Articles, Blog, News




But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! (Galatians 1:8)



QUESTION:   You wrote that God puts an awareness of “His eternal power and Godhead” in the mind and heart of all His creation, which I believe.

But that is not the same as the, can we say, “technical” aspect that salvation comes only through belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus, the Son of God, whose blood pays the penalty for our sins, which I also believe.

Thus, a wild man of Borneo may know of God and, after his fashion, worship Him as Creator, but still not know, having never heard, that God came to earth in the person of Jesus, lived a perfect life, and shed his blood that all who believe this and come to him will be saved.

How can he know “without a teacher?”

That, I think, is the man’s question, and mine as well. Will the “wild man” who believes in God, but who never heard of Jesus and who, thus, is unable to come to Him, be damned?

ANSWER:   There are several basic things we know about God that have to be reconciled to one another to answer this question.

1) Man is without excuse (Romans 1:18-20).

2) No one comes to the Father except through the Son (John 14:6).

3) God doesn’t want any to perish but all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).

4) All who call on the name of the Lord will be saved (Romans 10:13)

5) God is just and can not condemn someone who could not have known how to be saved. (2 Peter 2:9)

When you put them all together you have to conclude that once a man realizes that God exists and acknowledges Him as such, then God will move Heaven and Earth to show him the way to salvation so he can make an informed decision. We may not understand how that happens, but to deny that it does is to accuse God of being unjust.



QUESTION:   Do you agree with John 8:24 that you must believe Jesus is God to be saved? Jesus says in John 8:24“… if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins.” Please note: There is no “He” in the original Greek language.

ANSWER:   There are plenty of reasons to believe that Jesus was God in human form. John, Paul, and the writer of Hebrews said He was, Jesus said He was, and so did God. But I don’t believe that every time He said the words “I am” He was really saying He is God. For example in John 8 He used that phrase 8 times and only the last one was understood by the Jews to be a use of the name of God. We know that because that’s when they took up stones to stone Him. (John 8:58-59)

In John 8:24 Jesus told them that if they did not believe He was the one He claimed to be they would die in their sins. That’s because He claimed to be the one God sent to save them from their sins.

Spirit led study will bring one to the conclusion that Jesus is God. The blood of a sinless man was required to redeem us, and there’s only ever been one. No one with a human father could qualify. As far as salvation is concerned I would say that someone who has studied the Bible and still denies the deity of Jesus has a problem because of this, but the Bible doesn’t say that believing Jesus is God is a prerequisite. I think it’s something that the Holy Spirit reveals to us after the fact through our studies.



QUESTION:   This is the end of a sermon given by my preacher.

The Bible doesn’t say that “whosoever believeth in the inerrancy of Scripture will not perish but have everlasting life”; it doesn’t say that whosoever believeth in the divinity of Jesus, his virgin birth, his bodily resurrection, his second coming; it doesn’t say that whosoever believeth in the doctrine of substitutionary atonement will not perish; it says that whosoever believeth in him–in Jesus–will not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16).

I was shocked. This seems very wrong to me and the way of the new age movement. I need some guidance.

ANSWER:   Romans 10:9 clearly says, “If you confess with your mouth ‘Jesus is Lord’ and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”

When we confess that Jesus is Lord, it means we believe that He’s the one sent by God to die for our sins. Believing that God raised Him from the dead is necessary for salvation because When He went to the cross, Jesus took all the sins of our life upon Himself to make us righteous before God. (2 Cor. 5:21) After His resurrection He went to sit at God’s right hand. God cannot be in the presence of sin, so if any of our sins were left unpaid, He couldn’t be in the presence of God. And that means we couldn’t be sure that he really saved us completely. Since there’s no other way to pay for our sins, we’d still be lost. To put it simply, His resurrection is proof that God considered His death sufficient to pay for all of our sins in full, qualifying us for resurrection as well. Belief in the resurrection is not optional. Unless we believe that Jesus was resurrected, we can’t believe that we will be.

The same case can be made for the divinity of Jesus, the virgin birth, the substitutionary atonement, and so on. According to God’s Law, they are essential to our assurance of salvation. They’re what make John 3:16 work. People who say otherwise simply haven’t done their theological homework.

Lot’s of people love Jesus because they see Him as a great teacher, or a kind and gentle man, or a good role model. These are all legitimate responses to His life. But until we admit that we’re sinners in need of a Savior and believe that Jesus is both willing and able to save us if we ask Him, then all the love we have for Him as a man will not help us at all.





News Clips Obtained From Many Sources – Including


Rapture Ready News


Main News Channels

Other Christian Sites ​​24/03/2018




1Th. 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; THEN SUDDEN DESTRUCTION COMETH UPON THEM, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape














  • Gender-neutral names for babies are on the rise among parents more willing than ever to embrace the possibility of gender fluidity in their children











Less than a month ago—in advance of the summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in Istanbul—the Turkish daily Yeni Şafak, which is considered one of the mouthpieces of Erdogan and his ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), published an article entitled “A Call for Urgent Action.”

