UN, UK Treating Persecuted Christians as “Enemies”


How long will Christians in America and however many Christians left in Multiculturalist Europe remain silent as Christians are exterminated in Muslim dominated lands AND the same persecuted Christians refused asylum in a safer (BUT not safe as long as there is Muslim influence) West? EVEN the Western Press ignores persecuted Christians as one has to go to alternative news sources to learn the UN and UK dominated by intolerant Islamic influences goes along with exterminating Christianity.

 

JRH 12/26/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

OR just buy some healthy coffee.

 

Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.

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

UN, UK Treating Persecuted Christians as “Enemies”

 

By  Raymond Ibrahim

12/26/2019

Originally posted at Gatestone Institute

RaymondIbrahim.com

 

Ibrahim photo – gbm

 

The United Nations Refugee Agency appears to be committed to blocking persecuted Christians from receiving any assistance.  According to a recent CBN News report:

 

Christian Syrian refugees … have been blocked from getting help from the United Nations Refugee Agency, the UNHCR, by Muslim UN officials in Jordan.

 

One of the refugees, Hasan, a Syrian convert to Christianity, told us in a phone call that Muslim UN camp officials “knew that we were Muslims and became Christians and they dealt with us with persecution and mockery. They didn’t let us into the office. They ignored our request.”

 

Hasan and his family are now in hiding, afraid that they will be arrested by Jordanian police, or even killed. Converting to Christianity is a serious crime in Jordan.

 

According to Timothy, a Jordanian Muslim who converted to Christianity, “All of the United Nations officials [apparently in Jordan], most of them, 99 percent, they are Muslims, and they were treating us as enemies.”

 

Addressing this issue, Paul Diamond, a British human rights lawyer, recently elaborated:

 

You have this absurd situation where the scheme is set up to help Syrian refugees and the people most in need, Christians who have been “genocided,” they can’t even get into the U.N. camps to get the food. If you enter and say I am a Christian or convert, the Muslim U.N. guards will block you [from] getting in and laugh at you and mock you and even threaten you…. [saying]  “You shouldn’t have converted. You’re an idiot for converting. You get what you get,” words to that effect.

 

The next obstacle those few Christians who make it past U.N. refugee camps face are the immigration centers of Western nations themselves.  For example, the discrimination is apparently so obvious in the United Kingdom that Lord George Carey is suing the U.K.’s Home Office for allegedly being “institutionally biased” against Christian refugees and therefore complicit in what he calls “the steady crucifixion of Middle East Christians.”

 

He is hardly the only one making such charges.  One independent report said that when it comes to offering asylum, the UK “appears to discriminate in favour of Muslims” instead of Christians. Statistics seemed to confirm this allegation:  “out of 4,850 Syrian refugees accepted for resettlement by the Home Office in 2017, only eleven were Christian, representing just 0.2% of all Syrian refugees accepted by the UK.”

 

Due to such figures, Lord David Alton of Liverpool, a life peer in the House of Lords, wrote to Home Secretary Sajid Javid, who then headed the Home Office:

 

It is widely accepted that Christians, who constituted around 10 per cent of Syria’s pre-war population, were specifically targeted by jihadi rebels and continue to be at risk….  As last year’s statistics more than amply demonstrate, this [ratio imbalance between Muslim and Christian refugees taken in] is not a statistical blip. It shows a pattern of discrimination that the Government has a legal duty to take concrete steps to address.

 

Such imbalances appear even stranger on the realization that the Islamic State, which precipitated the refugee crisis, is itself a Sunni organization that only targets non-Sunnis—primarily Christians, Yazidis, and Shia—all minority groups that the U.S. has acknowledged experienced a “genocide.”

 

Two of the strangest individual cases of anti-Christian bias were reported earlier this year, when the U.K. denied asylum to persecuted Christians by bizarrely citing the Bible and Islam.  Both Christians, a man and a woman, were former Muslims separately seeking asylum from the Islamic Republic of Iran, the ninth worst persecutor of Christians, particularly former Muslims.

