Adam, the leaker, Schiff must be investigated for his unethical actions.


Ethics Committee issued violations might lead to some serious swamp draining.

 

JRH 4/3/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

*****************

Ares and Athena

dc699-schiff-400x267

FITTON VS SCHIFF: Neck size aside, in his zeal to destroy President Trump, Schiff seems to have improperly disclosed classified information. Will Ethics Committee ever act?

by TFittonJW

Still waiting: www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-calls-upon-office-congressional-ethics-investigate-whether-rep-schiff-rep-speier-disclosed-classified-information/

(Washington, DC)  – Judicial Watch today sent a hand-delivered letter to the chairman and co-chairman of the House Office of Congressional Ethics calling for an investigation into whether Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Jackie Speier (D-CA) “disclosed classified information to the public in violation of House ethics rules.”

Citing the ethics complaints filed against House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) charging that he “may have made unauthorized disclosures of classified information, in violation of House Rules, regulations, or other standards of conduct,” Judicial Watch wrote:

View original post 733 more words

Even those who are aware will be shocked by the detailed, intertwining machinations to “get Trump”.


Long but worthy of the read if you want to understand the evil behind the coup plot to remove President Trump!

Ares and Athena

The following post  is very long, detailed, and informative. It is like reading a spy thriller novella.

.

Spygate: The Inside Story Behind the Alleged Plot to Take Down Trump

March 28, 2019Updated: March 29, 2019

Efforts by high-ranking officials in the CIA, FBI, Department of Justice (DOJ), and State Department to portray President Donald Trump as having colluded with Russia were the culmination of years of bias and politicization under the Obama administration.

The weaponization of the intelligence community and other government agencies created an environment that allowed for obstruction in the investigation into Hillary Clinton and the relentless pursuit of a manufactured collusion narrative against Trump.

A willing and complicit media spread unsubstantiated leaks as facts in an effort to promote the Russia-collusion narrative.

View original post 15,827 more words

ABOUT TIME: Fox News Reveals When Judge Jeanine Pirro Will Return To Her Program


I’ll be watching!

Nwo Report

Source: Collin Rugg

According to former Trump administration official Anthony Scaramucci, Judge Jeanine Pirro will be back on Fox News this weekend for her show.

Pirro was booted from her own show for the past two weekends for comments she made regarding Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitic comments.

“She is back! Tune is Saturday 9PM @FoxNews @JudgeJeanine” Scaramucci said in a tweet.

As reported earlier Tuesday by TGP, the FNC schedule still does not show listings beyond Wednesday. There is no official confirmation of Scaramucci’s report as of publication time. However, Fox News Special Report host Bret Baier retweeted another unconfirmed claim Pirro is returning this Saturday.

This is the tweet that was retweeted by Fox News host Brett Baier:

It’s about time! Judge Jeanine was wrongfully targeted by not only the far Left, but also Fox News.

VOTE NOW: Do you support Judge Jeanine Or Rep. Omar?

Pirro’s suspension from…

View original post 446 more words

More flashbacks regarding the previous administration and the treasonous collusion to protect it.


It is irrelevant if Obama was natural born or foreign born at this point. His damaged two presidential terms are over. What is relevant is undoing the damage with indictments against his crooked Administration officials which should include Obama himself!

Ares and Athena

STAFF PHOTO BY ELIOT KAMENITZ

Although many suspected the truth regarding his eligibility, the full depth of the deceit and treachery regarding his installation into the WH should infuriate every patriot in the land.  If our republic is to survive, we cannot let this happen again!

The following post is well worth the read.

Obama Was Hand-Picked, Was NOT a Natural Born Citizen, Congress Knew It, and Tried to Protect Him

From the archives. Original publication date March 29, 2015.

Let’s kick a dead horse.

The debate is settled and the damage is done. But who thinks Obama was eligible to be president?

Even President Donald Trump questioned Obama’s citizenship in 2014 by offering $50 Million to see his college records, but Obama never responded to his offer. Nothing has been done to this point.

View original post 1,955 more words

Bombshell Report: The DNC Was Not Hacked by the Russians


Seth Rich Leaked 2 Wikileaks-- Shot & Killed

Another nail in the coffin of the Mueller Investigation trying to frame President Trump for working with the Russians to win Election 2016. Dems are lying AGAIN.

 

This should reawaken the rumors that murdered Seth Rich stole the DNC files to expose Dem corruption. Here are some past titles from SlantRight 2.0 on Seth Rich exposing Crooked Hillary/Dem corruption:

 

 

 

 

JRH 2/18/19 (Edited 12/18/19 1:18 PM}

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

*********************

Bombshell Report: The DNC Was Not Hacked by the Russians

 

Crooked Hillary (blurred) & John Podesta 

Crooked Hillary (blurred) & John Podesta

 

Author: Nwo Report (gronos)

February 17, 2019

NWO Report

 

The DNC emails published by Wikileaks in 2016 were not obtained via a Russian hack, cyber-security and intelligence experts William Binney and Larry Johnson claim.

 

According to forensic evidence, the files taken from the DNC between 23 and 25 May 2016, were copied onto a file storage device.

 

Thegatewaypundit.com reports: If the Russians actually had conducted an internet based hack of the DNC computer network then the evidence of such an attack would have been collected and stored by the National Security Agency.

 

The technical systems to accomplish this task have been in place since 2002. The NSA had an opportunity to make it clear that there was irrefutable proof of Russian meddling, particularly with regard to the DNC hack, when it signed on to the January 2017 “Intelligence Community Assessment,” regarding Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election:

 

“We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.”

 

The phrase, “moderate confidence” is intelligence speak for “we have no hard evidence.” Thanks to the leaks by Edward Snowden, we know with certainty that the NSA had the capability to examine and analyze the DNC emails. NSA routinely “vacuumed up” email traffic transiting the U.S. using robust collection systems (whether or not anyone in the NSA chose to look for this data is another question). If those emails had been hijacked over the internet then NSA also would have been able to track the electronic path they traveled over the internet. This kind of data would allow the NSA to declare without reservation or caveat that the Russians were guilty. The NSA could admit to such a fact in an unclassified assessment without compromising sources and methods. Instead, the NSA only claimed to have moderate confidence in the judgement regarding Russian meddling. If the NSA had hard intelligence to support the judgement the conclusion would have been stated as “full confidence.”

