Saturday, July 23, 2011


Anders Breivik, Oslo's Mass Murderer

  For the past 2 years I have been warning the citizenry about the threats from Islam.  Yesterday, in Oslo, Norway, the unthinkable happened.  The man pictured above allegedly blew up some government offices and proceeded to a youth camp, where, dressed as a policeman, pulled weapons and brutally murdered some 80 people, most of them teenagers.  Whatever his motive might have been, the crime is inexcusable.  He should be prosecuted and sentenced without mercy.  I do not believe that Norway has a death penalty, but if they do, I can think of no better instance to employ it, than with this man.  The act was senseless and evil.  Justice will, I'm sure prevail in court here on earth, but most certainly by the Lord Our God.
  There is no doubt that the left-wing has already jumped on the fact that this murderer is not a Muslim, although ties to Muslim influence have not been ruled out as yet.  The description "Christian" has already been over used in this tragedy, as a label, a "scarlet letter" if you will.  As if it were somehow Christian doctrine that turned this guy into the homicidal maniac he appears to be.  Anti-Christian and anti-white accusers will be all over this one, mark my words.  Let me say this one thing, there is nothing Christian about this man, and nothing in the teachings of Christ to lead anyone to commit such a heinous act of violence.  If this man was a follower of Islam, his actions would be conceivable, as the Muslim extremists are known world wide for their brutality and murder of non-believers.  It is condoned by Muhammad in the Koran, so we expect it from Muslims.  The first thoughts of everyone when the car-bomb went off in Oslo, was understandably, Muslim terrorists.  When something like this happens, it is quite common to look to those violent people who are 9 out 10 times responsible for acts like these.
  The terrorist style acts committed by Anders Breivik will certainly be the fuel the Department of Homeland Security needs to justify their assumption that Conservative Right Wing citizens are terrorists.  From now and for all time, when conservatives bring argument that Middle Eastern looking people need to be profiled at airports, the TSA will merely bring up the blond haired, blue eyed Norwegian named Anders Breivik, and the terrorist act he perpetrated upon the innocent people in Norway.  A home grown terrorist murdering 80 or more of his own people.  
  I submit that Anders Breivik is not a terrorist per say, but a common criminal who was berserk enough to commit a abominable crime, resulting in terror.  I contend that this man is a homicidal maniac, and he wanted attention.  I believe that he is not part of a large group of fair-haired Norwegians set to wreak havoc upon the citizens of Norway or anywhere else in the free world.  Anders Breivik is a sick and twisted individual, and what he did, although heiness, is a one time isolated incident.
  The crime of Anders Breivik should not cause the world's focus on an enemy Islam to waiver in any way.  The spread of Islam and Sharia is as real as ever.  When the terrible memories of what happened yesterday in Norway begin to fade, Islam and the re-building of the new Caliphate will be alive and well.  Believe me, the Muslims in Norway will cheer over this episode and take advantage of this moment to further their cause, just as they did on 9/11.  America, we can ill afford to ignore or deny who the real enemy is.  
  My heart and my prayers to the families of this, Oslo's most terrible tragedy, God be with you all.
May we never forget that this is Satan's domain, and evil lives here.  Evil things happen, and evil comes in all sizes and shapes, colors and creeds.  In these times, we must be vigilant, especially Christians.  The Lord warns us of persecutions for His name's sake.  The one thing that Satan is good at, is finding ways to lay the blame on Christians for things he has caused.  
God Help Us
The Watchman    