The same article was also published on the newspaper’s website with the more explicit title: “What if an Army of Islam was Formed Against Israel?” The article openly called on the 57 member states of the OIC to form a joint “Army of Islam” to simultaneously attack Israel from the east, west, north and south.

According to Israel’s Shin Bet, the source of the article appears to be the Turkish company SADAT, which among other sinister plots, is aiding Hamas with funds and military gear to create a “Palestinian” army to join in the fight against Israel.

The idea of creating an “Army of Islam” to destroy Israel was accompanied by an interactive map providing formation of military forces for a joint Muslim attack on Israel. It also provides details on military forces based in various locations.

Yeni Şafak further explained, “If the member states of the OIC unite militarily, they will form the world’s largest and most comprehensive army. The number of active soldiers would be at least 5,206,100, while the defense budget would reach approximately $175 billion.”

This article provided additional details of the scandalous plan, stating that, “It is expected that 250,000 soldiers will participate in the first of a possible operation. Land, air and naval bases of member states located in the most critical regions will be used. Joint bases will be constructed in a short period of time. … It is possible for 500 tanks and armored vehicles, 100 planes and 500 attack helicopters and 50 ships to mobilize quickly.”

Regardless of how absurd and troubling this suicidal plan may seem, Erdogan did not disavow the report. In fact, he has reiterated on several occasions his ambition to resurrect the Ottoman Empire, in which context he wants to create the “Army of Islam.”

The Ottoman Empire he speaks of is the same one that committed genocide against more than one million Armenians in the wake of the Ottomans’ defeat at the end of World War I.

Therefore, no one should dismiss Erdogan’s yet hidden illusion to commit genocide against the Jews in Israel. Erdogan is dangerous because he is insane enough not only to think in these incomprehensible terms, but to act on them on numerous fronts, as he is now doing.

In recent years, Erdogan has been busy establishing military bases in Qatar and Somalia, and most recently reached an agreement with Sudan to acquire a Sudanese island in the Red Sea to be used as forward military base. Meanwhile, he is throwing his brash and bearish weight on the Caucasus and former Soviet states such as Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, and others to follow his dictates. 

He has repeatedly threatened to invade Greek islands in the Mediterranean, not to mention his recent incursion into Syria for the express purpose of establishing a permanent presence in the country under the guise of fighting Kurdish terrorism.

Recently, at the commemoration ceremony marking the 100th anniversary of the death of Ottoman Sultan Abdulhamid II at the Yildiz palace in Istanbul, Erdogan stated: “The Republic of Turkey, just like our previous states that are a continuation of one another, is also a continuation of the Ottomans.”

Erdogan further stated, according to Bloomberg, that, ‘Too many Turks, misled by the West, have cut the country off from its Ottoman roots.’ “History isn’t just a nation’s past, it’s the compass for its future.”

MP Alparslan Kavaklıoğlu, a member of the ruling AKP and the head of the parliament’s Security and Intelligence Commission, recently stated: “The Muslim population will outnumber the Christian population in Europe. This… has increased the nationalistic, xenophobic and anti-Islam rhetoric there. Hence, marginal, small parties have started to get large numbers of votes… But there is no remedy for it. Europe will be Muslim. We will be effective there, Allah willing. I am sure of that.”

To promote the revival of the Ottoman Empire and his ambition to become the leader of the Muslim world, Erdogan exploits Islam as the common cause around which all Muslim states can rally. He uses religion to prevent questioning either his motive or the nature of his mission, and acts as if it were all ordained by God. No one should be surprised if Erdogan soon announces that Sharia law is the law of the land. 

He exploits Islam for personal and political gain, uses Islamic symbols and precepts to indoctrinate the public, and promotes Islamic studies in schools to cultivate a new generation of devout Muslims loyal to him.

Although Erdogan still pretends to govern an Islamic democracy, the truth is that Turkey in no way resembles a democracy under his dictatorial reign. He is steadily making Turkey an Islamist state that stands by and supports Islamic extremist groups, such Hamas and ISIS.

Since the publication of Erdogan’s outrageous plan, not a single US or EU official has condemned it. The US and the EU must demand that Erdogan disassociate himself from the ideas reported by Yeni Şafak and reject them in the strongest terms. 

Moreover, the US should put Erdogan on notice that further promulgation of his Ottoman revivalist ideology will be dealt with as a threat to the US’ and EU’s strategic interests, and will bear severe consequences.

No one, especially the US and EU, should dismiss Erdogan’s outrageous anti-Western scheme, which poses a major security threat. It’s time for the EU to permanently and publicly close the door to Turkey’s prospective EU membership.

No American administration should allow Turkey to threaten the destruction of one of its closest allies—Israel. No leader who is silent about the creation of an Islamic Army should be trusted and treated as a legitimate head of state, but must be dealt with as a traitor who is inviting disaster onto his country and people.

