Archive for the ‘abortion’ Category

Leland Yee Hypocrisy On Full Automatic: EVERY Democrat Is An Abject Hypocrite On Guns. THIS Is Why Founders Gave Us 2nd Amendment

March 31, 2014

Do you know why the founding fathers guaranteed the right of the people to be armed?  Because in their wisdom they they that THIS is what fascist Democrats are like.  It is THESE Democrats who are trying to take your guns away so that you cannot protect yourself from them and from their fascist policies.

My favorite quote this Democrat cockroach is this one:

The complaint says Yee described his approach to arms dealing as “agnostic.”

“People want to get whatever they want to get. Do I care? No, I don’t care. People need certain things,” Yee said, according to the complaint.

And, yeah.  People need certain things.  DEMOCRATS need certain things: they need to be able “to control the people” with blatantly fascist and blatantly unconstitutional policies to take over the government and disarm the American people so that they can do NOTHING to fight back against their coming Antichrist.

This story is totally amazing in its revelation as to how personally dishonest and hypocritical Democrats truly are:

State Sen. Leland Yee indicted on arms trafficking, corruption charges
By Josh Richman, Howard Mintz, Jessica Calefati and Robert Salonga Staff writers
Posted:   03/26/2014 08:23:21 AM PDT385 Comments | Updated:   a day ago

SAN FRANCISCO — In a stunning criminal complaint, State Sen. Leland Yee has been charged with conspiring to traffic in firearms and public corruption as part of a major FBI operation spanning the Bay Area, casting yet another cloud of corruption over the Democratic establishment in the Legislature and torpedoing Yee’s aspirations for statewide office.

Yee and an intermediary allegedly met repeatedly with an undercover FBI agent, soliciting campaign contributions in exchange for setting up a deal with international arms dealers.

At their first face-to-face meeting in January, “Senator Yee explained he has known the arms dealer for a number of years and has developed a close relationship with him,” an FBI affidavit says, noting Yee told the agent the arms dealer “has things that you guys want.”

Yee, D-San Francisco, highlights a series of arrests Wednesday morning that included infamous Chinatown gangster Raymond “Shrimp Boy” Chow, whose past includes a variety of charges including racketeering and drug crimes. Targets of the early-morning raids appeared in federal court in San Francisco on Wednesday afternoon.

A 137-page criminal complaint charges 26 people — including Yee and Chow — with a panoply of crimes, including firearms trafficking, money laundering, murder-for-hire, drug distribution, trafficking in contraband cigarettes, and honest services fraud.

Yee is charged with conspiracy to traffic in firearms without a license and to illegally import firearms, as well as six counts of scheming to defraud citizens of honest services. Each corruption count is punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000, while the gun-trafficking count is punishable by up to five years and $250,000.

The charges are particularly shocking given that Yee has been among the state Senate’s most outspoken advocates both of gun control and of good-government initiatives.

“It seems like nobody knew this was coming, and everyone is astounded by the allegations,” said Corey Cook, director of the University of San Francisco’s Leo T. McCarthy Center for Public Service and the Common Good. “I’m just astonished… Political corruption is one thing, but this is a whole other level.”

San Francisco political consultant Keith Jackson, a former school-board president, allegedly was the link between Yee and Chow, who federal prosecutors say is the current “Dragonhead,” or leader, of the San Francisco-based Ghee Kung Tong organization, spelled in court documents as Chee Kung Tong.

Chow introduced an undercover agent who had infiltrated his organization to Jackson, who with his son, Brandon Jackson, and another man, Marlon Sullivan, allegedly sold the agent various guns and bulletproof vests. The Jacksons and Sullivan also allegedly conspired in a murder-for-hire scheme requested by the undercover agent, as well as other crimes including sale of stolen credit cards and purchase of cocaine.

An FBI affidavit says Keith Jackson starting last August told one of the undercover agents that Yee was “associated with a person who was an international arms dealer who was shipping large stockpiles of weapons into a foreign country.” At later meetings in August and December, Jackson said Yee had agreed to help set up an arms deal; the agent first gave Jackson $1,000 cash for his help, and later cut a $5,000 check from a bogus company to Yee’s campaign.

Finally, Yee and Keith Jackson met Jan. 22 with the undercover agents at a San Francisco coffee shop, the affidavit says.

“According to Senator Yee, the arms dealer is ‘low-key’ and has been trafficking weapons for quite a while,” the document says. “According to Senator Yee, the arms dealer sourced the weapons from Russia.”

“Senator Yee said of the arms dealer, ‘He’s going to rely on me, because ultimately it’s going to be me,’” the affidavit says. “Senator Yee said, ‘I know what he could do. I have seen what he has done in the past on other products and this guy has the relationships.’ Senator Yee emphasized that the arms dealer took baby steps and was very careful.”

Yee told the agent that the arms dealer had contacts in Russia, Ukraine, Boston and Southern California, the affidavit says, and the agent asked Yee for a commitment. “Senator Yee said, ‘Do I think we can make some money? I think we can make some money. Do I think we can get the goods? I think we can get the goods.’”

The agent told Yee and Jackson he wanted any type of shoulder-fired weapons or missiles, the affidavit says; Yee asked whether he wanted automatic weapons, and the agent confirmed he did — about $500,000 to $2.5 million worth. Yee told the agent “he saw their relationship as tremendously beneficial,” the affidavit says, adding he wanted the agent and Jackson to make all the money because he didn’t want to go to jail. The agent replied he would pay Yee and Jackson hundreds of thousands of dollars over time, and more immediately would pay $100,000 for the first arms deal. “Senator Yee said ‘Alright, take care.’ The meeting ended.”

But by their next meeting on Feb. 25, Yee had grown spooked by the federal indictment of state Sen. Ronald Calderon; the two shared a desk on the Senate floor. “Senator Yee thought the other state Senator was a classic example of involving too many people in illegal activities,” the affidavit says. Pressured by the agent to arrange an arms deal, Yee encouraged the agent “to start off doing small deals with the arms dealer” with Yee as an intermediary.

“Senator Yee stated he was unhappy with his life and said, ‘There is a part of me that wants to be like you. You know how I’m going to be like you? Just be a free-agent out there,’” the affidavit says, adding Yee told the agent “he wanted to hide out in the Philippines.”

The agent met again with Yee on March 5, and Yee discussed a new potential arms dealer named Wilson Lim. The agent said his family in New Jersey wanted to support Yee’s bid for Secretary of State, to which Yee responded, “I can be of help to you for 10 months or I can be of help to you for eight years. I think eight years is a lot better than 10 months.”

Yee discussed specific locations in the Philippines and Florida that might be ideal for moving the guns, which he said would include M-16-type automatic rifles.

Yee, Jackson, Lim and the agent met again March 11; Yee said the arms deal wouldn’t be done until after this year’s elections. “Senator Yee explained, ‘Once things start to move, it’s going to attract attention. We just got to be extra-extra careful.’”

Finally, they all met March 14, where they discussed how they would break up the undercover agent’s money into legitimate campaign donations. The agent told Yee he was prepared to give Yee $6,800 cash and a list of weapons he wanted; Yee replied “he would take the cash and have one of his children write out a check.”

Yee ran for mayor of San Francisco in 2011 and now is a candidate for California Secretary of State. But the criminal complaint likely ruins his candidacy and further threatens Democrats’ efforts to restore their state Senate supermajority that already has been broken by two other lawmakers’ paid leaves of absence to deal with criminal charges.

Keith Jackson and Yee from 2011 until now allegedly solicited donations from undercover FBI agents in exchange for official acts and conspired to traffic firearms, the complaint says. Starting in May 2011, Jackson solicited an undercover FBI agent to give money to Yee’s mayoral campaign, including asking the agent for donations in excess of the $500 individual donation limit. The agent refused, but introduced Jackson and Yee to a purported business associate — another undercover agent — who they also solicited for at least $5,000.

Yee’s mayoral election loss left him with $70,000 in debt, the complaint says, and so Yee and Jackson allegedly agreed that Yee would call a California Department of Public Health manager in support of a contract under consideration with the second undercover agent’s purported client, and would provide an official letter of support for the client, in exchange for a $10,000 campaign donation. Yee allegedly made the call on Oct. 18, 2012, and provided the letter on or about Jan. 13, 2013; Jackson allegedly accepted the $10,000 cash donation on Nov. 19, 2012.

Yee had yet to appear before the judge as of 3 p.m., but earlier in the afternoon the judge ordered Chow be held without bail. Government attorneys called him a flight risk and danger to the community, citing his criminal history. Chow’s lawyer objected saying that Chow has been fighting with immigration authorities to stay in the United States.

Chow is not a U.S. citizen. He is being represented by public defender and lives in San Francisco with his girlfriend. He has been on electronic monitoring since he’s been out of prison and seeking legal immigration stays, even during the current investigation.

FBI agents and local police served arrest and search warrants throughout the Bay Area, with agents seen in San Francisco and San Mateo and Yee’s Capitol office in Sacramento. One of the searches was at the San Francisco Chinatown office of the Ghee Kung Tong Free Masons and is linked to Chow’s arrest.

Outside that building on Spofford Street — a Chinatown alley between Clay and Washington streets — FBI Special Agent Michael Gimbel would say only that “the FBI is executing numerous search warrants around the Bay Area.”

San Francisco firefighters carried a heavy rotary saw into the building late Wednesday morning; neighbors said they believe there’s a safe inside the building. Federal agents removed about 10 boxes of documents and several bags of material from the building at about 12:30 p.m., and the FBI left the scene soon after that.

Federal law enforcement officials have been chasing Raymond “Shrimp Boy” Chow for decades, branding him one of the longtime Bay Area leaders of a Hong Kong-based criminal syndicate called the Wo Hop To. Chow’s criminal rap sheet dates back to 1978, and includes federal racketeering indictments that have alleged attempted murder, murder-for-hire, gun trafficking and other crimes.

Chow was originally indicted in a federal racketeering probe that targeted the alleged leader of the Chinatown gang, Peter Chong. At one point, Chow cooperated with federal law enforcement officials against Chong, who had fled to Hong Kong after being indicted on racketeering charges but was later extradited and convicted in San Francisco federal court in a case marred by setbacks and delays. Chow’s original 1995 sentence of 24 years was cut to 11 years as a result of his cooperation, and he has been out of prison for 10 years.

During an afternoon press conference, State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said “Leland Yee should leave the Senate and leave it now.”

Yee represents San Francisco and a portion of San Mateo County. Before becoming the first Chinese-American ever elected to the state Senate in 2006, Yee was an assemblyman from 2002 to 2006; a San Francisco supervisor from 1997 to 2002; and had been a member and president of the San Francisco Unified School District board. While in the Assembly, he was the first Asian-American to be named Speaker pro Tempore, essentially making him the chamber’s second-most-powerful Democrat.

