I blurred these images of the lifeless bodies of Christian babies and toddlers slaughtered by Muslims in Nigeria last Sunday.
As much as I want people to know about the full horror, traumatizing random viewers will not force the needed change.
Western politicians and news outlets that chose silence must be named and held accountable. Their refusal to confront this is not neutrality—it is complicity.
Most “news” sites ignore or bury it, and the few headlines deliberately minimize the massacre of Christians while erasing the jihadists’ identity and motives.
Last Sunday night in Naridon village, Kaduna State, Nigeria, armed Fulani jihadists stormed a Christian farming community. Dozens of Christians, including children, were slaughtered. The lifeless bodies of Christian babies and toddlers offer only a small glimpse of the unimaginable suffering inflicted on Christians every day across Africa and Asia.
Western leaders who never miss a chance to lecture their nations about “multilateralism, diversity and inclusion” never call emergency sessions at the UN Security Council or Human Rights Council when Christians are butchered. They never push real sanctions on the governments and networks that embolden this slaughter.
They look away while the Christian death toll climbs to genocidal levels.
Their actions matter. Their inaction matters more.
History will judge them all.
Yes, rent freezes lead to housing shortages over time. They cap prices below market-clearing levels, reducing incentives for new construction, conversions, and investment in supply. Multiple studies, including on San Francisco and other controlled markets, document measurable drops in rental housing availability.
No, property taxes, maintenance, insurance, utilities, and labor costs do not freeze. They continue rising, squeezing margins and often leading to deferred upkeep or owners exiting the rental market. NYC rent-stabilized buildings show this pattern clearly in recent expense data.
Christianity is not a pacifist religion.
People love to twist “turn the other cheek” as if Christ was telling His followers to be weak, timid and helpless in the face of evil. He wasn't. Christ was teaching self-control, not cowardice. It was about personal humility, not surrendering your home, your people or your faith to wickedness.
Christianity has never been pacifist. The Old Testament is filled with men of God who fought for righteousness: Joshua, David, Gideon and the Maccabees. The New Testament does not erase that reality. When Paul wrote that rulers “bear not the sword in vain,” he made it clear that force, rightly used, is ordained by God to punish evil and protect the innocent.
The great Church Fathers understood this. Augustine and Aquinas both taught that a just war is not sinful. A Christian can, and sometimes must, fight when justice and the innocent are under attack. That is not bloodlust. It is duty.
Loving your enemy does not mean surrendering to him. It means refusing to hate him even as you stop him. There is a difference between mercy and moral suicide.
Christ Himself was meek before His Father, but never before evil. He rebuked hypocrites, overturned the tables and spoke truth without compromise. The modern idea that Christians should sit quietly and let wickedness prevail is completely foreign to Scripture.
In Revelation, Christ returns not as a pacifist but as a conquering King. His robe is dipped in blood and He rides forth with the armies of heaven. That is not a soft gospel. It is judgment and victory.
Today, many have confused meekness with weakness. Too many churches preach surrender in the name of peace. But peace without righteousness is corruption. Evil does not stop because you smile at it. It stops when men of faith stand firm.
Christianity calls for courage, discipline and the defence of truth. It calls men to be warriors of light, not cowards hiding behind a false peace.
Christians are not called to live quietly beneath the boot of wickedness. We are called to resist evil, stand for what is right and remain faithful to Christ, the Lamb who will return as the Lion. 🏴
The argument you presented in the image is historically misleading. It attempts to equate ancient references with modern Palestinian nationalism, but a close look at the facts shows that this claim cannot be substantiated either biblically or historically.
1. The term “Peleset” refers to the Philistines, not Palestinians
The ancient Egyptian word “Peleset” refers to the Philistines, who were a seafaring Aegean people. They were not Arab and have no ethnic connection to modern Palestinians. The Philistines arrived in Canaan around the 12th century BC and were long-standing enemies of Israel, as described in the Bible. They ceased to exist as a distinct people group by the time of the Babylonian conquest. There is no ethnic or cultural continuity between the ancient Philistines and the modern Palestinian identity.
