• The Red Elephants Vincent James

    The Elites Take Another Victory Lap

    https://youtu.be/X4DboWo_5vM
    The Red Elephants Vincent James The Elites Take Another Victory Lap https://youtu.be/X4DboWo_5vM
    The Elites Take Another Victory Lap
    ANY SUPPORT IS APPRECIATED ✅Tip Jar on PayPal: https://www.Paypal.Me/VincentJamesRed ✅Venmo: https://venmo.com/Vincent-James-17 ✅Subscribe-star: https://www....
    YouTube
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • Amen
    August 15 “Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.” Romans 6:11
    Listen to today's Devotional

    Consistency in the Christian walk does not come easily. Just knowing right and wrong is not enough. Our old nature continues to battle with our new nature. When we strive to live for Christ in our own power, our will is too weak and our efforts fall short.

    The key to consistency and victory in the Christian life begins with understanding that when we said “Yes” to Jesus, we moved from death to life, from old to new.


    In Christ we are new creations, alive to God and freed from the power of sin. Now that deserves an “Amen!” https://mailchi.mp/3792e8715c8b/the-truest-freedom-you-can-ever-experience-452809?e=9cbe669f39
    Amen August 15 “Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.” Romans 6:11 Listen to today's Devotional Consistency in the Christian walk does not come easily. Just knowing right and wrong is not enough. Our old nature continues to battle with our new nature. When we strive to live for Christ in our own power, our will is too weak and our efforts fall short. The key to consistency and victory in the Christian life begins with understanding that when we said “Yes” to Jesus, we moved from death to life, from old to new. In Christ we are new creations, alive to God and freed from the power of sin. Now that deserves an “Amen!” https://mailchi.mp/3792e8715c8b/the-truest-freedom-you-can-ever-experience-452809?e=9cbe669f39
    Amen
    In Christ we are new creations.
    MAILCHI.MP
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • March 26, 2019
    America’s 233-Year-Old Shock at Jihad
    By Raymond Ibrahim
    Exactly 233 years ago this week, two of America’s founding fathers documented their first exposure to Islamic jihad in a letter to Congress; like many Americans today, they too were shocked at what they learned.

    Context: in 1785, Muslim pirates from North Africa, or “Barbary,” had captured two American ships, the Maria and Dauphin, and enslaved their crews. In an effort to ransom the enslaved Americans and establish peaceful relations, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams -- then ambassadors to France and England respectively -- met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, Abdul Rahman Adja. Following this diplomatic exchange, they laid out the source of the Barbary States’ hitherto inexplicable animosity to American vessels in a letter to Congress dated March 28, 1786:


    We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their [Barbary’s] pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise

    One need not conjecture what the American ambassadors -- who years earlier had asserted that all men were “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” -- thought of their Muslim counterpart’s answer. Suffice to say, because the ransom demanded was over fifteen times greater than what Congress had approved, little came of the meeting.

    It should be noted that centuries before setting their sights on American vessels, the Barbary States of Muslim North Africa -- specifically Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis -- had been thriving on the slave trade of Christians abducted from virtually every corner of coastal Europe -- including Britain, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. These raids were so successful that, “between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly a million and quite possibly as many as a million and a quarter white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast,” to quote American historian Robert Davis.

    The treatment of these European slaves was exacerbated by the fact that they were Christian “infidels.” As Robert Playfair (b.1828), who served for years as a consul in Barbary, explained, “In almost every case they [European slaves] were hated on account of their religion.” Three centuries earlier, John Foxe had written in his Book of Martyrs that, “In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, as at Algiers.”

    The punishments these European slaves received for real or imagined offenses beggared description: “If they speak against Mahomet [blasphemy], they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive. If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive [as apostates], or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire.”

    As such, when Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin wrote to Jefferson saying that “our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception,” he was clearly not exaggerating.

    After Barbary’s ability to abduct coastal Europeans had waned in the mid-eighteenth century, its energy was spent on raiding infidel merchant vessels. Instead of responding by collectively confronting and neutralizing Barbary, European powers, always busy quarrelling among themselves, opted to buy peace through tribute (or, according to Muslim rationale, jizya).

    Fresh meat appeared on the horizon once the newly-born United States broke free of Great Britain (and was therefore no longer protected by the latter’s jizya payments).

    Some American congressmen agreed with Jefferson that “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them” -- including General George Washington: “In such an enlightened, in such a liberal age, how is it possible that the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary?” he wrote to a friend. “Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into nonexistence.”

    But the majority of Congress agreed with John Adams: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.” Considering the perpetual, existential nature of Islamic hostility, Adams may have been more right than he knew.

    Congress settled on emulating the Europeans and paying off the terrorists, though it would take years to raise the demanded ransom.

    When Muslim pirates from Algiers captured eleven more American merchant vessels in 1794, the Naval Act was passed and a permanent U.S. naval force established. But because the first war vessels would not be ready until 1800, American jizya payments -- which took up 16 percent of the federal budget -- began to be made to Algeria in 1795. In return, over 100 American sailors were released -- how many died or disappeared is unclear -- and the Islamic sea raids formally ceased. American payments and “gifts” over the following years caused the increasingly emboldened Muslim pirates to respond with increasingly capricious demands.

    One of the more ignoble instances occurred in 1800, when Captain William Bainbridge of the George Washington sailed to the pirate-leader of Algiers, with what the latter deemed insufficient tribute. Referring to the Americans as “my slaves,” Dey Mustapha ordered them to transport hundreds of black slaves to Istanbul (Constantinople). Adding insult to insult, he commanded the American crew to take down the U.S. flag and hoist the Islamic flag -- one not unlike ISIS’ notorious black flag -- in its place. And, no matter how rough the seas might be during the long voyage, Bainbridge was required to make sure the George Washington faced Mecca five times a day to accommodate the prayers of Muslims onboard.