 

We believe that Special Counsel Robert Mueller faces major embarrassment if he decides to pursue the indictment he filed–which accuses 12 Russian GRU military personnel and an entity identified as, Guccifer 2.0, for the DNC hack—because the available forensic evidence indicates the emails were copied onto a storage device.

 

According to a DOJ press release on the indictment of the Russians, Mueller declares that the emails were obtained via a “spearphishing” attack:

 

“In 2016, officials in Unit 26165 began spearphishing volunteers and employees of the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, including the campaign’s chairman. Through that process, officials in this unit were able to steal the usernames and passwords for numerous individuals and use those credentials to steal email content and hack into other computers. They also were able to hack into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) through these spearphishing techniques to steal emails and documents, covertly monitor the computer activity of dozens of employees, and implant hundreds of files of malicious computer code to steal passwords and maintain access to these networks.

 

The officials in Unit 26165 coordinated with officials in Unit 74455 to plan the release of the stolen documents for the purpose of interfering with the 2016 presidential election. Defendants registered the domain DCLeaks.com and later staged the release of thousands of stolen emails and documents through that website. On the website, defendants claimed to be “American hacktivists” and used Facebook accounts with fictitious names and Twitter accounts to promote the website. After public accusations that the Russian government was behind the hacking of DNC and DCCC computers, defendants created the fictitious persona Guccifer 2.0. On the evening of June 15, 2016 between 4:19PM and 4:56PM, defendants used their Moscow-based server to search for a series of English words and phrases that later appeared in Guccifer 2.0’s first blog post falsely claiming to be a lone Romanian hacker responsible for the hacks in the hopes of undermining the allegations of Russian involvement.”

 

Notwithstanding the DOJ press release, an examination of the Wikileaks DNC files do not support the claim that the emails were obtained via spearphishing. Instead, the evidence clearly shows that the emails posted on the Wikileaks site were copied onto an electronic media, such as a CD-ROM or thumb drive before they were posted at Wikileaks. The emails posted on Wikileaks were saved using the File Allocation Table (aka FAT) computer file system architecture.

 

An examination of the Wikileaks DNC files shows they were created on 23, 25 and 26 May respectively. The fact that they appear in a FAT system format indicates the data was transferred to a storage device, such as a thumb drive.

 

How do we know? The truth lies in the “last modified” time stamps on the Wikileaks files. Every single one of these time stamps end in even numbers. If you are not familiar with the FAT file system, you need to understand that when a date is stored under this system the data rounds the time to the nearest even numbered second.

 

We have examined 500 DNC email files stored on Wikileaks and all 500 files end in an even number—2, 4, 6, 8 or 0. If a system other than FAT had been used, there would have been an equal probability of the time stamp ending with an odd number. But that is not the case with the data stored on the Wikileaks site. All end with an even number.

 

The DNC emails are in 3 batches (times are GMT).

 

Date Count Min Time Max Time FAT Min Id Max Id

 

2016-05-23 10520 02:12:38 02:45:42 x 3800 14319

2016-05-25 11936 05:21:30 06:04:36 x 1 22456

2016-08-26 13357 14:11:36 20:06:04 x 22457 44053

 

The random probability that FAT was not used is 1 chance in 2 to the 500th power or approximately 1 chance in 10 to the 150th power – in other words, an infinitely high order.

 

This data alone does not prove that the emails were copied at the DNC headquarters. But it does show that the data/emails posted by Wikileaks did go through a storage device, like a thumb drive, before Wikileaks posted the emails on the World Wide Web.

 

This fact alone is enough to raise reasonable doubts about Mueller’s indictment accusing 12 Russian soldiers as the culprits for the leak of the DNC emails to Wikileaks. A savvy defense attorney will argue, and rightly so, that someone copied the DNC files to a storage device (E.g., USB thumb drive) and transferred that to Wikileaks.

 

We also tested the hypothesis that Wikileaks could have manipulated the files to produce the FAT result by comparing the DNC email files with the Podesta emails (aka Larter file) that was released on 21 September 2016. The FAT file format is NOT present in the Podesta files. If Wikileaks employed a standard protocol for handling data/emails received from unknown sources we should expect the File structure of the DNC emails to match the file structure of the Podesta emails. The evidence shows otherwise.

 

There is further compelling technical evidence that undermines the claim that the DNC emails were downloaded over the internet as a result of a spearphishing attack. Bill Binney, a former Technical Director of the National Security Agency, along with other former intelligence community experts, examined emails posted by Guccifer 2.0 and discovered that those emails could not have been downloaded over the internet as a result of a spearphishing attack. It is a simple matter of mathematics and physics.

 

Shortly after Wikileaks announced it had the DNC emails, Guccifer 2.0 emerged on the public stage, claiming that “he” hacked the DNC and that he had the DNC emails. Guccifer 2.0 began in late June 2016 to publish documents as proof that “he” had hacked from the DNC.

 

Taking Guccifer 2.0 at face value—i.e., that his documents were obtained via an internet attack—Bill Binney conducted a forensic examination of the metadata contained in the posted documents based on internet connection speeds in the United States. This analysis showed that the highest transfer rate was 49.1 megabytes per second, which is much faster than possible from a remote online connection. The 49.1 megabytes speed coincides with the download rate for a thumb drive.

 

Binney, assisted by other colleagues with technical expertise, extended the examination and ran various tests forensic from the Netherlands, Albania, Belgrade and the UK. The fastest rate obtained — from a data center in New Jersey to a data center in the UK–was 12 megabytes per second, which is less than a fourth of the rate necessary to transfer the data, as it was listed from Guccifer 2.

 

The findings from the examination of the Guccifer 2.0 data and the Wikileaks data does not prove who copied the information to a thumb drive, but it does provide and empirical alternative explanation that undermines the Special Counsel’s claim that the DNC was hacked. According to the forensic evidence for the Guccifer 2.0 data, the DNC emails were not taken by an internet spearphishing attack. The data breach was local. It was copied from the network.

 

There is other circumstantial evidence that buttresses the conclusion that the data breach was a local effort that copied data.