That power would have been exercised this year in Yee’s run for Secretary of State against state Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Van Nuys; Democrat Derek Cressman; Republican Pete Peterson; and nonpartisan Dan Schnur.

Upon pulling his candidacy papers in February, Yee issued a news release saying it was time for a Secretary of State “who will expand access to the ballot box, make our government more transparent, and strengthen California’s democracy.”

“I am committed to empowering Californians so that they can guarantee fair elections, expose special interests and prevent corruption, because it’s your California,” Yee said at the time.

Yee campaign spokesman Joaquin Ross declined to comment Wednesday morning, saying he would have to call back.

Yee is the state’s third Democratic legislator recently targeted in corruption allegations. In February, State Sen. Ron Calderon, D-Montebello, surrendered to authorities after being indicted on bribery charges. In January, state Sen. Roderick Wright, D-Inglewood, was convicted of voter fraud and perjury stemming from a 2010 indictment.

Cressman, who until last June was vice president of the nonpartisan government watchdog group Common Cause, Wednesday morning said that charges against Yee must be “a wake-up call” given other Senate Democrats’ legal problems.

“We are clearly beyond the point of looking at one bad apple and instead looking at a corrupt institution in the California Senate,” Cressman said. “The constant begging for campaign cash clearly has a corrosive effect on a person’s soul and the only solution is to get big money out of our politics once and for all.”

Schnur, a longtime GOP campaign strategist who more recently served as chairman of the state Fair Political Practices Commission and directed the University of Southern California’s Unruh Institute of Politics, said news of Yee’s arrest “is yet another in a series of reminders of why Californians have so little trust in their elected officials.

“My hope is that this will prompt the Legislature to take much more aggressive and meaningful action to fix a broken political system than they have been willing to do to date,” Schnur said.

Yee emigrated to San Francisco from China at age 3; his father was a veteran who served in the Army and the merchant marine. Yee earned a bachelor’s degree from UC Berkeley; a master’s degree from San Francisco State University; and a doctorate in child psychology at the University of Hawaii. He and his wife, Maxine, have four children.

Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough, served with Yee for several years in the Legislature but was never close to him. She said the senator is innocent until proven guilty but called the allegations “regrettable.”

“It’s always sad for all of us in the profession,” said Speier, “to see individuals who lose sight of what the public trust is all about.”

Check back later for updates to this story.

Staff writers Thomas Peele, Mark Gomez and Erin Ivie contributed to this report.


excerpts from criminal complaint

Now, I said something in your face about Democrats: I said EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM is a Yee.  Why do I say that?

Here are people who live in comfy areas surrounded by armed security trying incessantly to disarm people who don’t have anyone or anything to protect them, their families and their property other than the guns that the Constitution guarantees them to keep and to bear “without being infringed.”

Obama wants to take away YOUR family’s right to protection while HIS family is constantly protected by his armed-to-the-teeth Secret Service.  And that is the same across the board for every single elected Democrat official.

Every elected Democrat is protected by armed security.  Why can’t YOU be???

Why does the State get to arm itself to the teeth while they strip you of your rights to protect yourself, your family, your home and your property???

Can you trust a Congress full of Leland Lees???

Democrats are brutally dishonest people who have now murdered more than five times more human beings than Hitler murdered in the Holocaust who keep saying, Trust us.”

The 2nd Amendment was a reaction against government tyranny.  It was the founding father’s way of seeing to it that the government would always fear its people so its people would never have to fear their government.  You can look around now and ask yourself if you fear the government of if the government fears you.  More than ever before in the history of this republic, the government is an instrument of naked force.  If you’re not a fool, the former is true; if you are a fool, you foolishly trust in the latter.

I’m saying it again: ultimately Democrats will win and win big.  I know that because it’s what the Bible teaches: the Antichrist is coming and the Democrats will prepare his way by disarming America from any and all ability to resist him.

The Pope Vs. Obama: One Of These Men Is A Liar Without Shame (Dishonest Liberal Pseudo-Journalism Completely Ignores Story)

March 28, 2014

This would be a funny one, if it wasn’t so tragic and so revealing as to the dishonest character of Barack Obama and the dishonesty of liberal “journalism.”

Barack Obama requested a meeting with popular Pope Francis, hoping to ride the coat tails of the popular pope.

But it turns out the two men were never in the same room, in terms of the accounts of the talk.  One of them was in his own head with demons swirling around screaming at him and couldn’t hear a word the other said.

The über-über -liberal Los Angeles Times says Obama is their messiah-pharaoh-god-king and is incapable of deceit.  So here is their account of the story highlighted on the front page of the main section of the paper:

Sharing hopes for the poor: At the Vatican, Obama’s first-ever meeting with Pope Francis focused on the marginalized”

The subheadline on the story on page A2 reads, “President and Pope Francis meet at the Vatican,  and mostly avoid the subject of U.S. bishops angry about ObamaCare..”

What is interesting about that subheading is that it is nothing more than the official propaganda of Obama and totally ignores the Pope’s own account of the meeting.  If you read the story carefully, you never get any sense or idea that there were two accounts of what happened.  There is only “Obama’s account” because Obama is everything to liberals and the sole arbiter of reality and morality and decency and deity.  And the Pope is merely a human mouthpiece for a false god.

The Washington Times reports (the actual story:

Only God knows for sure: Obama, pope differ on accounts of ‘social schisms’ talk
By Dave Boyer – The Washington Times
Thursday, March 27, 2014

President Obama’s first meeting with Pope Francis produced a little schism of its own.

The Vatican and White House gave starkly different versions Thursday of Mr. Obama’s meeting with Francis.

The president’s account downplayed the Catholic Church’s concerns about religious freedom in the United States and Obamacare’s mandate to pay for contraception.

The pontiff and the president were cordial in the televised portions of their meeting, but a subtle competition to set the agenda played out after the meeting, which went well beyond its scheduled half-hour.

“We actually didn’t talk a whole lot about social schisms in my conversations with His Holiness,” Mr. Obama said at a press conference in Rome. “In fact, that really was not a topic of conversation.”

Mr. Obama deflected a reporter’s question about the extent of his discussion with the pope on the contraceptive mandate by saying that Francis “actually did not touch in detail” on the subject. The administration has been locked in a lengthy legal and political battle with the U.S. Catholic Church hierarchy over Obamacare and issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage.

The Vatican, however, issued a statement after the meeting saying the president’s discussions with Francis and two other top Vatican officials focused “on questions of particular relevance for the [Catholic] Church in [the United States], such as the exercise of the rights to religious freedom, life and conscientious objection” — issues that have fueled divisions between Mr. Obama and the church.

Although Mr. Obama wanted to highlight his bond with Francis over questions of economic inequality and helping the poor, Obamacare’s mandate for employers to pay for birth control gained more attention.

The president clearly wanted to benefit from the global popularity of the pope. Their meeting was a highlight of Mr. Obama’s foreign trip that ends Friday in Saudi Arabia, but it was at an awkward time for the president.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act’s mandate requiring for-profit employers of a certain size to offer insurance benefits that cover birth control and other reproductive health services without a co-pay. Some employers object to the mandate on the grounds that it violates their religious beliefs.

On Barack Obama’s account, the Pope couldn’t care less about the fact that Obama is daily pissing in the eye of Catholicism while trying to gouge OUT the eyes of religious freedom altogether.

So who is the moral leader telling the truth and who is the dishonest Antichrist politician????  Hmmmm.  Boy is that one ever a head scratcher.  Until you realize…

One of these men isn’t running for anything; the other one is a pure politician who is desperately trying to save his political party from being held accountable for their evil in an election that is less than eight months away.

It is also worth considering that Barack Obama, with his incessant lie caught on video at LEAST 37 times.  He is THE most documented liar who ever lived on planet earth, bar none.  Adolf Freaking Hitler was not caught in so many lies as Obama has been caught in.

So if you have any decency, you know which of these men is lying.

The problem is that if you have any decency, you have NOTHING to do with the Democrat Party.

The Democrat Party has murdered well over 55 innocent million human beings.  Democrats are now more than five times more murderous than the Nazis – who “only” murdered 11 million in the Holocaust.

The Democrat Party is the Party of the Wrath of God according to Romans Chapter One.  Their worship of homosexual sodomy is the complete destruction of America, plain and simple.

Life In The Wilderness, Never The Promised Land In Democrat’s Separation of America From God. And Why The Beast Is Coming.

February 24, 2014

There are two political parties that represent two wildly disparate worldviews.  There is the conservative worldview, largely manifested in the Republican Party, which honors God and seeks to limit the abusive and corrosive power of fallen human government.  And there is the liberal worldview, largely manifested in the Democrat Party, which seeks to separate church and state, i.e., which seeks to separate God from America and seeks to replace God with the human State and create a vicious cycle of human dependence upon the Government as God, the State as Savior and Lord.

Guess which one I prefer?

Democrats are wildly perverted and depraved people who, when they are not trying to separate government and society from any vestige of belief in God and in morality, are trying to subvert the clear message of the Bible and instead replace God with the State and erect an alter of socialism as divinely inspired.

I’ve written about this before: Democrats’ continual attempt to erect Government as God and “fundamentally transformJesus into a Marxist.  I’ve described how the Democrat Party’s socialism comes from nowhere other than godless Marxism which is nothing short of an attempt to sever God from The State and to make people who should be content in their Christian faith into bitter, class-warfare-waging government entitlement whores.

But allow me to come at it again from yet another biblical angle.

Read Deuteronomy chapter 8.

8 Be careful to follow every command I am giving you today, so that you may live and increase and may enter and possess the land the Lord promised on oath to your ancestors.Remember how the Lord your God led you all the way in the wilderness these forty years, to humble and test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands. He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your ancestors had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord. Your clothes did not wear out and your feet did not swell during these forty years. Know then in your heart that as a man disciplines his son, so the Lord your God disciplines you.

Observe the commands of the Lord your God, walking in obedience to him and revering him. For the Lord your God is bringing you into a good land—a land with brooks, streams, and deep springs gushing out into the valleys and hills; a land with wheat and barley, vines and fig trees, pomegranates, olive oil and honey; a land where bread will not be scarce and you will lack nothing; a land where the rocks are iron and you can dig copper out of the hills.