 

In his rejection letter from the UK’s Home Office, the Iranian man was told that several biblical passages were “inconsistent” with his claim to have converted to Christianity after discovering it was a “peaceful” faith.  The letter cited biblical excerpts—including from Exodus, Leviticus, and Matthew—as supposed proof that the Bible is violent; it said Revelation was “filled with imagery of revenge, destruction, death and violence.”  The rejection letter then concluded: “These examples are inconsistent with your claim that you converted to Christianity after discovering it is a ‘peaceful’ religion, as opposed to Islam which contains violence, rage and revenge.”

 

In the second case, an Iranian female asylum seeker was sarcastically informed in her rejection letter that “You affirmed in your AIR [Asylum Interview Record] that Jesus is your saviour, but then claimed that He would not be able to save you from the Iranian regime. It is therefore considered that you have no conviction in your faith and your belief in Jesus is half-hearted.”

 

Discussing her experiences, the rejected woman said: “When I was in Iran I converted to Christianity and the situation changed and the government were [sic] looking for me and I had to flee from Iran….  In my country if someone converts to Christianity their punishment is death or execution.”  Concerning the asylum process, she said that whenever she responded to her Home Office interviewer, “he was either chuckling or maybe just kind of mocking when he was talking to me….  [H]e asked me why Jesus didn’t help you from the Iranian regime or Iranian authorities.”

 

Similarly, when Sister Ban Madleen, a Christian nun who was chased out of Iraq by the Islamic State, wanted to visit her sick sister in the U.K., she was denied a visa—twice.  A number of other Christian orderlies were also denied visas, including another nun with a PhD in Biblical Theology from Oxford; another nun denied for not having a personal bank account; and a Catholic priest denied for not being married.

 

In another case, Britain’s Home Office not only denied entry to three Christian leaders—archbishops celebrated for their heroic efforts to aid persecuted Christians in Syria and Iraq who had been invited to attend the consecration of the U.K.’s first Syriac Cathedral, an event attended by Prince Charles—but also mockingly told them there was “no room at the inn.”

 

Considering that persecuted Christian minorities—including priests and nuns—are denied visas, one may conclude that the Home Office is extremely stringent concerning its asylum requirements.  However, this notion is quickly dispelled on the realization that the Home Office regularly grants visas and refugee status to extremist Muslims (not to mention one has yet to hear about Muslim asylum seekers being denied because the Koran is too violent, or because they do not have enough faith in Muhammad).

 

For example,  despite having no papers on him—and despite telling the Home Office that “he had been trained as an ISIS soldier”—Ahmed Hassan was still granted asylum two years before he launched a terrorist attack on a London train station that left 30 injured in September 2017.  The Home Office also allowed a foreign Muslim cleric to enter and lecture in London, even though he advocates decapitating, burning, and/or throwing homosexuals from cliffs.  According to another report, “British teenagers are being forced to marry abroad and are raped and impregnated while the Home Office ‘turns a blind eye’ by handing visas to their [mostly Muslim] husbands.”

 

The case of Asia Bibi—a Christian wife and mother of five who spent the last decade of her life on death row in Pakistan for challenging the authority of Muhammad—best sheds light on the immigration situation in the UK.  After she was finally acquitted in November, 2018, Muslims rioted throughout Pakistan; in one march, more than 11,000 Muslims demanded her instant and public hanging.

 

As Pakistanis make for the majority of the U.K.’s significant Muslim population—Sajid Javid, then head of the Home Office, is himself Pakistani—when they got wind that the U.K. might offer Asia Bibi asylum, they too rioted.   As a result, then Prime Minister Theresa May personally blocked Bibi’s asylum application, “despite UK playing host to [Muslim] hijackers, extremists and rapists,” to quote from one headline.  In other words, Britain was openly allowing “asylum policy to be dictated to by a Pakistan mob,” reported the Guardian, “after it was confirmed it urged the Home Office not to grant Asia Bibi political asylum in the UK…”

 

On the other hand, the Home Office allowed a Pakistani cleric who celebrated the slaughter of a politician because he had defended Asia Bibi—a cleric deemed so extreme as to be banned from his native Pakistan—to enter and lecture in U.K. mosques.

