monument is allowed to remain on the Capitol grounds with its overtly Christian message, then the Satanic Temple’s proposal can’t be rejected because it is of a different religious viewpoint.”

Archdiocese of Boston objects

On Thursday, the Archdiocese of Boston asked Harvard to cancel the event, saying in a statement: “The Catholic community of Boston expresses its deep sadness and strong opposition to the plan to stage a ‘black mass’ on the campus of Harvard University in Cambridge.”

The archdiocese said that for “the good of the Catholic faithful and all people, the Church provides clear teaching concerning Satanic worship.”

“This activity separates people from God and the human community, it is contrary to charity and goodness, and it places participants dangerously close to destructive works of evil.”

In response to the Black Mass, the Boston Archdiocese scheduled a holy hour beginning Monday at 8 p.m. Eastern Time at St. Paul’s Church in Cambridge.

In its public statement, the Archdiocese of Boston also referenced Pope Francis’ recent warning that Satan exists in the 21st Century.

On April 11, speaking in the chapel of the Vatican guesthouse known as St. Martha’s House, where he resides, the pope discussed Satan’s temptations of Christ.

“The devil tempted Jesus many times, and Jesus experienced temptation and persecution throughout his lifetime,” the pope said, as reported by Vatican Radio.

Francis warned that all Christians today must be aware of the reality.

“We too are the target of attacks by the devil because the spirit of Evil does not want our holiness,” Francis said. “But look out because the devil is present! The devil is here … even in the 21st Century! And we must not be naïve, right? We must learn from the Gospel how to fight against Satan.”

Behind the veil of satire

In an interview published in Vice.com July 30, 2013, Doug Mesner claimed the members of the Satanic Temple of New York are Satanists in the traditional sense, who enjoy using the group in a satirical sense.


“Our very presence as civic-minded socially responsible Satanists serves to satirize the ludicrous superstitious fears that the word Satan tends to evoke,” Mesner said.

“The Satanic Temple was actually conceived of independent from me by a friend and one of his colleagues,” he continued.

“They envisioned it more as a ‘poison pill’ in the church-state debate. The idea was that Satanists, asserting their rights and privileges where religious agendas have been successful in imposing themselves upon public affairs, could serve as a poignant reminder that such privileges are for everybody, and can be used to serve an agenda beyond the current narrow understanding of what ‘the’ religious agenda is.”

The ability of the Satanists from Satanic Temple of New York to combine sacrilege and satire in an affront to conventional moral views can be seen in the group’s protest against Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas an unaffiliated church known for its outlandish protests against homosexuals.

Westboro-Baptists.com, a website owned and operated by the Satanic Temple of New York, documented a “Pink Mass” the Satanists performed at the Magnolia Cemetery gravesite in Meridian, Mississippi, of Catherine Idalette Johnson, the wife of Fred W. Phelps Sr., and the mother of Fred Phelps Jr., the Westboro founder.

The Satanic Temple of New York explains on the website the nature of the ceremony performed, noting, “After a “Pink Mass” has been performed, every time a same sex couple kisses over the gravesite, the now-gay deceased is said to be pleasured in the afterlife.”

The group’s website showed photographs of a lesbian and a homosexual couple kissing over Catherine Idalette Johnson’s tombstone, commenting that, “Upon completion of the Pink Mass ceremony, Catherine Johnson is now gay in the afterlife.”

The website of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, titled “God Hates Fags,” has drawn the ire of the LBGT community. The Southern Poverty Law Center, an extremist group on the political left, characterized the Westboro Baptist Church as “arguably the most obnoxious and rabid hate group in America.”

The Satanic Temple of New York is also raising money under the Adopt-a-Highway program in New York City. The group is seeking donations to erect blue-and-white signs “acknowledging the Satanic Temple as the adopters of the designated piece of highway, helping promote a message of Satanic civic pride and social responsibility.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/harvard-hosting-satanic-black-mass/#ocIZXK27ZqBtpB16.99


Someone said the title of your column should be “Beware of Useful Idiots.” A better title might be “Beware of Wolves Dressed In Sheep’s Clothing.”

For the benefit of our children and their children, I offer a brief snap-shot of our history. Because the revisionist writers have captured the educational and media arms of our culture, they have had little opportunity to understand what has and is occurring to radically reshape America that many of us have grown lo love appreciate as the greatest free nation in the history of the world. Thousands through the years have died because they believed that. In this brief post it is impossible to answer every question or respond to every objection, but let me address the WHY we are where we are today flying at warp speed to our own demise.

It is imperative to look at those who have respected positions of leadership in America. It is also equally important to know who it is that shaped their thinking and world view.

Saul David Alinsky has been instrumental in shaping our current president’s view of the world and unfortunately the view of the America he is president of today. Hillary Clinton, who may run for that same office in 2016, wrote her college thesis on David Alinsky’s writings and thoughts.

Saul Alinsky died about 42 years ao, but his writings influenced those in political control of our nation today.

Who was this man Alinsky? He was a gifted writer, an American community organizer. He is generally considered to be the founder of the modern community organizing movement. His most recognized disciple is President Obama. Alinsky is most noted for his book Rules for Radicals.

Here are a few facts about one of America’s most accomplished shaper of radical thought.

  • Died: June 12, 1972, Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
  • Education: University of Chicago
  • Spouse: Irene Alinsky
  • Books: Rules for Radicals, Reveille for Radicals

If you will take the time to read his book, you will discover it to be a blueprint for what is happening in America today. In the book you will discover there are eight rules. All eight rules are currently in play today successfully reshaping American into Alinsky’s mold, a socialistic country.

according to Alinsky, this is how one creates a social state. There are eight levels of control that must be achieved before you are able to create a social state. The first is the most important.