10 When you have eaten and are satisfied, praise the Lord your God for the good land he has given you. 11 Be careful that you do not forget the Lord your God, failing to observe his commands, his laws and his decrees that I am giving you this day. 12 Otherwise, when you eat and are satisfied, when you build fine houses and settle down, 13 and when your herds and flocks grow large and your silver and gold increase and all you have is multiplied, 14 then your heart will become proud and you will forget the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 15 He led you through the vast and dreadful wilderness, that thirsty and waterless land, with its venomous snakes and scorpions. He brought you water out of hard rock. 16 He gave you manna to eat in the wilderness, something your ancestors had never known, to humble and test you so that in the end it might go well with you. 17 You may say to yourself, “My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me.” 18 But remember the Lord your God, for it is he who gives you the ability to produce wealth, and so confirms his covenant, which he swore to your ancestors, as it is today.

19 If you ever forget the Lord your God and follow other gods and worship and bow down to them, I testify against you today that you will surely be destroyed. 20 Like the nations the Lord destroyed before you, so you will be destroyed for not obeying the Lord your God.

What you find here is 1) the danger of forgetting the Lord and usurping God’s role (i.e. the danger of separating God from the State as the Democrat Party has clearly done) and 2) the distinction between the wilderness and the Promised Land.

Godless Obama’s remark to us is “God didn’t build that; my State built it all and should receive all glory.”  The same man who wants to radically limit God seeks to radically exalt and magnify his Government as God in God’s place.

And what has happened to this nation as a result?  We’ve forgotten God and we are on the path to perishing.

But you see something else in Deuteronomy chapter eight.  You see the welfare State as a permanent extension of entering the wilderness and NEVER finding the Promised Land.

What happened in the Wilderness?  Read your Bible.  A people who had been slaves and never anything other than slaves for 400 years were cared for by God.  God fed them and provided for them.  He was a Pillar of cloud for them by day and a Pillar of fire by night.  He sent them manna and quail.  He gave them water.  And they wandered around without any meaning or purpose until that entire generation died out.

What was to happen in the Promised Land?  As soon as they came into the Promised Land God STOPPED providing them manna and water.  Instead, He led them into a good land that had resources that the people were to harness and develop.  No longer manna, but WHEAT from which they were to make their OWN bread.

In the Wilderness, God displayed His glory by providing for His people and doing miracles for them.  In the Promised Land, God wanted to be glorified THROUGH His people as they learned to stand on their own two feet.

In the Welfare State Wilderness, it’s the same thing, only Democrats have replaced “God” with “The State.”  And the State – which does all the providing for a perennially helpless people, receives all the glory.  “YOU didn’t build that; Obama did.”

The problem and the tragedy is that under Democrat Party rule, under a Democrat president, America will NEVER AGAIN see a Promised Land.  Because we have been conditioned to turn to our Government as God and say, “Give us our welfare manna.  Provide for us because we are slaves who cannot provide for ourselves.  Just don’t EVER ask us to stand on our own two feet and provide for ourselves.  Because we NEVER will when we can keep parasitically leaching off of Someone Else’s Money by voting for our REAL God the Government.

I present to you as living proof of what I’m saying black people.  There are tremendously successful and righteous black people, as Dr. Benjamin Carson has demonstrated.  But as a whole, no group of people has so radically bought into the Democrat Party’s Perennial Plantation message as black people have.  And that is precisely why black people have been such spectacular failures as they literally embody every moral failure of the Democrat Party.

According to the Bible, children are a blessing.  And if you have children and raise them in the way that they should go, when you are old, your children will care for you.  But black people under the demonic perversion of the Democrat Party have murdered more of their own children than any people in the history of the worldSixty percent of black babies end up being murdered in the Democrat Party’s abortion mills.  And they have nothing and never WILL have anything to care for them but Government as God now as a result.  According to the Bible, the family consisting of a father and mother and their children are the basis of a healthy society.  But blacks have joined with the godless Democrat Party agenda to destroy the family by imposing abortion values which state that men CANNOT be the father of children because all they “fathered” was by definition-of-abortion non-human goop.  And the marriage of one man and one woman under God has been replaced by homosexual depravity bringing on the wrath of God according to the crystal-clear teaching Romans Chapter One.  And black people will NEVER be ANYTHING other than welfare parasites because they have radically committed to worshiping the human State as God and trusting in Obama’s Government rather than trusting in God.  As such, they will stay forever in the wilderness and if government stops the welfare dole they will perish because they won’t EVER develop the resources to stand on their own two feet.

If you’re a woman and you’ve murdered your own baby; if you’re a man and you’ve abandoned your family; if you’re a criminal and you’ve been in prison; if you’re a drug addict; if you’re a homosexual, it is overwhelmingly likely statistically that you are black.  And there’s a reason for that.  It is NOT the color of your skin or anything that can be blamed on “racism”‘ it is ALL ABOUT the depraved value system that black people in America as a culture have bought into.  It is as simple as this: black people have supported Democrat depravity.  And sure enough they have become depraved as they have borne the rotten fruit of that Democrat depravity.  It is as simple as that.  They can be like their phony messiah Obama and radically refuse to accept any responsibility at ALL for their own failed lives as the result of their own failed policies, and just bitterly blame, blame, blame.  But they will NEVER get anywhere.  Because the very foundation they believe in is rotten to the core.

Obama as President of the welfare State is not just for black people, of course.  Obama wants every child, be they red or yellow, black or white, to experience the joys of Government-as-God and The State-as-Savior welfare.

Keep America in the wilderness.  NEVER enter the Promised Land.  That is the call of the Democrat Party.  And it is why America will collapse under the weight of its godless socialism.  Which is why black people won’t get poorer and poorer so much as America as a WHOLE becomes poorer and poorer.  We’ve all been led by the nose and duped by lies as a nation.  And we will all perish as a nation as a result.

The Antichrist, the beast of Revelation, is coming.  And the reason he is coming is because the world – now led by America – is finally ready to accept a Big Government-as-God Savior.

Many of you have ALREADY taken the Mark of the Beast.  And when you do it officially for your Government Messiah you will merely continue the trajectory that you already set when you chose Government over God and The State as Savior and Lord over and over and over again.

It Will Start To Happen: The Left Will AGAIN Begin To Embrace Pedophiles (Gay Marriage + Abortion For Kids = Pedophile Marriage)

December 30, 2013

I have been warning about this and lo and behold as I read the Los Angeles Slimes this morning I see it beginning.  In fact, we’ve already seen it begin.

Given that according to the doctrines of homosexual marriage, marriage is about “the right to choose” rather than about the fabric of the basic morality of a society and civilization as it had ALWAYS been throughout human history until now, and given that according to the dictates of abortion a child has the “right to choose” to kill her baby, what happens when young children want to “be” with older … lets just call them what they ARE - molesters???

The simple FACT of the matter is that every homosexual has ALWAYS had the very same right to marriage that I have had: a homosexual man, for example, has the right to marry any adult woman who will have him, the SAME AS ME.  But homosexual marriage isn’t about “rights”; it is about perversion and imposing perversion on the rest of society and ultimately it is about the celebration of perversion as a society goes completely morally bankrupt before it collapses as all other morally bankrupt civilizations have always collapsed before.

If a little girl has the right to decide to kill her baby in abortion (presupposing that she already acted on her “right” to be sexual), how is it that she doesn’t have the right to be with the man who impregnated her???  Why is a girl who is obviously – in the eyes of liberals and in the eyes of liberal judges – “adult enough” to choose a dangerous medical procedure WITHOUT HER PARENTS’ CONSENT, denied the right to be with her lover???  And given homosexual marriage, let me simply put it this way: WHO ARE YOU TO SAY THAT SUCH A RELATIONSHIP IS “WRONG”???

Think about it: in many places, “conversion therapy” (intended to “convert” gays into straights has not merely been outlawed, but literally criminalized.  Because #1 according to liberal theory, you can’t “convert” gays into straights, and #2 it is immoral to try to “convert” them because that is who they are.  Now apply that to pedophiles – because at least #1 is EVERY BIT as true for pedophiles as it is for homosexuals - and see what happens:

Pedophilia, the sexual attraction to children who have not yet reached puberty, remains a vexing challenge for clinicians and public officials. Classified as a paraphilia, an abnormal sexual behavior, researchers have found no effective treatment. Like other sexual orientations, pedophilia is unlikely to change. The goal of treatment, therefore, is to prevent someone from acting on pedophile urges — either by decreasing sexual arousal around children or increasing the ability to manage that arousal. But neither is as effective for reducing harm as preventing access to children, or providing close supervision.

And:

Recidivism among sex offenders is quite high, according to the United States Department of Justice. Although not all sex offenders reoffend, they are four times more likely than a criminal convicted of robbery, murder, assault or any other charge. Psychologists believe that recidivism is high among sex offenders because their desire to rape, molest or assault is a psychologically engrained predeliction.

Of course, homosexuality was correctly defined as a personality disorder and a mental illness in the field of psychology and yes, as “abnormal sexual behavior” – until liberals employed the doctrines of political correctness to throw reality into the trash can and replace that reality with trash.  And the same thing will ultimately happen with pedophilia.

When I was an undergraduate student at Portland State University (Piss U being one of the most liberal universities in liberaldom, as it so happens), I recall reading an article in the university journal which stated that some 80% of homosexual men had been molested as children.  The article glossed over that as being a “bad thing,” instead taking the path that however homosexuals became that way, they were queer and they were here, deal with it.  But of course first you turn somebody into a victim to create public sympathy for that person/group, and THEN you begin to assert that their behavior isn’t really all that bad and isn’t hurting anybody, and THEN you assert that their behavior is a right and even a positive thing.

And so:

Destigmatizing Pedophilia
TBC Staff
Sep 8 2011

Researchers push for APA to destigmatize pedophilia [Excerpts]

Several well-known researchers recently made unexpected arguments on pedophilia at an academic conference in Baltimore.

Liberty Counsel Action’s Matt Barber attended the conference, which was sponsored by B4U-ACT, a Maryland-based organization* of psychiatric practioners seeking to eliminate what it considers “tremendous barriers” among mental health professionals, the public, and “minor-attracted individuals” (pedophiles).

Barber says while at the conference he felt he was on a different planet, as the presenting professionals argued to remove pedophilia from the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). That, he believes, would mean pedophilia would no longer be considered a mental disorder.

“The entire focus of the event was on the victimhood of the pedophile,” Barber accounts. There was “very little concern for the children who are the victims of these individuals when they are raped, who these individuals lust after,” he adds.

And he says the experts’ discussions were focused on “destigmatizing pedophilia … removing the stigma, and [getting] the public to stop demonizing pedophiles.”

APA states it stands firmly behind efforts to criminally prosecute those who abuse and exploit children and adolescents. But Barber is concerned the APA is already moving toward declassifying pedophilia as a mental disorder “by saying that a pedophile is only a pedophile in their latest DSM…if they are distressed by their attractions or behaviors.”