Friday, July 22, 2011


There are so many misconceptions and myths surrounding the Great Crusades that it is difficult to know where to begin.  So, perhaps as close to the beginning is the best place.
If this were year 629 AD, and the local newspaper arrived as it does today, one of the front page headlines would read:
So you see, the Crusaders were a defensive unit, the Muslim Jihadis were the aggressors.  That is an important fact to remember.  The battle of Mu'ta in year 629 was just the beginning of unprovoked Muslim attack upon Christians and Jews.  As you know from reading today's headlines, the Muslims have not stopped attacking Christians and Jews since the first attack in 629.  It wasn't until the year 1095 that the 1st Crusade began, a self-defense action. (There was a total of nine Crusades)
  Yesterday's Blog article contained Myth#1 concerning the Crusades.  Today we will dispel misconception i.e., Myth #2
MYTH # 2:   The Crusaders wore crosses, but they were really only interested in capturing booty and land.  Their pious platitudes were just a cover for rapacious greed.
  Historians once believed that the rise in Europe's population led to a crisis to too many nobles, second sons if you will.  Second sons were trained in chivalric warfare but had no feudal lands to inherit.  The Crusades, therefore, were seen as a safety valve, sending belligerent men far from Europe where they could carve out lands for themselves at someone else's expense.  Modern scholarship, assisted by the advent of computer databases, has exploded this myth.  We now know that it was the "first sons" of Europe that answered the Pope's call in 1095AD, as well as in subsequent Crusades.  Crusading was an enormously expensive operation.  Lords were forced to sell off or mortgage their lands to gather the necessary funds.  Most were also not interested in an overseas kingdom.  Much like a soldier today, the medieval Crusader was proud to do his duty, but longed to return home.
  After the spectacular successes of the First Crusade, with Jerusalem and much of Palestine in the Crusader hands, virtually all of the Crusaders went home.  Only a tiny handful remained behind to consolidate and govern the newly won territories.  Booty was also scarce.  In fact, although Crusaders no doubt dreamed of vast wealth in opulent Eastern cities, virtually none of them ever even recouped their expenses.  Money and land were not the reasons that they went on Crusade in the first place.  They went to atone for their sins and to win salvation by doing good works in a faraway land.  They underwent such expense and hardship because they believed that by coming to the aid of their Christian brothers and sisters in the East they were storing up treasure where rust and moth cannot corrupt (heaven).  They were mindful of Christ's exhortation the he who will not take up his cross is not worthy of Christ.  They also remembered that "Greater love hath no man than this, than to lay down his life for his friends."
  I wonder how many Crusaders there would have been if they weren't connected to a works religion, i.e. Catholicism?  For instance, if you know as we believe today as Evangelical Christians, that you can attain salvation by repenting of you sins and accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, would you still go to war in a far off land to gain the treasure of salvation?  Was it God in His infinite wisdom that put the Pope and the Catholic church in place for the purpose of stopping or at least slowing down the follower's of Allah?  Do you think that God in His infinite wisdom has placed anyone to counter attack the new Muslim Empire and Caliphate being built today? 
  Tomorrow, Myth # 3. 
God Help Us
The Watchman
(Sources:  Thomas Madden, Author of  "A Concise History of the Crusades and from an article by printed on "History of

Thursday, July 21, 2011


Sometimes, the truth must be told no matter who it offends!!!

"Campus Crusade for Christ", more commonly known on college campus' throughout America and the world as CCC.  The CCC is a large-scale Christian organization that was founded by Bill and Vonette Bright at UCLA in 1951 and has carried the same name since 1960.  In 2012, the organization will be removing the name of "Christ" and will officially call the Christian organization "Cru".  Under the guise of taking away any obstacles that might deter anyone from hearing the true message of the organization, the leaders felt the name change was necessary.  According to Vonette her husband Bill had considered an organizational name change for about 20-25 years.  I may be wrong, but 20-25 years ago is when Islamic Students Organizations, and other liberal student organizations began popping up on campus' across the United States.  Could this name change have any correlation with how Muslims are offended at the mention of the word "Christian"?  Of course, if one is trying not to appease the Muslim student population, then why choose the name "Cru" which clearly suggests that the word Crusade is okay, but not the name Christ.  I would think that "Cru" will raise just as much Muslim ire, if not more than the words Christ or Christian as they are all quite synonymous.  Either the leaders were somewhat remiss in their selection of a new name, or they're making a point.  In my opinion, they were remiss, and soon there may be a revocation of "Cru" to something even more secular.  I believe that this entire name change thing is the direct result of the political correctness that now permeates our society, both in the public and private sectors.  If I were the leader of CCC, instead of changing the name to "Cru", I'd spell it out, and call it "The Crusade", but that's just me.  
  These days people shy away from the word "Crusade" as though there was something nasty and offensive about it.  In actually, "The Crusaders were quite noble in their endeavors, and "The Crusades" in themselves were a very noble cause for freedom from oppression by Muslims.  Here are some facts to dispel some misconceptions concerning "The Crusades".  These facts may offend some folks, especially Muslims, because to hear the way Islam tells the story, they (the Muslims) were just a group of merry men minding their own business when the barbaric hordes of Christians swooped down upon them totally unprovoked.
Myth #1:    The Crusades were wars of unprovoked aggression against a peaceful Muslim world.
  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  From the time of Mohammed, Muslims had sought to conquer the Christian world.  They did a pretty good job of it too.  After a few centuries of steady conquests, Muslim armies had taken all of North Africa, the Middle East, Asia Minor and most of Spain.  In other words, by the end of the 11th century the forces of Islam had captured two-thirds of the Christian world.  Palestine, the home of Jesus Christ; Egypt, the birthplace of Christian monasticism; Asia Minor, where St. Paul planted the seeds of the first Christian communities--these were not the periphery of Christianity, but it's very core.  However, the Muslims empires were not finished yet.  They continued to press westward toward Constantinople, ultimately passing it and entering Europe itself.  As far as unprovoked aggression goes, it was all on the Muslim side.  At some point, what was left of the Christian world would have to defend itself, or simply succumb to Islamic conquest. (source:  A Concise History of the Crusades, author Thomas Madden, chair of the history department at St. Louis University)
  In the following days, or for as long as it takes, I will be compiling data and facts from numerous sources regarding the truth about "The Crusades", and why Christians should NOT be ashamed of their heritage.  Through this Blog, we will delve more deeply into Islam and Christian differences and why neither can survive peacefully in the presence of one another.  "The Crusades, and the Crusaders were noble and righteous in their cause.  Make no mistake, the Crusaders were also volunteers for the most part, and marched on an enemy of formidable strength and resolve.  The Muslim empire and their conquests prior to the onset of the Crusades, could not be ignored.  By the same token, the Islamic conquests of Europe and the West can no longer be ignored today.  Had the Crusades not happened, no doubt all the world today would be Islamic.  If the West and Europe do not begin a new Crusade today, the end result will be the same for us tomorrow.
Are you prepared to bow to Allah?
God Help Us
The Watchman