 

First there is the Top Secret information leaked by Edward Snowden. If the DNC emails had been hacked via spearphishing (as alleged by Mueller) then the data would have been captured by the NSA by means of the Upstream program (Fairview, Stormbrew, Blarney, Oakstar) and the forensic evidence would not modify times – the data would be presented as sent.

 

Second, we have the public reporting on the DNC and Crowdstrike, which provide a bizarre timeline for the alleged Russian hacking.

 

It was 29 April 2016, when the DNC claims it became aware its servers had been penetrated (see https://medium.com/homefront-rising/dumbstruck-how-crowdstrike-conned-america-on-the-hack-of-the-dnc-ecfa522ff44f). No claim yet about who was responsible.

 

According to CrowdStrike founder, Dimitri Alperovitch, his company first detected the Russians mucking around inside the DNC server on 6 May 2016. A CrowdStrike intelligence analyst reportedly told Alperovitch that:

 

“Falcon had identified not one but two Russian intruders: Cozy Bear, a group CrowdStrike’s experts believed was affiliated with the FSB, Russia’s answer to the CIA; and Fancy Bear, which they had linked to the GRU, Russian military intelligence.”

 

And what did CrowdStrike do about this? Nothing. According to Michael Isikoff, CrowdStrike claimed their inactivity was a deliberate plan to avoid alerting the Russians that they had been “discovered.” This is nonsense. If a security company detected a thief breaking into a house and stealing its contents, what sane company would counsel the client to do nothing in order to avoid alerting the thief? Utter nonsense.

 

We know from examining the Wikileaks data that the last message copied from the DNC network is dated Wed, 25 May 2016 08:48:35. No DNC emails were taken and released to Wikileaks after that date.

 

CrowdStrike waited until 10 June 2016 to take concrete steps to clean up the DNC network. Alperovitch told Esquire’s Vicky Ward that:

 

“Ultimately, the teams decided it was necessary to replace the software on every computer at the DNC. Until the network was clean, secrecy was vital. On the afternoon of Friday, June 10, all DNC employees were instructed to leave their laptops in the office.”

 

Why does a cyber security company wait 45 days after allegedly uncovering a massive Russian attack on the DNC server to take concrete steps to safeguard the integrity of the information held on the server? This makes no sense.

 

A more plausible explanation is that it was discovered that emails had been downloaded from the server and copied onto a device like a thumb drive. But the culprit had not yet been identified. We know one thing for certain—CrowdStrike did not take steps to shutdown and repair the DNC network until 18 days after the last email was copied from the server.

 

The final curiosity is that the DNC never provided the FBI access to its servers in order for qualified FBI technicians to conduct a thorough forensic examination. If this had been a genuine internet hack, it would be very easy for the NSA to identify when the information was taken and the route it moved after being hacked from the server. The NSA had the technical collection systems in place to enable analysts to know the date and time of the messages. But that has not been done.

 

Taken together, these disparate data points combine to paint a picture that exonerates alleged Russian hackers and implicates persons within our law enforcement and intelligence community taking part in a campaign of misinformation, deceit and incompetence. It is not a pretty picture.

____________________

This Blog Editor utilized spellcheck on the NWO Report post.

 

Published by Nwo Report

Once dismissed by cynics as a “conspiracy theory the New World Order is rapidly becoming a reality. We look at its origins, how it operates and how it affects the lives of everyone. View all posts by Nwo Report

 

© 2019 NWO REPORT

 

About NWO Report

 

This website will shake the very foundation of everything you believe about the world and we prove every statement we make.  It may sound crazy but we prove every claim we make.

 

Once dismissed by cynics as a “conspiracy theory the New World Order is rapidly becoming a reality. We look at its origins, how it operates and how it affects the lives of everyone.

 

This website serves one purpose – to prove with undeniable proof that there is a group of extremely rich “power mongers” who want to rule the world in a slave state that makes the most extreme horror movie seem pale by comparison.  They call their plan the New World Order.  We want to “Wake Up” as many good people as possible to try to put an end to this insanity.  As crazy as this sounds everything on this website is confirmed by multiple mainstream press news reports, reputable encyclopedic references or websites of those making the claims.

 

© 2009-2018 Nworeport.me is a Murray Enterprise Company.

 

Nwo Report

Bombshell report by intelligence experts reveals DNC was not hacked by the RussiansThe DNC emails published by Wikileaks in 2016 were not obtained via a Russian hack, cyber-security and intelligence experts William Binney and Larry Johnson claim.

According to forensic evidence, the files taken from the DNC between 23 and 25 May 2016, were copied onto a file storage device.

Thegatewaypundit.com reports: If the Russians actually had conducted an internet based hack of the DNC computer network then the evidence of such an attack would have been collected and stored by the National Security Agency.

The technical systems to accomplish this task have been in place since 2002. The NSA had an opportunity to make it clear that there was irrefutable proof of Russian meddling, particularly with regard to the DNC hack, when it signed on to the January 2017 “Intelligence Community Assessment,” regarding Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election:

“We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help…

View original post 1,981 more words

Tulsa, OK Media Suckered by Incomplete Data Peddled by ‘New American Economy’ Propagandists


I live in Tulsa. Illegal immigrants have flooded the Public School system, get free lunch and medical. This blog is damn right, that study is bogus!

Frauds, Crooks and Criminals

Ha! What do you know!

I just mentioned the New American Economy shysters (Michael Bloomberg and his globalist gang!) the other day and how they promote the phony-baloney idea that a growing immigrant population brings economic boom times to struggling (are they really struggling?) American cities.

screenshot (18) Does no one in the media ever question these slick propaganda reports?  https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/6141/newamericaneconomytulsareport11-29-17.pdf

And, along comes this news: Tulsa’s NBC 2 News falls for the supposed “study” that says immigrants add billions annually to the Tulsa economy.

But, oopsy, apparently no one ever asks about what the COSTS are to the local economy.

This study is a joke.

Where are the costs to the local school system, the criminal justice system, the local health system, the welfare costs?

Are the “new Americans” putting pressure on the supply of housing needed for ‘old Americans?’

