What the Liverpool ban of Franklin Graham is really about

The leadership in charge of protecting the rights of the LGBTQ community should be extremely cautious about trying to ban Christian events. The recent ban on Franklin Graham by Liverpool, England is, in my opinion, a monumental blunder. It doesn’t take long for a rights movement to fall into disfavor. The quickest way I know, is by unjustly silencing the rights of other minority groups.

I believe most fair minded people can plainly see that the parties responsible for the ban in Liverpool are lying. They claim that Franklin Graham preaches hate. That is an absolute lie.  Are they trying to associate preaching the Bible with hate?  Are they trying to lump Graham in with bigots like the Westboro Baptist crowd, Christian in name only, and who really do preach hate?

The second lie, is that they are banning Franklin Graham because they “are against hate.” This is important because as I said, I believe they are trying to link Graham with extremists. By that metric, they should also be banning Islamic events, linking them to extremist nations where Gays are thrown off of buildings in the name of Islam. But these Liverpool leaders would never do that. I will deal with that double standard later in this blog.

This grandstanding has zero to do with hate, intolerance, or inclusion. Most of all, it has nothing to do with the safety of the LGBTQ community.  There is no evidence of any kind that Franklin’s preaching has ever incited violence anywhere. That’s because his message condemns violence. The fact is that it has the total opposite effect, because it is a message which values all human life as priceless—something so precious, that it was why Jesus gave His life.

Ask yourself this: Franklin often preaches in the conservative south—a place that ignorant people love to label as intolerant—yet there has never been any violence when Graham has preached there.  How much less would it be likely to occur in uber—leftist Liverpool? I mean, come on.

That is like thinking that if Graham preached in Berkeley, leftist protesters would spontaneously turn on Antifa. Give me a break!

Their actions have nothing to do with either Graham’s nonexistent hate, or the myth of inciting violence. This is not about hate, it is not about intolerance. This is about tyranny. 

This is about a system that wants control over what you are allowed to believe, and even what you are allowed to think. Were you aware that the government in Great Britain monitors and censors everything that Church of England pastors preach from the pulpit?

Why will they not censor Radical Islam? Because the Left is atheist-based and hates Christianity, Western Civilization, and of course Israel. So, while some on the Left violently oppose the theology they find common ground.  The old adage applies…my enemy’s enemy is my friend.

I have no doubt that this terribly misguided ban will backfire in Biblical proportions.

George Orwell would be horrified by these leaders in Liverpool, where it has finally struck ‘thirteen o’clock.’ As he predicted in his books, the message of those in favor of a one-world government is, ‘We tell you what you can say. We tell you what you can think. We tell you what to hate. We tell you it is consistent, even when it is totally inconsistent. Don’t you dare think for yourself. And don’t you dare listen to truth unless of course, it is our truth…’


P.S. We have a special concern because this same tyranny is brewing in California where God haters are looking for an excuse to muffle free speech, including banning events that are incompatible with “California Values.” We need special prayer as we win souls down Highway 99 in California. MMM

Good Friday April 18 marks the beginning of a remarkable tour.

 

norcal email and blog blast copy

You want to know the truth?  They went after our children with a vengeance unseen in history.  A harem of Hollywood operatives seduced them.  A battery of activist University Professors bullied them.  A malignant media provided a smoke screen and a poisoned well of politicians flat-out lied to them. The younger generation was seduced by promises of a better life.  

But the God haters took it to another level by turning moral teaching into hate speech.  George Orwell said, “In times of universal deceit telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”  

Isaiah said, “They say that what is right is wrong and what is wrong is right; that black is white and white is black; bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter.” -Isaiah 5:18-22

George did not mean revolutionary in the way we have come to use it i.e. “a revolutionary way to wax your car.”  He meant that those who spoke the truth would be deemed enemies of the state.

Listen to Charles Krauthammer, “The left is entering a new phase of ideological agitation — no longer trying to win the debate but stopping debate altogether, banishing from public discourse any and all opposition.

“The proper word for that attitude is totalitarian,” he explains. “It declares certain controversies over and visits serious consequences — from social ostracism to vocational defenestration — upon those who refuse to be silenced.”

Because of this and many other factors experts say American youth are a lost cause to Christianity.  How can we expect to counter the onslaught of modern evil and win the young?  How can we expect to compete with such monstrous power?

The answer is to take a closer look!  If you do you will see that a door of opportunity has opened.  Youth have seen the beast!  They are feeling the aftermath.  The brave new world of justice and prosperity never dawned.  The equality never transpired, for that matter neither did the medical coverage, the prosperity or the promised of hope and change.  What they do see is an angry self-serving tyranny that has endangered their future.

souls in San Jose

 

The wreckage of his administration and the cruelty of his actions toward political enemies are now painfully clear to youth in America.