  1. HEALTHCARE – control healthcare and you control the people
  2. POVERTY – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
  3. DEBT – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
  4. GUN CONTROL – Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.
  5. WELFARE – Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).
  6. EDUCATION – Take control of what people read and listen to-take control of what children learn in school.
  7. RELIGION – Remove the belief in God from the Government and schools.
  8. CLASS WARFARE – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor that will cause more discontent so it will be easier to take from the wealthy to support the poor.

Does any of this sound like what’s happening in the United States? Did it start with Obama? Not close! This is all a continuation of the Communist-Socialist scheme from early in the history of this nation. Schemes like these don’t spread over-night. The seeds of Communism-Socialism were planted a long time ago and just keep sprouting up. It’s up to the lovers of freedom and liberty to stomp them out at each sprouting to preserve what this country stands for and has fought for many times.

Alinsky merely simplified Vladimir Lenin’s original scheme for world conquest by communism, under Russian rule. Stalin described his converts as “Useful Idiots.” The Useful Idiots have destroyed every nation in which they have seized power and control. It is presently happening again at an alarming rate in the U.S. The Communist Party USA (CPUSA) is a Marxist-Leninist political party in the United States, and is the largest communist party in the country. Established in 1919, it has a long, complex history that is closely related to the histories of similar communist parties worldwide and the U.S. labor movement.

For the first half of the 20th century, the Communist Party was a highly influential force in various struggles for democratic rights. It played a prominent role in the U.S. labor movement from the 1920s through the 1940s, having a major hand in founding most of the country’s first industrial unions. While unions were very useful in their infancy in preventing workplace abuse and slave-like wages, they eventually become bloated and outlived their usefulness. It’s at that point that they become tools for those that would continue the workplace abuse and the end-result abuse of the democratic and representative form of government.

And now the question. Why would we exchange our freedom and liberty for a political philosophy that has provided neither freedom or liberty to the countries and people she has enslaved? There is only one answer, RADICAL STUPIDITY.


Muslims My Ass … Excellent!

I want to shake the guy’s hand that wrote this…

  • Have you ever seen a Muslim hospital?
  • Have you heard a Muslim orchestra?
  • Have you seen a Muslim band march in a parade?
  • Have you witnessed a Muslim charity?
  • Have you shaken hands with a Muslim Girl Scout?
  • Have you seen a Muslim Candy Striper?

The answer is no, you have not. Just ask yourself WHY

Barack Obama, during his Cairo speech, said: “I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America ‘s history.”


Dear Mr. Obama:

Were those Muslims that were in America when the Pilgrims first landed?  Funny, I thought they were Native American Indians.

Were those Muslims that celebrated the first Thanksgiving Day?   Sorry again, those were Pilgrims and Native American Indians.

Can you show me one Muslim signature on the:

  • United States Constitution?
  • Declaration of Independence?
  • Bill of Rights?

Didn’t think so.

Did Muslims fight for this country’s freedom from England?  No.

Did Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the slaves in America?   No, they did not. In fact, Muslims to this day are still the largest traffickers in human slavery.   Your own half-brother, a devout Muslim, still advocates slavery himself, even though Muslims of Arabic descent refers to black Muslims as “pug nosed slaves.”  Says a lot of what the Muslim world really thinks of your family’s “rich Islamic heritage,” doesn’t it Mr. Obama?

Where were Muslims during the Civil Rights era of this country?
Not present.

There are no pictures or media accounts of Muslims walking side by side with Martin Luther King, Jr. or helping to advance the cause of Civil Rights.

Where were Muslims during this country’s Woman’s Suffrage era?
Again, not present. In fact, devout Muslims demand that women are subservient to men in the Islamic culture.   So much so, that often they are beaten for not wearing the ‘hajib’ or for talking to a man who is not a direct family member or their husband.   Yep, the Muslims are all for women’s rights, aren’t they?

Where were Muslims during World War II?

They were aligned with Adolf Hitler. The Muslim grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler, reviewed the troops and accepted support from the Nazi’s in killing Jews.

Finally, Mr. Obama, where were Muslims on Sept. 11th, 2001?

If they weren’t flying planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon or a field in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on our own soil, they were rejoicing in the Middle East.   No one can dispute the pictures shown from all parts of the Muslim world celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other cable news networks that day.  Strangely, the very “moderate” Muslims who’s assess you bent over backwards to kiss in Cairo, Egypt on June 4th were stone cold silent post 9-11. To many Americans, their silence has meant approval for the acts of that day.

And THAT, Mr. Obama, is the “rich heritage” Muslims have here in America…

Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot to mention the Barbary Pirates.  They were Muslims.

And now we can add November 5, 2009 – the slaughter of American soldiers at Fort Hood by a Muslim major who is a doctor and a psychiatrist who was supposed to be counseling soldiers returning from battle in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And let’s not forget September 11, 2012 in Benghazi when the American ambassador and three other American patriots were murdered

Plus the Boston Marathon bombing on April 15.2013 was done by 2 Muslim Brothers. That, Mr. Obama is the “Muslim heritage” in America

EVERY AMERICAN MUST READ THIS with eyes wide open.

Be sure to SEND IT TO ALL.

Muslim Heritage, my ass.

And if you don’t share this message,

You are part of the problem!

 Remember that all Muslims are not terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim.