Douglas Trewartha

BREAKING 🚨 Marco Rubio’s Video of Jesus Christ is going MASSIVELY Viral on 𝕏. “He is Risen” 🙏

Marco Rubio’s 2015 denunciation of Obama’s JCPOA was prophetic.

🇰🇼 🇮🇱 Rare moment of truth at the UN from brave Kuwaiti dissident @JJJuraid, invited by UN Watch: “Mr. Chair, I heard the term “colonizers.” But who are the real colonizers? A Jewish Kingdom ruled in Judea for a thousand years. We, the Arabs, took this land. Who Arabized Egyptians, Phoenicians, Persians and Amazighs? It was us, the Arabs. So why does the council enshrine a lie by keeping a permanent agenda item on Palestine, while ignoring the indigenous heart of Israel returning home? Let us be clear about who is actually defending our sovereignty. Today, Israel is a fighter for peaceful nations, freeing Gaza from Hamas terrorists and saving Iranians from the Islamic Republic. What Israel is doing to the IRGC — stopping a genocidal regime from acquiring nuclear weapons — is a gift to humanity. There are 57 Islamic countries and only one Jewish state, Israel. Despite the ongoing hateful desire to eliminate it, Israel has not only survived, it has thrived. I don’t believe in miracles, but this is one. So I ask the UN: when will you end the ritual of condemning Israel? Is it not time, instead, to learn from Israel? How to defeat terror, defend free societies, and pursue peace. Thank you.” What a refreshing act of integrity and truth. Stay connected, follow @MOSSADil.

This. Every single word of this 🔥 H/T @Shariakill

Iranians in Cape Town thanking the @IDF Credit: @SAzionfed

When the United States launched strikes on Iran, Britain's response was one of the most embarrassing performances by a Western government in living memory. John Healy refused six times to say whether Britain supported the action. Keir Starmer hedged, equivocated, and retreated into legal language while every comparable ally, Canada, Australia, Ukraine, stated their position clearly and without apology. It took Iranian missiles hitting a British base in Cyprus and a second day of bombardment before Starmer would even grant the US permission to use British overseas bases. That is not caution. That is paralysis. The official explanation is international law. Lord Hermer's legal opinion concluded the strikes had no clear basis in law. That explanation does not hold. The same legal framework did not stop Canada or Australia. It did not stop successive British governments acting alongside the United States in circumstances where legality was equally contested. And it does not explain why Starmer refused to even characterise the Iranian threat, despite sitting on classified intelligence his own security services describe as a tier-one national security concern. The real explanation is not legal. It is political. And it has been building for over twenty-five years. Britain is no longer a country whose government can make foreign policy decisions in isolation from domestic demography. In city after city, London, Birmingham, Manchester, Bradford, Leicester, there are large and concentrated populations whose political loyalties, when it comes to conflicts in the Middle East, do not align with the British national interest. Elections have been won and lost on bloc votes organised around overseas conflicts. MPs sit in Parliament who owe their seats to communities for whom the Iran question is not abstract foreign policy but a matter of immediate and passionate concern. Starmer knows this. The calculation is not difficult to reverse-engineer. When Iranian clerics declared jihad following Khamenei's death and protests spread from Pakistan to Iraq, the question for any British Prime Minister was not only what happens in the Gulf. It was what happens in Tower Hamlets, in Sparkbrook, in Burnley. The threat of domestic unrest and political blowback within his own electoral coalition shaped the response the public saw. The legal opinion was the excuse. The demographic arithmetic was the reason. This did not happen by accident. It is the consequence of a border policy pursued by governments from Blair to Starmer that prioritised electoral calculation over national cohesion. Mass immigration without integration, without enforceable conditions, without honest public debate, has produced something no one in government will say plainly: a country that has lost the political freedom to act decisively when its interests require it. MI5 has confirmed twenty Iran-backed plots on British soil in two years. The parliamentary intelligence committee is expected to classify Iran as a threat on par with Russia and China. And yet the government cannot proscribe the IRGC, cannot state clearly whose side it is on, and cannot grant an ally access to a military base without waiting for missiles to land first. In 2006, Muammar Gaddafi predicted that Europe's fifty million Muslims would deliver Islam victory on the continent within a few decades, without swords, without conquest. He framed it as a prophecy. It reads now more like an operational assessment. Britain has not been conquered. It has been rendered impotent, by its own political choices, now visible in the body language of a Prime Minister who cannot say the obvious thing because too many of his voters do not want to hear it. That is the real answer to why Britain hesitated. Not Hermer. Not international law. Not principle. A governing party held hostage to the consequences of a demographic transformation it helped engineer and now dare not upset.

Iran fired more missiles at the UAE than at anyone else in decades, including Israel. Zero protests in London, Paris, or New York calling on Iran to stop attacking civilization and hope in the Middle East. Yes, no protests tells you who controls your streets and who they work for. That’s information, and you’re welcome.

"The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property—either as a child, a wife, or a concubine—must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men." Winston Churchill

We counter anxiety by abiding. And what does it mean to abide? To remain. To dwell. To stay in a constant posture of surrender and dependency, not on your own strength and your own power but on the character and nature of God.

@elonmusk Why is #Grok not available in #Zimbabwe? My understanding is that #sanctions on this nation have always been targeted at individuals guilty of human rights violations, but the Grok ban is ubiquitous.

Zionism does not assume that Israel is a righteous nation. Zionism does not believe that God's complete promise to Israel will be fulfilled without Christ. Zionism does not state that Jewish people are saved without Jesus. Zionism simply takes the Bible at its word about Israel without replacing its plain sense meanings.

“Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they already have it.” — Ronald Reagan

Find your true roots.

I’ll see your Tucker Carlson theological take on Israel and raise you a John MacArthur truth bomb. “There is a Christian kind of popular doctrine that I reject with all my heart and that is that the church has replaced Israel in the promises of God. It’s called supersessionism. I don’t believe in that…I honestly think that it’s a latent form of antisemitism to say that.”

Yep

I truly believe this moment was inspired.

Wow.

I never would have imagined in my wildest dreams the Vice President of the United States would be reciting the Nicene Creed while hosting the number 1 podcast in the world from the White House. Chills.

Now do you understand how much the legacy (fka mainstream) media lies simply by ignoring a subject? Choice of narrative is their primary form of deception.

@elonmusk Great Britain is occupied territory.