Laura Southern Explains UK Ban

Laura Southern explains to Tommy Robinson why she was banned from the UK.


Tommy Robinson Interviews Laura Southern

Liberal SJW Hate Exposed

Washington DC Knows Best

Yep, now the government wants to dictate how and monitor how we raise our kids.

How To Destroy Western Civilization

Want to know the truth of the "poor, innocent refugees".

I'd say enjoy but ...

Teacher Fired For Not Referring To Girl As Transgender Boy

What this article fails to report are pertinent facts:
1. The child's is adopted by two men in a homosexual marriage.
2. The teacher/caregiver reported what she saw as abuse by the two gay parents to child protective services.
3. There apparently has been no psychological evaluation of the child to assess gender assignment influence by the two gay male parents.
4. No comment for the article was sought by any mental or behavioral professional regarding this matter. Whether this child is being victimized by the gay male parents needs to be addressed.
Expect vicious gay and PC police to attack anyone questioning the parents.

Hat tip to my friend Marcus Miller at KHOU in Houston for the added details.

Here is the news story from Click 2 Houston

Dr. Carson Fights Back - Destorys Obama Myth

This is how you handle the lamestream media. Uncover their dirty, leftist agenda and tactics.

Trashing Trump - Child Exploitation

Well nice to see liberals exploit children for political pleasure.  And they wonder why Americans are fed up with Barry Obozo and their Marxist activist tactics.  Watch before Youtube takes it down, and you know they will because the dislikes are piling up. 

BTW I posted this just so you can dislike it.

Savage Nation Nov. 5, 2015

This is an important edition of The Savage Nation.  John DePetro guest hosting.  How illegal alien kiddies really feel about the USA.  Obama arming ISIS in Syria and Iraq.  Exploitation by Tarantino of our police.

Finally Someone Gets Why Dorothy Bland Is A Liar

When the Dean of the UNT Journalism school lies about a police encounter, she needs to be fired.  End of story.  Dorothy Bland lacks any and all ethics.  She shouldn't be training dogs much less teaching journalism.

Here is Mark Davis' take from the Dallas Morning News.

DEA Seizes $16,000 From Train Passenger Because It Can

Trust the government?

Perhaps you need to read this if you do.

Maybe he should have taken traveler’s checks.

But it’s too late for that now. All the money – $16,000 in cash – that Joseph Rivers said he had saved and relatives had given him to launch his dream in Hollywood is gone, seized during his trip out West not by thieves but by Drug Enforcement Administration agents during a stop at the Amtrak train station in Albuquerque.

Full story here hat tip Albuquerque Journal 

Bishop Daniel Rea

This is my friend Bishop Daniel Rea of the Christian Church of Japan.  Follow the church link and fill out the contact form to inquire how you can help the good Bishop setup a homeless day center for the homeless in Nagoya, Japan.

Bishop Rea doesn't want to just help the homeless but to move the homeless from dependence to independence.  God bless you.

Oriana Farrell Is A Liar

Good Morning America and ABC are a bunch of idiots.

Oriana Farrell who stopped in new Mexico for going 100 MPH on a New Mexico highway back in October 2003 was not treated abusively by police.  There is the full video of the police encounter on Live Leaks.

Her comments on GMA about how she felt like Trayvon Martin is complete nonsense.  Like Skittles Martin who had drugs in his system, guess what?  So did Oriana, I know big surprise, right?

Full Unedited Video Here at Live Leaks

If you watch the actual full video and not some edited version to paint cops as the bad guys, you can clearly see this lady not only endangered the lives of her family, but of other people on the road. The cop was only going to give her a ticket for speeding. He was very professional, and never once tried to yank her out of the car, he definitely should have.

After the first time she ran, then pulled over, once she finally did get out so he could speak with her, she tried to run back to drivers seat, when he stopped her that is when her son got out and started punching the officer.

FYI, it was a responding officer that shot at the van, and if you watch the video closely, he was shooting at the tires. The van was never actually hit, you can see the bullet hitting the ground near the tires as she drives away. Never once did he fire INTO the van.
And that officer lost his job for shooting at her tires trying to slow her down.