No country that cozies up to and buys weapons from the West’s enemy -Russia—and buys oil from the Islamic State should remain a member of NATO.

And no head of state who has dismantled every democratic pillar in his country and is transforming it into an extremist Islamic state can be a trusted as an ally—especially one who is interfering in the domestic affairs of many countries and undermining the international order.

Indeed, how many more sinister steps can Erdogan take before the EU and the US recognize that he is a threat against Western strategic interests? He must be stopped from blackmailing the West while destroying the country that was envisioned by its founder, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.




Paul McLeary

Posted with permission from Breaking Defense

The American way of war — using overpowering industrial might, crushing firepower, and owning the sea and skies — may have come to an end, a top Pentagon official says.

For the past two decades, “the Chinese and the Russians have been working to undermine that model” Elbridge Colby, deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development said Wednesday. By spending billions on modernizing their militaries and fielding new technologies like A.I. and hypersonic missiles at a faster clip than the Americans, the two countries have changed the way the United States must approach future conflict.  

“I want to really stress that everything should be circled back to what the problem statement is, what the problem definition is, which is defeating the Chinese or Russian potential theories of victory,” Colby told an audience at the annual directed Energy Summit, co-sponsored by Booz Allen Hamilton and the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. The answer, as much as there is one, will be found in a combination of technology, training, and doctrine, “but we should be taking initiative. They’ve gone after our theory of victory? We should go after their theory of victory so we have a better deterrent.”

One of the architects of the Pentagon’s National Defense Strategy, which underscored the view that Washington has entered an era of “long-term strategic competition” with Moscow and Beijing, Colby used his remarks to lay down a a series of challenges for defense industry types in the audience.

The traditional method of slowly testing and evaluating new technologies for year, or even decades, “ain’t gonna work any more…we need to change,” he said. Chinese and Russian defense officials don’t keep such long development schedules, and the U.S. tech industry has scoffed at working with the Pentagon thanks in part to the cautious, time-consuming schedules so anathema to tech Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. Taking decades to field aircraft like the F-35 or Ford-class carriers might provide long-term stability, but “it doesn’t matter if we’re stronger in the global context if we lose in the Pacific or Europe” tomorrow, Colby warned.

To the defense industry, Colby said bluntly, “we’re not interested in something that’s kind of a whiz-bang thing that’s not connected to a plausible deployment or not nestled within operational concepts. We do want to encourage breakthrough and creative, kind of, activity and investment in technology, but it’s got to be something that we can actually use.”

To underscore the Pentagon’s concerns with today’s challenges from peer competitors, on Tuesday Taiwan scrambled several warships and aircraft to monitor Beijing’s aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, after it entered the Taiwan Strait.

The move comes about a week after Pacific Command chief, Adm. Harry Harris, told a Senate panel that the removal of term limits to allow Chinese President Xi Jinping to stay in office indefinitely should be seen as a warning sign of more provocative action in the South China Sea and elsewhere.

Harris, President Donald Trump’s nominee to become ambassador to Australia, said China seeks regional hegemony and to force America out of the region. China is investing heavily in hypersonic missiles, fifth generation aircraft and upgunning military sites on fake islands in areas claimed by other countries in the South China Sea, and is pouring record amounts into its military buildup.

Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin sign $400 billion gas deal

In Europe, Russian President Vladimir Putin last month boasted that his country has developed “invincible” new cruise missiles, including hypersonic missiles, that can punch through U.S. defenses.

During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday, Sen. James Inhofe (the likely next chairman of the committee) asked Gen. John Hyten, head of Strategic Command, “if that happens, what kind of defense do we have against hypersonic threat?”

Hyten, worryingly, wasn’t sure. “We have a very difficult — well, our defense is our deterrent capability,” he said. “We don’t have any defense that could deny the employment of such a weapon against us, so our response would be our deterrent force, which would be the triad and the nuclear capabilities that we have to respond to such a threat.”

The Pentagon has called for the development of so-called “low yield” nuclear weapons that can be launched from submarines to meet the lower Russian threshold for the use of nuclear weapons.

Underscoring Colby’s concerns, Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan, told today’s summit, “no one can sit in the classified briefings I do and learn what our adversaries are doing right now, and not feel a keen sense of urgency to invest in these technologies.”




WEBPAGE ADMINISTRATOR:   It makes one wonder if Jared Kushner could be the Antichrist. In the past 7 years of his voting life he voted as a “Woman”, this alone is strange, and remember what the Bible says about the person that “Instigates” the signing of the peace treaty, that he could be the “Antichrist”. They is a lot more about this man that does not fit. We can only wait and see, but the signing of the 7 year peace treaty in the Middle East will bring on the Psalm 83 War, and in my opinion the Rapture of the Church before-hand.


Jared Kushner fully expects Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of the Saudi Kingdom to play ball on an Israel-Palestine peace deal. So far, that’s exactly what crown prince is doing. He’s also made sure Egypt is on board, not to mention the Gulf principalities over which Saudi Arabia wields such influence.