Campus Crusade for Christ Cru New name changes

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Reading Bible Social Justice Poverty |

There is nothing about Social Justice that is Divinely Inspired
                                          Reading Bible Social Justice Poverty

Whoa, and back up there Mr. Aaron Franzen from Baylor, and you too David Briggs from the Association of Religion Data Archives.  Do not allude that "Social Justice" is some kind of divine Bible inspiration!  There are huge societal differences between "Social Justice" and the "Social Concerns" of Bible reading Christians.  Please don't confuse the two.  Neither the Father or the Son instituted social justice reforms.  Social Justice is strictly a man made paradigm shift.  Socialism and Christianity are not even remotely related.  Social Justice is the demand for funds by the ruling government so that the government can redistribute wealth to whom it sees fit and deserving.  Concern for those who are unfortunate deems that money from charitable Christians be doled to the charity in which the donor chooses through his/her own God given free will.  Contrary to popular opinion these days, Jesus was not and is not a Socialist.  Jesus encouraged Christians to be charitable, He did not order ruling governments to steal money from good hard working people, so that those who refuse to work would reap the benefit of someone else's harvest.  OH yes, there is a difference between "Social Justice" and charity.  
  Mr. Briggs states: "Those individuals who believe that the Bible is literally true, but who spend little time reading it, will actually find themselves at ideological odds with those who devote more time to the scriptures."  That statement Mr. Briggs is actually a contradiction in terms.  There are no avid Bible readers that could possibly come away with the idea that Christian charity is connected to Social or Economic Justice.  
  In my opinion, this entire study is just another way for socialism to infiltrate the conservative Christian community.  What better way is there to convince Christians they all along have been of a socialist nature, because Jesus preached socialism?  He did not!!!  
  A warning to Christians; we have always been the most concerned and the most charitable of all peoples in the world.  To prove this to yourself, look back at all the Christian sponsored ministries for the past, say 100 years.  Has any one church, either priest or preacher demanded the turning over of your hard earned money to any specific ministry?  No, they have not.  So, by the same token, ask yourself how do these charitable ministries continue to operate?  The simple answer is this:  Because we love Jesus, we love our brothers and neighbors as ourselves, and that results in the huge successes of charitable missions and ministries around the globe.  The government does not have to demand our money, it is out of love that we freely give to those in need.  No, there is no correlation between "Social Justice" and Christian charity, NONE!
  As a Bible reader, I come away with a healthy respect for the law, both God's law and our nation's law.  The Progressive liberals who appear responsible for this so-called study of Christians and the reporting of the study's findings are extremely bias in their conclusions.  This study has been published for one reason, and one reason only, to somehow convince conservative Christians that they are actually Socialists.  Do not lend credence to the published conclusions of this Baylor study.  Social and Economic justice is the antithesis of God's word.  Social and Economic justice has it's roots deeply in Communism.  Christianity has it's roots in Freedom, and love that comes directly from the teachings of Jesus Christ, not Carl Marx.  Beware of false prophets the Bible warns us.  This study is in essence a false prophesy, aimed at leading conservative, God fearing Christians down the wide path, and not the narrow one.  
  I encourage all of you to click on the link to this study, read it, but do not be fooled by it.  God's laws are not to be distorted, and the conclusions of this study will try to encourage you to believe otherwise.  It is not unlike the recent decision of the Southern Baptist Convention to seek some social equality and justice for the children of illegal Mexican alien children in this country.  America is a nation of laws, not individuals.  Those who are here illegally, have already broken the law by their mere presence.  The children they bore here are no more American citizens than their parents.  By granting an amnesty to the children of illegals does nothing but encourage the infiltration of more illegals into this country.  Christian condonement of  this behavior by illegals breaks commandment after commandment.  Thou shalt not steal.  Thou shalt not covet.  I shouldn't need to go on.  If you are an American citizen, and you feel compelled to take in illegal aliens from anywhere, then they should live with you, eat your food and wear your clothes.  If you are well with that, then you should also be responsible for their health care.  You should be responsible, not the rest of American society, that's socialist.  Placing the burden of the illegals on all of society is forced redistribution of wealth, and that too is socialism.  
  Socialist Progressives have infiltrated many if not all aspects of our government, and now they are attempting to infiltrate and cause a huge paradigm shift in the Christian churches.  If the socialists are successful in their infiltration, it will make the church a subject of the government.  The first amendment is supposed to protect the church from the state, but if the state can make demands from the churches, then I ask, who's actually in charge?  What would be the difference, from one Revolutionary War to another?  Is not one tyrannical and oppressive government the same as the other?
Seek God's Divine Providence
Do not be led astray by the words of false prophets.
The Watchman       