And, where are the figures for the remittance dollars being…

View original post 259 more words

Intro to Ungurean Post on ‘CRUSADES: The TRUTH’


John R. Houk, Editor

Posted November 27, 2018

About those Christian Crusaders that loaded their weaponry to RE-TAKE the Holy Land from Muslim invading conquerors. Closer to the truth than lying Multicultural Leftists and Muslim Apologists.

 

My only criticism I have is Geri Ungurean’s source downplays the Antisemitism of the Crusaders. That’s a bit surprising considering Ms. Ungurean is a Messianic Jew (i.e. a Jew that has accepted Christ as Lord and Savior).

 

Not deviate too much from this otherwise awesome post, my take is the Crusaders were Antisemites largely because the Church had spent centuries calling Jews Christ-Killers which if you read your Bible is a bit of a stretch. The Pharisee/Sadducee ruling class empowered by the Roman government feared any Jewish movement that might be a threat to their station in life under Roman rule. The Jewish population on the other hand reviled Roman rule; hence many Jewish Messianic and Rebellion Movements (of which as far as Christians concerned was the Messianic Movement of Christian Redemption in Christ).

 

But as Gentiles became the dominating group over the Jewish Christians, Jew-hatred began to be taught even though pre-Resurrection Jesus was raised under Jewish traditions and every single person among the Twelve Apostles was Jewish.

 

The Jewish perspective of Jew-hatred Medieval propaganda HERE.

 

The Christian perspective for Jew-Hatred Medieval propaganda HERE and HERE.

 

JRH 11/27/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks to keep my blogging habit flowing:

Please Support NCCR

***********************

The CRUSADES: The TRUTH About Islam and Why Christendom FINALLY Pushed Back

 

By GERI UNGUREAN

NOVEMBER 27, 2018

Absolute Truth from the Word of God

 

Truth About the Crusades

 

The devil is a liar.

 

We know this because God told us this in His Holy Word.  Satan is the father of lies. He is a master of deception and the author of confusion.

 

Through the centuries, history has been rewritten with the help of the evil one. If you asked the typical person on the street about the Crusades, most of them would begin to disparage Christianity and speak of  ‘horrors’ committed against Muslims.

 

Do you remember when Obama spoke of  Christian aggression during the Crusades?

 

VIDEO: Starnes: Why Obama smeared Christians at prayer event

 

Watch Dinesh Desouza’s comments at the 4:27 mark in this video:

 

VIDEO: Malzberg | Dinesh D’Souza weighs in on President Obama’s “Crusades” comments

 

I would encourage the reader to print this article out.  I am using a piece from thenewamerican.com to dispel the lies which have been perpetrated throughout the centuries about the Crusades.

 

This article is rather long. For those who would rather watch a video concerning truth about the Crusades, I will insert a link for that at the end of this piece.

 

From thenewamerican.com

 

The year is 732 A.D., and Europe is under assault. Islam, born a mere 110 years earlier, is already in its adolescence, and the Muslim Moors are on the march.

 

Growing in leaps and bounds, the Caliphate, as the Islamic realm is known, has thus far subdued much of Christendom, conquering the old Christian lands of the Mideast and North Africa in short order. Syria and Iraq fell in 636; Palestine in 638; and Egypt, which was not even an Arab land, fell in 642. North Africa, also not Arab, was under Muslim control by 709. Then came the year 711 and the Moors’ invasion of Europe, as they crossed the Strait of Gibraltar and entered Visigothic Iberia (now Spain and Portugal). And the new continent brought new successes to Islam. Conquering the Iberian Peninsula by 718, the Muslims crossed the Pyrenees Mountains into Gaul (now France) and worked their way northward. And now, in 732, they are approaching Tours, a mere 126 miles from Paris.

 

The Moorish leader, Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi, is supremely confident of success. He is in the vanguard of the first Muslim crusade, and his civilization has enjoyed rapidity and scope of conquest heretofore unseen in world history. He is at the head of an enormous army, replete with heavy cavalry, and views the Europeans as mere barbarians. In contrast, the barbarians facing him are all on foot, a tremendous disadvantage. The only thing the Frankish and Burgundian European forces have going for them is their leader, Charles of Herstal, grandfather of Charlemagne. He is a brilliant military tactician who, after losing his very first battle, is enjoying an unbroken 16-year streak of victories.

 

And this record will remain unblemished. Outnumbered by perhaps as much as 2 to 1 on a battlefield between the cities of Tours and Poitier, Charles routs the Moorish forces, stopping the Muslim advance into Europe cold. It becomes known as the Battle of Tours (or Poitier), and many historians consider it one of the great turning points in world history. By their lights, Charles is a man who saved Western Civilization, a hero who well deserves the moniker the battle earned him: Martellus. We thus now know him as Charles Martel, which translates into Charles the Hammer.

 

The Gathering Threat in the East

 

While the Hammer saved Gaul, the Muslims would not stop hammering Christendom — and it would be the better part of four centuries before Europe would again hammer back. This brings us to the late 11th century and perhaps the best-known events of medieval history: the Crusades.

 

Ah, the Crusades. Along with the Galileo affair and the Spanish Inquisition (both partially to largely misunderstood), they have become a metaphor for Christian “intolerance.” And this characterization figures prominently in the hate-the-West-first crowd’s repertoire and imbues everything, from movies such as 2005’s Kingdom of Heaven to school curricula to politicians’ pronouncements. In fact, it’s sometimes peddled so reflexively that the criticism descends into the ridiculous, such as when Bill Clinton gave a speech at Georgetown University and, writes Chair of the History Department at Saint Louis University Thomas Madden, “recounted (and embellished) a massacre of Jews after the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 and informed his audience that the episode was still bitterly remembered in the Middle East. (Why Islamist terrorists should be upset about the killing of Jews was not explained.)” Why, indeed. Yet, it is the not-so-ridiculous, the fable accepted as fact, that does the most damage. Madden addresses this in his piece, “The Real History of the Crusades,” writing:

 

Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variations on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman’s famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.