Last week Jared Kushner, presidential adviser and son-in-law, presided over a highly unusual White House conference on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

“And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days.” Genesis 49:1 (KJV)

EDITOR’S NOTE: Jared Kushner has a strategy to bring about a peace deal in the Middle East that seemingly no one else over the past 70 years has thought of. He has formed a surprisingly  strong alliance with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of the Saudi Kingdom, the satellite Arab nations in the Gulf region, and with Egypt as well. The power and influence this brings to bear is truly staggering. The Palestinians are struggling with Hamas and their economy, and may just be ready to make a deal. Add to that Kushner’s lifelong personal friendship with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, and you have all the fixings for a peace covenant. And the countdown to May 14th edges ever closer…exciting times.

Who participated was noteworthy: Israel was there, alongside Arab states with which it does not have diplomatic relations, such as Bahrain, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Who didn’t participate was noteworthy too: the Palestinians, who have been boycotting Trump since his announcement that the U.S. will have an embassy in Jerusalem.

The meaning of the conference can only be deciphered in relation to the Kushner-led peace effort. That long-shot effort is alive, notwithstanding Kushner’s defeat by chief of staff John Kelly in the White House palace intrigue over security clearance.

Last week’s conference embodied the success of the Kushner team’s basic strategy — and the challenge of making it work in the face of setbacks like Trump’s Jerusalem announcement. In essence, Kushner has approached the Israel-Palestine question by treating it as an adjunct to a broader regional realignment of Sunni states plus Israel against Shiite Iran.

His laser-like focus has been on Saudi Arabia, which is signaling that it’s prepared to develop warm and even official ties to Israel if only peace can be established. The basic idea is for the Saudis and other Gulf states to pressure the Palestinians to the table. Then Trump and Kushner will deliver the Israelis — or at least try.

Other negotiators in the past have sought to regionalize the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Kushner has gotten further than any of his predecessors on this front.

His strategy has been to form an extremely close relationship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who is expected to become king in the near future when his father abdicates.

This relationship is a two-way street. MBS, as the Saudi prince is invariably called outside the country, is in the process of attempting a high-risk transformation of the Saudi monarchy, from a power-sharing arrangement among siblings to centralized kingship dominated by one man. For that, MBS needs unprecedented personal backing from the White House. And Kushner and Trump have delivered exactly that. Witness their Oval Office meeting Tuesday.

Meanwhile, in return, Kushner expects MBS to play ball on an Israel-Palestine deal. So far, that’s exactly what crown prince is doing. He’s also made sure Egypt is on board, not to mention the Gulf principalities over which Saudi Arabia wields such influence.

The evidence for MBS’s cooperation has so far come primarily from Palestinian reports that President Mahmoud Abbas was told in no uncertain terms by Saudi Arabia that the time had come to take a deal.

The Gaza aid conference was a substantially more public proof of MBS’s willingness to keep up his end of the bargain. In the past, Arab states wouldn’t have been willing to attend a high-profile conference about Palestine if the Palestinians refused to show up. They certainly wouldn’t have participated in a publicized conference where the Israelis would be there and the Palestinians would not.

The whole point of the exercise was therefore to show the Palestinians that if they don’t get with the program, negotiations between Arab states and Israel could go on without them. That’s a plausible form of leverage. The Palestinians’ greatest nightmare is that Arab states might abandon them altogether and normalize relations with Israel without a peace deal. source




After the murders of much of the staff at the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris on January 7, 2015, the hostage-taking and slaughter at a kosher supermarket two days later confirmed what was already obvious: France was a target of Islamic terrorism. 

A huge demonstration, organized in Paris on January 11, brought together a million and a half people, with politicians from around the world in attendance.

For a brief moment, France seemed to be the country where the multitudes were ready to stand up for freedom of speech, and the government was ready to fight for Western values.

Unfortunately, that impression did not last long.

For years, freedom of speech in France has been in the process of being crushed, particularly regarding Islam and Islamic terrorism. Journalists who said that Islam often did not look much like a religion of peace but more like a religion of war were systematically and harshly prosecuted. Charlie Hebdo’s new director and editor-in-chief were also not spared: they were sued as early as 2006, the year the magazine republished the Danish Mohammed cartoons. 

They were sued again in 2007, 2012 and 2013. The writer Michel Houellebecq was summoned to court in 2010 for saying that Islam is a “stupid” religion. The first judicial sentence against the polemist Éric Zemmour dates from 2011. The website Riposte Laïque was established in 2007 to fight censorship, defend secularism, and preserve the right to criticize Islam. Lawsuits against its founder, Pierre Cassen, immediately became overwhelming.

Judicial harassment against those who still dared to speak “incorrectly” about Islam did not stop after the murders at Charlie Hebdo: rather, they intensified. The terrorist attacks that took place in France in November 2015 and in July 2016 did not lead to any demonstrations; merely to displays of sadness, fear and resignation. 