 

Discussing how “visas were granted [by the Home Office] in July [2016] to two Pakistani Islamic leaders who have called for the killing of Christians accused of blasphemy,” Dr. Martin Parsons, a human rights activist, expressed his frustration: “It’s unbelievable that these persecuted Christians who come from the cradle of Christianity are being told there is no room at the inn, when the UK is offering a welcome to Islamists who persecute Christians.”

 

In short, Muslim influence against Christians is not only at work in U.N. refugee camps, as recent evidence indicates, but in the U.K’s immigration policy as well: Christian “infidels” need not apply, whereas radical Muslims are welcomed with open arms.

++++++++++++++++++++

Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.

__________________________________

© 2019 · RaymondIbrahim.com

 

About Raymond Ibrahim

 

RAYMOND IBRAHIM is a widely published author, public speaker, and Middle East and Islam specialist.  His books include Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West (Da Capo, 2018), Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (Regnery, 2013), and The Al Qaeda Reader (Doubleday, 2007).

 

 

Ibrahim’s dual-background—born and raised in the U.S. by Egyptian parents born and raised in the Middle East—has provided him with unique advantages, from equal fluency in English and Arabic, to an equal understanding of the Western and Middle Eastern mindsets, positioning him to explain the latter to the former. His interest in Islamic civilization was first piqued when he began visiting the Middle East as a child in the 1970s. Interacting and conversing with the locals throughout the decades has provided him with an intimate appreciation for that part of the world, complementing his academic training.

 

After a brief athletic career—including winning the 1993 NPC Los Angeles Bodybuilding Championship as a teenager—Raymond went on to receive his B.A. and M.A. (both in History, focusing on the ancient and medieval Near East, with dual-minors in Philosophy and Literature) from California State University, Fresno. There he studied closely with noted military-historian Victor Davis Hanson. He also took graduate courses at Georgetown University’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies—including classes on the history, politics, and economics of the Arab world—and studied Medieval Islam and Semitic languages at Catholic University of America. His M.A. thesis examined an early military encounter between Islam and Byzantium based on arcane Arabic and Greek texts.

 

READ ENTIRETY

 

Extreme LGBTQ Minority Crazy Political Clout


John R. Houk

© September 17, 2017

 

The ungodly LGBTQ must be concerned if sentient non-earth people will be offended if a Family/Biblical values person heads NASA. Apparently, the homosexual lobby fears space aliens might be influenced in the space exploration of the final frontier.

 

Rep. Jim Bridenstine’s (R-OK) NASA nomination is being opposed because he is wise enough to not agree with a Gay lifestyle. Of course, the Leftist MSM is lining up behind the godless LGBTQ. How can a group of people who ONLY represent 4.1% of the population (Pew Research 2016) have that kind of political clout? If you can’t agree that the LGBTQ is a special Rights group of people you must be a racist evil homophobe. As if homosexuals are a race of people rather than a group of people that chose a deviant lifestyle.

 

Yup, I said “deviant”. I don’t care if Medical organizations, Psychologist organizations, and/or Psychiatric organizations were essentially pressured decades ago into normalizing homosexuals rather than keeping with their original analysis that same-sex relations is deviant.