The blame is totally on her and the media for spinning a very large lie due to race.

If it was a white woman and family, not a thing would have been said, except, wow look how dumb this lady is, boy they should have tased her.

Any one who watches the entire video and still supports here, are complete morons. Think about it, she could have hit you and your family on your way to the store, or to the movies, or maybe taking your kid to a special birthday dinner, and for what??? Because she didn't want a speeding ticket? Then felt it was okay to drive 100+ miles an hour through town to get her kids to a hotel, when she had an adult passenger and an adult son that could drive her van.

The American public wants to know how much Trayvon Martins mother, Sybrina Fulton, paid you to bring up Trayvons name on GMA this morning?  Every chance she gets she brings up the drug dealing thug and well known local thief. The school police found stolen goods in his locker that he stole from houses around his school they also found bags of pot he was selling!  His mother along with her attorney Benjamin Crump along with Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, all four of them are race baiters. And Crump is trying to make a big name for him self.  Always has his hands out for money from law suits from dead kids.      

Now the truth does not fit with the Marxist secular progressive humanist cry baby myth that white cops are evil because Montoya is Hispanic not Caucasian, so now what?  Well lets hope the judge in the new trial will now have the ACTUAL video to go by and not the edited media version.            

A real man, A real dad

Wanna see how a real dad handles things.

Dinosaur Feminazis Furious

Ancient Feminazis On CNN

Hat tip Rush Limbaugh

The feminazis, the feminazis are fried!  They're really worked up over the Ray Rice suspension, the Baltimore Ravens. The commissioner of the NFL sent a guy out to try to explain what happened. He ended up throwing gasoline on the fire, made it worse.  I watched a couple of women on CNN this morning just livid.  These were elderly feminazis.  By the way, that's another thing.  There's another story that I have in the Stack here, and we've been talking about this, this fascinating demographic stuff.

The Tyranny of Tolerance

I know that the title of this article sounds like an oxymoron, thus completely contradictory. How, you may ask, can tolerance by tyrannical? Aren’t these exclusive concepts that have no better record of mixing together than oil and water? In their true definitions, they don’t mix, but in our politically correct culture’s definition, they work rather well together. The Left has created a bastardized version of “tolerance” in which nothing but their worldview is tolerated, which is the essence of tyranny.

Full write up here 

Hat tip my friend Josh Kimbrell
 

The Liberal Christian Delusion

Can such a thing as a “liberal Christian” actually exist? Is it possible for Christianity and liberalism to co-exist?

Questions like this, when asked, may sound like they are meant in jest.  But actually, they are not meant to be funny at all. In reality, the question reflects a quiet serious inquiry. And furthermore, the answer has some serious implications for the millions around the world who call themselves Christians. Another way of asking the question is this: Is it a reality that one can be both a Christian and a liberal at the same time?

To answer this, one must first consider some basic theological tenets: Jesus came to this planet centuries ago with only one thing in mind. He wanted to provide an escape for humankind from being eternally condemned. God knew that the use of animal sacrifices, that at the time were being offered for the atonement for sin, was ultimately never going to really work in the end.  People were simply habitual sinners and had limited resources or patience for the endless sacrifices.  Something else had to be done.

So, Jesus came and died on the cross, and in doing so, created a permanent method through which any human being could be delivered from eternal condemnation.  This also made the road to salvation more direct, although not necessarily easier: One could simply be saved through faith in Christ alone. Without the cross, Christianity is without foundation and meaningless.

This is why truly dedicated Christians are known for quoting from the Word of God, the Bible, and trying to lead others to faith in Christ. Their salvation from hell is the primary motivation in everything they do.  Their desire to see others saved from the same eternal condemnation is priority to them above anything else in their lives.

A liberal Christian, however, is an entirely different thing. They choose to define themselves by their beliefs and involvement in liberal movements above anything else.  These liberal movements could be anything from abortion, to gay rights, to feminism, to racial advocacy, to affirmative action.  Maybe they choose to become advocates for large entitlements and exemptions from the government. Liberal Christianity can manifest itself in so many different ways.  However, one common aspect shared by all of these groups is that they are tied together by what they simply call the “love of Jesus.” This is a very nebulous term that is, in actuality, devoid of meaning.