    That Bainbridge condescended to becoming Barbary’s delivery boy seems only to have further whetted the terrorists’ appetite. In 1801, Tripoli demanded an instant payment of $225,000, followed by annual payments of $25,000 -- respectively equivalent to $3.5 million and $425,000 today. Concluding that “nothing will stop the eternal increase of demand from these pirates but the presence of an armed force,” America’s third president, Jefferson, refused the ultimatum. (He may have recalled Captain O’Brien’s observation concerning his Barbary masters: “Money is their God and Mahomet their prophet.”)

    Denied jizya from the infidels, Tripoli proclaimed jihad on the United States on May 10, 1801. But by now, America had six war vessels, which Jefferson deployed to the Barbary Coast. For the next five years, the U.S. Navy warred with the Muslim pirates, making little headway and suffering some setbacks -- the most humiliating being when the Philadelphia and its crew were captured in 1803.

    Desperate measures were needed: enter William Eaton. As U.S. consul to Tunis (1797–1803), he had lived among and understood the region’s Muslims well. He knew that “the more you give the more the Turks will ask for,” and despised that old sense of Islamic superiority: “It grates me mortally,” he wrote, “when I see a lazy Turk [generic for Muslim] reclining at his ease upon an embroidered sofa, with one Christian slave to hold his pipe, another to hold his coffee, and a third to fan away the flies.” Seeing that the newborn American navy was making little headway against the seasoned pirates, he devised a daring plan: to sponsor the claim of Mustafa’s brother, exiled in Alexandria; and then to march the latter’s supporters and mercenaries through five hundred miles of desert, from Alexandria onto Tripoli.

    The trek was arduous -- not least because of the Muslim mercenaries themselves. Eaton had repeatedly tried to win them over: “I touched upon the affinity of principle between the Islam and Americans [sic] religion.” But despite these all too familiar ecumenical overtures, “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us,” he lamented in his diary, “or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Mussulmen. We have a difficult undertaking!” (For all his experience with Muslims, Eaton was apparently unaware of the finer points of their (Sharia) law, namely, al-wala’ wa’l bara’, or “loyalty and enmity.”)

    Eaton eventually managed to reach and conquer Tripoli’s coastal town of Derne on April 27, 1805. Less than two months later, on June 10, a peace treaty was signed between the U.S. and Tripoli, formally ending hostilities.

    Thus and despite the (rather ignorant) question that became popular after 9/11, “Why do they hate us?” -- a question that was answered to Jefferson and Adams 233 years ago today -- the United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims, and the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims for the preceding 1,200 years.

    Sources for quotes in this article can be found in the author’s recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West; 352 pages long and containing over a thousand endnotes, it copiously documents what many in academia have sought to hide: the long and bloody history between Islam and the West, in the context of their eight most landmark battles. American Thinker reviews of the book can be read here and here).

    Exactly 233 years ago this week, two of America’s founding fathers documented their first exposure to Islamic jihad in a letter to Congress; like many Americans today, they too were shocked at what they learned.

    Context: in 1785, Muslim pirates from North Africa, or “Barbary,” had captured two American ships, the Maria and Dauphin, and enslaved their crews. In an effort to ransom the enslaved Americans and establish peaceful relations, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams -- then ambassadors to France and England respectively -- met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, Abdul Rahman Adja. Following this diplomatic exchange, they laid out the source of the Barbary States’ hitherto inexplicable animosity to American vessels in a letter to Congress dated March 28, 1786:

    We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their [Barbary’s] pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise

    One need not conjecture what the American ambassadors -- who years earlier had asserted that all men were “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” -- thought of their Muslim counterpart’s answer. Suffice to say, because the ransom demanded was over fifteen times greater than what Congress had approved, little came of the meeting.

    It should be noted that centuries before setting their sights on American vessels, the Barbary States of Muslim North Africa -- specifically Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis -- had been thriving on the slave trade of Christians abducted from virtually every corner of coastal Europe -- including Britain, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. These raids were so successful that, “between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly a million and quite possibly as many as a million and a quarter white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast,” to quote American historian Robert Davis.

    The treatment of these European slaves was exacerbated by the fact that they were Christian “infidels.” As Robert Playfair (b.1828), who served for years as a consul in Barbary, explained, “In almost every case they [European slaves] were hated on account of their religion.” Three centuries earlier, John Foxe had written in his Book of Martyrs that, “In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, as at Algiers.”

    The punishments these European slaves received for real or imagined offenses beggared description: “If they speak against Mahomet [blasphemy], they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive. If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive [as apostates], or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire.”

    As such, when Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin wrote to Jefferson saying that “our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception,” he was clearly not exaggerating.

    After Barbary’s ability to abduct coastal Europeans had waned in the mid-eighteenth century, its energy was spent on raiding infidel merchant vessels. Instead of responding by collectively confronting and neutralizing Barbary, European powers, always busy quarrelling among themselves, opted to buy peace through tribute (or, according to Muslim rationale, jizya).

    Fresh meat appeared on the horizon once the newly-born United States broke free of Great Britain (and was therefore no longer protected by the latter’s jizya payments).

    Some American congressmen agreed with Jefferson that “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them” -- including General George Washington: “In such an enlightened, in such a liberal age, how is it possible that the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary?” he wrote to a friend. “Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into nonexistence.”

    But the majority of Congress agreed with John Adams: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.” Considering the perpetual, existential nature of Islamic hostility, Adams may have been more right than he knew.

    Congress settled on emulating the Europeans and paying off the terrorists, though it would take years to raise the demanded ransom.

    When Muslim pirates from Algiers captured eleven more American merchant vessels in 1794, the Naval Act was passed and a permanent U.S. naval force established. But because the first war vessels would not be ready until 1800, American jizya payments -- which took up 16 percent of the federal budget -- began to be made to Algeria in 1795. In return, over 100 American sailors were released -- how many died or disappeared is unclear -- and the Islamic sea raids formally ceased. American payments and “gifts” over the following years caused the increasingly emboldened Muslim pirates to respond with increasingly capricious demands.

    One of the more ignoble instances occurred in 1800, when Captain William Bainbridge of the George Washington sailed to the pirate-leader of Algiers, with what the latter deemed insufficient tribute. Referring to the Americans as “my slaves,” Dey Mustapha ordered them to transport hundreds of black slaves to Istanbul (Constantinople). Adding insult to insult, he commanded the American crew to take down the U.S. flag and hoist the Islamic flag -- one not unlike ISIS’ notorious black flag -- in its place. And, no matter how rough the seas might be during the long voyage, Bainbridge was required to make sure the George Washington faced Mecca five times a day to accommodate the prayers of Muslims onboard.

    That Bainbridge condescended to becoming Barbary’s delivery boy seems only to have further whetted the terrorists’ appetite. In 1801, Tripoli demanded an instant payment of $225,000, followed by annual payments of $25,000 -- respectively equivalent to $3.5 million and $425,000 today. Concluding that “nothing will stop the eternal increase of demand from these pirates but the presence of an armed force,” America’s third president, Jefferson, refused the ultimatum. (He may have recalled Captain O’Brien’s observation concerning his Barbary masters: “Money is their God and Mahomet their prophet.”)

    Denied jizya from the infidels, Tripoli proclaimed jihad on the United States on May 10, 1801. But by now, America had six war vessels, which Jefferson deployed to the Barbary Coast. For the next five years, the U.S. Navy warred with the Muslim pirates, making little headway and suffering some setbacks -- the most humiliating being when the Philadelphia and its crew were captured in 1803.

    Desperate measures were needed: enter William Eaton. As U.S. consul to Tunis (1797–1803), he had lived among and understood the region’s Muslims well. He knew that “the more you give the more the Turks will ask for,” and despised that old sense of Islamic superiority: “It grates me mortally,” he wrote, “when I see a lazy Turk [generic for Muslim] reclining at his ease upon an embroidered sofa, with one Christian slave to hold his pipe, another to hold his coffee, and a third to fan away the flies.” Seeing that the newborn American navy was making little headway against the seasoned pirates, he devised a daring plan: to sponsor the claim of Mustafa’s brother, exiled in Alexandria; and then to march the latter’s supporters and mercenaries through five hundred miles of desert, from Alexandria onto Tripoli.

    The trek was arduous -- not least because of the Muslim mercenaries themselves. Eaton had repeatedly tried to win them over: “I touched upon the affinity of principle between the Islam and Americans [sic] religion.” But despite these all too familiar ecumenical overtures, “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us,” he lamented in his diary, “or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Mussulmen. We have a difficult undertaking!” (For all his experience with Muslims, Eaton was apparently unaware of the finer points of their (Sharia) law, namely, al-wala’ wa’l bara’, or “loyalty and enmity.”)

    Eaton eventually managed to reach and conquer Tripoli’s coastal town of Derne on April 27, 1805. Less than two months later, on June 10, a peace treaty was signed between the U.S. and Tripoli, formally ending hostilities.

    Thus and despite the (rather ignorant) question that became popular after 9/11, “Why do they hate us?” -- a question that was answered to Jefferson and Adams 233 years ago today -- the United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims, and the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims for the preceding 1,200 years.

    Sources for quotes in this article can be found in the author’s recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0306825554/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0306825554&linkCode=as2&tag=raymondibrahi-20&linkId=0f925201768b161ae319879bb3fdf1d7); 352 pages long and containing over a thousand endnotes, it copiously documents what many in academia have sought to hide: the long and bloody history between Islam and the West, in the context of their eight most landmark battles. American Thinker reviews of the book can be read here and here).



    Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/americas_233yearold_shock_at_jihad.html#ixzz5wReVKssJ
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/americas_233yearold_shock_at_jihad.html
    March 26, 2019 America’s 233-Year-Old Shock at Jihad By Raymond Ibrahim Exactly 233 years ago this week, two of America’s founding fathers documented their first exposure to Islamic jihad in a letter to Congress; like many Americans today, they too were shocked at what they learned. Context: in 1785, Muslim pirates from North Africa, or “Barbary,” had captured two American ships, the Maria and Dauphin, and enslaved their crews. In an effort to ransom the enslaved Americans and establish peaceful relations, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams -- then ambassadors to France and England respectively -- met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, Abdul Rahman Adja. Following this diplomatic exchange, they laid out the source of the Barbary States’ hitherto inexplicable animosity to American vessels in a letter to Congress dated March 28, 1786: We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their [Barbary’s] pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise One need not conjecture what the American ambassadors -- who years earlier had asserted that all men were “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” -- thought of their Muslim counterpart’s answer. Suffice to say, because the ransom demanded was over fifteen times greater than what Congress had approved, little came of the meeting. It should be noted that centuries before setting their sights on American vessels, the Barbary States of Muslim North Africa -- specifically Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis -- had been thriving on the slave trade of Christians abducted from virtually every corner of coastal Europe -- including Britain, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. These raids were so successful that, “between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly a million and quite possibly as many as a million and a quarter white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast,” to quote American historian Robert Davis. The treatment of these European slaves was exacerbated by the fact that they were Christian “infidels.” As Robert Playfair (b.1828), who served for years as a consul in Barbary, explained, “In almost every case they [European slaves] were hated on account of their religion.” Three centuries earlier, John Foxe had written in his Book of Martyrs that, “In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, as at Algiers.” The punishments these European slaves received for real or imagined offenses beggared description: “If they speak against Mahomet [blasphemy], they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive. If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive [as apostates], or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire.” As such, when Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin wrote to Jefferson saying that “our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception,” he was clearly not exaggerating. After Barbary’s ability to abduct coastal Europeans had waned in the mid-eighteenth century, its energy was spent on raiding infidel merchant vessels. Instead of responding by collectively confronting and neutralizing Barbary, European powers, always busy quarrelling among themselves, opted to buy peace through tribute (or, according to Muslim rationale, jizya). Fresh meat appeared on the horizon once the newly-born United States broke free of Great Britain (and was therefore no longer protected by the latter’s jizya payments). Some American congressmen agreed with Jefferson that “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them” -- including General George Washington: “In such an enlightened, in such a liberal age, how is it possible that the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary?” he wrote to a friend. “Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into nonexistence.” But the majority of Congress agreed with John Adams: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.” Considering the perpetual, existential nature of Islamic hostility, Adams may have been more right than he knew. Congress settled on emulating the Europeans and paying off the terrorists, though it would take years to raise the demanded ransom. When Muslim pirates from Algiers captured eleven more American merchant vessels in 1794, the Naval Act was passed and a permanent U.S. naval force established. But because the first war vessels would not be ready until 1800, American jizya payments -- which took up 16 percent of the federal budget -- began to be made to Algeria in 1795. In return, over 100 American sailors were released -- how many died or disappeared is unclear -- and the Islamic sea raids formally ceased. American payments and “gifts” over the following years caused the increasingly emboldened Muslim pirates to respond with increasingly capricious demands. One of the more ignoble instances occurred in 1800, when Captain William Bainbridge of the George Washington sailed to the pirate-leader of Algiers, with what the latter deemed insufficient tribute. Referring to the Americans as “my slaves,” Dey Mustapha ordered them to transport hundreds of black slaves to Istanbul (Constantinople). Adding insult to insult, he commanded the American crew to take down the U.S. flag and hoist the Islamic flag -- one not unlike ISIS’ notorious black flag -- in its place. And, no matter how rough the seas might be during the long voyage, Bainbridge was required to make sure the George Washington faced Mecca five times a day to accommodate the prayers of Muslims onboard. That Bainbridge condescended to becoming Barbary’s delivery boy seems only to have further whetted the terrorists’ appetite. In 1801, Tripoli demanded an instant payment of $225,000, followed by annual payments of $25,000 -- respectively equivalent to $3.5 million and $425,000 today. Concluding that “nothing will stop the eternal increase of demand from these pirates but the presence of an armed force,” America’s third president, Jefferson, refused the ultimatum. (He may have recalled Captain O’Brien’s observation concerning his Barbary masters: “Money is their God and Mahomet their prophet.”) Denied jizya from the infidels, Tripoli proclaimed jihad on the United States on May 10, 1801. But by now, America had six war vessels, which Jefferson deployed to the Barbary Coast. For the next five years, the U.S. Navy warred with the Muslim pirates, making little headway and suffering some setbacks -- the most humiliating being when the Philadelphia and its crew were captured in 1803. Desperate measures were needed: enter William Eaton. As U.S. consul to Tunis (1797–1803), he had lived among and understood the region’s Muslims well. He knew that “the more you give the more the Turks will ask for,” and despised that old sense of Islamic superiority: “It grates me mortally,” he wrote, “when I see a lazy Turk [generic for Muslim] reclining at his ease upon an embroidered sofa, with one Christian slave to hold his pipe, another to hold his coffee, and a third to fan away the flies.” Seeing that the newborn American navy was making little headway against the seasoned pirates, he devised a daring plan: to sponsor the claim of Mustafa’s brother, exiled in Alexandria; and then to march the latter’s supporters and mercenaries through five hundred miles of desert, from Alexandria onto Tripoli. The trek was arduous -- not least because of the Muslim mercenaries themselves. Eaton had repeatedly tried to win them over: “I touched upon the affinity of principle between the Islam and Americans [sic] religion.” But despite these all too familiar ecumenical overtures, “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us,” he lamented in his diary, “or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Mussulmen. We have a difficult undertaking!” (For all his experience with Muslims, Eaton was apparently unaware of the finer points of their (Sharia) law, namely, al-wala’ wa’l bara’, or “loyalty and enmity.”) Eaton eventually managed to reach and conquer Tripoli’s coastal town of Derne on April 27, 1805. Less than two months later, on June 10, a peace treaty was signed between the U.S. and Tripoli, formally ending hostilities. Thus and despite the (rather ignorant) question that became popular after 9/11, “Why do they hate us?” -- a question that was answered to Jefferson and Adams 233 years ago today -- the United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims, and the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims for the preceding 1,200 years. Sources for quotes in this article can be found in the author’s recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West; 352 pages long and containing over a thousand endnotes, it copiously documents what many in academia have sought to hide: the long and bloody history between Islam and the West, in the context of their eight most landmark battles. American Thinker reviews of the book can be read here and here). Exactly 233 years ago this week, two of America’s founding fathers documented their first exposure to Islamic jihad in a letter to Congress; like many Americans today, they too were shocked at what they learned. Context: in 1785, Muslim pirates from North Africa, or “Barbary,” had captured two American ships, the Maria and Dauphin, and enslaved their crews. In an effort to ransom the enslaved Americans and establish peaceful relations, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams -- then ambassadors to France and England respectively -- met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, Abdul Rahman Adja. Following