 

But what does good history tell us? Madden continues:

 

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War…. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western [sic] Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

 

[The Crusades] were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

 

The reality is that in our modern conception — or, really, misconception — of the word, it is the Muslims who had launched “crusades” against Christendom. (In the true sense of the word, the Moors couldn’t be Crusaders, as the term means “those who are marked with a cross,” and the Muslims just wanted to erase the cross.) And like Martel before them, who ejected the Moors from most of southern Gaul, and the Spaniards, who — through what was also a Crusade — would much later wrest back control over Iberia, the Crusades were an attempt to retake conquered Christian lands. So how can we describe the view taken by most academics, entertainers, and politicians? Well, it is the Jihadist view. It is Osama bin Laden’s view. It is a bit like ignoring all history of WWII until December 8, 1941 — and then damning the United States for launching unprovoked attacks on Japan.

 

Christendom Pushes Back

 

So now the year is 1095. Just as the Muslims had invaded Europe from the west in the days of Charles the Hammer, now they are pushing toward it from the east. And just as they had taken the Byzantine lands of the Mideast and North Africa in the seventh century, they now have seized Anatolia (most of modern Turkey), thus robbing the Byzantines of the majority of what they had left. The Muslims are now just a few battles away from moving west into Greece itself or north into the Balkans — the “back door” of Europe. Rightfully alarmed and fearing civilizational annihilation, Byzantine emperor Alexius I in Constantinople reaches out to a rival, Pope Urban II, for aid. Inspired to act, in November of 1095 the pope addresses the matter at the Council of Clermont, an event attended by more than 650 clerics and members of European nobility. On its second-to-last day, he gives a rousing sermon in which he appeals to the men of Europe to put aside their differences and rally to the aid of their brothers in the East. Here is an excerpt of the sermon as presented by the chronicler Fulcher of Chartres:

 

Your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impunity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians.

 

In addition to this call, the pope articulates a second goal: the liberation of Jerusalem and other Mideast holy sites. The pope’s words are so moving that those in attendance are inspired to shout, it is said, “God wills it! God wills it!” The first crusade is born.

 

Modernity, the Middle Ages, and Myth

 

Yet, in modern times, much cynicism would be born. People just can’t believe that these medieval “barbarians” didn’t have ulterior motives. This brings us to the “ambitious pope” and “rapacious knights” bit, the 20th-century myths about 11th-century motivations. Let’s examine these one at a time.

 

First we have the notion that the Crusaders were imperialists. This is an understandable perspective for the modern mind, as the not-too-distant past has been one of a dominant West colonizing a world of backwaters. Yet this was a recent and relatively short-lived development. Do you remember how Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi considered the eighth-century Europeans barbarians? It was no different in the 11th century; Dar al-Islam was the burgeoning civilization. It was the imperialist force — and this wouldn’t change for another 600 years.

 

Next we have two myths that contradict each other; although, considered individually, they may seem tenable. One is that, despite the Crusaders’ purported religiosity, they were just seeking riches by the sword. The other myth is, they were so darn religious that they were seeking to convert Muslims by the sword. It seems unlikely that both could be true, and, as it turns out, neither is.

 

Today we like to say “Follow the money.” Well, if you followed it in the 11th century, it led right back to Europe. The reality is that most Crusader knights were “first sons,” men who had property and wealth — much to lose (including their lives) and little to gain. And just as the United States can drain the public treasury funding Mideast interventions today, medieval warfare was expensive business. Lords were often forced to sell or mortgage their lands to fund their Crusading, and many impoverished themselves. It also doesn’t seem that the average knight entertained visions of becoming “the man who would be king” in a faraway land, either. As Madden said in an October 2004 Zenit interview, “Much like a soldier today, the medieval Crusader was proud to do his duty but longed to return home.”

 

As for conversion, the Crusaders were warriors, not missionaries. They had no interest in converting Muslims; in fact, I doubt the notion ever entered their minds. They viewed the Muslims as enemies of God and His Church and a threat to Christendom, nothing more, nothing less. Treating this matter in a piece entitled “The Crusades: separating myth from reality,” Zenit cited medieval history expert Dr. Franco Cardini and wrote:

 

“The Crusades,” says Cardini, “were never ‘religious wars,’ their purpose was not to force conversions or suppress the infidel.” … To describe the Crusade as a “Holy War” against the Moslems is misleading, says Cardini: “The real interest in these expeditions, in service of Christian brethren threatened by Moslems, was the restoration of peace in the East, and the early stirring of the idea of rescue for distant fellow-Christians.”

 

Yet, whether or not the Crusades were religious wars, they certainly flew on the wings of religious faith. And when the Crusaders sought treasure, it was usually the kind that was stored up in Heaven. As to this sincerity of belief, Madden has pointed out that Europe is peppered with thousands of medieval charters in which knights speak of their deepest motivations, of their desire to do their Christian duty. Then, Professor Rodney Stark, author of the new book God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades, tells us that while the knights were serious sinners, they were also serious about becoming more saintly. Anne Godlasky of USA Today quotes him as stating, “These knights did such terrible things that their confessors kept saying, ‘I don’t know how you will ever atone for this — why don’t you try walking to Jerusalem barefoot.’ And they would do it — they took their faith very seriously.” Moreover, when the Crusaders met with failure, Europeans embraced a characteristically religious explanation: They blamed their own sinfulness. Then, seeking to purify themselves, piety movements arose all across their lands. Perhaps this is why Oxford historian Christopher Tyerman has called the Crusades “the ultimate manifestation of conviction politics.

We should also note that the Crusaders didn’t see themselves as “Crusaders”; the word wasn’t even originated till the 18th century. They viewed themselves as pilgrims.

 

Having said this, it would be naïve to think that all Crusaders’ worldly endeavors were animated by heavenly thoughts. Some say that Pope Urban II might have hoped he could regain control over the Eastern Church after the Great Schism of 1054. It’s also said that Urban and others wanted to give those militant medieval knights someone to fight besides one another. As for those on the ground, the Crusades involved a motley multitude encompassing the regal to the rough-hewn, and it is certain that some among them dreamt of booty and betterment. Yet is this surprising or unusual? People are complex beings. Within a group or even an individual’s mind, there are usually multiple motivations, some noble, some ignoble. Charles the Hammer might have very well relished the glory won on the battlefield, for all we know. But it would be silly to think that was his main motivation for fighting the Moors. Likewise, if the Crusaders were primarily motivated by covetous impulses, it was the most remarkable of coincidences. For those dark urges then manifested themselves just when a Christian emperor appealed for aid, just when Europe again seemed imperiled — and after 400 years of mostly unanswered Muslim conquests.