 

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) was harassed by political pressure rather than scientific data to end the mental deviancy listing of homosexual practices:

 

They [i.e. Rogers H. Wright and Nicholas A. Cummings] got established and revered practitioners to write chapters which explore these important issues. The following regarding the removal of homosexuality from the DSM in 1973 was written as a matter of verifiable fact:

 

“The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association yielded suddenly and completely to political pressure when in 1973 it removed homosexuality as a treatable aberrant condition. A political firestorm had been created by gay activists within psychiatry, with intense opposition to normalizing homosexuality coming from a few outspoken psychiatrists who were demonized and even threatened, rather than scientifically refuted. Psychiatry’s House of Delegates sidestepped the conflict by putting the matter to a vote of the membership, marking for the first time in the history of healthcare that a diagnosis or lack of diagnosis was decided by popular vote than by scientific evidence”(page 9) The truth on how homosexuality was removed from the DSM by APA – Commentary on Dr Yik’s response to Lawrence Khong; POSTED BY CONCERNEDSGCITIZEN; Homosexuality and Science; 9/14/13

I can’t blame the article writer using a pseudonym. Homosexual activists use both defamation – to shame – and violence – to strike fear – against truth tellers to silence them from the American public.

 

Here is a brief description when science was abandoned for submission to political pressure:

 

  • 1973 – Board of Trustees of The American Psychiatric Association (APA) approves the deletion of homosexuality from the DSM-II and substitutes a diagnosis of “sexual orientation disturbance.” Intense discussion and debate followed.

 

  • On Dec 15 1973, the Board of Trustees of the APA voted to delete homosexuality altogether from the DSM. Opposition from several psychiatrists immediately followed. A referendum on the Board’s decision was called.

 

  • 1974 – the entire membership of the APA was polled for their support or rejection of the Board’s decision. žOf the 10,000 voting members, nearly 40% opposed the Board’s decision to normalize homosexuality. Decision was hardly unanimous. (Controversially, a survey conducted in 1979 asked 10,000 psychiatrists if they felt homosexuality “usually represented a pathological adaptation.” ž69% of respondents said “yes,” and 60% said homosexual men were less capable of “mature, loving relationships” than heterosexual men.)

 

The author of Destructive Trends in mental health was right to conclude:

 

“Diagnosis today in psychology and psychiatry is cluttered with politically correct verbiage, which seemingly has taken precedence over sound professional experience and scientific validation.” (Ibid.)

 

Since the APA barely removed homosexuality as a deviant mental disorder, the American Left and Homosexual Activists were well armed with the needed propaganda to slowly persuade the American public to accept ungodly homosexuality.

 

Even a recent scientific study revealed by Life Site circa November 2016 show homosexuality is not normal:

 

Those who are setting our so-called “values”, such as the small but powerful group of academics, mainstream media, and homosexual activists, do so by attempting to impose strange myths and ideas that have no scientific basis.

 

These myths include the one that homosexuals are “born that way”, can’t change, and must be accepted for “who they are”. Further, those claiming they are a different gender than that with which they were born, i.e. the transgendered, who “feel” they belong to other than their gender at birth, must be accepted as such.

 

The public is supposed to put aside its intelligence and common sense, and respectfully bow collectively in obeisance to these “expert” opinions. These opinions, however, are complete and utter hogwash.

 

… However, the myth-makers attempt to force their nonsense on us by the heavy hand of the law, claiming that it’s “discrimination” to refuse to accept the myths as truth.  Jurisdictions which don’t obey their rulings are economically punished, parents are forbidden to protect their children from the monstrous “bathroom” laws that permit males to use girls’ showers, lockers and change rooms.  It’s all a fraud based on propaganda with no scientific legitimacy.

 

Bombshells Explode The Myths

 

 

The first bombshell was a landmark study published in The Journal – The New Atlantis, (August 23, 2016). The Journal is a well-known journal of science, technology and ethics based in Washington D.C.  This article analysed [sic] the scientific evidence of LGBT issues published to date in scientific journals.

 

… Dr. Mayer stated he supports every sentence in this report without reservation since it is about science and medicine.  He also stated he was alarmed to learn during his review of over 500 scientific articles that the LGBT community bears a disproportionate rate of mental health problems compared to the population as a whole.