Tuesday, July 19, 2011


In 2006 then Senator Barack Obama made a speech and said:  "Raising the debt ceiling is an immoral act, and a sign of failed leadership.  Of course, that was when George Bush was president.  Today, Obama says the national debt ceiling must be raised if the United States wants to avoid defaulting on it's debts.  Obama was a hypocrite in 2006, and he is still a hypocrite in 2011 as president.
  In the past several weeks, or at least since the raising of the national debt limit all of a sudden became a White House trumped crisis, I've been hearing statements like "Obama doesn't have a clue about finance", and " Obama just doesn't get it."  In actuality, it's the pundits and legislators that made those statements that in my opinion "DON'T GET IT."  There's this attitude that Obama has suddenly become inept, or inexperienced in finance, which is a huge error in judgement.  The truth is, that Obama does get it, and he does understand finances.  Yes, you say his handling of the "debt crisis" has been abysmal, and that would be true except for the fact that Obama knows exactly what he's doing, and he's doing it without challenge.  Obama knows that he cannot turn this nation into a 3rd world socialist country until he destroys the entire economic structure.  Ushering America into a position of unprecedented debt is only one facet of the big plan.  I don't know about you folks, but I can only listen to Obama make speeches about cutting America's debt and at the same time running the country into financial ruin, before I have to ask the question, WHAT!!!!  What it really comes down to is this;  Obama isn't so much a hypocrite as he is a bald faced liar.  Once America manages to grasp a hold of the fact that Obama had an agenda, has an agenda, and is systematically implementing his socialist agenda, the country will be much better off.  No nation has ever defeated it's enemy by assuming the enemy was stupid.  Make no mistake, this country's worst enemy and nightmare is in occupation of the White House.  Do not underestimate Obama as some inept dolt!  He is a formidable enemy with a strategic plan for success.   It is difficult for me to find that so many in D.C. seem to be oblivious to Obama's agenda, especially when he has been so blatant about it.  I wonder, how many times does a person have to lie, to be recognised as a liar?   
  There is no doubt that this country is in crisis, but it's certainly not a debt ceiling crisis, it's a debt crisis.  The cause of the debt crisis is President Barack Hussein Obama and his Progressive cronies in his cabinet and in the Senate and House.  It is imperative that "We the People" see this President and his Progressive administration for what it is.  There is no longer a Democrat Party, they have been hijacked by Communist Socialists a couple of decades ago.  It is the goal of these Progressives to cause as much chaos in as many areas as possible.  Just look around, Obama touted himself as being a uniter, but, are we Americans more united today than before Obama?  Absolutely not!!!  Obama and his minions have done everything to drive a wedge between Blacks & Whites, between rich and middle class, between middle class and poor, between Christian and non.  Has there ever been such dissent between the religious and non-religious sections of this nation ever before?  No, absolutely not.  Obama and his agenda cannot be successful unless there is chaos and division. 
  Many of us recognise this administration for what it is, many of us see it, and just plain do not want to believe it.  The facts are, it's true, this President does not love this country, and he means to destroy it at all costs.  When America wakes up and recognises what Obama is doing, and who Obama truly is and what his agenda entails, then and only then will the forces of good be able to rally.  With the help of Almighty God, and through faith an repentance, once again turn back to the Lord and seek His strength.  Humans cannot defeat Satan alone, we must have God before us.  It is obvious to me that Obama is driven by evil, and must be stopped if America is to remain a free country and a beacon of liberty to the rest of the world.
The Watchman

