Wednesday, April 18, 2018


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
ROME — Jorge Bergoglio, also known as “Pope Francis,” claimed to a young boy on Sunday that his atheist father is in Heaven because he was a “good man” and God will not “abandon His children when they are good.” He also counseled the child to pray to his deceased dad.
Bergoglio was participating in a question and answer session at St. Paul of the Cross in Rome when a young boy named Emanuele approached the microphone. The boy, who began to cry, was asked by Bergoglio to come onto the platform and speak the question in his ear.
After consoling the child, Bergoglio told the audience what the boy had said.
“My father died a short time ago. He was an atheist, but he had his four children baptized. He was a good man. Is Dad in Heaven?'” Emanuele asked, as relayed by Bergoglio.
“It’s nice that a son says that about his father, that he was good,” Bergoglio remarked. “The one who says who goes to Heaven is God. But what is God’s heart with a dad like that? What? What do you think? A father’s heart. God has a dad’s heart.”
He suggested that God was pleased with Emanuele’s father for having his sons baptized despite not being a follower of Christ himself.
“And with a dad who was not a believer, but who baptized his children and gave them that bravura, do you think God would be able to leave him far from Himself?” Bergoglio asked, using a pushing away hand motion.
The audience replied no.
“Does God abandon His children?” he pressed further. “Does God abandon His children when they are good?”
Those in attendance again called out no.
“There, Emanuele, that is the answer,” Bergoglio said to the boy. “Surely God was proud of your father because it is easier as a believer to baptize your children than to baptize them when you are not a believer. Surely this pleased God very much.”
He closed by urging Emanuele to “talk to” and “pray to” his father.
Mike Gendron, a former Roman Catholic who now leads the Texas-based Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries, told Christian News Network that Bergoglio could have spoken truth while still being gentle, but instead he provided the boy—and anyone who hears his words—with unbiblical false counsel.
“The pope should never speak for God unless he speaks from God’s inspired, authoritative Word,” Gendron said. “It is good to give comfort to a young boy whose father died after living his life as an atheist. The pope could have told the boy about the thief who lived his life as a sinful unbeliever, but in his last hour he repented and trusted Jesus to bring him into paradise (Luke 23:40-43). He could have comforted the boy by saying, ‘Perhaps your dad trusted Jesus as his savior in his last moments on earth.'”
However, “[t]he boy had better theology than the pope,” he said. “He knew his dad was an unbeliever and deserved to go to Hell.”
Gendron explained that contrary to Bergoglio’s words, Scripture clearly states that not everyone is God’s child.
“The pope said God does not abandon His children, [but] God’s Word tells us everyone is either a child of God or a child of the devil,” he said, pointing to 1 John 3:10, which reads, “By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.”
Jesus also said in John 8:44, “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires.”
Gendron additionally expressed concern that Bergoglio urged the boy to pray to his deceased father.
“Perhaps the pope does not know that anyone who consults the dead is detestable to the Lord (Deut. 18:10-12),” he said.
“It is tragic for Catholics to be led down the wide road to destruction by following the heretical teachings of this pope,” Gendron stated. “It is my prayer that Catholics will test everyman’s teaching with the supreme authority of God’s Word (Acts 17:11). That is the only way anyone can be protected from the false teachers that are leading people to Hell. The nature of deception is that people do not know they are deceived unless they are confronted with the truth.”
As previously reported, Christianity teaches that none are inherently good, and that all men are born with a sinful nature, being drawn toward distorted desires, such as to lie, steal, commit adultery, covet, dishonor one’s parents, commit murder, and to rebel against the very God who gave them life. Jesus outlined that lust is adultery of the heart and hatred is murder in one’s heart.
Romans 3 explains, “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit. The poison of asps is under their lips, whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness, their feet are swift to shed blood, destruction and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace have they not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
As men are utterly incapable of changing themselves, Jesus said in John 3:3 men must be regenerated by the Spirit of God, and must pass from spiritual death into spiritual life. Without Christ’s perfect righteousness, none shall enter Heaven—the Bible teaches—and since all have sinned, none can justify themselves by their own works.
“Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God,” Jesus taught.




SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Gun Banning New Jersey Sen Loretta Weinberg D
Gun Banning New Jersey Sen Loretta Weinberg D
New Jersey – -( Vociferously anti-gun NJ Legislator and rampant egomaniac Loretta Weinberg has exposed just how deeply her willful ignorance and hatred for guns and gun owners goes with a newly proposed bill.
Weinberg has introduced a Bill S2402 that prohibits any and all State-sponsored travel to 37 States that do not currently require firearms purchasers or owners to obtain a permission slip or ID card from the State.
Here’s the relevant language
“a State agency shall not permit a State officer or employee, special State officer or employee, or member of the Legislature to engage in any travel to be paid, in whole or in part, out of State funds, or to be otherwise sponsored by the State, to any state of the United States if that state has not enacted a permit to purchase firearms law. This prohibition shall also apply to any organization that receives aid from the State.”
You read right Loretta Weinberg”s latest bill would prevent state employees or organization funded by the state to travel to other states that respect the right to keep and bear arms.  Dose this mean that NJ Democrat Senator Corry Booker and Bob Menendez would be prevented from Going to Washington?
Weinberg is famously known for her animosity to the Constitution, Bill of Rights and utter contempt for her Oath of Office, once publicly claiming that anything the NJ Legislature decides to enact is defacto Constitutional until a Court says otherwise. And another hot-mic slip where she was caught calling for gun confiscation.
Weinberg believes she has the unilateral authority to arrogantly demand that the overwhelming majority of the Country submit to her will and ideology. It is shocking to see the lengths she is willing to go to take away your freedoms.
This proposal is one step removed from requiring that Citizens receive permission from the State before crossing the border. Something that Weinberg should be intimately familiar with, as it was the standing policy of East Germany for over 60 years.
For many years, New Jersey has been rightly ridiculed as “New Germany” in many quarters, as they seem hellbent on emulating the worst of that countries repressive and deadly communist ideology. Many others dismissed such comparisons as nothing more than over the top hyperbole by a small minority of disgruntled residents, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
On the willful ignorance front, Weinberg is apparently utterly clueless of the fact that multiple Court rulings that have stood for decades prohibit the licensing of a right
Licensing Liberty
Licensing Liberty
Weinberg and her defenders will, of course, exclaim that since NJ’s (or States like MD, HI, and others ) licensing schemes have not yet been struck down, that, of course, means they are Constitutional. Nothing could be further from the truth. The simple fact that these schemes survive to this date means nothing other than the Supreme Court has yet to rule on them. Remember, Washington DC’s ban on handgun possession has enacted in 1976 and wasn't struck down as Un-Constitutional until 2008.

Weinberg needs to be reminded of her place in no uncertain terms. But don't look to the voters of NJ, particularly those in her district that are steadfast supporters of whatever her next freedom crushing idea will be.

That means until a Court puts her in her place, she needs to be exposed and pay the price for her actions. Two can play this game after all. There is nothing preventing Citizens in the 37 States she is targeting from demanding their Legislators send a very strongly worded letter to Ms. Weinberg explaining they will not submit to her outrageous demands and making it clear they will take appropriate reciprocal action against NJ if this bill becomes law.
Weinberg has made it abundantly clear she will never stop on her own, so she must be stopped. And if she cant be voted out of office, then her dictator-like mindset will and should cost the State she represents.
This has worked well in the past. Weinberg is the one responsible for NJ’s draconian “Smart Gun Mandate” which has famously blown up in her face. That model can be modified and used to similar effect with regards to this bill.
About Dan Roberts
Dan Roberts is a grassroots supporter of gun rights that has chosen AmmoLand Shooting Sports News as the perfect outlet for his frank, ‘Jersey Attitude' filled articles on Guns and Gun Owner Rights. As a resident of the oppressive state of New Jersey, he is well placed to be able to discuss the abuses of government against our inalienable rights to keep and bear arms as he writes from deep behind NJ's Anti-Gun iron curtain. Read more from Dan Roberts or email him at