 

  • The other author is Dr. Paul McHugh, one of the leading psychiatrists in the world. … These scientists reviewed hundreds of peer reviewed studies on sexual orientation and gender identity from the biological, psychological and social sciences.  Their conclusions were as follows:

 

  • The belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex – so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ – is not supported by scientific evidence.

 

  • Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behaviour will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood. There is no evidencethat all such children should be encouraged to become transgender, much less subjected to hormone treatments or surgery.

 

  • Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity.

 

The second bombshell was exploded by a top researcher for the American Psychological Association (APA), lesbian activist, Dr. Lisa Diamond, co-author-in-chief of ‘the APA Handbook’ of sexuality and psychology and one of the APA’s most respected members.  She admitted that sexual orientation was “fluid” and not unchangeable.  By doing so, Dr. Diamond confirmed that the myth that “homosexuals can’t change” is now a dead-end theory.  She summarized the relevant findings in a lecture at Cornell University stating that abundant research has now established that sexual orientation – including attraction, behaviour and self-identity – is fluid for both adolescents and adults for both genders. (The LGBT fraud has been exposed, and they’re definitely not happy about it; By Claire Chretien; Life Site News; 11/15/16 1:37 pm EST)

 

The Multiculturalist Left and the lying Homosexual activist-lobbyists have been brainwashing Americans for decades. Even now I am guessing NO one has heard the recent science confirming the brainwashing lies.

 

ERGO, the reality of the Will of God found in His Word shows the purpose of the Creator of one male and one female is the standard He intends for His creation. If God’s Word calls same-sex relations an abomination in His sight, then it is so – Leviticus 18: 22; 20: 13 NKJV:

 

22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

 

13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

 

God in Christ is no less approving –Romans 1: 18-19, 26-27 NKJV:

 

God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness

 

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

 

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

 

And yet, it is not God’s will that any human should perish in eternal separation from His Presence. All humanity is born in a sin nature. That is the reason the Almighty emptied Himself of Divine prerogatives and became fully human to born as a perfect human to be the sacrificial lamb for Adam’s hereditary disobedience.

 

Jesus the infant was conceive in the womb of a human female by the power of the Holy Spirit (not human copulation as the Muslims erroneously believe). The infant Jesus became a man. Jesus as the Son of God and the son of man simultaneously, ministered His Divine purpose for three years then became the Lamb of God dying for humanity’s sin nature so that all that believe in the Resurrection of Jesus are re-united with God Almighty in spirit now and in our resurrection from the dead our natural appearance will be changed spirit, soul and body –Galatians 3: 10-14 NKJV:

 

The Law Brings a Curse

 

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”[a] 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.”[b] 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”[c]

 

13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”[d]), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

 

I have no idea how those of the Jewish faith handle the brutal punishments of the Law in this modern era, but for Christians the punished prescribed in the Law in this life has eternally been paid for by the Lamb of God. That includes the numerous sin punishments that is also applied to heterosexuals and as to the subject of this post, those who have made the choice of a homosexual lifestyle.

 

I am fairly certain that homosexual apologists and Leftist Multiculturalists will try to disarm God’s Word by attempting to twist it to bend to human academics to fit their world view. That is unfortunately the problem with Humanist thinking. Humanism intentionally dismisses the Divine paradigm because world order darkness blinds Humanists unable to see the Light of Salvation of Jesus Christ the Son of God/Lamb of God that can Redeem those stuck in Humanist darkness.

 

That is the plus of Rep. Jim Bridenstine, President Trump’s nomination to lead NASA. If Bridenstine is a good Christian, he will not make a person blinded in homosexual darkness suffer for their social choices but rather direct them according to merit. That is probably unlike a virulent homosexual that would make it their life’s aim to persecute a Christian employee for their beliefs with shaming or worse – violence.