In a detailed, national poll released last month by Harvard’s Institute of Politics, nearly half of young voters said they would recall President Obama if they could. Think of that!

There is a great door opening to us and here is what we are going to do about it.

Good Friday April 18 marks the beginning of a remarkable tour.  Mario Murillo and Jennifer Azzato will team up to bring Living Proof to Northern California.  Living Proof is not just a slogan but the literal goal of this tour.  In each and every city that is included in this tour will come a night where the claim that Christ is the Son of God will be backed up with miracles.

simplicity

As we see it, California leads the nation in this deception and this is where we need the miracle to start.

We need to declare truth!  The problem is not global warming…it is moral cooling.   We need miracles that will verify God’s love.   This tour provides the atmosphere for supernatural evidence to touch all who are willing to receive.  These are not nights to debate the existence of God but to experience the power of God.

The enemy we face is sophisticated, organized and well-funded.  Any endeavor with a human origin is doomed from the start.   Going forward, we must saturate our plans in prayer and only apply solutions from the Holy Spirit.  The ideas must come from Him. We will find the strategies we need, the words that will silence our enemy and the miracles that will confirm and convince a secular generation.

Join us in prayer and if you live within driving distance of one of these Living Proof events bring someone who needs Christ or a healing miracle.   Here is the Calendar of events:

Living Proof calendar blog

 

Associated Press drops use of “illegal immigrant” and “Islamist.”

‘Illegal Immigrant’ Banished From AP Stylebook

The news wire service says it’s removing ‘labels’ as critics seethe

By STEVEN NELSON

April 3,2013

Humberto Gonzales, busted for illegally residing in the U.S., rides aboard a bus abound for the Texas-Mexico border, May 25, 2010.Humberto Gonzales, busted for illegally residing in the U.S., rides aboard a bus bound for the Texas-Mexico border, May 25, 2010.

The Associated Press decreed Tuesday afternoon that the term “illegal immigrant” is no longer appropriate to describe people who reside in the United States without legal permission.

An update the AP’s influential stylebook was blasted out in an email to subscribers of the guide’s online version, saying in part, “Except in direct quotes essential to the story, use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant.”

A blog post the AP’s senior vice president and executive editor, Kathleen Carroll, elaborated that the news organization “had in other areas been ridding the Stylebook of labels” and ultimately decided it was best to only label specific behaviors as illegal.

Debate over the term is highly political. Opponents of illegal immigration fear softening the language is a move to subtly shift the policy debate over immigration reform away from enforcing current immigration laws.

Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio is one of the nation’s foremost anti-illegal immigration hawks. Arpaio told U.S. News Wednesday, “If a person enters the United States illegally, that’s how we should refer to their status and not try to soften the crime of entering illegally by calling it something else.”

William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration,told the Los Angeles Times that the AP’s “Big Brother” style update was “political correctness on steroids.” Gheen told the Times his group will begin using the term “illegal invader.” On Tuesday evening late-night TV host Jay Leno joked that he would use the term “undocumented Democrats.”

The AP previously defended its use of the term “illegal immigrant.”

AP Deputy Managing Editor Tom Kent wrote in an October 2012 memo excerpted by the Poynter Institute: “Terms like ‘undocumented’ and ‘unauthorized’ can make a person’s illegal presence in the country appear to be a matter of minor paperwork. Many illegal immigrants aren’t “undocumented” at all; they may have a birth certificate and passport from their home country, plus a U.S. driver’s license, Social Security card or school ID. What they lack is the fundamental right to be in the United States.”

Following the AP’s Tuesday announcement, the public editor of The New York Times disclosed that it too was preparing to announce a revision this week to its stylebook entry for the term “illegal immigrant.” That change “will probably be more incremental” and introduce a more nuanced offering of terminology, rather than an outright ban on the term, according to The Times.

More News:

The Associated Press Revises Another Politically Charged Term

Stylebook entry for ‘Islamist’ revised two days after ‘illegal immigrant’ dropped

By STEVEN NELSON

April 4, 2013 RSS Feed Print

Jordanian demonstrators burn an Israeli flag and shout slogans in Amman, Feb. 23, 2007.Jordanian demonstrators burn an Israeli flag and shout slogans in Amman, Feb. 23, 2007.

Following on the heels of the Tuesday decision by The Associated Press to discontinue use of the term “illegal immigrant,” the news agency on Thursday revised its stylebook entry for another politically charged term.

The term “Islamist,” the AP clarified in a Thursday afternoon alert to online stylebook subscribers, should not be used as “a synonym for Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals.”

[DEFIANT: Some Lawmakers Will Still Say ‘Illegal Immigrant’]

“Islamist” is frequently used as a label for conservative Islamic political movements, particularly Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, the group’s Palestinian offshoot. It generally carries a negative connotation.