French politicians used empty words, spoke of the dangers of “fanaticism” and said that France was “at war”—but they never named an enemy. Journalists and writers who said that terrorists attacking France were Muslim, and that “Islamism” was not foreign to Islam, had to answer for their words in court and were fined thousands of euros.

Both Éric Zemmour and Pierre Cassen have spent hours on trial providing conclusive evidence—in vain.

Since the election of President Emmanuel Macron a year ago, the situation has become worse. On June 20, 2017, at the end of a post-Ramadan iftar dinner he shared with Muslim leaders, President Macron stated that “…no one should make believe that Islam is not compatible with the Republic”; that “ no one should say that France reject Muslim faith” and that “attempt to give Islam the image of a religion condoning murder and terror” must be condemned. 

Most French critics of Islam got the message and cautiously chose silence. Riposte Laïque did not, but here were consequences.

On January 20, 2018, Pierre Cassen was convicted of “incitement to hatred against Muslims” and a fine of $12,000 was imposed on him. He was also given a three-month suspended prison sentence. He will soon be tried again for repeating the same “crime”, and could be sent to prison.

Several European governments have made it clear that criticizing Islam may lead to prosecution and conviction. Recently, British, Danish and German citizens have been handed suspended sentences. If Pierre Cassen is imprisoned, it will be the first time that someone in a Western democracy is sent to jail for criticizing a religion.

Worse, Cassen is not even the author of the article targeted by the judges, and the article only says what is obvious: that extremist Muslims are at war with France and the West, and that incitement to kill infidels is present in the Qur’an. Cassen was sentenced as the editor of Riposte Laïque; since 2012, however, Riposte Laïque has been hosted by Switzerland and has a Swiss editor. 

Pierre Cassen no longer even has an official role in the organization. He is just easy prey because he lives in France. Pierre Cassen, clearly a victim of prosecutorial abuse, is planning to apply for political asylum in Switzerland.

Two members of the French National Assembly, Gilbert Collard and Marine Le Pen, a former presidential candidate who secured 35% of votes in the May 2017 run-off, were also recently charged with “inciting violence”. They did not even publish texts criticizing Islam. 

After a journalist compared their party (National Front) to the Islamic State, they tweeted photos showing atrocities committed by the Islamic State, and added under the photos: “This is the Islamic State”. They are also facing serious fines and prison sentences. The photos they tweeted are not even secret: they are widely available on the internet.

Originally, Collard and Le Pen were protected by parliamentary immunity. Their parliamentary immunity, however, was revoked by an almost unanimous vote in the French National Assembly. This is the first time that members of a democratic Western government risk being imprisoned for publishing widely available photos of Islamic crimes.

French laws are being used more and more often by the French justice system to suppress any criticism of Islam. Furthermore, in a dangerous inversion of reality, critics of Islamic terrorist violence are now systematically presented by French judges as examples of incitement to hatred and violence. The threat of jail time is added to the threat of fines.

Consequently, those who criticize Islam—or who just show the results of Islamic terrorism—are victims of fierce prosecution, while hate-filled, racist organizations are never touched. The Islamic “Natives of the Republic” movement, for instance, regularly publishes texts saying that “ greedy Jews control the global financial system” and that “Zionists kill Palestinian children for pleasure” but are never condemned. 

Houria Bouteldja, the spokesperson for the movement, published a book describing Jews as vicious supporters of “Islamophobia”, and stating that the Holocaust is “infinitely less than a detail” of history. She recently took part in anti-Israel demonstrations where flags of Hamas and Hezbollah were waved and portraits of murderers of Jews were held up. Jewish organizations expressed their indignation and filed complaints—to no avail.

The French government and the French justice system claim to treat all religions equally, but they treat Islam as if it were “more equal than others”—able to enjoy special privileges.

In France, attacks against Islam are benign and rare, but lead to severe convictions: in January 2016, a man dropped slices of ham in front of a mosque. He was immediately sent to jail for several weeks. Attacks against Christianity, however, are countless, sometimes violent, but almost never lead to any conviction. French theaters produce anti-Christian shows almost every year. 

In a play called “On the Concept of the Face of God,” currently on tour throughout the country, for almost two hours, a large portrait of Jesus Christ is insulted and covered with matter that is supposed to be feces. The French Ministry of Culture subsidizes the tour. No theater director, however, would imagine producing an anti-Islam show.

Six to eight million Muslims live in France, and the number is increasing. France’s 400,000 remaining Jews have not yet left France, but every year their the numbers shrink. Practicing Christians vanish; churches are often empty.

Polls show that a significant proportion of the French population thinks that Islam is a threat, but French authorities choose to harass those who speak of this threat.

In 2005, the situation was already serious. Muslim riots took place throughout the country. French President Jacques Chirac asked imams to restore calm and began to abandon the French government’s sovereignty over many districts. A few years later, President Nicolas Sarkozy claimed to organize an “Islam of France”, based on a structure he had created in 2003 when he was Minister of the Interior. He asked French Muslim leaders to call for “moderation”. 