Barber believes that would bring the APA one step closer to de-classifying pedophilia as a mental disorder, as they did homosexuality in the 1970s.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1413686

The celebration of pedophilia is coming, and when it comes, it WILL NECCESSARILY come from the left, from liberalism and from the Democrat Party.  And how will that NOT happen, given that all of the same exact arguments apply?  You can’t “cure” pedophiles; you shouldn’t stigmatize people for embracing their sexual orientation, children have a right to their own bodies, blah blah blah.

Francis Schaeffer – who understood the horror of postmodernism and the absolute dead-end it was for civilization – described a process that we are today seeing over and over again, called “moral velocitization.”  Basically, what was unacceptable yesterday begins to be welcomed by some tomorrow, endorsed by more the next day, celebrated by the media culture the day after that, and then institutionalized by liberal judges the day after that.

The celebration of pedophilia will begin the same way it always begins when the left gets behind disgusting and evil behaviors: first you make your pedophiles sympathetic victims and frankly use whatever fictions you can to make your sympathetic victims as “sympathetic” and as much of a “victim” as you possibly can, in a spin narrative designed to elicit sympathy.  Consider the case of Roe v. Wade – which was built on the lie that the woman had been GANG RAPED when she in fact hadn’t been raped at all.  Decide for yourself: who is more “sympathetic” and who is more of a “victim”?  A woman who has been gang raped or a woman who willingly had sex with nature taking its course?  The left doesn’t care about “truth” because all they want is their ideology imposed on everybody else.  And the same trick was applied to homosexuality, with homosexuals constantly described in terms of sympathetic victims who were having their “rights” taken away (even though they had the same rights to marry the same people that heterosexuals had the right to marry – they just refused and spurned their rights).

As an example, when I was searching the term “homosexual victims” I had to sort through an ocean of articles on homosexuals as “victims” of the Nazis.  What of course you really have to search for to learn is that while homosexuals ultimately DID go to the death camps, they only did so AFTER LEADING THE CHARGE FOR NAZISM.  We can likewise claim that Obama Democrats are “victims” of ObamaCare and simply ignore the fact that if it hadn’t been for them and their evil support, NOBODY WOULD HAVE BEEN VICTIMS OF OBAMACARE.  The truth is that homosexuals DOMINATED the SA – the “Stormtroopers” – that Hitler used in his rise to power to crush rival ideologies.  And the SA was gay, GAY, GAY.

As I have documented in previous articles, the homosexual rights movement used to openly include the North American Man-Boy Love Association until it became politically convenient to TEMPORARILY throw the pedophiles under the bus:

NAMBLA once actually had United Nations status, due to its membership with the “legitimate” International Lesbian and Gay Association.

NAMBLA has been a member of the International Lesbian and Gay Association for 10 years. We’ve been continuously active in ILGA longer than any other US organization. NAMBLA delegates to ILGA helped write ILGA’s constitution, its official positions on the sexual rights of youth, and its stands against sexual coercion and corporal punishment. We are proud of our contributions in making ILGA a stronger voice for the international gay and lesbian movement and for sexual justice.

Today the gay community excludes NAMBLA as a matter of pure political expediency.  Harry Hay, the founder of the first gay organization in America, ultimately condemned the “gay community” and “reviled what he saw as the movement’s propensity for selling out its fringe members for easy, and often illusory, respectability.” The simple fact is that the gay community is just a bunch of narrow-minded, intolerant bigots and naked political opportunists who want to deny others the basic rights they demand for themselves.

And, of course, President Obama appointed a pro-NAMBLA guy to be the “Safe Schools Czar,” so we have a pretty high-level endorsement right there, don’t we?  We’re talking mainstream stuff here, these days.

In other words, the left ALREADY HAS pushed for the rights of pedophiles to be pedophiles and molest our kids.  And they’re going to take it up their vile agenda again, count on it.

The first “gay president” is really also the first “pedophile president,” given that vile appointment of that vile man.

This nation already deserves to burn in hell for what it has already done, let alone what it will still do under the most wicked and demon-possessed president in our nation’s history.  We can still turn it around if enough people stand up with enough moral outrage.  But I believe it is too late for America.  And I believe the beast is coming.  And I believe that the Democrat Party will eagerly take the mark of the ultimate big government leader who will lead the world into literal hell on earth.

If you are a Democrat, you are in fact a baby-murdering sodomite worshiper.  I don’t care what you say, that’s what you ARE IN FACT given the Democrat Party’s embrace of abortion and militant homosexuality.  Don’t tell me you don’t personally support these things, that you just vote for the party and the politicians and the judges those politicians appoint who DO support it.  And like it or not, you will all-too-soon be adding child molestation to your list of abominations.

It’s Beyond Crystal Clear: Yes, Children Of Homosexual Parents SUFFER As A Result Of Demon-Possessed Liberalism

December 26, 2013

“The most careful, rigorous, and methodologically sound study ever conducted” on the issue of homosexual parenting by the University of Texas at Austin just proved beyond any reasonable doubt that homosexuality is an abomination on parenting.  Please note that this is not conservative-friendly Texas A & M; The University of Texas at Austin is an überliberal university which would have been expected to conclude that homosexuality is the most wonderful thing since the invention of sliced bread.

I know I’m being a “spoiler” by telling you how this ends right up front before you read the summary article on the study below, but this is what you get when you have homosexual parents.  If your parent(s) is/are homosexual, then you:

  • Are much more likely to have received welfare (69% for lesbian mothers and 57% for gay fathers versus only 17% for married biological parents)
  • Have lower educational attainment
  • Report less safety and security in their family of origin
  • Report more ongoing “negative impact” from their family of origin
  • Are more likely to suffer from depression
  • Have been arrested more often
  • If they are female, have had more sexual partners–both male and female
  • Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
  • Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
  • Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
  • Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
  • Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
  • Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
  • Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been “touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver.”
  • Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been “physically forced” to have sex against their will
  • Are more likely to have “attachment” problems related to the ability to depend on others
  • Use marijuana more frequently
  • Smoke more frequently
  • Watch TV for long periods more frequently
  • Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense

In other words, if you have homosexual parents, your life is far, FAR, FAR more likely to dreadfully suck.  Because “gay” is a terrible description for a “lifestyle” that truly means “sad.”

I mean, being the child of a gay parent means that you are “an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been ‘touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver.’”  And liberals say, “There aint nowhere NEAR enough molesting going on; let’s increase the queer voltage.”

And morally depraved Democrats WANT these children’s lives to suck, just as they want to create millions MORE children whose lives suck.  Because Democrats worship the depraved lifestyle that the Bible rightfully calls “an abomination.”

Liberalism is an engine of destruction that screws up the children it doesn’t murder – and it does so deliberately and with malicious intent.  Because they know that only ruined and depraved human beings vote “Democrat.”

New Study On Homosexual Parents Tops All Previous Research
By Peter Sprigg Senior Fellow for Policy Studies

In a historic study of children raised by homosexual parents, sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin has overturned the conventional academic wisdom that such children suffer no disadvantages when compared to children raised by their married mother and father. Just published in the journal Social Science Research,[1] the most careful, rigorous, and methodologically sound study ever conducted on this issue found numerous and significant differences between these groups–with the outcomes for children of homosexuals rated “suboptimal” (Regnerus’ word) in almost every category.

The Debate Over Homosexual Parents

In the larger cultural, political, and legal debates over homosexuality, one significant smaller debate has been over homosexual parents. Do children who are raised by homosexual parents or caregivers suffer disadvantages in comparison to children raised in other family structures–particularly children raised by a married mother and father? This question is essential to political and ethical debates over adoption, foster care, and artificial reproductive technology, and it is highly relevant to the raging debate over same-sex “marriage.” The argument that “children need a mom and a dad” is central to the defense of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Here is how the debate over the optimal family structure for children and the impact of homosexual parents has usually gone:

  • Pro-family organizations (like Family Research Council) assert, “Social science research shows that children do best when raised by their own biological mother and father who are committed to one another in a life-long marriage.” This statement is true, and rests on a large and robust collection of studies.
  • Pro-homosexual activists respond, “Ah, but most of those studies compared children raised by a married couple with those raised by divorced or single parents–not with homosexual parents.” (This is also true–in large part because the homosexual population, and especially the population of homosexuals raising children, is so small that it is difficult to obtain a representative sample.)
  • The advocates of homosexual parenting then continue, “Research done specifically on children raised by homosexual parents shows that there are no differences (or no differences that suggest any disadvantage) between them and children raised by heterosexual parents.”
  • Pro-family groups respond with a number of critiques of such studies on homosexual parents. For example, such studies usually have relied on samples that are small and not representative of the population, and they frequently have been conducted by openly homosexual researchers who have an ideological bias on the question being studied. In addition, these studies also usually make comparisons with children raised by divorced or single parents–rather than with children raised by their married, biological mother and father.

In fact, an important article published in tandem with the Regnerus study (by Loren Marks, Louisiana State University) analyzes the 59 previous studies cited in a 2005 policy brief on homosexual parents by the American Psychological Association (APA).[2] Marks debunks the APA’s claim that “[n]ot a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.” Marks also points out that only four of the 59 studies cited by the APA even met the APA’s own standards by “provid[ing] evidence of statistical power.” As Marks so carefully documents, “[N]ot one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children.”

To summarize, we have been left with large, scientifically strong studies showing children do best with their married mother and father–but which do not make comparisons with homosexual parents or couples; and studies which purportedly show that children of homosexuals do just as well as other children–but which are methodologically weak and thus scientifically inconclusive.

The New Family Structures Study–Restoring the “Gold Standard”

This logjam of dueling studies has been broken by the work that Regnerus has undertaken. Unlike the many large studies previously undertaken on family structure, Regnerus has included specific comparisons with children raised by homosexual parents. Unlike the previous studies on children of homosexual parents, he has put together a representative, population-based sample that is large enough to draw scientifically and statistically valid conclusions. For these reasons, his “New Family Structures Study” (NFSS) deserves to be considered the “gold standard” in this field.

Another improvement Regnerus has made is in his method of collecting data and measuring outcomes for children in various family structures. Some previous studies collected data while the subjects were still children living at home with their parent or parents–making it impossible to know what the effects of the home environment might be once they reach adulthood. Some such studies even relied, in some cases exclusively, on the self-report of the parent. This raised a serious question of “self-presentation bias”–the tendency of the parent to give answers that will make herself and her child look good.

Regnerus, on the other hand, has surveyed young adults, ages 18 to 39, and asked them about their experiences growing up (and their life circumstances in the present). While these reports are not entirely objective, they are likely to be more reliable than parental self-reports, and allow evaluation of long-term impacts.