Liberal Christians never talk about salvation. None of them talk at length about what Jesus did on the cross. Rather, they focus on something else. They seem to promote a type of lifestyle that is totally dependent on self. It is all about bettering one’s self, saving one’s self, relying on one’s own strength and action.

They will tell people that Jesus taught about accepting others, and for that reason, homosexuals must feel accepted and be allowed to celebrate their choice in lifestyle regardless of what the scripture says. They want to create a sort of utopia where everyone is fed and taken care of and nurtured.  In the mind of a liberal, the best way to accomplish that dream is through the government.

The liberal Christians who embrace this concept simply miss the whole aim of Christianity.  For them there is no accountability. There is no challenge for their ethos to line up with what the Bible outlines for mankind.  If one wants to do it and likes the way it feels, then go ahead.  There is a total embrace of everything in today’s society.  Liberal Christianity is not centered on Christ at all, but, instead, it is centered on the world.

What ends up being offered is a buffet style Christianity, allowing people to take the portions of the Bible that make them feel good while ignoring everything else.  When challenged on what they choose to believe, they tell the accuser that he is judgmental and misquote a verse in the Bible where Jesus told us to “judge not.”

In reality, the whole objective of that verse is not to inform the reader that it is wrong to judge, but, rather, to be painfully aware of the measuring stick that is being used.  It is, after all, very common for individuals to hold others to standards that are rather impossible.

For sure, there are many who profess Christianity who require perfection from those around themselves and ignore their own problems. There are others who will spend the majority of their time quibbling over the inconsistencies of others instead of following the commands of God in obedience.

In short, all of the warnings we find in the Bible do not mean that the act of judgment is always a negative action. The reality is that we will all be judged in the end by God’s standards as put forth in His Word.

The life of a Christian liberal is not centered on Christ nor is it based on the Bible. This is proven by their defending the right to murder an unborn child or for the homosexual lifestyle to be glorified. For this reason, a new way is needed to attract supporters.

The easiest avenue to take is often a very poorly disguised New Age form of spirituality. It gives all the right connotations of being loving and having a spiritual type theme.  They begin to use left-wing tactics to motivate their congregation and begin doing things that inflate a sense of self-worth and importance instead of the searching for and finding faith.

This New Age, feel-good type of faith, is not really faith at all. Rather, it takes the basic Christian structure of community and church and makes it into something more attractive to those who are secularists.  All through the history of the progressive movement are individuals who use their position inside their faith to garner support of causes that are extra-Biblical.

It is not enough for anyone to profess to be a Christian or even a Muslim.  To claim a faith is to actually hold to the core beliefs of that faith. Otherwise, God is being created in their image. He becomes a god who holds to what they want to be true.

In short, the answer to the original question is “no.”  Christianity and liberalism cannot coexist.  Once someone turns from faith in the scripture and from the laws of God, they have designed their own religion. This is America, and people are free to do that if they choose.  But please do not call it Christianity. 

Christianity is the coming to a relationship with God through a faith in Jesus Christ in response to the sacrifice He endured.  To call it anything else is quicksand.

Saudi Sentenced To Prison and 1000 Lashes For Blogging

A Saudi blogger has just been sentenced to ten years in prison and 1000 lashes for doing no more than blogging his opinion of King Abdullah.  This is not isolated and no the US does not censor bloggers.

Human rights injustices occur frequently in Saudi Arabia, particularly involving dissidents and women. In the past year, following the Arab uprisings, there have been increasing amounts of protest and dissent against the religion, politics, and cultural norms of Saudi Arabia. In 2012, thousands of people have been imprisoned for expressing their personal beliefs and critical opinions about the cultural norms of their society. The article states, “the Saudi government has gone to considerable lengths to punish, intimidate, and harass those who express opinions that deviate from the official line." In the cases mentioned in the article, some people faced imprisonment or even the death penalty for merely posting a tweet about reform or blogging about religious debates.

This is very hard to imagine, especially for people like us who have the freedom to say or believe whatever we want. It must be difficult to express oneself and impact change in Saudi Arabia, especially if he/she is subjected to punishment if one's beliefs don't agree with the expected customs. Even if they want to fight for change or for more rights, the fear of punishment prevents them from doing so.  