He failed: French Muslim leaders said unanimously that “Islam is not violent” and “does not need moderation”. He promised to end “no-go zones” and to take back the districts abandoned under Jacques Chirac. He also failed; in 2006 there were already 751 no-go zones in France, and “as of last count,” that number is no different. President François Hollande did nothing and let the situation rot. President Emmanuel Macron now speaks of the need to “reorganize the Islam of France” but instead appears to surrender.

Macron recently said he wants to create the post of “Grand Imam of France”, a man who would be the “spiritual leader” of Islam in France. He added that he would like to see the construction of large “cathedral mosques” in every important French city. He also wants the Arabic language to be taught in every high school, to maintain a relationship between Muslims and the language of their religion. He promises affirmative action in favor of Muslims and a more resolute fight against “those who attack Islam”.

He never uses the words “radical Islam”. He speaks of “radicalization”, but says that the main danger is the “radicalization of secularism”. He does not hide that those who defend secularism—and a clear separation between the government and Islam (Riposte Laïque, for example) — are an obstacle on the path he intends to follow. Clearly, the fight against “radicalization of secularism” is in high gear!

Marwan Muhammad, spokesman of the “Collective against Islamophobia in France” said in 2011:

“Who has the right to say that in thirty to forty years, France will not be a Muslim country? No one in this country has the right to extinguish our right to hope for a society that is globally faithful to Islam “.

Every day in France, men such as Marwan Muhammad have more reason to hope.

Prominent Islamic preacher Tariq Ramadan is presently being held at the Fleury-Mérogis prison near Paris: judges could not dismiss the overwhelming charges against him of rape. Some French Muslims still claim he is being unfairly accused. 

Many others say he is an impostor and seem ready to get rid of him. They say it is urgent to create “authentic French Islamic institutions” fully “recognized by the French government”. President Macron could not have said it better. The Islamization of France will not stop.

President Macron recently said he wants a law against “fake news”. If the law is adopted, all online magazines in France that do not broadcast what the government defines as “true news” could be subject to immediate government suspension. 

If they are located outside France, access to them would be blocked. Islamic online magazines and websites are not on the list of “fake news” providers. What online magazines and websites top the list? Those that question Islam.




As time goes by, the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah is getting more frustrated. The date of the planned transfer of the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem on May 14, 2018 is drawing closer. 

This will be the day before Nakba, or “disaster,” day, the anniversary of the declaration of the State of Israel’s independence, which the Palestinians mark as the anniversary of their national disaster.

Of course, there will be no soul-searching on the Palestinian side with regard to how they came to this situation. It is more convenient for them to blame the West for their situation.

Recently, Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki sharply criticized Arab countries. On March 9, 2018, the official Palestinian news agency WAFA reported that he said:

The lack of Arab resolve in implementing their resolutions is what is encouraging the United States to behave the way it does right now, and to declare its recognition of Jerusalem. It also encourages smaller countries, such as Guatemala, to decide to transfer their embassies to Jerusalem.

PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas stands alone, without any practical Arab support. Any support is purely in the form of lip service declarations, such as statements regarding Jerusalem. Even the threats made by Arab countries three months ago toward the Trump administration have disappeared. 

Several Arab countries, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, began to come to terms with the fact that as they can’t change the U.S. president, and that they need to be more pragmatic and try to work with him on his new plan, known as “the deal of the century.”

Political Pressure on the Palestinian Authority

The Palestinian leadership is very disappointed that the Arab countries have not, as of yet, carried out their resolutions regarding Jerusalem and the Palestinian problem, which were taken at the Arab Summit Conference. For this reason, the Palestinians have few expectations from the upcoming Arab Summit Conference due to take place soon in Saudi Arabia. 

According to senior Fatah sources, in recent weeks, heavy pressure has been put on Mahmoud Abbas to accept President Trump’s “deal of the century.” Egypt and Saudi Arabia are closer to the American position than that of the Palestinians, and they are pressing the PA chairman to show political pragmatism.

The east Jerusalem newspaper al-Quds reported on March 17, 2018, that both Arab countries were putting pressure on Abbas and on King Abdullah of Jordan to stop opposing the “deal of the century.”

Even the European countries, which usually support the Palestinian position, don’t want to clash with the Trump administration with regard to the Palestinian issue. They are expecting Abbas to be prepared to listen to the details of the “deal of the century” and not to reject it out of hand.

Essentially, the Arab and international consensus is that the United States is the only country that can serve as the main broker in this situation and put pressure on Israel to reach a political settlement whereby the final status of Jerusalem is resolved through negotiation.

Mahmoud Abbas is currently under political, economic, and financial pressure to agree to the “deal of the century.” This also includes indirect threats that if he refuses to do so, he will be replaced by another leader.