The study collected information from its subjects on forty different outcomes. They fall into three groups:

  • Some are essentially yes-or-no questions: are you currently married, are you currently unemployed, have you thought recently about suicide?
  • Other questions asked respondents to place themselves on a scale–for example, of educational attainment, happiness or depression, and household income.
  • Finally, “event-count” outcomes involve reporting the frequency of certain experiences–e.g., smoking marijuana or being arrested–and the number of sex partners.

Nearly 15,000 people were “screened” for potential participation in the study; in the end almost 3,000, a representative sample, actually completed the survey questionnaire. Of these, 175 reported that their mother had a same-sex romantic relationship while they were growing up, and 73 said the same about their father. These are numbers just large enough to make some statistically robust conclusions in comparing different family structures.

What the Study Found

The study looked at 40 different outcomes, but reported data for children with “lesbian mothers” and those with “gay fathers” separately. Therefore, there actually were 80 outcome measures that could be said to compare children with “homosexual parents” to those from other family structures. When compared with outcomes for children raised by an “intact biological family” (with a married, biological mother and father), the children of homosexuals did worse (or, in the case of their own sexual orientation, were more likely to deviate from the societal norm) on 77 out of 80 outcome measures. (The only exceptions: children of “gay fathers” were more likely to vote; children of lesbians used alcohol less frequently; and children of “gay fathers” used alcohol at the same rate as those in intact biological families).

Of course, anyone who has had a college course in statistics knows that when a survey shows there are differences between two groups, it is important to test whether that finding is “statistically significant.” This is because it is always possible, by chance, that a sample may not accurately reflect the overall population on a particular point. However, through statistical analysis researchers can calculate the likelihood of this, and when they have a high level of confidence that a difference identified in the survey represents an actual difference in the national population, we say that finding is “statistically significant.” (This does not mean the other findings are unimportant–just that we cannot have as high a level of confidence in them.)

Regnerus has analyzed his findings, and their statistical significance, in two ways–first by a simple and direct comparison between what is reported by the children of homosexual parents and the children of “intact biological families” (“IBFs”), and second by “controlling” for a variety of other characteristics. “Controlling for income,” for example, would mean showing that “IBF” children do not do better just because their married parents have higher incomes, but that they do better even when the incomes of their households and the households of homosexual parents are the same. Again, Regnerus has done these comparisons for “LMs” (children of “lesbian mothers”) and “GFs” (children of gay fathers) separately.

There are eight outcome variables where differences between the children of homosexual parents and married parents were not only present, and favorable to the married parents, but where these findings were statistically significant for both children of lesbian mothers and “gay” fathers and both with and without controls. While all the findings in the study are important, these are the strongest possible ones–virtually irrefutable. Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):

  • Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
  • Have lower educational attainment
  • Report less safety and security in their family of origin
  • Report more ongoing “negative impact” from their family of origin
  • Are more likely to suffer from depression
  • Have been arrested more often
  • If they are female, have had more sexual partners–both male and female

The high mathematical standard of “statistical significance” was more difficult to reach for the children of “gay fathers” in this study because there were fewer of them. The following, however, are some additional areas in which the children of lesbian mothers (who represented 71% of all the children with homosexual parents in this study) differed from the IBF children, in ways that were statistically significant in both a direct comparison and with controls. Children of lesbian mothers:

  • Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
  • Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
  • Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
  • Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
  • Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
  • Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
  • Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been “touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver.”
  • Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been “physically forced” to have sex against their will
  • Are more likely to have “attachment” problems related to the ability to depend on others
  • Use marijuana more frequently
  • Smoke more frequently
  • Watch TV for long periods more frequently
  • Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense

Differences in Sexuality

When comparing children of homosexuals with children of married biological parents, the differences in sexuality–experiences of sexual abuse, number of sexual partners, and homosexual feelings and experiences among the children themselves–were among the most striking. While not all of the findings mentioned below have the same level of “statistical significance” as those mentioned above, they remain important.

At one time, defenders of homosexual parents not only argued that their children do fine on psychological and developmental measures, but they also said that children of homosexuals “are no more likely to be gay” than children of heterosexuals. That claim will be impossible to maintain in light of this study. It found that children of homosexual fathers are nearly 3 times as likely, and children of lesbian mothers are nearly 4 times as likely, to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual. Children of lesbian mothers are 75% more likely, and children of homosexual fathers are 3 times more likely, to be currently in a same-sex romantic relationship.

The same holds true with the number of sexual partners. Both males and females who were raised by both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have more opposite-sex (heterosexual) partners than children of married biological parents (daughters of homosexual fathers had twice as many). But the differences in homosexual conduct are even greater. The daughters of lesbians have 4 times as many female (that is, same-sex) sexual partners than the daughters of married biological parents, and the daughters of homosexual fathers have 6 times as many. Meanwhile, the sons of both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have 7 times as many male (same-sex) sexual partners as sons of married biological parents.

The most shocking and troubling outcomes, however, are those related to sexual abuse. Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to have been “touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver” (23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents), while those raised by a homosexual father were 3 times more likely (reported by 6%). In his text, but not in his charts, Regnerus breaks out these figures for only female victims, and the ratios remain similar (3% IBF; 31% LM; 10% GF). As to the question of whether you have “ever been physically forced” to have sex against your will (not necessarily in childhood), affirmative answers came from 8% of children of married biological parents, 31% of children of lesbian mothers (nearly 4 times as many), and 25% of the children of homosexual fathers (3 times as many). Again, when Regnerus breaks these figures out for females (who are more likely to be victims of sexual abuse in general), such abuse was reported by 14% of IBFs, but 3 times as many of the LMs (46%) and GFs (52%).

These data require more detailed exploration and explanation. A number of researchers have pointed out that self-identified homosexual adults (both men and women) are more likely to report having been victims of child sexual abuse. However, Family Research Council and other pro-family organizations have been criticized for also pointing to evidence suggesting that homosexual men are more likely to commit acts of child sexual abuse than are heterosexual men. And experts in child sexual abuse in general say that men are most often the perpetrators, regardless of the sex of the victim. Therefore, the finding that children of lesbian mothers are significantly more likely to have been victims of sexual touching by “a parent or adult caregiver” than even the children of homosexual fathers is counter-intuitive.

However, it is important to note what we do not know about such experiences from the data that have been published. The fact that a child of a lesbian mother was touched by “a parent or adult caregiver” does not mean that the lesbian mother was herself the parent or caregiver who did the “touching.” An alternative scenario mentioned by Regnerus, for example–hypothetical, but plausible–is one in which a child is molested by her biological father; her mother divorces her father; and the mother later enters into a lesbian relationship.

Limitations of the Study

While the Regnerus study is a vast improvement over virtually all the prior research in the field, it still leaves much to study and learn about homosexual parents and their effect on children. Author Mark Regnerus emphasizes the traditional caveat in social science, warning against leaping to conclusions regarding “causality.” In other words, just because there are statistical correlations between having a homosexual parent and experiencing negative outcomes does not automatically prove that having a homosexual parent is what caused the negative outcomes–other factors could be at work.

This is true in a strict scientific sense–but because Regnerus carefully controlled for so many other factors in the social environment, the study gives a clear indication that it is this parental characteristic which best defines the household environment that produces these troubling outcomes. The large number of significant negative outcomes in this study gives legitimate reason for concern about the consequences of “homosexual parenting.”

The definition of what it means to have a homosexual parent is also a loose one in this study–by necessity, in order to maximize the sample size of homosexual parents. Not all of those who reported that a parent was in a same-sex relationship even lived with that parent during the relationship; many who did, did not live with the partner as well. Only 23% of those with a lesbian mother, and only 2% of those with a homosexual father, had spent as long as three years living in a household with the homosexual parent and the parent’s partner at the same time. Details like this involving the actual timeline of these children’s lives can reportedly be found in Regnerus’ dataset, which is to be made available to other researchers later this year.

Figures like these suggest a need for more research, to distinguish, for example, the effects of living with a homosexual parent from having a non-custodial one, or the effects of living with a homosexual single parent vs. a homosexual couple. But they also point out something of note for public policy debates on “gay families”–the stereotype put forward by pro-homosexual activists, of a same-sex couple jointly parenting a child from birth (following either adoption or the use of artificial reproductive technology), represents a scenario that is extraordinarily rare in real life. Most “homosexual parents” have their own biological children who were conceived in the context of a previous heterosexual relationship or marriage, which then ended before the person entered into homosexual relationships.

Conclusion

The articles by Marks and Regnerus have completely changed the playing field for debates about homosexual parents, “gay families,” and same-sex “marriage.” The myths that children of homosexual parents are “no different” from other children and suffer “no harm” from being raised by homosexual parents have been shattered forever.


[1] Mark Regnerus, “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012), pp. 752-770; online at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

[2] Loren Marks, “Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting,” Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012), pp. 735-751; online at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580

It is official: the same demon possessed Democrats (and that’s what “Democrat” really stands for: “Demonic Bureaucrat“) who have viciously murdered more than fifty-five MILLION innocent children in their abortion factories also stand for the degradation and misery of the children they allow to live.

It seems that Phil Robertson is on the right side of reality.

Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson Suspension: Two Things Liberals Hate (Facts And Freedom) And The One Thing Liberals Love (Fascism)

December 19, 2013

We live in a world where Phil Robertson has no right to express his views on homosexuality, but where homosexuals have every right to express their rabid, frothing hatred of Christianity and evangelical Christians.  We live in a world where Phil Robertson gets suspended for basically just saying what the BIBLE says but Miley Cyrus doesn’t get suspended for performing a simulated sex act on television.  We live in a crazy, morally depraved world, in other words.

I mean, just try to get your head around: Phil Robertson is being suspended from a “reality program” for actually being “real.”  And A & E wants to take Phil Robertson out of a show that is actually mostly about HIM (he was the inventor of the duck lures of “Duck Dynasty,” you know) and is entirely about his family of which he is the patriarch.  And since A & E wants the family to continue with the show that they just banned the family’s patriarch from, A & E literally is attempting to “suspend” Phil Robertson from his very own family.

Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson allegedly just got suspended from his own television program for saying that homosexuality was next to bestiality:

Not only does “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson fail to understand what it’s like to be gay, but he also thinks homosexuality is a sin comparable to bestiality.

In a shocking new interview with GQ’s Drew Magary, Robertson — the 67-year-old patriarch of the Duck Commander kingdom that earned his Louisiana family a fortune and a hit A&E series — opened up about “modern immorality” and the gay community.

It doesn’t matter that Robertson didn’t actually do that.  Read his quote (and it would have been nice and, well, HONEST had GQ provided the context OF the quote – unless you think Phil Robertson just started popping off about homosexuality without any prompting whatsoever):

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine,” he later added. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

Notice that you “START from homosexuality” and then you “morph out from there.”  One is NOT necessarily the same as the other in Robertson’s description any more than a nasty kid starts with pulling the wings off of insects and morphs out to killing other children means that children and winged insects are the same thing.