this diplomatic exchange, they laid out the source of the Barbary States’ hitherto inexplicable animosity to American vessels in a letter to Congress dated March 28, 1786: We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their [Barbary’s] pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise One need not conjecture what the American ambassadors -- who years earlier had asserted that all men were “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” -- thought of their Muslim counterpart’s answer. Suffice to say, because the ransom demanded was over fifteen times greater than what Congress had approved, little came of the meeting. It should be noted that centuries before setting their sights on American vessels, the Barbary States of Muslim North Africa -- specifically Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis -- had been thriving on the slave trade of Christians abducted from virtually every corner of coastal Europe -- including Britain, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. These raids were so successful that, “between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly a million and quite possibly as many as a million and a quarter white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast,” to quote American historian Robert Davis. The treatment of these European slaves was exacerbated by the fact that they were Christian “infidels.” As Robert Playfair (b.1828), who served for years as a consul in Barbary, explained, “In almost every case they [European slaves] were hated on account of their religion.” Three centuries earlier, John Foxe had written in his Book of Martyrs that, “In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, as at Algiers.” The punishments these European slaves received for real or imagined offenses beggared description: “If they speak against Mahomet [blasphemy], they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive. If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive [as apostates], or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire.” As such, when Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin wrote to Jefferson saying that “our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception,” he was clearly not exaggerating. After Barbary’s ability to abduct coastal Europeans had waned in the mid-eighteenth century, its energy was spent on raiding infidel merchant vessels. Instead of responding by collectively confronting and neutralizing Barbary, European powers, always busy quarrelling among themselves, opted to buy peace through tribute (or, according to Muslim rationale, jizya). Fresh meat appeared on the horizon once the newly-born United States broke free of Great Britain (and was therefore no longer protected by the latter’s jizya payments). Some American congressmen agreed with Jefferson that “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them” -- including General George Washington: “In such an enlightened, in such a liberal age, how is it possible that the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary?” he wrote to a friend. “Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into nonexistence.” But the majority of Congress agreed with John Adams: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.” Considering the perpetual, existential nature of Islamic hostility, Adams may have been more right than he knew. Congress settled on emulating the Europeans and paying off the terrorists, though it would take years to raise the demanded ransom. When Muslim pirates from Algiers captured eleven more American merchant vessels in 1794, the Naval Act was passed and a permanent U.S. naval force established. But because the first war vessels would not be ready until 1800, American jizya payments -- which took up 16 percent of the federal budget -- began to be made to Algeria in 1795. In return, over 100 American sailors were released -- how many died or disappeared is unclear -- and the Islamic sea raids formally ceased. American payments and “gifts” over the following years caused the increasingly emboldened Muslim pirates to respond with increasingly capricious demands. One of the more ignoble instances occurred in 1800, when Captain William Bainbridge of the George Washington sailed to the pirate-leader of Algiers, with what the latter deemed insufficient tribute. Referring to the Americans as “my slaves,” Dey Mustapha ordered them to transport hundreds of black slaves to Istanbul (Constantinople). Adding insult to insult, he commanded the American crew to take down the U.S. flag and hoist the Islamic flag -- one not unlike ISIS’ notorious black flag -- in its place. And, no matter how rough the seas might be during the long voyage, Bainbridge was required to make sure the George Washington faced Mecca five times a day to accommodate the prayers of Muslims onboard. That Bainbridge condescended to becoming Barbary’s delivery boy seems only to have further whetted the terrorists’ appetite. In 1801, Tripoli demanded an instant payment of $225,000, followed by annual payments of $25,000 -- respectively equivalent to $3.5 million and $425,000 today. Concluding that “nothing will stop the eternal increase of demand from these pirates but the presence of an armed force,” America’s third president, Jefferson, refused the ultimatum. (He may have recalled Captain O’Brien’s observation concerning his Barbary masters: “Money is their God and Mahomet their prophet.”) Denied jizya from the infidels, Tripoli proclaimed jihad on the United States on May 10, 1801. But by now, America had six war vessels, which Jefferson deployed to the Barbary Coast. For the next five years, the U.S. Navy warred with the Muslim pirates, making little headway and suffering some setbacks -- the most humiliating being when the Philadelphia and its crew were captured in 1803. Desperate measures were needed: enter William Eaton. As U.S. consul to Tunis (1797–1803), he had lived among and understood the region’s Muslims well. He knew that “the more you give the more the Turks will ask for,” and despised that old sense of Islamic superiority: “It grates me mortally,” he wrote, “when I see a lazy Turk [generic for Muslim] reclining at his ease upon an embroidered sofa, with one Christian slave to hold his pipe, another to hold his coffee, and a third to fan away the flies.” Seeing that the newborn American navy was making little headway against the seasoned pirates, he devised a daring plan: to sponsor the claim of Mustafa’s brother, exiled in Alexandria; and then to march the latter’s supporters and mercenaries through five hundred miles of desert, from Alexandria onto Tripoli. The trek was arduous -- not least because of the Muslim mercenaries themselves. Eaton had repeatedly tried to win them over: “I touched upon the affinity of principle between the Islam and Americans [sic] religion.” But despite these all too familiar ecumenical overtures, “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us,” he lamented in his diary, “or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Mussulmen. We have a difficult undertaking!” (For all his experience with Muslims, Eaton was apparently unaware of the finer points of their (Sharia) law, namely, al-wala’ wa’l bara’, or “loyalty and enmity.”) Eaton eventually managed to reach and conquer Tripoli’s coastal town of Derne on April 27, 1805. Less than two months later, on June 10, a peace treaty was signed between the U.S. and Tripoli, formally ending hostilities. Thus and despite the (rather ignorant) question that became popular after 9/11, “Why do they hate us?” -- a question that was answered to Jefferson and Adams 233 years ago today -- the United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims, and the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims for the preceding 1,200 years. Sources for quotes in this article can be found in the author’s recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0306825554/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0306825554&linkCode=as2&tag=raymondibrahi-20&linkId=0f925201768b161ae319879bb3fdf1d7); 352 pages long and containing over a thousand endnotes, it copiously documents what many in academia have sought to hide: the long and bloody history between Islam and the West, in the context of their eight most landmark battles. American Thinker reviews of the book can be read here and here). Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/americas_233yearold_shock_at_jihad.html#ixzz5wReVKssJ Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/americas_233yearold_shock_at_jihad.html
    America’s 233-Year-Old Shock at Jihad
    The United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims after the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims. 
    WWW.AMERICANTHINKER.COM
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • quotation
    The Helsinki summit with Putin is the knockout punch. And the howls of pain arising from our hateful warmongering media, the Democratic party politicians they’re in thrall to, and the phony 'human rights' scamsters, are getting louder by the minute. We should all revel in their misery.
    Trump campaigned on making peace with Russia: he has a mandate to do so. That, however, matters little to the 'intelligence community' and their media camarilla, which is up in arms at the very prospect of a Russo-American partnership for peace. The national security bureaucracy and the laptop bombardiers who inhabit Think-tank World have a vested interest in maintaining a cold war status quo that should’ve ended when the Berlin Wall fell. They are horrified by Trump’s 'America First' foreign policy views, and they are out to stop him by any means necessary – because his victory meant the end of their worldview and their careers.