Monday, July 18, 2011


To refer to this man "Bill Maher" as a cretin would be too kind, as it would give him a physiological excuse for his behavior, and for his program.  His latest program panel was so vile and vulgar and offensive I wouldn't feel comfortable putting a link to it on this Blog article.  If one wishes to see it and hear it, one can just google the words "Bill Maher's new low", and I'm sure the video clip will come up.  A WARNING HOWEVER, THE VIDEO  CONTAINS LANGUAGE FROM THE PIT OF HELL, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY MORALS AT ALL, IT WILL OFFEND YOU!!!   Bill Maher's latest program panel was so offensive that I would be very, very uncomfortable and embarrassed to actually watch it with my wife.
  The guests on the panel were:  (alleged comedian) Marc Maron (he could change his last name to "moron", and no one would know the difference.)  Dan Savage, a self-proclaimed sex-advice columnist, who know doubt is suffering from low self-esteem resulting from his own shortcomings (if you know what I mean?).  Marc Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, who from the content of his ranting on Maher's panel, it can be derived that the tall boys on the Mavericks should probably avoid dropping the soap in the shower, if the owner is anywhere in the vicinity.  Ms. Christia Freeland, Editor of Thomson Reuters Digital.  I don't know if she sat through the entire tirade of insults not only to Michelle Bachman and her family, but to the entire population of women in the world, out of fear or astonishment at the pure evil of the subject .  I'm sure she felt like she was all of 1 inch tall and absolutely worthless.  Perhaps she sat through it all because she is in embraces the thought of being entirely worthless, I'm really not sure.  As a Christian man, I was embarrassed for her even if she wasn't embarrassed for herself.  In light of the entire conversation, any woman worth her salt would have had to been outraged, but Christia just sat there and giggled stupidly as the three men on the panel expressed how they would like to sexually and physically abuse Michelle Bachman.  In a word, it was the most disgusting display of offensive and contemptible conversation I have ever witnessed on TV.  I sincerely hope the somewhat mentally dysfunctional liberals who actually tune into this Bill Maher program didn't have their children in the room.  Somehow though I can't help but think that they did.  Programs like this are the proof that this nation is in severe moral decay and the condoning of programs like these by the viewing audience are in my opinion the epitome of vulgar perverted voyeurs, with IQ somewhere just below troglodyte.  The program was neither funny or entertaining.  Every women's group should be attempting to string these guys up by their heels, but I will lay odds that not a word will be said.  Most if not all so-called women's advocate organizations are liberal in their thinking and somehow, through some sick and twisted thinking, will find a way to place the blame on Michelle Bachman. 
  So, I have a few words of my own to describe Bill Maher and his guests of the other night:  Scurrilous, deleterious, repulsive, nauseating, repugnant, revolting, disgraceful and ignominious!!!  No doubt that Bill Maher and the other pea-brained idiots on his program will have to look those words up.  Then again, do they even have the minute intelligence to accomplish that.  Just so they won't be completely in the dark, here are some descriptive words, that depict their behavior.  They may already be familiar with these, as no doubt they live their entire lives in the sewer:  Vile, foul, loathsome, depraved, ignoble, wretched and evil.
  I hope and pray that their parents were watching that particular episode of Bill Maher's program.  I feel sorry for their parents because at this moment they are probably wondering, where did they go wrong?  I doubt that any parent of a child that displayed that kind of repulsive behavior on nation television would be able to proudly say, "That's My Boy"!!!  It should be mentioned, Bill Maher did not add to the conversation, but he did encourage it's continuation.  If you have heard Bill Maher speak, you would know that the only reason he was quiet during this segment, was because his other male guests had already used up all the most vile words in Bill Maher's vocabulary.
  The husband and family of Michelle Bachman should take this opportunity to thrash all of those so-called men on that program to within an inch of their pathetic lives, and leave them bleeding in the sewer where they belong.  But that won't happen, people are to civilized today.  I guess that's commendable, but in this instance well, I say it's too too bad.  I doubt that I could hold back if some degenerate literally sexually insulted and assaulted my wife the way they did on TV.  God forgive me, but I would be forced to defend her honor.  Maybe it's time we got back to a time where men actually did care enough to be chivalrous and defend the honor of their lady! 
God Help This Nation
The Watchman