It also doesn’t matter if the Bible confirms the view that, yes, homosexuality really IS next to bestiality:

“Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.  Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.  Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.” — Leviticus 18:21-23

In blatant fact, not only is homosexuality next to bestiality, but it is actually sandwiched in between bestiality and child sacrifice (which liberals also love: we call it “abortion” today and 55 million innocent children have been sacrificed to the gods of convenient liberal demonism).

And, no, homosexuals will NOT inherit the kingdom of God.  Don’t take my word, don’t even take Phil Robertson’s word, take the Word of God’s word:

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” — 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

And it’s not just the Book of Leviticus or 1 Corinthians.  Go to Romans Chapter One.  In fact, go to ANY passage of God’s Word and see if it EVER says a positive word about homosexuality (hint: it DOESN’T).

Liberals are pathologically opposed to the Bible.  And their hatred for the Word of God literally begins with the very first words of the Word of God and pervert more from there.

Liberals have “fundamentally transformed” morality by replacing God’s morality with their own perverted version of it.  And now they sit in rabid judgment of God and the Christians whose crime is believing the Word of God which had been the source of the moral backbone of Western Civilization for 2,000 years.

I’ve pointed this out so many times: liberals have a fundamental and profound hostility toward the Bible and toward everything about the Bible and the God of the Bible.  That hostility permeates their entire worldview.  God wanted us to be stones – individuals free to choose as individuals.  But liberals want us to become government-stamped bricks where one is identical to all the others.  It has been so from the very beginning of human civilization and it is so today.

As a Christian, Phil Robertson ought to have the right to accurately express the content of his faith – particularly when he is virtually quoting the Bible when he does it.  But “Christianity” now has to bow down before political correctness.  And the factual content of the Bible and the Christianity it expresses be damned.

Facts are anathema to the left.  They utterly despise them.  And therefore they utterly despise anyone who disagrees with them.

You need to understand how liberals, secular humanists, et al view “truth.”  I wrote about this a long time back (see part I, part II and part III).  Basically, liberals reject the classic philosophical position of foundationalism and believe instead in postmodernist coherentism.  Under coherentism, knowledge does not require any foundation and rather can be established by the interlocking strength of its components like a puzzle.  Which is to say liberals parted with “truth” long, long ago.

I stumbled across a great expression of this liberal “philosophy”:

The only difference between an opinion and a fact is the way you look at it.

In many ways, there are no facts. There are just different ways of looking at things.

With that in mind, I think it’s important to think of your opinions as facts.

Don’t tell me what you think. Tell me what you know, and if you don’t feel passionately enough about something to think you “know” it, then you should probably save your breath.

A good argument is when two people take two competing facts and let them battle it out.

The truth is created when an opinion beats out all other opinions.

Don’t say what you think is true. Decide what is true and then try to be right.

Like I said, liberals HATE truth.  They don’t even accept the possibility that there could be something called “the truth.”  They despise facts as irrelevant whenever they become inconvenient.  What they love is perverting discussion about truth into opinion polls.  And then relying upon their propaganda control over the media to slant the debate by creating straw men regarding the view they despise versus a celebrity culture regarding the view they cherish.

On my view as a foundationalist, our ultimate foundation for being able to know truth and have genuine knowledge of the external world rests with Creator God who made man in His own image and created the world for the man whom He created in His own image.  Because of the Fall and sin, we do not know truth perfectly, but because we are the result of a special creation by a truth-knowing God and because He created the world around us for us, we can reliably know things about the world.  That is the ultimate foundation upon which human epistemology rests.

Let’s hear what evolution logically entails:

Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with mechanistic principles. There is no purposive principle whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces that are rationally detectable…

Second, modern science directly implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws, no absolute guiding principles for human society.

Third…the individual human becomes an ethical person by means of two primary mechanisms: heredity and environmental influences. That is all there is.

Fourth, we must conclude that when we die, we die and that is the end of us…

Finally, free will as it is traditionally conceived…simply does not exist. — William Provine, Distinguished Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University

To put it in Phil Robertson Duck Dynasty terms, if you are a man and you prefer another man’s anus to what God intended for you, you are a biological meat puppet insect who cannot help but prefer the anus to the vagina. And since there is no possibility of “morality” in the world your love/lust for the anus is simply a brute fact that cannot be questioned in any way, any shape or any form.  And it is for some mysterious reason only those who hold any other view who must be suppressed as ruthlessly as necessary.

Contrast that with the view that necessarily stems from the philosophy atheism and evolution:

“But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self-defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

On the basis of his own presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self-contradictory and self-defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.”  — Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1982, pp. 55-56

As a result of my view, I can know the truth and I can have free will and freely choose.  And I therefore have the right to express my beliefs.  Versus anyone who believes in evolution, who necessarily is a biological meat puppet entirely conditioned by DNA and environment and by definition can have nothing the Bible calls a “soul.”  Whereas such humanity is utterly and completely impossible to liberals BY DEFINITION.

Anyone who believes in evolution is according to their own view basically an insect who crawls a certain way merely because they were either hard-wired to so crawl or because their parents crawled that way once and didn’t happen to get eaten as a result.  That is what you are and that is all you are.  It is scientifically impossible for you to ever be anything more.

Ooops.  Did I say “free”???

Liberals also viscerally and viciously despise human freedom.  And as I believe you ought to see, that hatred stems from their views on human origin itself which result from their radical hatred of the God of the Bible.

Do I have the right to my beliefs?  Absolutely, says the liberal.  As long as your beliefs accord with mine.  Otherwise, as Khrushchev boasted, “We will bury you!”

Liberals, secular humanists, atheists and evolutionists (basically one and the same group, for the record) exploited the view of their enemies regarding individuality and freedom to make their public case.  Conservatives opposed what they said, of course, but they did not oppose their right to say it because they believed in freedom.  But the moment the left got their way, they shut the door.  They use a device called “political correctness” to shape society and therefore shape reality to their point of view.

Being politically correct is not just an attempt to make people feel better. It’s a large, coordinated effort to change Western culture as we know it by  redefining it. Early Marxists designed their game plan long ago and continue to execute it today — and now liberals are picking up the same tactic: to control the argument by controlling the “acceptable” language. Those with radical agendas understand the game plan and are taking advantage of an oversensitive and frankly overly gullible public.

We’re told that “political correctness” is about being sensitive to people.  But we already have the template for that; it’s called “good manners.”  Political correctness is not at all about anything other than power.

You need to understand how this has worked its way into our government: huge, sweeping government that has the power to intrude into virtually every component of our lives.  A giant welfare state.  A giant ObamaCare bureaucracy.  Stifling regulations.  The belief that “you didn’t build that” and therefore the government has the right to whatever it demands from the fruit of your hard work.

What you end up with is “Government is God” from the people who first rejected the God of the Bible.  And you end up with the battle between: Paul Ryan: ‘Our Rights Come From Nature And From God.’  Barack Obama: ‘Our Rights Come From Government And To Hell With God.’

Obama openly mocked the Bible as a book that should have anything whatsoever to do with modern life or the modern world.   I explore Obama’s demon-possessed misunderstanding of Scripture.

And instead of any worldview informed by Christianity in any way, shape or form, we have this demonism:

Liberals are fascists.  They are intrinsically and pathologically fascist.  I wrote an article two years ago that went on and on and on documenting Obama’s fascism.  And note that I predated Obama’s NSA scandals, Obama’s criminal abuse of the IRS as a weapon to target conservatives or anyone who used “anti-Obama rhetoric,” and the latest ObamaCare meltdown.  Note that I predated a Clinton-appointed judge who denounced Obama as a fascist who rules by “secret law.”  Another judge described Obama’s policy as “almost Orwellian.”

Let’s consider these statements from these judges, first from Clinton-appointed Judge Ellen Seal Huvelle:

In a Freedom of Information Act victory, a federal judge has slapped the Obama administration for its secretive ways and ordered officials to turn over a bland-sounding foreign policy document.

Chastising what she called “the government’s unwarranted expansion of the presidential communications privilege at the expense of the public’s interest in disclosure,” U.S. District Judge Ellen Seal Huvelle ruled the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development is not exempt from FOIA.

Judge Huvelle’s 20-page decision took a shot or two, or three, at the Obama administration’s penchant for secrecy.

The government appears to adopt the cavalier attitude that the President should be permitted to convey orders throughout the Executive Branch without public oversight, to engage in what is in effect governance by ‘secret law,’” Huvelle wrote.

Now by Judge Richard Leon:

A federal judge ruled Monday the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of Americans’ phone records “almost certainly” violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon described the NSA’s activities as “almost Orwellian.” He wrote, “I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary invasion’ than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen.”

This from the administration of “The Liar of the Year” (by both überliberal Politifact and by the überüberliberal Washington Post) who made a career dishonestly and deceitfully boasting that his was “the most transparent administration in history.”

Note: when I called Obama a FASCIST and pointed out that it is the pathological nature of the left to BE fascist, I WAS RIGHT.

In all of human history, we have NEVER had a man as stridently revealed as a complete and utter liar as Barack Obama has now been.  More human beings have seen his lies played out before them than any other liar who ever lived.  And this dishonest man is a fascist.

And the same damn people – and “damn” being a technical term for those who are one day surely going to burn in hell – are out to get Phil Robertson.  Because as I describe above, they are biological meat puppet insects and it is their nature as slave-beings who by definition have no free will and therefore do whatever their hateful slave ideology compels them to do.

You can be the random evolution meat puppet or you can get off your ass and not stand for what the left is trying to do to a man just for expressing his opinion and exercising his freedom of religion.

I mean, stop and think about it: “marriage” has meant a particular thing for the entirety of human civilization and certainly the entirety of the Judeo-Christian-based Western Civilization upon which our society was formed.  Liberals believe they have the right to redefine marriage to mean something that it never meant before as they “fundamentally transform” America.  But it gets worse, because these fascists literally believe that no one has the right to oppose them or stand for the sum entirely of previous human civilization as they pervert and distort reality to suit their demonic ideology.

In the same manner, a damn liberal judge just imposed POLYGAMY on America.  Nothing is more alive in America than the slippery slope that conservatives have been warning about.  The claim to polygamy logically follows the claim to homosexuality: who are YOU to tell me I can’t marry the man – or men – of my dreams???  And that same “logic” will necessarily ultimately see the imposition of the very bestiality that Phil Robertson talks about, because who are YOU to tell me I can’t marry my canary???  And again, that same logic will also ultimately spill over to children having the “right” to be sodomized by some adult pervert.  Because if a kid is old enough to choose abortion – which all kids are by definition according to the “logic” of liberalism – then who are you to tell them they can’t have sexual relationships with the people they choose to have them with???  It either all logically follows or NONE of it does (another free hint: NONE of it does).