Tuesday, April 17, 2018


"While in London, she spent five days training as a Playboy bunny, but quit before beginning to work at a club."
A rare video clip of George Soros dancing with his new bride 42 year old Tamiko Bolton at their wedding on September 22, 2013. Federal judge Kimba Wood officiated at the non-denominational wedding. Among the reception guests were World Bank President Jim Yong Kim and some foreign leaders, including Hendrik Toomas Ilves, president of Estonia; Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, president of Liberia; and Edi Rama, prime minister of Albania. Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, and Bono of the rock band U2 also attended the reception, according to the source familiar with the wedding. Hedge fund titans, Paul Tudor Jones and Julian Robertson were in attendance along with Nancy Pelosi and the lieutenant governor of California, Gavin Newsom.


Leftists stripping away attorney-client privilege

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The U.S. District judge who ordered Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen to identify Sean Hannity had officiated billionaire George Soros’ wedding in 2013.
Judge Kimba Wood officiated the “non-denominational” wedding between Soros and his third wife Tamiko Bolton in 2013 in Bedford, New York.
Suddenly, Wood’s decision to force Cohen to disclose his clients becomes clear.
Before Hannity was revealed as a client, Cohen’s attorney Stephen Ryan argued to Wood that one of Cohen’s clients was a “prominent” person who wanted to remain anonymous – as is his right – because it would be embarrassing to be revealed as Cohen’s client.
“I understand he doesn’t want his name out there, but that isn’t the law,” Judge Wood said.
The Fox host took to Twitter on Monday to clarify his relationship with Cohen.
“Michael Cohen has never represented me in any manner,” he tweeted. “I never retained him, received an invoice, or paid legal fees. I have occasionally had brief discussions with him about legal questions about which I wanted his input and perspective.”
Michael Cohen has never represented me in any matter. I never retained him, received an invoice, or paid legal fees. I have occasionally had brief discussions with him about legal questions about which I wanted his input and perspective.
It’s stunning to see how the investigation into Russian collusion has devolved into a baseless witch hunt where Trump’s lawyer is forced to disclose Hannity as a client when that information has no bearing on Russian collusion whatsoever.
In an unprecedented violation of attorney-client privilege, the FBI raided Cohen’s office and properties for documents last week related to porn star Stormy Daniels, not Russia or anything to suggest collusion.
The double standard with the left is staggering given that the only evidence of any collusion with Russia is traced backed to Hillary Clinton and the DNC.
Additionally, Clinton was allowed total secrecy about her suspicious server, and was given a pass about her deleted emails on numerous occasions in 2017.

The U.S. District judge who ordered Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen to identify Sean Hannity had officiated billionaire George Soros’ wedding in 2013.

Judge Kimba Wood Orders Trump's Private Files To Be Distributed Across Federal Server

The U.S. District judge who ordered Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen to identify Sean Hannity also ordered President Trump's private files to be distributed, or 'leaked', across a Federal Server.

Kimba Wood: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know SML TV

SML TV: Kimba Wood, the federal judge presiding over the Michael Cohen legal battle, was Bill and Hillary Clinton’s choice for Attorney General, and she has a colorful past. Once dubbed the “love judge” by the New York press, she had a short stint training as a Playboy bunny. Wood’s tie to the Clintons, in particular, has generated controversy as she presides over the battles surrounding attorney-client privilege claims in the investigation of Cohen, President Donald Trump’s personal attorney


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Facebook has banned me for seven days.
My crime is posting/reporting on my Facebook page a physical threat that was made to me personally on my own FB page by a member of the Religion of Peace.
On Saturday, April 14, 2018, a certain Muhammad Irfan Ayoub started commenting on my page, rebuking me for daring to bring attention to the persecution of women and girls under Sharia and telling me to convert to Islam. As the exchange ensued over various aspects of Islam, and as I made clear I did not want to convert, Ayoub made it clear that there would be punishment and that “Allah will defeat you.”
I then inquired how this punishment from Allah was synonymous with Islam being a Religion of Peace — which Ayoub contested Islam to be. Ayoub explained that there is only peace for those who obey Allah and his prophet, but for those who do not, there will be no peace. See below:

This “dialogue” continued and then Ayoub made it clear that he would start Allah’s punishment ahead of time and break my mouth:
I then made two posts about this threat, showing the screenshot of it and (1) asking Mark Zuckerberg if Ayoub’s threat is unsafe to the community and (2) pointing out that if a kafir (Islam’s secret dirty word for the unbeliever) said this to Ayoub on Facebook that there would be a lifelong ban and police would be at the kafir’s door within 12 hours.
See my two posts below:

The next day, on Sunday, April 15, 2018, Facebook notified me that I was now being punished with a seven day ban for the post I made asking Mr. Zuckerberg about whether or not Ayoub’s threat is unsafe to the FB community.
When I tried to post as an experiment, I received the expected ban notice:

Then I wrote to Facebook asking why I have been banned for posting about/reporting a threat I received:
Facebook has not responded to me and the ban remains in place. It is now obvious what the rule is at Facebook: If a member of the Religion of Peace threatens to break a kafir’s mouth, that is safe for the FB community and the kafir obviously deserves the threat because he is violating Islamic blasphemy laws in some way. And the kafir must be punished if he reports or complains about the threat. But if a kafir physically threatens a Muslim, then that is a completely different matter. That for sure is unsafe for the FB community and the kafir obviously needs to be punished.
The thread on which all of this occurred is a video post by me of human rights activist Anni Cyrus telling her personal story of being a child bride under Sharia in Iran — and how she was able to escape the barbarities of Sharia. Anni discusses how little girls are being literally sold every day into sexual slavery under Islamic law. See the video post and discussion thread HERE before Facebook might take it down.
I am making the humble request that everyone who cares about free speech and who is concerned about Facebook’s surrender to Islamic blasphemy laws, to protest this shameful and shameless banning of me and also Facebook’s overall persecution of truth-tellers about the totalitarian and terrorist threat our civilization is facing.
Please share this article and this news everywhere, write to Facebook to protest its banning of me and its surrender to Sharia, and encourage everyone to do the same.
Thank you so much.