 

Into the Mouth of Dar al-Islam

 

But however great the Europeans’ faith, the first Crusade was a long shot. The soldiers had to travel on foot and horseback 1,500 miles — traversing rivers, valleys, and mountains; braving the elements; dealing with hunger and thirst and whatever unknowns lay ahead — and then defeat entrenched Muslim forces. And the endeavor had gotten off to a rather inauspicious start: An unofficial Crusade comprising peasants and low-ranking knights had already departed — only to be massacred by the Seljuk Turks.

 

So, now, it is August 15, 1096, and the official Crusader armies depart from France and Italy. Arriving in Anatolia many months later, they lay siege to Muslim-occupied Nicea; however, Emperor Alexius I negotiates with the Turks, has the city delivered to him on June 1, 1097, and then forbids the Crusaders to enter. They then fight other battles against the Muslims on the way to their next objective: the great city of Antioch. It is a must-win scenario; if they do not take it, they cannot move on to Jerusalem. The siege continues for seven and a half months, during which time the Crusaders are hungry, tired, cold, and often discouraged; Antioch’s formidable walls seem an impenetrable barrier. On June 2, 1098, however, they are able to enter the city with the help of a spy. It is theirs.

 

Yet the Crusaders soon find themselves besieged and trapped in Antioch with the arrival of Muslim relief forces. Nevertheless, they manage a break-out on June 28, defeat the Turks, and, after a delay caused by internecine squabbling, move south to Jerusalem in April 1099. Starving after a long journey, they arrive at the Holy City on June 7 — with only a fraction of their original forces. Despite this, Jerusalem will not pose the problems of Antioch, and they capture it on July 15.

 

The First Crusade successes give Christendom a foothold in the Mideast for the first time in hundreds of years with the establishment of four outposts known today as “Crusader states.” They are: the County of Edessa and the Principality of Antioch, founded in 1098; the Kingdom of Jerusalem, founded in 1099; and the County of Tripoli, founded in 1104. Perhaps the tide has finally turned in Christendom’s favor.

 

But it was not to be. It was still a Muslim era, and more Crusades would be launched in the wake of Islamic triumphs. In fact, there was a multitude of Crusades — if we include minor ones — lasting until the end of the 17th century. However, it is customary to identify eight major Crusades, dating from 1096 through 1270, although this does omit many significant campaigns.

 

Great passion for a second Crusade was sparked when the County of Edessa was overcome by Turks and Kurds in 1144. Led by Kings Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany and advocated by St. Bernard, it was an utter failure. Most of the Crusaders were killed before even reaching Jerusalem, the campaign did more harm than good — and Muslim power continued to grow.

 

Because of this, Madden writes, “Crusading in the late twelfth century … became a total war effort.” All are asked to answer the call, from peasants to patricians, either by devoting blood and treasure to the defense of Christendom or through prayer, fasting, and alms to make her worthy of victory. Yet these are the days of the great Muslim leader Saladin, and in 1187 he destroys the Christian forces and takes one Christian city after another. And, finally, after almost a century of Christian rule, Jerusalem surrenders on October 2.

 

The loss of the Holy City inspires the Third Crusade. Led by storybook figures such as England’s King Richard the Lionheart, German Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa, and France’s King Philip II, it is sometimes called the Kings’ Crusade. Yet it is no fairytale affair. Frederick’s army quits the campaign in 1190 after their aged German leader drowns while crossing a river on horseback, and King Philip leaves after retaking the city of Acre, owing to continual friction with Richard. Despite this, the English King is undeterred. Displaying brilliant leadership and tactical skill, he fights his way south, taking on all comers, and eventually recaptures the Holy Land’s entire coast. Yet the crown jewel, Jerusalem, eludes his grasp. Believing he would not be able to hold it (since most Crusaders will be returning home), he must swallow hard and settle for what he can get: an agreement with Saladin to allow unarmed pilgrims unfettered access to the city. Richard then returns home and never sees the Holy Land again, dying from a battle-related wound sustained in Europe in 1199.

 

While the passion for Crusading remained strong in the 13th century and the Crusades were greater in scope, funding, and organization, they were lesser in accomplishment. There would be no more Richard the Lionhearts. Mideast Christian lands would slowly be overcome. And Jerusalem would never again be in Crusader hands. In fact, by 1291, the Crusader kingdom had been wiped off the map.

 

The Next Crusades Battle: The History Books

 

Because the Crusades ultimately failed to achieve their objectives, they are typically viewed as failures. And this brings us to a common Crusades myth. It’s said that those medieval campaigns are partly to blame for anti-Western sentiment in today’s Middle East, but this is nonsense. The reality is, as Madden told Zenit, “If you had asked someone in the Muslim world about the Crusades in the 18th century he or she would have known nothing about them.” This only makes sense. Why would the Crusades have been remembered? From the Muslim perspective, they were just routine victories — like so many others — events that would just naturally fade into the mists of time. What in truth is partly to blame for Islamic anti-Western sentiment is 19th-century pro-Western propaganda. That is to say, when England and France finally started colonizing Arab lands, they wanted to rubber-stamp imperialism. To this end, they taught Muslims in colonial schools that the Crusades were an example of an imperialism that brought civilization to a backward Middle East. And, not surprisingly but tragically, when imperialism was later discredited, the Crusades would be discredited along with it. Muslims would start using the false history against the West.

 

But there are many Crusade myths. For example, some would characterize the campaigns as anti-Semitic. Yet, while there were two notable massacres of Jews during the Crusades, there is more to the story — as Madden also explained in the Zenit interview:

 

No pope ever called a Crusade against Jews. During the First Crusade a large band of riffraff, not associated with the main army [the aforementioned “People’s Crusade”], descended on the towns of the Rhineland and decided to rob and kill the Jews they found there…. Pope Urban II and subsequent popes strongly condemned these attacks on Jews. Local bishops and other clergy and laity attempted to defend the Jews, although with limited success. Similarly, during the opening phase of the Second Crusade a group of renegades killed many Jews in Germany before St. Bernard was able to catch up to them and put a stop to it.