Liberals can say whatever the hell they want and nobody boycotts them because conservatives believe that people have a right to say what they think.  But the liberals who believe THEY have such freedom are fascists who would NEVER grant that freedom to anybody who doesn’t think just like they think.

I update this to note that Mark Steyn wrote:

Most Christian opponents of gay marriage oppose gay marriage; they don’t oppose the right of gays to advocate it. Yet thug groups like GLAAD increasingly oppose the right of Christians even to argue their corner. It’s quicker and more effective to silence them.

That is precisely right: Christians who dominated society allowed gays and other radical leftists to have free speech because it is our nature as conservatives to allow freedom.  But the left is truly fascist and the moment they were allowed in the door they slammed it shut because genuine freedom is anathema to them.

I update again to add Bristol Palin - who apparently has her mother’s way of expressing herself – to the mix:

“I think it’s so hypocritical how the LGBT community expects every single flippen person to agree with their life style. This flies in the face of what makes America great — people can have their own beliefs and own opinions and their own ways of life.

“I hate how the LGBT community says it’s all about ‘love’ and ‘equality,’” she added. “However, if you don’t agree with their lifestyle, they spread the most hate. It is so hypocritical it makes my stomach turn.”

I demand the left defend it’s “tolerance” when they are so radically INTOLERANT with anybody who doesn’t precisely march to their goose step it is beyond ridiculous.

Take a stand against that fascism while you still have a little bit of your country left.

Are You Building Your Ark Yet? Seeing the World Clearly Through the Literal Word of God

October 24, 2013

This article is about the deception that I submit is clearly characterizing these last days and the view that we need to read and understand our Bibles LITERALLY to understand the end times in which we live.  Allow me to explain how the title and subtitle zoom in on how these objectives inter-relate: “Are you building your ark yet?”  Imagine for a moment what would have happened in Genesis 6:13-18 had Noah refused to understand God as literally saying He was going to destroy the earth with a literal flood and that God wanted Noah to build a literal ark of certain specified literal materials and dimensions???  What would have happened to the human race??? What would have happened to Noah when the first drops began to fall and he shouted into the rain, “I thought this was all just an ALLEGORY!”

The allegorical method (essential to Amillennialist and Postmillennialist interpretation) has come to dominate so much of the “Christian Church’s” understanding of the Bible.  So first of all, allow me to define “allegory” with a few online dictionary definitions:

Is that what the Bible is?  Seriously?  Is THAT all your Bible is?  NOT.

Now allow me to present a very different method of interpreting the Bible:

THUS SAYS THE LORD

Billy Graham said in one of his televised Crusades that as he began his ministry, he struggled deeply with the question as to how he would present the Bible: would he make his ministry about trying to argue the truth of the Bible, or would he simply state it as the Word of the Living God?  He chose the latter path – and I would argue that his powerful ministry as the greatest evangelist in the history of the world after St. Paul bore out that fact.  If we just allow the Word of God to speak for itself, it has power that can change the world.  If we impose our human unbelief upon it, it has no power for it is no longer the Word of God at all, but only the perverted word of men.

What does the Bible say about itself?  And how should we receive it?

  • Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or sit in the company of mockers, but whose delight is in the law of the LORD, and who meditates on his law day and night. –  Psalm 1:1-2
  • The law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple. The precepts of the Lord are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the Lord are radiant, giving light to the eyes. The fear of the Lord is pure, enduring forever. The decrees of the Lord are firm, and all of them are righteous.  — Psalm 19:7-9
  • Your word I have treasured in my heart, That I may not sin against You. – Psalm 119:11
  • Their hearts are callous and unfeeling, but I delight in your law. – Psalm 119:70
  • Your word, LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens.  – Psalm 119:89
  • Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path.  – Psalm 119:105
  • These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts.  – Deut 6:6
  • The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever – Isaiah 40:8
  • Listen to Me, you who know righteousness, A people in whose heart is My law; Do not fear the reproach of man, Nor be dismayed at their revilings.  – Isaiah 51:7
  • And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.  – 1 Thessalonians 2:13
  • and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. – 2 Timothy 3:15-17
  • For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. — Hebrews 4:12
  • We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.  Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things.  For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.  – 2 Peter 1:19-21
  • Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.  – Jude 3
  • He replied, “Go your way, Daniel, because the words are rolled up and sealed until the time of the end.  Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand.  – Daniel 12:9-10

The last days are coming, and “deception” will be THE factor that will plunge most of the world into hell.  One of the things that we learn about Satan and the coming Antichrist who will be personally indwelt by Satan is that the coming political Antichrist will be a master of deception.  Both Daniel and the coming Antichrist are given “wisdom” in terms of “mysteries.”  Daniel used his gift to untie or untangle mysterious visions so that the truth could be clearly revealed and understood.  Antichrist, on the other hand, will use his wisdom in the exact opposite way of Daniel: he will be able to so entangle the truth into so many knots with his words that no one will be able to understand the truth from his lies and what is right and good from his deceitful framing of all the narratives that he will present.  Antichrist’s goal in twisting the truth with his rhetoric is clearly displayed in Daniel 7:25 and Revelation chapter 13: he will present a narrative that we care clearly seeing today, that Christians are “intolerant” and essentially the bogeyman and that THEY are the source of all the problems.  We’re already increasingly seeing this – but all too soon it will lead to the most vicious and terrible wave of persecution in the history of the world as Antichrist begins his mission to murder every single believer on earth.  The last days are upon us and everyone who has the spirit that Daniel described in Daniel 12:10 can clearly see it.  Today we live in a world of “spin.”  And I submit that many “good people” are simply flat-out deceived politically and culturally be a tsunami of lies that have engulfed the world.  The spirit of antichrist is already here.

Christianity is slipping away in America, there is no question about it.  In 2012, 75% of Americans identified themselves as “Christian,” versus in 1990 – when that percentage was 86%. I submit that the decline of Christianity in America has a very great deal to do with “deception.”  It has to do with the fact that something watered down and perverted has been substituted for “Christianity” and more and more people are rejecting a “Christianity” that has NOTHING to do with Christ or His Word.  But think of it this way: given that 3 out of every 4 Americans still call themselves “Christian,” HOW IS IT that many of these same Americans now support homosexual marriage and abortion???  I defy anybody to explain to me how anybody could open up a Bible and say, “God approves of homosexual marriage.”  Just read Romans chapter one, if you don’t like Leviticus 18:26.  How can anybody read Psalm 139:13-16 (eg., “For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb“) and explain to me how God has anything other than abject horror for the abortion mindset that has now consumed over 55 million innocent babies in America?

For the record, 58% of Americans support homosexual marriage.  And how can that be when 75% of Americans call themselves “Christians”???  When the Bible denounces homosexuality as an “abomination” (Lev 18:22) and a “detestable act” (Lev 20:13) and when the Bible says that homosexuality is the lowest moral point a culture can degenerate to resulting in the full wrath of God (Romans chapter one, especially 1:26-27)?

I survey the demise of Christianity in Western Civilization and particularly in America and I think of the words of King Theoden in Lord of the Rings as he surveyed the world where evil had nearly completely consumed what little good was left: “The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow. How did it come to this?

How about this as moving toward an answer to that question: only 19% of CHURCHGOING CHRISTIANS even SAY they read the Bible every day. And 57%  only read their Bibles four times a year or less.  How about what a Gallup survey said: that only 22% of those calling themselves “Christians” believe the Bible is fully inspired by God Himself.

How about this?  “35% of “born-again Christians” do not read the Bible AT ALL.”  And “among those who say they read the Bible, the vast majority only read it during the one hour they attend church each Sunday morning.”

I completely agree with this statement from Ron Rhodes, President of Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries:  “such statistics make it more than obvious why many Christians are easy prey for spiritual deception. The level of biblical illiteracy among Christians may be one reason why many believers hesitate to stand for Godly values on the public scene.”

The next two paragraphs of the same article:

“Recent studies by The Barna Group and the Gallup Organization conclude that any reasonable understanding of biblical facts and truths is seriously lacking among Americans. Today, basic Christian truths are virtually unknown to a majority in this nation.

“American Christians are biblically illiterate. Although most of them contend that the Bible contains truth and is worth knowing, and most of them argue that they know all of the relevant truths and principles, our research shows otherwise. And the trend line is frightening: the younger a person is, the less they understand about the Christian faith.” —Barna”

I want to begin by exploring that question: “How did it come to this?”  How is it that 75% of Americans say they are “Christian” even as a majority of Americans say, “I’m a Christian, and I believe that God smiles down every time a mother has her own baby ripped apart in her womb.”  “I’m a Christian, and I believe that God loves homosexuality.”  How is it that WE have voted for these things, and considered ourselves good people and even good CHRISTIANS as we did so???  How is it that we call ourselves “Christians” and blatantly ignore the blatant point of Romans chapter one and so many other Old and New Testament Passages???  Note: I pick these two topics because they ought to be OBVIOUS to anyone who reads  the Word of God; and if we can’t even understand the obvious, how can we understand anything at all???

Today, the Anglicans, the Episcopalians, the Lutherans, the Presbyterians, the Methodists, and numerous other denominations, have actively supported homosexual marriage as a union celebrated by God.  Many of these churches are celebrating homosexual unions and celebrate the fact that they have openly homosexual bishops.  And we just witnessed the new Catholic pope join them as he undermined Christians who would have the politically-incorrect gall to condemn gay marriage.

Deception, indeed.  It is all around you.  And statistically speaking, if both the people sitting next to you aren’t deceived, then YOU ARE.

Here’s a survey of Bible passages that I believe help to explain what has happened (in scriptural order):

  • The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. – Genesis 6:5
  • “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the LORD? Because of this, wrath has gone out against you from the LORD” – 2 Chronicles 19:2
  • You love evil more than good, Falsehood more than speaking what is right. — Psalm 52:3
  • But he who sins against Me injures himself; all those who hate Me love death — Proverbs 8:36
  • A wise man’s heart directs him toward the right, but the foolish man’s heart directs him toward the left. — Ecclesiastes 10:2
  • Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! — Isaiah 5:20
  • For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who in their wickedness suppress the truth – Romans 1:18
  • Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools – Romans 1:22
  • They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen. — Romans 1:25
  • In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe to keep them from seeing the light of the glorious gospel of the Messiah, who is the image of God. — 2 Corinthians 4:4
  • I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel– which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.  But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!  — Galatians 1:6-9
  • Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron — 1 Timothy 4:2
  • But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. — 2 Tim 3:1
  • They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. — 2 Tim 3:6-7
  • For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. — 2 Tim 4:3-4
  • “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!  So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth.  You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.” — Rev 3:15-17

“How did it come to this?”  Let me explain.  Because the answer has EVERYTHING to do with understanding Bible PROPHECY and with having a LITERAL interpretation of the Word of God.