    author/source
    Justin Raimondo

    America First, Helsinki, And Trump's Existential Threat To The Empire
    by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog
    zerohedge.com, 7/7/2018
    quotation The Helsinki summit with Putin is the knockout punch. And the howls of pain arising from our hateful warmongering media, the Democratic party politicians they’re in thrall to, and the phony 'human rights' scamsters, are getting louder by the minute. We should all revel in their misery. Trump campaigned on making peace with Russia: he has a mandate to do so. That, however, matters little to the 'intelligence community' and their media camarilla, which is up in arms at the very prospect of a Russo-American partnership for peace. The national security bureaucracy and the laptop bombardiers who inhabit Think-tank World have a vested interest in maintaining a cold war status quo that should’ve ended when the Berlin Wall fell. They are horrified by Trump’s 'America First' foreign policy views, and they are out to stop him by any means necessary – because his victory meant the end of their worldview and their careers. author/source Justin Raimondo America First, Helsinki, And Trump's Existential Threat To The Empire by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog zerohedge.com, 7/7/2018
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • ‘Victory!’: Twitter Unlocks Mitch McConnell Campaign Account After GOP Boycott
    https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/08/09/victory-twitter-unlocks-mitch-mcconnell-campaign-account-after-gop-boycott/
    ‘Victory!’: Twitter Unlocks Mitch McConnell Campaign Account After GOP Boycott https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/08/09/victory-twitter-unlocks-mitch-mcconnell-campaign-account-after-gop-boycott/
    'Victory!': Twitter Unlocks Mitch McConnell Campaign Account After GOP Boycott | Breitbart
    Twitter announced Friday that it unlocked Mitch McConnell's account after many Republican groups threatened to stop advertising on Twitter.
    WWW.BREITBART.COM
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • "It is shocking and appalling that the Democrats were not aware that the elderly abuse fiasco that was the Robert Mueller testimony would sink their caboose.

    But maybe they were aware of it. Maybe they just wanted to bring out this last stupid distraction as the very last squeeze of this hoax." - Andrew Anglin

    https://dailystormer.name/trump-takes-victory-lap-after-robert-mueller-elderly-abuse-fiasco/