 

This obviously adds perspective. In every war there are rogue forces that commit transgressions. Why, the United States had the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam and Abu Ghraib in Iraq. Yet, to echo Madden on this count, it would be unfair to claim that the goal of American forces was to, respectively, murder innocent civilians or commit sexual abuse.

 

There were other Crusader sins as well. In the Second Crusade, the warriors foolishly attacked Muslim Damascus, which had been an ally of the Christians. Worse still, the Fourth Crusade saw the sacking of Constantinople itself — occupied by the very eastern Christians the Crusades were designed to protect — after the Crusaders helped an imperial claimant gain the Byzantine throne and then were refused the aid he had promised them as a quid pro quo. In response, the pope at the time, Innocent III, condemned the attack (and he had already excommunicated the Crusade). Nevertheless, the damage was done. The act widened the Great Schism of 1054 to perhaps irreparable proportions.

 

Yet, again, perspective is necessary. Medieval armies didn’t have modern discipline or rules of engagement, and they were, above all, medieval. You could not have put hundreds of thousands of men in the field during the course of centuries in that age without writing some dark chapters. Really, though, you couldn’t do it in the modern age, either.

 

With all these failures and missteps, we may wonder why Europeans continued Crusading well beyond the 13th century’s close. We may ask, was it worth the blood and treasure? Yet the answer boils down to one word: survival. The threats to Europe mentioned earlier would not remain theoretical. The Muslims would extinguish the Byzantine Empire — and Constantinople would be renamed Istanbul. They would cross into the Balkans, and their descendants would clash with Christians there in the 1990s. The Ottoman Turks would capture the Italian town of Otranto in 1480, prompting the evacuation of Rome. The Ottomans would occupy what is now Hungary for 158 years. And, in 1529 and 1683, they would reach the gates of Vienna.

 

Yet the tide would finally turn against Dar al-Islam. The Ottomans would lose the Battle of Vienna in 1683, and, more significantly, Europe was blossoming. It would outpace the Muslim world technologically, and in its march toward modernity, the Christian “barbarians” would become the burgeoning civilization. In fact, they would become dominant enough to forget how recent their time in the sun is — and how, perhaps, it almost never was.

 

So, were the Crusades really a failure? Sure, there was no Charles Martel and Battle of Tours, no Duke of Wellington at Waterloo; there was no history-changing engagement where we could say, ah, that is where we slew the dragon or “this was their finest hour.” And they accomplished none of their stated goals. But the Crusades era might have constituted a “holding action,” a time when Christendom was pushed toward the abyss and, outweighed and wobbling, pushed back. Of course, this isn’t the fashionable view. But it is easy today to characterize those medieval warriors any way we wish; they are no longer around to defend themselves. But had they not defended the West, we might not be troubling over the past at all — because we might not have a present. – source

 

VIDEO: The Truth About The Crusades

 

Brethren, it is important to be able to chronicle the events leading up to the Crusades. We must attempt to shut down revisionist historians who present history from a politically correct vantage point.

 

Truth is truth!!   Jesus would have us tell the truth about events in history regarding His church.

 

The Left have made Islam and Muslims into “victims.”  Not all Muslims are war lords or terrorists, but many are.  Their prophet Muhammad was the originally war lord and his fundamental followers continue in his footsteps.

 

Shalom b’Yeshua

 

MARANATHA!

______________________

Intro to Ungurean Post on ‘CRUSADES: The TRUTH’

John R. Houk, Editor

Posted November 27, 2018

_______________________

The CRUSADES: The TRUTH About Islam and Why Christendom FINALLY Pushed Back

 

About Geri Ungurean 

 

Bio: I am a Jewish Christian who was born-again in 1983. Yeshua is my life. Writing about Him is my passion. My subject matter varies. Sometimes I write on Bible Prophecy. Other times on apostasy in the church. And often times I address the political climate of our country and our world. My greatest love is writing about my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I pray that some of my articles will fall in the hands of my Jewish people. If you would like to bless us with a gift, please send to: Geri Ungurean P.O. Box 1031 Savage, MD 20763 Your generosity is most appreciated! Shalom

 

View complete profile

 

Watching Arizona Voters Drag America Down Again


John R. Houk

© November 13, 2018

Pink tutu Sinema - witch prayer

Assuming there was no election fraud in Arizona, it appears a majority of Arizona voters stand with Kyrsten Sinema over the GOP nominee Martha McSally who has officially conceded defeat.

 

The Sinema/McSally battle is a classic example of the ideological divide in the United States of America. McSally is a veteran and Conservative endorsed by President trump, yet she has to Sinema who represents everything contrary to traditional American values. Sinema is a gal whose candidacy would have been hysterically laughed at as a viable candidate even 20 years ago.

 

Here are some spliced excerpts of what represents the Sinema a majority of Arizonans voted into the U.S. Senate:

 

  1. She once depicted American servicemen as scary skeletons exporting “terror” abroad on a flyer protesting the Iraq War

 

  1. Defended men who solicit underage prostitutes

 

  1. Protested the Iraq War in a tutu

 

  1. Once described herself as a “Prada socialist”

 

  1. Called Arizona the “crazy” state and the “meth lab of democracy” 

 

  1. Said she didn’t care if a constituent went and fought for the Taliban

 

  1. Chummy with anarchists: Said it was inappropriate to criticize anarchist property destruction. Also, she worked with a local anarchist group that helped organize a rally.

 

  1. Promoted events at Arizona State University featuring the execrable Lynn Stewart, a lawyer convicted of aiding an Islamist terror organization and its leader

 

  1. Falsely claimed to be Latino (Allegedly)

 

  1. Hosted a radio show on Air America Phoenix with a 9/11 truther

[Blog Editor: PJ Media fails to name the Truther, but the link is to a CNN article that does, viz., Jeff Farias. But CNN does a deficient job explaining Farias’ connection to the debunked 9/11 Truthers. Fox News does a better job:

 

Fox News can also disclose that, in 2005, she befriended a conspiracy theorist who believes 9/11 was perpetrated by the U.S. government.