The AP first added the term to its stylebook in 2012. The definition initially read:

Supporter of government in accord with the laws of Islam. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, an American advocacy group sometimes labeled “Islamist” by critics, previously lobbied for the AP to drop the term. In a January op-ed CAIR’s communications director, Ibrahim Hooper, wrote the term “has become shorthand for ‘Muslims we don’t like'” and “is currently used in an almost exclusively pejorative context.”

As of Thursday’s update, the AP definition reads:

An advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam. Do not use as a synonym for Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals, who may or may not be Islamists.

Where possible, be specific and use the name of militant affiliations: al-Qaida-linked, Hezbollah, Taliban, etc. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.

CAIR praised the AP’s update. “We believe this revision is a step in the right direction and will result in fewer negative generalizations in coverage of issues related to Islam and Muslims,” Hooper said. “The key issue with the term ‘Islamist’ is not its continued use; the issue is its use almost exclusively as an ill-defined pejorative.”

The AP’s decision to discontinue “illegal immigrant” was part of an ongoing process of “ridding the Stylebook of labels,” the organization’s senior vice president and executive editor, Kathleen Carroll, said in a blog post. It was immediately criticized by opponents of illegal immigration, including Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who told U.S. News he objected to efforts “to soften the crime of entering illegally.”

 

Update (04/05/13): This article has been updated with a statement from Ibrahim Hooper.

  • Nelson, Steven

    Steven Nelson is a producer at U.S. News & World Report. You can follow him on Twitter or reach him at snelson@usnews.com.

    Read more stories by Steven Nelson

Adolf Hitler novel tops German bestseller chart

Adolf Hitler novel tops German bestseller chart

A satirical novel about Adolf Hitler, set in the present day, has climbed to the top of Germany’s bestseller charts.

Adolf Hitler (L) and German book writer Timur Vermes poses with his new book 'Er ist wieder da'

Adolf Hitler (L) and German book writer Timur Vermes poses with his new book ‘Er ist wieder da’ Photo: AFP

By Harry Alsop

6:39PM GMT 05 Feb 2013

Er Ist Wieder Da (He’s Back) has sold more than 400,000 copies since its release, keeping it at the top of the Spiegel’s bestseller chart since mid December.

This has been despite, or perhaps because of, a striking front cover framed by Hitler’s trademark side-parting, with the title squashed into the silhouette of his signature moustache.

In the novel, author Timur Vermes relates Hitler’s cult of personality to our modern celebrity obsession through 397 pages of pitch-black prose.

The humour is relentlessly dark, revolving to a large extent around Hitler’s interaction with modern innovations.

The fuhrer discovers jeans, sets the ringtone on his new smartphone to Wagner’s Ride of the Valkyries, and is disappointed to learn that Hitler89, his preferred email address, has been taken.

It begins with a woozy Hitler waking up in 21st century Berlin, oblivious to the fact that the war has ended.

Surprised by the respite in the fighting, he staggers through Berlin, unable to reconcile himself with the changes he sees around him.

His loyal sidekick Bormann is nowhere to be found, and worse still, nobody seems to be interested in the war effort.

Spotting a news stand, he is disappointed to see that his favourite paper, The Volkisch Observer, has been replaced on the shelves by a myriad of Turkish newspapers.

Picking one up, he notices the date, 30 August 2011, and faints from shock.

The kiosk owner, intrigued by a man he assumes to be a professional doppelganger, offers to introduce him to some television producers he knows.

Soon, Hitler is the star of a viral YouTube skit and a Turkish entertainment show, propelling him back towards the political spotlight.

Vermes has been accused of serious bad taste in his subject matter, but he insists farce was not his objective.

Daniel Erk, a German author, has criticised Vermes for cashing in on a controversial topic that, in his eyes, reinforces the notion that “this crazy man is only person to blame”.

He said: “This is how Germans absolve themselves of any wrongdoing and responsibility. This Hitler is the sole person responsible for the war and genocide.”

Vermes, surprisingly, is completely in agreement.

“We have too many Hitler stereotypes, which are always the same – the monster that enables us to reassure ourselves,” he told German media.

“Often, we tell ourselves that if a new Hitler came along, it would be easy to stop him. I tried to show the opposite – that even today, Hitler might be successful. Just in a different way.”

The book is due to be published in English by MacLehose Press by the end of 2014. Translations will also be available in 16 other languages, and there are rumours that a movie deal has already been struck.

It is currently only available in German.

Epilogue:  The moral of this blog is clear: we can fool ourselves into thinking that a man like Hitler could never come to power again.   Look around and consider the changes in personal rights and the increase of control of information; but especially look at the new propaganda.   The line between celebrity and authority is so blurred that we cannot question our leaders.  The chilling fact is that it is not government that is quelling honest dissent as much as it is the adoring public.   Familiar chants are starting to appear, “Yes, there are rights being trampled but it is for the good of the nation and our leader knows best.”    Again, it is only prayer and revival that will pull the world out of this dive.-  Mario Murillo