Another group of people that faces injustices are the women of Saudi Arabia. In some countries today, males are still socially accepted to be more dominant than females.  There is gender segregation in work places and women are not allowed to associate themselves with men. The education quality and the opportunities available are unequal for each gender. Also, there is a guardianship system in Saudi Arabia. If a woman wants to conduct business or travel, she must first get permission from her male guardian. Gender discrimination is a significant issue of human rights, particularly in middle eastern countries.

Every person should be allowed to have equal opportunities and make one's own decisions, no matter what his/her gender is. The guardianship system is surprising to hear about; it seems almost as though female adults are viewed to be treated like children.

When comparing life in America to life in Saudi Arabia, there is a drastic contrast in terms of human rights. We have the freedom to freely express our thoughts and choose our beliefs. Also, every person, no matter what race or gender, has equal opportunities for education and work. Growing up and living in America, it is very difficult to try to understand what the people in Saudi Arabia are experiencing.  Until a story like this blogger come up.

Censorship And Free Market

Last week, when the NBA banned racist team owner Donald Sterling, some said: "What about free speech? Can't a guy say what he thinks anymore?"

The answer: yes, you can. But the free market may punish you. In America today, the market punishes racists aggressively.

This punishment is not "censorship." Censorship is something only governments can do. Writers complain that editors censor what they write. But that's not censorship; that's editing.

 It's fine if the NBA -- or any private group -- wants to censor speech on its own property. People who attend games or work for the NBA agreed to abide by its rules. Likewise, Fox is free to fire me if they don't like what I say. That's the market in action, reflecting preferences of owners and customers.

But it's important that government not have the power to silence us. We have lots of companies, colleges and sports leagues. If one orders us to "shut up," we can go somewhere else.

But there is only one government, and it can take our money and our freedom. All a business can do is refuse to do business with me, causing me to work with someone else. Government can forbid me to do business with anyone at all.

Of course, government never admits it's doing harm. Around the world, when government gets into the censorship business, it claims to be protecting the public. But by punishing those who criticize politicians, it's protecting itself.

That's why it's great the Founders gave America the First Amendment, a ban on government "abridging the freedom of speech."

But I wonder if today's young lawyers would approve the First Amendment if it were up for ratification now.

There is a new commandment at colleges today: "Thou shalt not hurt others with words."

Students are told not to offend. At Wake Forest University, for instance, students cannot post any flyers or messages deemed "racist, sexist, profane or derogatory."

The goal is noble: create a kinder environment. But who gets to decide how much "hurt" is permissible? Recently, a fourth-grade teacher in North Carolina was ordered to attend sensitivity training after teaching students the word "niggardly." When the power to censor lies with the people most easily offended, censorship never stops.

A few years ago, I asked law students at Seton Hall University if there should be restrictions to the First Amendment. Many were eager to ban "hate speech."

"No value comes out of hate speech," said a future lawyer. "We need to regulate flag burning ... and blasphemy," said another. One student wanted to ban political speech by corporations, and another was comfortable imprisoning people who make hunting videos.

Only when I pulled out a copy of the Bill of Rights and slowly wrote in their "exceptions" did one student finally say, "We went too far!"

So does free speech mean that we must endure hateful speech in the public square? No.

I'll fight it by publicly denouncing it, speaking against it, boycotting the speaker. That's what the NBA's employees and customers demanded, and quickly got.

What convinced me that almost all speech should be legal was the book "Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought" by Jonathan Rauch. He explains how knowledge increases through arguments.

Rauch is gay. In an updated afterward to his book, he points out how quickly the world has changed for people like him. Twenty years ago, "gay Americans were forbidden to work for government, to obtain security clearances, serve in the military ... arrested for making love, even in their own homes ... beaten and killed on the streets, entrapped and arrested by police for sport."

This changed in just two decades, he says, because there was open debate. Gay people "had no real political power, only the force of our arguments. But in a society where free exchange is the rule, that was enough."

Fight bigotry with more speech.

- John Stossel