 

In essence, the Left and Homosexual activists are actually attempting to utilize a religious test to disqualify Jim Bridenstine from being the next NASA Administrator. I like the observations made by Mark Whittington on the Bridenstine nomination:

 

However, it appears that Bridenstine is being subjected to a religious test for the position that he has been nominated for. Many people oppose some items on the LGBT agenda out of sincere religious conviction. Bridenstine’s private and political beliefs are being used as a disqualifier for becoming head of NASA, even though those views would not affect his conduct as administrator. The space agency has no influence whatsoever on whether or not people of the same sex have the right to marry. That issue was decided by a ruling of the Supreme Court and is now the law of the land.

 

One wonders if these questions are going to come up during the hearings when they finally take place. Bridenstine will likely reply that he will follow the law, as he is obligated to do, and perhaps openly wonder what these issues have to do with returning to the moon and re-establishing American dominance in space. (Now Jim Bridenstine is in trouble with the LGBT community; By Mark Whittington; Blasting News; 9/14/17)

 

The LGBTQ ungodly nuts are trying to same political muscle they used way back in 1973 to disqualify Jim Bridenstine in 2017. The Left-Wing Washington Post actually has a news story of those that are supportive of the Bridenstine nomination largely due to the fact his Congressional record demonstrated a huge support for NASA’s space exploration agenda with the addition of private capital cooperation:

 

 

Bridenstine’s nomination comes as NASA is increasingly relying on the private sector to perform tasks that were once the exclusive domain of the government. …

 

Now, under Trump, the growing private sector is looking to capitalize on its momentum and partner with NASA to go even farther — to the moon and deep space. And it regards Bridenstine as someone who would be good for business.

 

“NASA needs dedicated and inspired leadership, and Representative Bridenstine is an outstanding choice to provide precisely that,” said S. Alan Stern, chairman of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, an industry group representing many space companies and start-ups.

 

The Coalition for Deep Space Exploration, representing many of the big legacy contractors, said it also welcomed the nomination, saying Bridenstine “has been an active and vocal advocate for space on Capitol Hill.”

 

 

NASA is poised to ask the private sector for proposals to develop a lunar lander that could take experiments and cargo to the surface of the moon, with flights starting as early as 2018. Bridenstine, who serves in the Navy Reserve, has advocated a return to the moon, writing in a blog post last year that “from the discovery of water ice on the moon until this day, the American objective should have been a permanent outpost of rovers and machines, with occasional manned missions for science and maintenance.”

 

 

In addition to backing work with younger, entrepreneurial firms, Bridenstine has also voiced his support for the traditional industrial base, made up of behemoths such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing. They want to ensure that programs such as the Space Launch System, the massive rocket being developed by NASA, and the Orion crew capsule continue …

 

 

Mike Gold, the chairman of a commercial space advisory committee for the Federal Aviation Administration, said that Bridenstine would be able to unite the industry with “his support for a diverse array of activities such as deep-space exploration, private-sector partnerships, Earth science and technology development.” (Support builds for Bridenstine to lead NASA despite past skepticism on climate change; By Christian Davenport; WaPo; 9/11/17)

 

WaPo gravitates to the Left so it is unsurprising that the article continues by stating that in Congress Bridenstine was critical of Obama spending more on Climate Change than on weather forecasting.

 

The Senate will be involved in the confirmation hearings for Bridenstine. The Multiculturalist Dems in the Senate were extremely displeased that Bridenstine does not share the concerns of the immediacy of a doomed earth from constantly fudged statistics pointing toward Climate Change disasters.

 

Between Homosexual activists and Leftist Eco-Marxists, Bridenstine at the very least can be grilled by Leftist Senators about issues that have zero to do with the science of space exploration.

 

My fellow Okies, write, email or phone Senators Inhofe and Langford to make a stir about the real issues that Jim Bridenstine should be judged as a capable Administrator of NASA.

 

JRH 9/16/17

 Please Support NCCR