YouTube is rife with faith-based teachings and movies that garner millions of views for inaccurate and often heretical teachings. That’s what’s most popular on social media today. Believers in the Bible have a hard enough time combating false religions and atheism. It’s even more challenging going against the poor teachings that are flooding western society, particularly on the internet.

The Bible never said it would be easy, especially in the end times.

One movie I came across by the grace of God (thank you, Twitter user Doreen Virtue) offered some of the most compelling 25-minutes of truth I’ve heard recently. Coincidentally, it came to my feed three days after I posted an article about a teaching by Pastor Paul Washer, who happens to be teaching in Unpopular The Movie as well.

We have before us a society that is bent on making Christianity as open-minded and all-inclusive as possible. It seems to our human understanding that this would make sense, but only because our human understanding is so far below the understanding of our Creator. He knows best. This is why Christianity is the only religion that goes against our natural sense of pride by declaring nothing in us is capable of helping us achieve salvation. We are dead. Our lives are only saved by the sacrifice of He who created us.

The notion of inclusion is a lazy way of not having to do as we’re commanded, to spread the Gospel message. It’s why the notion that Allah and God are the same is sinful, a topic we also recently covered as told by Naeem Fazal. There have certainly been a lot of coincidences lately.

Only through continuous repentance and ongoing belief in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior can we accept the undeserved gift of salvation. If you believe in a wide gate and a broad way, it’s time to watch this movie.

Having worked with Kiwis for many, many years, and having followed events in En Zed for the last three decades, I was just as shocked and horrified as anyone about the horrific massacre of Muslims at Friday prayers at their mosques in Christchurch on March 15, 2019.

You can see my three contemporaneous articles here:

• Aotearoa, The Land of the Long White Cloud, needs to step back and look at Christchurch objectively
• Was Christchurch a lone gunman or a conspiracy?
• Turkish President Erdoğan says Christchurch was not an individual act but rather an organized part of a wider attack on Turkey

My immediate reaction was that this was an extreme anomaly. I had followed reports for years about New Zealanders traveling to the Middle East to participate in Islamic jihad. I was also aware that authorities had been concerned that terrorist groups were setting up shop and recruiting from within New Zealand.

At that time, I recollected a very detailed article from some years ago documenting this situation even as I watched Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern don the hijab, join the Islamic call to prayer and declare that her entire country stood in solidarity with the followers of Islam.

Since then the so-called Christchurch Call has been issued seeking world governments to impose censorship of anyone who speaks candidly and objectively about the threat of terrorism in the name of Islam. We here in the United States are fortunate that President Trump has seen through the thinly veiled imposition of censorship and refused to let our country be seduced.

You can read the entire article entitled “Preachers of Hate” by Ian Wishart. The online archive indicates a date of January 1, 1970, but the actual publication date was March 30, 2007. The article can also be read in the Australian Edition here.

After the Christchurch attack two months ago, the point I remembered most distinctly 12 years after first reading this article was that American Imam Siraj Wahhaj was one of the foreign Islamic Preachers of Hate who had visited New Zealand in years past and who had helped influence Muslims living in that South Pacific country.

His son of the same name has been tied to suspected terrorist training compounds in New Mexico and Alabama recently which were allegedly training potential school shooters. Whether the elder Imam Siraj Wahhaj is acknowledged as a mentor or not, his political philosophy most definitely represents that of new U.S. Congresswomen Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan.

Following is the excerpt from the NZ Investigate Magazine article of March 30, 2007. FIANZ is the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand.

We here at NOQ Report highly recommend that authorities both in the United States and in New Zealand revisit these allegations that were documented a dozen years ago. Right now our friends in Aotearoa are understandably still in shock.

But we need to prevent anyone, particularly Wellington and other national capitals, from taking what happened in Christchurch out of context. It is also our urgent mission to ensure that warnings of a potential counterattack by a geographically-dispersed ISIS or other Islamic terrorist group in retribution are not censored.

To PM Ardern, I would say, take a deep breath and step back from the erroneous presumptions you have made in the aftermath of Christchurch. The seeds of discontent have already been sewn and the roots of an Islamic Insurgency already exist in your country’s soil.

Call in your intelligence community and consult with your counterparts in the United States and other allied countries. Back off from the Christchurch Call and all attempts to impose censorship.

If you were paying attention to what happened in Sri Lanka, if you are watching what is happening in Nigeria, if you focus your gaze beyond your own island nation, you will realize that Muslims are not always victims as they were at Christchurch.

Don’t let one horrific and unforgivable atrocity distort your view of reality and warp your perspective on what you must do in the future to keep Kiwis of every religion and ethnicity safe from harm.

I would enjoin our American government to move beyond some of our own political squabbles and consider how those who pose a threat to our own domestic security may also have their tentacles around our good friends in New Zealand and other close allies.

Agencies investigating the terror compounds in New Mexico and Alabama might want to put somebody on a plane or at least have a video conference with your counterparts in New Zealand. What were Siraj Wahhaj and other Islamic Preachers of Hate doing and with whom were they doing it as documented in the article from 2007?

We at NOQ Report will continue to do our utmost to put together pieces of the puzzle as they become available from open sources. Stay tuned for further developments.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! – Isaiah 5:20

There are four tactics favored by many mainstream media outlets, including the NY Times, that help them fulfill their two primary goals. Let’s start with their goals since they’re blatant: get more eyeballs for their paid subscription model and help Democrats win elections.

How do they do this? They have standard journalistic strategies that work for them well because they’ve been around for so long. They have access to people, manpower to cover stories, and resources to acquire assets necessary to make their stories popular. Those are the positive strategies they use, strategies that every news outlet strives to benefit from to various degrees. But they also use four tactics that help them with their secondary goal of pushing the left’s agenda:

1. Shock headlines. While they rarely go as far as smaller outlets or tabloids, they are masters among the “big boys” at generating headlines to make their points.
2. Credible experts with an agenda. One can argue that this is a technique all good outlets use to push their various agendas, but nobody is as adept at it as the New York Times. For example, if they’re pushing global warming, they get the best activists with science studies degrees to push the narrative.
3. Manipulative statistics. Again, this is a common tactic, but the NY Times has mastered it. They have stat-finders on staff who comb the various studies of the world to find data that supports their premise. If that sounds natural, let’s not forget the idea should be the other way around. They should use statistics to form their premise.
4. Begging the question. Contrary to the popular use of the phrase, it actually refers to a logical fallacy in which a premise becomes the basis of evidence for the premise. Similar to circular reasoning, it assumes a disputed notion to be factually correct.

In one editorial they published yesterday, they used the four tactics all at once. The title of the story is, “Pregnancy Kills. Abortion Saves Lives.”

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! pic.twitter.com/C2AhMqiH5D

— JD Rucker (@JDRucker) May 22, 2019

I won’t link to it.

The article itself is an exercise in begging the question. For the statement in the headline to be remotely true, one has to assume that the preborn baby that’s aborted is not a life. If it were a life, then the statement would be (and in fact, is) ludicrous.

Of course, it obviously makes excellent use of the first tactic, the shock headline. I rarely read anything from their news outlet anymore, but it got me to click through and read it. When I did, I realized exactly what they were doing. First, they used the second tactic, a credible expert with an agenda, to not only help with the article but to actually write it. In this case, the expert is Dr. Warren M. Hern. His expertise is being a physician and epidemiologist who specializes in late-abortion “services.”

Dr. Hern proceeds to use the third tactic, manipulative statistics, to make his point that abortions are less likely to kill the mother than pregnancy or childbirth. Is it true? Absolutely. I learned this myself when my wife nearly died as our fifth child was lost in a miscarriage. Both pregnancy and childbirth are risks to mothers, much more so than abortions.

Nobody can dispute this fact. But the way this fact and others are framed, such as a statistic showing African-American women were more likely to die as a result of pregnancy than Caucasian women, were intended to be terrifying to mothers and to support his claim that pregnancy kills the mother at a higher rate than abortion.

But again, his entire argument relies on the notion that the child in the womb is not actually a life.

We are faced with a society in which a large percentage feel the same way. They have to in order to maintain their own self-perception of not doing harm to another human. Otherwise, abortion becomes murder. The only way it can’t be seen as murder is if the baby inside the mother isn’t seen as life.

This is why it’s so very important we start looking at abortion in America as more than just a political or even religious issue. It’s a cultural issue, one in which we are failing to deliver the right message. Most people can be made to appreciate the value of the life within the womb if they’re allowed to look beyond the politics. They are getting bombarded with the same two messages. Pro-abortion activists say they’re defending women’s rights. Pro-life activists say they’re defending the baby’s rights. Both arguments can have merit based on how a person perceives the baby in the womb. If it’s seen as a life, it’s hard to say that life has no right to live. If it’s seen as a parasite, clump of cells, or “potential” human, then the rights of the mother prevail.

Articles like this one in the NY Times are meant to change the way culture perceives abortion. We must fight back by continuing to push reality, that a baby in the womb is a life. We have the truth on our side. It’s time to use it.