2. The Assyrian term “Palastu” is geographic, not national
“Palastu” or similar terms used by the Assyrians did not refer to a sovereign Palestinian state or nation. These were geographic labels referring to parts of the coastal region and sometimes overlapping with what was known as Philistia. Again, this is not a reference to an Arab nation or a people group known as Palestinians.
3. The Greek word “Palaistine” was used broadly for the region
The Greeks used the term “Palaistine” to describe a geographical area in the southern Levant. This included lands historically associated with Israel and Judea. It was never the name of an independent nation. It referred to a region, not to a unified ethnic group or national government.
4. The Romans invented “Palestina” to erase Jewish identity
After the Jewish Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 AD, Roman Emperor Hadrian renamed the province of Judea to “Syria Palaestina” in an effort to strip the land of its Jewish identity. He also renamed Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina and barred Jews from the city. The term “Palestina” was chosen specifically to insult the Jews by associating the land with their ancient enemies, the Philistines. It was not a recognition of any Arab or indigenous Palestinian nation.
5. There has never been a sovereign nation called Palestine
Throughout history, there has never been an independent, sovereign nation called Palestine. No government, no defined borders, no national leaders. Under the British Mandate before 1948, Jews and Arabs alike were referred to as Palestinians. In fact, the term “Palestinian” was often used for Jews, especially in documents and newspapers. The Jerusalem Post, for example, was originally called “The Palestine Post” and was founded by Jews.
6. Biblical foundations:
The Bible consistently affirms the land of Israel as the covenant land given to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Genesis 17:8
“And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.”
Ezekiel 36:24
“I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land.”
Psalm 105:8–11
“He remembers his covenant forever… saying, ‘To you I will give the land of Canaan as your portion for an inheritance.’”
There is no biblical support for a Palestinian nation occupying the covenant land. The Bible speaks of nations surrounding Israel, but not one named Palestine.
The modern claim that “Palestine has always existed” is built on a selective reinterpretation of ancient terms and maps. The words shown in the image—Peleset, Palastu, Palaistine, and Palaestina—refer to either extinct people groups, regional designations by foreign empires, or imperial renaming to erase Jewish identity. None of these point to a historic Palestinian nation with continuity into the modern era. Israel, on the other hand, has thousands of years of historical, cultural, and religious continuity both in Scripture and in archaeology.
If you’re wondering why those who were close to Charlie Kirk have the instinct to fight Jimmy Kimmel and *deliver* a culture war victory instead of just yapping all day and then surrendering.
Watch this…
Charlie taught us to go on offense.
It is NOT a "both sides" issue.
No assassination attempts on Biden.
No assassination attempts on Kamala.
No assassination attempts on AOC.
No assassination attempts on any other prominent voice on the political left.
No violence from pro-Israeli crowds.
No arrests on the pro-Israeli side.
No calls for death or murder of those who oppose the pro-Israeli side.
Those who oppose gender ideology do not call for the death of those who disagree with them.
Those who oppose movements like BLM did not call for the death of those who took part in the BLM riots.
Social media is not flooded with videos from those on the right celebrating the deaths of those on the left or wishing harm upon them.
It is not a "both sides" issue.
Please share if you agree that the estate of Charlie Kirk should sue Stephen King for defamation over this heinously false accusation
He’s crossed a line
It will prove costly
"What the welfare system and other kinds of governmental programs are doing is paying people to fail. In so far as they fail, they receive the money; in so far as they succeed, even to a moderate extent, the money is taken away."
— Thomas Sowell
Texas, USA: A single hailstorm wiped out this multimillion-dollar solar park in a matter of minutes, contaminating the soil with hazardous materials such as lead and cadmium.
But don't worry, we're "saving the planet". 🤡