 

Between 2005 and 2006, Sinema co-hosted a radio show together with Jeff Farias. Farias is a conspiracy theorist who signed a 2008 petition that claims the World Trade Center collapsed because of explosives planted inside the buildings by the U.S. government.

 

Farias frequently promoted 9/11 conspiracy theories during his radio show up until 2010 and was the co-master of a conference in 2007 that rejected the government’s explanation of the 2001 terror attacks. The conference was attended by InfoWars’ Alex Jones.

 

He also asked his guests on his radio shows in 2006 whether they saw the film “Loose Change 9/11” – a film that was produced in part by Jones. The premise of the movie is that the U.S. government planned the 9/11 attacks.]

 

  1. Used to hang out with witches!

(11 Freakiest Things About Arizona Senate Candidate Kyrsten Sinema; By DEBRA HEINE; PJ Media; 10/16/18)

 

Let’s do a recap of who a majority of Arizona voters elected as their new Senator:

 

  • Favored Islamic terrorists over military veterans

 

  • Protected child-prostitute clients

 

  • Sinema was anti-war even though Islamic terrorists attacked U.S. soil

 

  • A Socialist activist

 

  • Sinema has the distinct ironic fact of calling voters crazy (Legal Insurrection has the videos!)

 

  • Sinema supports anarchists, you know – the folks who destroy property to bring chaos hoping to install Communism.

 

  • Sinema so flippant on Islamic terrorists she doesn’t care if Americans fight for the Taliban and promoted a speaking engagement of the Blind Sheik’s (the guy who first tried to bomb the Twin Towers in 1990s) convicted lawyer Lynne Stewart who passed messages to the Sheik’s terrorist buddies.

 

  • Had her similar Pocahontas moment falsely being listed as Latino.

 

  • Sinema was in cahoots with 9/11 Truthers who blame the government for Twin Towers collapse rather than Islamic terrorists.

 

  • AND she encouraged a New Age witch coven (you know – anti-Christian folks) to pray against the Iraq war invasion along with the pink-tutu Code Pink gals.

 

Since Sinema is supportive of witch covens and political ideologies that are anti-Christian it is not surprising that she identifies as a bisexual – an anti-Christian lifestyle.

 

Everything Kyrsten Sinema represents is everything American would not have conceived as an elected official 20, 30, 40, 50 and so years ago.

 

God have mercy on the majority of Arizonan voters contributing to destroying anything that makes America great.

 

Thank God for the huge minority of Arizona voters that still wanted to Make America Great Again that voted for a Pro-Trump GOP candidate.

 

JRH 11/13/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

 

Oklahoma: Saudi Muslim Immigrant Who Attended al Qaeda Training Camp Arrested


I live in Oklahoma so this concerns me! Think of it. A trained Muslim terrorist from Saudi Arabia and trained at an al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan came to the USA as a husband to a Muslim woman who a gained a student visa under the Obama Administration. How many other crazy Muslim terrorists did Obama allow into America?

Black Robed Regiment: ARISE!


Bring Back Black Robed Rgiment

Dr. Lively is calling on Pastors to stand up for a moral America and the Conservative values that have made America great instituted by our Founding Fathers. Today the Dems are the Red Coat King George oppressing America with Leftist Deep State contradicting values.

 

JRH 1/30/18

Please Support NCCR

********************

Black Robed Regiment: ARISE!

 

By Dr. Scott Lively

sdllaw@gmail.com

January 30, 2018

Christian Newswire

 

Scott Lively as Jonathon Edwards - T-Party Rallt 7-4-10

Photo: Dr. Scott Lively, in the persona of Jonathan Edwards, Tea Party Rally, Boston Commons, July 4, 2010

 

SPRINGFIELD, Mass., Jan. 30, 2018 /Christian Newswire/ — In the Revolutionary War, pastors who joined the Continental Army were called the Black Robed Regiment, and there were many because they understood the need for Godly Leadership to defeat tyranny. Without them we would not have become the first and greatest Constitutional Republic in the history of the world: a nation founded upon the Bible and a Covenental Oath called the Declaration of Independence.

Today, America faces a comparable test. President Trump’s miraculous victory in 2016 saved us from subjection to the Clinton Crime Family and provided a window of reprieve in which to take back our country from the predatory leftist elites of the deep state, an adversary far more insidious than King George.

Under the banner of “Resistance,” all the powers and principalities of the hard left, deploying all their fascist tactics, are waging a massive political offensive and massing for the Great Election War of 2018. Their goal is to crush our rebellion, oust our president, and finish their task of subsuming Christian America under global socialist control.

Today we face a critical test of Christian courage and resolve. The Black Robed Regiment MUST rise again and provide Godly leadership on America’s political battlefield.

As a proud member of that regiment, I issue a challenge to every Bible-believing pastor: ARISE BROTHERS! Enter the fray at this critical juncture! Run for political office wherever you are, but especially in places where the Godless Left has the tightest stranglehold. Run to win! But even where that end is unlikely, run sacrificially, willing to govern if God grants the victory, but forcing the adversary to expend resources defending ground they thought was secure. Shun political “norms” and expectations, using your platform to boldly shine the light of the Gospel and Biblical truth into the darkness of the political realm. Bravely defy media mockery and intimidation to give hope and encouragement to every believer, seeker and conservative ally under the yoke of liberal oppression.

In this I am leading by example, running aggressively as a pro-life, pro-constitution conservative against the most popular governor in America (a pro-abortion, anti-family, pork-shoveling Republican) – in ultra-liberal Massachusetts.

In God’s eyes we win just by standing up to speak plain truth without apology or equivocation. So, for the Love of God, our Families, and our Fellow Americans, BLACK ROBED REGIMENT: ARISE!

Dr. Scott Lively is a pastor and constitutional law attorney running as a Republican for Governor of Massachusetts who may be reached by email at sdllaw@gmail.com or at 413-250-0984. He will formally issue this challenge on behalf of the national Christian activist group Reclaiming America for Christ on February 6th, 6:30PM at Fairview Baptist Church Fellowship Hall, 1230 N Sooner Rd, Edmond, Oklahoma. He will be joined by Pastor Dan Fisher, Candidate for Governor of Oklahoma and author of Bringing Back the Black Robed Regiment (2013).

_______________

© Christian Newswire 2018. All Rights Reserved.