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Why have we seen not just the Islamic State, but also Boko Haram and al-Shabaab take sex slaves? Because it is sanctioned in Islamic law. The seizure of Infidel girls and their use as sex slaves is sanctioned in the Qur’an. According to Islamic law, Muslim men can take “captives of the right hand” (Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 33:50). The Qur’an says: “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have paid their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses of those whom Allah has given you as spoils of war” (33:50). 4:3 and 4:24 extend this privilege to Muslim men in general. The Qur’an says that a man may have sex with his wives and with these slave girls: “The believers must win through, those who humble themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk; who are active in deeds of charity; who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or whom their right hands possess, for they are free from blame.” (Qur’an 23:1-6)
The rape of captive women is also sanctioned in Islamic tradition:
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-’azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Sahih Muslim 3371)
It is also in Islamic law: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” (Umdat al-Salik O9.13)
The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that meant Muslims would take slaves. In a subsequent interview he elaborated:
Jihad is only between Muslims and infidels. Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels. Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars—there is no disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on.
When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur’an by the name milk al-yamin, “that which your right hands possess” [Koran 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur’an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her. She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn’t need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point—there is no disagreement from any of them. […] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.
Around the same time, on May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti politician, Salwa al-Mutairi, also spoke out in favor of the Islamic practice of sexual slavery of non-Muslim women, emphasizing that the practice accorded with Islamic law and the parameters of Islamic morality.
A merchant told me that he would like to have a sex slave. He said he would not be negligent with her, and that Islam permitted this sort of thing. He was speaking the truth. I brought up [this man’s] situation to the muftis in Mecca. I told them that I had a question, since they were men who specialized in what was halal, and what was good, and who loved women. I said, “What is the law of sex slaves?”
The mufti said, “With the law of sex slaves, there must be a Muslim nation at war with a Christian nation, or a nation which is not of the religion, not of the religion of Islam. And there must be prisoners of war.”
“Is this forbidden by Islam?” I asked.
“Absolutely not. Sex slaves are not forbidden by Islam. On the contrary, sex slaves are under a different law than the free woman. The free woman must be completely covered except for her face and hands. But the sex slave can be naked from the waist up. She differs a lot from the free woman. While the free woman requires a marriage contract, the sex slave does not—she only needs to be purchased by her husband, and that’s it. Therefore the sex slave is different than the free woman.”
Iraqi Ayatollah Al-Haeri said in April 7, 2016 that a man could offer slave girls to a friend for sex. In March 2017, Quebec imam Ewis El Nagar said that the Islamic ruling allowing slave girls was still in force.
The savage exploitation of girls and young women is, unfortunately, a cross-cultural phenomenon, but only in Islamic law does it carry divine sanction.
“American ISIS wife whose son starred in sick propaganda video tells how her husband kept two sex slaves in their home after they left Indiana for Syria,” by Sara Malm, Mailonline, April 12, 2018 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
An American woman whose husband died fighting for ISIS has spoken about life in the ‘caliphate capital’ in Syria for the first time.
Sam El Hassani claims her husband Moussa tricked her into crossing the Syrian border during a holiday to Turkey in 2015, where he joined ISIS as a jihadist fighter.
She reveals she found herself living with their children in Raqqa, along with two Yazidi girls her husband kept as slaves in their home, which he ‘repeatedly raped’.
In a documentary for PBS Frontline and BBC Panorama, Mrs El Hassani details how she went from happily married in Indiana to a widow with four children in a Kurdish prison in Syria.
The couple had been married for five years and were living ‘a great life’ in Indiana with their two children.
But – she claims – she did not see that her husband, a Moroccan national, was becoming radicalized, and in 2015 he lured her and the children into Syria and to ISIS’s now-defeated ‘capital’.
‘We ended up in Raqqa,’ she says in an interview from the upcoming documentary.
‘The first thing I say to him is, “You’re crazy and I’m leaving,” and he said, with a big smile on his face, “Go ahead. You can try, but you won’t make it.”.’
When asked why she did not take her children and run, she says; ‘You have to understand, I was afraid for our lives.’
During their time in Raqqa, Mrs El Hassani had two more children, and was forced to watch her oldest son used in an ISIS propaganda video that shocked the world.
Last July, ten-year-old Matthew could be seen calling U.S. President Donald Trump ‘a puppet of the Jews’ in a video which saw him threaten terrorist attacks on the West.
‘Allah has promised us victory and promised you defeat,’ Matthew is seen saying while standing on the rubble of bombed buildings in Raqqa.
‘The battle is not going to end in Raqqa or Mosul, its going in your lands. By the will of Allah, we will have victory, so get ready for the fighting has just begun.’ …


California is refusing to cooperate with President Trump's strong border initiative, withholding troops from his command.

Gov. Brown will not deploy Nat. Guard troops to southern border after all

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
California Governor Jerry Brown will not be sending National Guard troops to the southern border after all, the Associated Press reported Monday.
The governor declined to authorize deployment on the belief that troop efforts would help President Trump’s wider agenda aiming to secure the border, two anonymous US officials told the AP.
Last week, Brown indicated he would deploy 400 troops to fight crime after President Trump called on California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico to help amass a buildup of 2,000 to 4,000 troops to aid border enforcement.
But Brown objected to troops helping conduct immigration operations, which the AP reports could include helping “fix and repair vehicles, operate remotely-controlled surveillance cameras to report suspicious activity to the Border Patrol, operate radios and provide ‘mission support,’ which can include clerical work, buying gas and handling payroll.”
“This will not be a mission to build a new wall. It will not be a mission to round up women and children or detain people escaping violence and seeking a better life,” the governor stated at the time. “And the California National Guard will not be enforcing federal immigration laws.”
Despite Governor Brown objecting to the president’s primary goal, Trump heaped praise on him, saying he “is doing the right thing and sending the National Guard to the Border. Thank you Jerry, good move for the safety of our country.”
California Governor Jerry Brown is doing the right thing and sending the National Guard to the Border. Thank you Jerry, good move for the safety of our Country!
Arizona, Texas and New Mexico have expressed support for the president’s efforts to combat illegal immigration and drug and human trafficking, and have committed to sending 1,600 Guard troops to supplement the US Border Patrol.