Saudi Arabia Is Trying to Convince Abbas to Drop His Opposition

The Al-Khaleej Online (London) newspaper reported on March 16, 2018, that Saudi Arabia was very actively involved in trying to convince the PA chairman to soften his opposition to the U.S. “deal of the century.”

A senior source in the Palestinian Authority told the publication that Saudi Arabia is trying to convince Mahmoud Abbas to agree to the American plan, and its most recent suggestion is to convince President Trump to postpone the transfer of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem scheduled for May 14.

Similarly, Saudi Arabia has offered to establish a five-member council, composed of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United States, the Palestinian Authority, and Israel, to discuss the issues that the Palestinians find most problematic in the “deal of the century” and to attempt to reach agreements.

Saudi Arabia is also prepared to help find a solution to the financial crisis that UNRWA, which takes care of Palestinian refugees, is facing.

Egypt is also helping the Trump administration soften Arab opposition to the “deal of the century.”

The newspaper al-Araby al-Jadeed (London) reported on March 16, 2018, that according to political sources in Egypt, Egypt has launched diplomatic attempts to convince Jordan to participate in discussions regarding “the deal of the century.”

Jordan has coordinated its opposition to the plan with the Palestinian Authority. It is therefore important, from the viewpoint of the U.S. administration, to put a stop to this cooperation.

The Jordanians claim that “the deal of the century” is not balanced and is biased in favor of Israel.

According to the news report, U.S. advisor Jared Kushner secretly visited Cairo at the beginning of March 2018 and met with Egypt intelligence chief and director of President al-Sisi’s office, Abbas Kamal, who is they discussed Jordan’s position.

Several days later, Jordanian Prime Minister Hani al-Mulki also arrived in Cairo for a meeting with President al-Sisi, in which this issue was discussed.

Will Mahmoud Abbas Agree?

The chairman of the Palestinian Authority has shown consistency in his determined opposition to the new U.S. diplomatic plan.

In the face of the current moderate position of the Arab states, he is trying to suggest alternatives. In his most recent speech to the UN Security Council, Abbas suggested the establishment of an international organization to mediate between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, of which the United States could be a member. 

The idea did not gain much traction. As both the United States and Israel were opposed to the idea, it had no chance of success.

According to senior Fatah sources, Mahmoud Abbas also sent a suggestion to the Trump administration via a third party to first of all define the borders of a Palestinian state in accordance with the 1967 lines, with an exchange of territories, and then continue the negotiations from there. However, his suggestion was soundly rejected.

Apparently, what interests Mahmoud Abbas right now is preparing for his retirement from politics, while leaving behind a legacy of strict adherence to Palestinian “red lines.”

Abbas has already declared that he will not yield on these – he will not end his life “with treachery.” For this reason, according to senior Fatah sources, the current dispute with the Trump administration on the subject of Jerusalem and the “deal of the century” serves his desire to step down dramatically from the political stage, going into Palestinian history as the leader who never gave in to American and Israeli pressure.

Mahmoud Abbas fled from the Camp David summit in July 2000, when he thought that Yasser Arafat would compromise with President Clinton and Prime Minister Ehud Barak on a final status agreement. He did not want his name to be linked to it.

His 13 years of government as chairman of the Palestinian Authority are seen by the Palestinians as one huge failure. He is seeking to end his political career with a “national achievement” that would compensate for his failures. 

From his point of view, rejecting the American plan outright and withstanding the pressures upon him are his greatest achievement as Palestinian leader.




On Thursday, the Rome-based Sovereign Order of Malta, which reports directly to the Holy See, suspended historian Henry Sire after he was revealed to be the author of the bestselling book The Dictator Pope: The Inside Story of the Francis Papacy, a critical examination of the pontificate of Pope Francis. Meanwhile the Vatican has hired the international law firm of Baker McKenzie to force a small Spanish website called to close its doors, allegedly for its sometimes critical tone toward aspects of the Francis papacy.

The Vatican has taken new measures to punish critics of Pope Francis in a move that seems to belie the pope’s earlier calls for greater dialogue and debate within the Church.

“So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.” Revelation 17:3-5 (KJV)

EDITOR’S NOTE: How anyone can possibly think that the multi-tentacled beast that is the Catholic Church cum Vatican system could ever be the Church that Jesus started is beyond mind boggling. The Vatican is absolutely what Revelation declares her to be, the Whore of Babylon who seduces all the kings of the earth to enrich herself. All popes since 325 AD have been political rulers of a Roman system that is encapsulated in the country known as Vatican City. Pope Francis is a political leader with a political agenda, and he rules the Vatican with an iron fist. Now Francis has dispatched global law firm of Baker McKenzie to attack and silence his critics, just like any other CEO of a major corporation would do. 

On Thursday, the Rome-based Sovereign Order of Malta, which reports directly to the Holy See, suspended historian Henry Sire after he was revealed to be the author of the bestselling book The Dictator Pope: The Inside Story of the Francis Papacy, a critical examination of the pontificate of Pope Francis.