    https://dstormer6em3i4km.onion.link/trump-takes-victory-lap-after-robert-mueller-elderly-abuse-fiasco/
    "It is shocking and appalling that the Democrats were not aware that the elderly abuse fiasco that was the Robert Mueller testimony would sink their caboose. But maybe they were aware of it. Maybe they just wanted to bring out this last stupid distraction as the very last squeeze of this hoax." - Andrew Anglin https://dailystormer.name/trump-takes-victory-lap-after-robert-mueller-elderly-abuse-fiasco/ https://dstormer6em3i4km.onion.link/trump-takes-victory-lap-after-robert-mueller-elderly-abuse-fiasco/
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • #Psalm117 #John4:1-42 #JesusLiftedMeUp #UpliftingChristianSermons #TheWomanAtTheWellSermon #SamaritanWomanAtTheWellSermon #SermonOnSamaritanWomanAtTheWell #SermonOnTheSamaritanWomanAtJacobsWell #TheSamaritanPeople #JesusAndTheOutcasts #JesusLovesTheOutcasts https://youtu.be/z5maE_C2JS4 #dailyinspiration #goodness #dailymotivation #victory #overcome #imagine #struggle #goodnews #fact #news #motivationalquote #forever #father #desire #christian #success #motivation #facts #inspiration #listen #love #lifehack #lives #upgrade #truth #jesus #god #life
    #Psalm117 #John4:1-42 #JesusLiftedMeUp #UpliftingChristianSermons #TheWomanAtTheWellSermon #SamaritanWomanAtTheWellSermon #SermonOnSamaritanWomanAtTheWell #SermonOnTheSamaritanWomanAtJacobsWell #TheSamaritanPeople #JesusAndTheOutcasts #JesusLovesTheOutcasts https://youtu.be/z5maE_C2JS4 #dailyinspiration #goodness #dailymotivation #victory #overcome #imagine #struggle #goodnews #fact #news #motivationalquote #forever #father #desire #christian #success #motivation #facts #inspiration #listen #love #lifehack #lives #upgrade #truth #jesus #god #life
    Jesus Lifts People Up Christian Sermon LCMC Jeff Milsten Church Pomeroy WA
    Psalm 117, John 4:1-42, Spring - Summer Schedule Pomeroy Schedule: Church 8 AM PST 710 High Street, Pomeroy WA, 99347 5 PM Potluck on the 4th Sunday of the M...
    YouTube
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • #HowToStopGlobalWarming #HowToCoolTheOcean #WeatherManipulationMachine #EnvironmentalScience #HowToGenerateClouds #CloudGenerator #CloudMakingMachine #EvaporativeCoolingSystem #EvaporativeCooler #HowToCoolOceanWater #HowToIncreasePlantGrowth #HowToStopClimateChangeTheEasyWay #EasyWaysToStopGlobalWarming https://youtu.be/m6BNxCK3hlo #news #imagine #overcome #victory #beware #struggle #desire #technews #newtechnology
    #HowToStopGlobalWarming #HowToCoolTheOcean #WeatherManipulationMachine #EnvironmentalScience #HowToGenerateClouds #CloudGenerator #CloudMakingMachine #EvaporativeCoolingSystem #EvaporativeCooler #HowToCoolOceanWater #HowToIncreasePlantGrowth #HowToStopClimateChangeTheEasyWay #EasyWaysToStopGlobalWarming https://youtu.be/m6BNxCK3hlo #news #imagine #overcome #victory #beware #struggle #desire #technews #newtechnology
    How To Reverse Global Warming Weather Control Machine Evaporative Cooling Cool The Ocean Earth Modif
    1 Check out http://ChristianitatisCuria.com ! DONATE http://www.mindblowingidea.com/Donate.html 1b For Unlimited 4G LTE Internet call 1.888.306.7062 and ment...
    YouTube
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • With Support of Just 3 Republicans, House Democrats Pass 'Historic' Raise the Wage Act to Guarantee Workers $15 Minimum Wage
    https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/07/18/support-just-3-republicans-house-democrats-pass-historic-raise-wage-act-guarantee
    Julia Conley, staff writer

    Progressives in Congress were joined by workers, business owners, and labor rights advocates in celebrating the "historic" passage on Thursday of the Raise the Wage Act, aimed at guaranteeing all American workers a minimum wage of $15.

    Two hundred thirty House Democrats were joined by only three Republicans—Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Will Hurd of Texas, and Christopher H. Smith of New Jersey—in supporting the Raise the Wage Act (RTWA), which would raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2025 and end the use of sub-minimum wages for tipped workers.

    Despite the bill's popularity across political affiliations and numerous studies showing it would strengthen small businesses and communities, Republicans on Thursday claimed the passage of the RTWA was akin to sacrificing "the wages, families, and livelihoods of American workers...upon the altar of socialist ideology."

    As Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) wrote on Twitter, just 1.5 percent of the Republicans in the House expressed agreement with the Democrats and the majority of the U.S. public that the minimum wage—which studies have shown cannot support a family of four—should be raised.

    "We just voted to raise the federal minimum wage for the first time in a decade and Republicans are on the floor wailing, 'socialism.' How pathetic," Pascrell said. "If we're being generous with rounding, 98 percent of House Republicans don't believe in raising Americans' pay."

    The nationwide grassroots group Fight for $15, which since 2012 has pushed for a living wage for all workers and whose campaigning helped force Disneyland and a number of states to raise their minimum wages, was among the groups who applauded the RTWA's passage as "historic."

    Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, credited Fight for $15 and other workers' rights groups with persisting in their demand that lawmakers pass a fair wage for all employees.

    "This victory is only possible thanks to the bravery and resolve of all the workers who have stood up over the past six years and stopped asking only for the crumbs they thought were politically palatable, and instead, demanded what they deserve," Owens said. "We are proud to stand with all of them, the real leaders of this movement."

    The federal minimum wage has been stagnant for a decade at $7.25 per hour. As the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) noted Thursday, adjusting for inflation, workers today earn less than they did five decades ago—while the costs of housing, education, and basic necessities have skyrocketed in that time.

    "The real (inflation-adjusted) minimum wage is now roughly 30 percent lower than it was in 1968, and it has been more than 10 years since Congress raised the minimum wage—the longest stretch in history," EPI said in a statement.

    "To end this shameful streak, it is incumbent upon the Senate to take up and pass the Raise the Wage Act immediately," the group added.

    The RTWA now goes to the Senate, where the NELP said Republicans, led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), will "face strong and sustained pressure from workers, advocates, progressive lawmakers, and constituents to increase the minimum wage after the longest period in U.S. history without a raise."

    "We applaud the House for doing its job," said Owens. "Now there's no other moral choice but for the Senate to take up the Raise the Wage Act and move it forward."

    As Common Dreams reported, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the lead sponsor of the Raise the Wage Act in the Senate (S.150), expressed agreement with EPI and NELP, demanding that McConnell bring the bill to the Senate floor for a vote and move workers a step closer to narrowing the wealth gap.

    After House Passes $15 Minimum Wage Bill, Bernie Sanders Demands McConnell Let Senate Vote [https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/07/18/after-house-passes-15-minimum-wage-bill-bernie-sanders-demands-mcconnell-let-senate]

    Bernie Sanders ✔ @SenSanders
    If the Majority Leader wants to defend starvation wages to the people of Kentucky, that is his right.

    But I say to Mitch McConnell: let the American people have a vote on a $15 minimum wage.