Meanwhile the Vatican has hired the international law firm of Baker McKenzie to force a small Spanish website called to close its doors, allegedly for its sometimes critical tone toward aspects of the Francis papacy. The firm recently threatened a lawsuit if Infovaticana isn’t shut down and “its internet domain transferred to the Vatican.”

The Order of Malta announced its decision Wednesday to suspend the British historian Henry Sire, a member of the order, calling his book a “vile attack” on Pope Francis.

“Following the press articles reporting the name of the author of the book ‘The Dictator Pope’ the Grand Magistry of the Order of Malta has taken the decision to suspend Henry Sire, author of the book and member of the Order of Malta. The provisional suspension from membership has immediate effect and an investigation is being launched,” it said in a statement.

In January, 2017, the Vatican took control of the Knights of Malta after ousting its Grand Master Matthew Festing for his “defiance of papal authority.” The pope asked Festing to resign following a dispute over sovereignty with the Vatican, replacing him with papal delegate Archbishop Angelo Becciu as interim leader of the order.

Under the pen name Marcantonio Colonna, Sire published The Dictator Pope electronically in November of 2017, first in Italian and then in English, after spending a four-year residence with the Knights of Malta in Rome from 2013 to 2017, during which time he conducted his research for the book. Only on Monday did Sire acknowledge that he was the author of the book.

In it, Sire portrayed Francis as an authoritarian leader who does not brook opposition or criticism. Contrary to his public persona as a jovial man of the people, Sire wrote that Francis has turned out to be “a papal tyrant the like of whom has not been seen for many centuries” and under his administration, “the Vatican is systematically silencing, eliminating and replacing critics of the Pope’s views.”

“When the publicity cameras are off him, Pope Francis turns into a different figure: arrogant, dismissive of people, prodigal of bad language and notorious for furious outbursts of temper which are known to everyone from the cardinals to the chauffeurs,” he declared.

Unfortunately for the Vatican, the immediate suspension of Sire from the Order of Malta will play as a confirmation of the author’s allegations that under Francis the Holy See deals swiftly and ruthlessly to eliminate those it views as enemies.

Attacks on have seemed to follow a similar pattern.

As the Associated Press (AP) reported, many commercial websites use the Vatican name, and yet the only one that has come under fire from the Holy See has been infovaticana, which would seem to confirm statements by the website’s founder, Gabriel Ariza, that the Vatican is deliberately targeting his site because of disagreement with its content. Ariza has called the Vatican’s measures a “political witch hunt.”

Vatican spokesman Greg Burke has denied these allegations, saying that the dispute with Infovaticana “is not a matter of ideology or freedom of expression, but one of officialdom.”

Other sites and outlets that have “Vatican” in their name include, a news portal and travel site; the Vatican Insider, a religion site with its pages published by the Italian daily La Stampa; and Inside the Vatican, a monthly magazine that publishes both print and digital editions.

None of these other sites have been asked to change their names, charged with copyright infringement, or threatened with lawsuits, which makes the case of something of an anomaly.


According to the AP, some people within the church have been angered by “content opposing abortion, same-sex marriages and adoptions by gays and lesbians,” which, on the other hand, tends to square with official Catholic teaching on these matters.

Spain’s trademark office ruled last year that Infovaticana had infringed copyright by featuring the gold and white colors of the Vatican flag and the crossed keys of St. Peter in its masthead, after which the website removed these symbols.

Now the Holy See has turned its attention to the name of the website.

Ariza said that the Vatican’s law firm has rejected all efforts to reach an amicable agreement, noting that “we have already taken down previous logos and other vestiges that can relate us to the Vatican, but they just want to shut us down.”

Breitbart News has obtained a copy of one of the letters sent by Baker McKenzie, which, on behalf of the Holy See, insists that the owners of the portal “immediately transfer the domain name of to the Secretary of State (or to whomever they designate).”

If this does not happen, the letter warns, the Vatican is prepared to exercise “all the legal actions at its disposal” to stop the use of the name and to obtain “the due indemnification for damages suffered and legal costs incurred.”

On its own website, Baker McKenzie has announced “record global revenues of $2.67 billion” for its most recent fiscal year. This past February, Pope Francis explained his approach to dealing with opposition and criticism.

“I cannot deny that these resistances exist. I see them and I know them,” the pope said. “There are doctrinal resistances. For my mental health I do not read the websites of this so-called ‘resistance.’ I know who they are, I know the groups, but I do not read them, simply for my mental health. When there is something very serious, people inform me so that I know. It is displeasing, but we must move on.”

The pope said that his response to opposition depends on the good faith he perceives in those who are opposing him.

“When I perceive opposition, I try to dialogue, when dialogue is possible; but some resistance comes from people who believe they have the true doctrine and accuse you of being a heretic,” he said.

“When I do not find spiritual goodness in these people, because of what they say or write, I simply pray for them. It pains me, but I don’t dwell on it, for the sake of my mental health.” source

Recent Posts