    Sanders reiterated in his statement on Thursday. "But he should not deny the rest of the Senate the opportunity to vote for this bill and increase wages for 40 million Americans. No one who has a job in America should be living in poverty. Let the Senate vote."
    With Support of Just 3 Republicans, House Democrats Pass 'Historic' Raise the Wage Act to Guarantee Workers $15 Minimum Wage https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/07/18/support-just-3-republicans-house-democrats-pass-historic-raise-wage-act-guarantee Julia Conley, staff writer Progressives in Congress were joined by workers, business owners, and labor rights advocates in celebrating the "historic" passage on Thursday of the Raise the Wage Act, aimed at guaranteeing all American workers a minimum wage of $15. Two hundred thirty House Democrats were joined by only three Republicans—Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Will Hurd of Texas, and Christopher H. Smith of New Jersey—in supporting the Raise the Wage Act (RTWA), which would raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2025 and end the use of sub-minimum wages for tipped workers. Despite the bill's popularity across political affiliations and numerous studies showing it would strengthen small businesses and communities, Republicans on Thursday claimed the passage of the RTWA was akin to sacrificing "the wages, families, and livelihoods of American workers...upon the altar of socialist ideology." As Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) wrote on Twitter, just 1.5 percent of the Republicans in the House expressed agreement with the Democrats and the majority of the U.S. public that the minimum wage—which studies have shown cannot support a family of four—should be raised. "We just voted to raise the federal minimum wage for the first time in a decade and Republicans are on the floor wailing, 'socialism.' How pathetic," Pascrell said. "If we're being generous with rounding, 98 percent of House Republicans don't believe in raising Americans' pay." The nationwide grassroots group Fight for $15, which since 2012 has pushed for a living wage for all workers and whose campaigning helped force Disneyland and a number of states to raise their minimum wages, was among the groups who applauded the RTWA's passage as "historic." Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, credited Fight for $15 and other workers' rights groups with persisting in their demand that lawmakers pass a fair wage for all employees. "This victory is only possible thanks to the bravery and resolve of all the workers who have stood up over the past six years and stopped asking only for the crumbs they thought were politically palatable, and instead, demanded what they deserve," Owens said. "We are proud to stand with all of them, the real leaders of this movement." The federal minimum wage has been stagnant for a decade at $7.25 per hour. As the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) noted Thursday, adjusting for inflation, workers today earn less than they did five decades ago—while the costs of housing, education, and basic necessities have skyrocketed in that time. "The real (inflation-adjusted) minimum wage is now roughly 30 percent lower than it was in 1968, and it has been more than 10 years since Congress raised the minimum wage—the longest stretch in history," EPI said in a statement. "To end this shameful streak, it is incumbent upon the Senate to take up and pass the Raise the Wage Act immediately," the group added. The RTWA now goes to the Senate, where the NELP said Republicans, led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), will "face strong and sustained pressure from workers, advocates, progressive lawmakers, and constituents to increase the minimum wage after the longest period in U.S. history without a raise." "We applaud the House for doing its job," said Owens. "Now there's no other moral choice but for the Senate to take up the Raise the Wage Act and move it forward." As Common Dreams reported, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the lead sponsor of the Raise the Wage Act in the Senate (S.150), expressed agreement with EPI and NELP, demanding that McConnell bring the bill to the Senate floor for a vote and move workers a step closer to narrowing the wealth gap. After House Passes $15 Minimum Wage Bill, Bernie Sanders Demands McConnell Let Senate Vote [https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/07/18/after-house-passes-15-minimum-wage-bill-bernie-sanders-demands-mcconnell-let-senate] Bernie Sanders ✔ @SenSanders If the Majority Leader wants to defend starvation wages to the people of Kentucky, that is his right. But I say to Mitch McConnell: let the American people have a vote on a $15 minimum wage. Sanders reiterated in his statement on Thursday. "But he should not deny the rest of the Senate the opportunity to vote for this bill and increase wages for 40 million Americans. No one who has a job in America should be living in poverty. Let the Senate vote."
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • Majestic and Glory
    July 16 O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is Your name in all the earth, Who have displayed Your splendor above the heavens! Psalm 8:1
    Listen to today's Devotional

    David penned these words of praise following his victory in God’s name over the Philistine giant Goliath. No doubt God’s name was majestic in Israel on that day. But what about today? Is the Lord’s name excellent over the entire earth? There are atheists and agnostics who would answer with a resounding “No!” Sadly, to some people, even those who go by the name of Christian, God’s name is reduced to their favorite profanity or vain expression.

    If they would only take the time to do what David did in this Psalm – consider the work of God’s fingers and the depth of His love – they would join him and millions of people in declaring “O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is Your name in all the earth!” https://mailchi.mp/8c28eb0d483c/the-truest-freedom-you-can-ever-experience-452661?e=9cbe669f39
    Majestic and Glory July 16 O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is Your name in all the earth, Who have displayed Your splendor above the heavens! Psalm 8:1 Listen to today's Devotional David penned these words of praise following his victory in God’s name over the Philistine giant Goliath. No doubt God’s name was majestic in Israel on that day. But what about today? Is the Lord’s name excellent over the entire earth? There are atheists and agnostics who would answer with a resounding “No!” Sadly, to some people, even those who go by the name of Christian, God’s name is reduced to their favorite profanity or vain expression. If they would only take the time to do what David did in this Psalm – consider the work of God’s fingers and the depth of His love – they would join him and millions of people in declaring “O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is Your name in all the earth!” https://mailchi.mp/8c28eb0d483c/the-truest-freedom-you-can-ever-experience-452661?e=9cbe669f39
    Majestic and Glory
    God’s name is majestic because He is.
    MAILCHI.MP
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares

No results to show

No results to show

No results to show

Sponsored

Canadian Community Project INC.

Please visit our site and share!