This terrible spiritual sickness of Christian thought began in the 5th century through the teaching of a brilliant theologians named Origen of Alexandria (A.D. 185 to circa 254) and Augustine, bishop of Hippo (354 – 430 AD).  These two thinkers introduced and systemized an “allegorical” view of the Bible.  See here (http://www.lastchanceministries.com/Origen.htm) for more.  Basically, these two men were looking at a world that no longer had a literal, physical, national Israel – which had been destroyed by Rome in 70 AD (just as Jesus literally prophesied in passages such as Matt 23:37-39 and 24:1-2, 34).  And that fact of a “missing Israel” warped their understanding.

There are so many Bible prophecies that center around a literal, national, Israel existing in the last days that I literally cannot list them all.  But consider Ezekiel chapter 37 – the prophecy of the dry bones that come to life prior to the last days war of God and Magog in Ezekiel 38-39.  Consider the numerous references to Israel in the Book of Revelation (ex. Rev 7:3-8; 11:1-2; chap 12). (See http://israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/Israel_in_Revelation.htm for more).  And consider that the Messiah of ISRAEL in the Old Testament Messiah (See http://israelsmessiah.com/prophecy/messiah/Y%27SHUAH.htm).  The Old Testament Scriptures tell us that this Messiah would, for example, sit on the throne of King David of Israel in Jerusalem and rule with a rod of iron.  Why would Messiah sit on the throne of David in Jerusalem if Israel were no more???  What people was David king of???

You should begin to see Origen’s and Augustine’s dilemma: national Israel needed to exist for the Bible to be right, but national Israel had been wiped off the map and there was no sign on earth that it was coming back.  They could either a) read the Bible literally and believe in faith that God would one day regather Israel as His Word says or b) create an entirely new system of interpretation that turned the Bible into allegories/metaphors rather than literal truths.

Tragically, they chose the latter approach.  They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the theology they created rather than the actual Word of God.  They allowed their human minds – partially due to their lack of faith and partially due to their intellectual arrogance – to triumph over what God prophetically foreordained would LITERALLY happen in the last days.  And in their error they replaced Israel with the Church (the allegorical approach known as “replacement theology”).

Allow me to present a champion of Amillennialist thought in the words of Covenant theologian Oswald T. Allis to describe premillennialsm:

“One of the most marked features of premillennialism in all its forms is the emphasis which it places on the literal interpretation of Scripture.  It is the insistent claims of its advocates that only when interpreted literally is the Bible interpreted truly”

As a premillennialist, I completely agree with Allis’ characterization.  Yes, that’s right; whatever you do, don’t be like those wicked premillennialists and actually try to interpret your Bible THE WAY GOD DELIVERED IT TO US.

What are the consequences of the Amillennialist “allegorical” approach to “understanding” the Bible.  Try this question from Pew: “Do many religions lead to God and eternal life?”  79% of Catholic Amillennialists and fully 83% of Protestant Amillennialists said YES.  Amazingly, amillennialist Catholics (79%) and amillennialist Mainline churches (83%) were the most likely of ALL respondents to abandon the orthodox Christian confession that only Jesus Christ gives eternal life.  And while their are many strong and staunch Christians who embrace amillennialist theology, once you embrace a hermeneutic approach that encourages highly allegorical interpretations of Scripture, you open the door wide to abandoning the doctrine of the deity of Christ, the substitutionary atonement and the bodily Resurrection.  All of these abandonments of genuine and orthodox Christianity have been done by the opponents of dispensationalism.  Whereas a literal interpretation of the Bible guarantees against such radical departures from the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

Allow me to provide a personal example: I am somewhat directionally impaired, certainly in comparison to my dad who has an incredible intuitive sense of direction.  Imagine my dad gives me directions to get me somewhere that I really need to get to.  He tells me which streets to take and which way to turn.  But I don’t take his directions “literally.”  Instead, I decide to “interpret” them in our classic Origen/Augustine allegorical approach.  Where will I end up???  NOT WHERE I’M SUPPOSED  TO END UP, THAT’S FOR SURE.

And so beginning in the fifth century, allegoricalism won, literalism (and TRUTH) lost.  Nothing needed to mean what it actually said; anything could merely be an allegory or a metaphor that stood for something else.  Except, that is, for God’s remnant who ALWAYS rightly believed that one day, God would fulfill His literal Word LITERALLY.  There were always Christians who joined Jews praying for Israel’s regathering.

God’s Word only makes sense when we let the Scriptures say what they literally clearly MEAN rather than whatever passes our fancy.  Want some examples?  Consider Zechariah 12:2-3 and 8-11:

“I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling. Judah will be besieged as well as Jerusalem.  On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves…  On that day the LORD will shield those who live in Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of the LORD going before them.  On that day I will set out to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem.  And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.  On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be as great as the weeping of Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo.”

Also consider passages like “Come,” they say, “let us destroy them as a nation, so that Israel’s name is remembered no more.” – Psalm 83:4

How many nations have experienced more rabid hatred than Israel?  How many peoples have experienced the hatred of the Holocaust, where 6 million Jews (that’s the entire Jewish population of Israel TODAY) were murdered in a campaign to systematically wipe out an entire race?  How many cities on earth are the holiest site of the three major world religions?  How many cities are as torn by demands to be the capitol of two different peoples?  What other city today is more likely to be “a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling” than Jerusalem???  When “Christians” assure us that “Israel” is just an allegory/metaphor for “the Church,” that ITSELF is hatred for Israel.

It is impossible for me to understand how somebody can read such passages and say that these prophecies aren’t being literally fulfilled in our time before our very eyes.  Just as it is impossible for me to understand how somebody can read about God being pierced and tell me that that wasn’t a literally-fulfilled prophecy of Messiah Jesus.

How about this one;” A NATION SHALL BE BORN IN A DAY.”  I read Isaiah 66:8 and all I can say is a miracle literally prophesied by God occurred on May 14, 1948.  I read Jeremiah 30:1-3 and Isaiah 43:5-7 which prophecy the regathering of Israel in the last days and I see literally fulfillment of God’s Word.  Most of all, I see the prophecy of the dry bones in Ezekiel 37:1-14 and I KNOW that God literally brought Israel to life from a state of death that had lasted for two thousand years.

What about this one: as the Book of Acts begins, and the disciples of Christ - soon to be His apostles – ask Jesus one last question before He ascends into heaven they ask:

 “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”  (Acts 1:6)

And I want you to carefully note here that Jesus most certainly does NOT say, “What are you talking about?  How have you missed the entire point of my Amillennialist teaching?!?!?”  Yes, ultimately the CLEAR LITERAL FACT OF SCRIPTURE is that God WILL restore the kingdom TO ISRAEL.  In fact, the entire MILLENNIUM is ALL ABOUT God fulfilling His promises to Israel.  Because He is a faithful God who fulfills His Word.

There are SO MANY prophesies just like these.  The Bible makes sense when it is allowed to simply speak for itself.  It becomes incomprehensible gibberish when it is defiled by man to say anything else.

Remember, there are two major views today: there is the amillenialist view, which is based on an allegorical interpretation of the Bible, and there is the premillenial view, which is based on a literal interpretation of Scripture.  There used to be another dominant view that has lost most of its credibility: it was called Postmillenialism - and it was also based on an allegorical approach.  According to Postmillenialism, the millennium was not a future state, but began to exist when Christ established the Church through His Twelve Apostles (i.e., the Book of Acts).  And according to Postmillenialism, the world was going to become better and better as the Church evangelized the world, until finally the world would be in a state of perfect Utopia.  And then – after the Church had made the world perfect – Jesus would come and usher in the eternal state.  Well, there were a few problems with that: the first was that it was human-centric rather than God-centric because it was not Jesus Christ saving the world for the Church, but the Church saving the world for Jesus Christ.  Do you see the problem?  The second problem was little things like the Civil War, WWI, WWII, the Cold War, etc.  You have to be a true ideologue to believe that the world is becoming better and better when in obvious fact it is clearly becoming worse and worse (as Premillennialists predicted would happen before the coming of the Antichrist and the Great Tribulation, for the record).

Too bad the Postmillenialists refused to read 2 Timothy 3:1-5 and understand it LITERALLY.

What’s the problem with Amillennialism?  As I described, it is basically the position formulated to explain a world where Israel did not exist (as the Bible said it had to in the last days).  And so the first Amillennialist interpreters assumed an allegorical approach to interpreting the Bible so that it did not have to mean what it said (and therefore couldn’t be wrong just because it wasn’t literally true).  With Israel out of the picture, the 1,000 Millennium in Revelation 20 was meaningless – because the purpose of the Millennium is for the Messiah of Israel to literally fulfill every prophecy given to Israel and the Jews.  For instance, there are prophecies that state that the Messiah of Israel, the Son of David, would rule and reign with a rod of iron on the throne of King David in Jerusalem.  There are prophecies that state that the entire world would worship the Messiah of Israel, and would come up to Jerusalem to do so.  There are prophecies that state that Israel would rebuild the Temple.  And there are MANY OTHER such prophecies.  But if there is no Israel, and Israel is merely an allegory representing the Church, well, those prophecies are merely allegories representing something else, too.  As is the Millennium itself.

You run into huge problems.  Beginning with the fact that all the things the Premillennialists said would happen (e.g., the literal rebirth of national Israel, the literal preparation for a last days Temple in Jerusalem, the rise of a unified Europe so that Antichrist could seize control, the rise of Russia as Gog and Magog, the rise of China as the kings of the East (as per Rev 16:12, Rev 9:13-16), as well as many other things, such as the rise of technology to make the mark of the beast (Rev 13:16-18) possible.  I mean, Amillennialists have been mocking literalist Premillennialists – particularly Charles Nelson Darby – for 150 years.  They don’t bother to struggle with the fact that all the stuff the man said would happen ACTUALLY HAPPENED.  Just as he said it would because he was just teaching what the Bible literally said would happen.

Here’s another example of how this terribly flawed allegorical approach leads astray: Read Isaiah 65:20: “Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; the one who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere child; the one who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed.”  What period does this refer to?

Let’s look at another problem with the denials of Amillennialism: the denial of the Millennium itself.

Edward J. Young is a widely respected Amillennialist, and takes the ridiculous position that Isaiah 65:20 describes the eternal heavenly state.  He has to do that, keep in mind, because he denies the literal 1,000 year Millennium reign of Christ on earth.  And in his well-known and influential commentary on Isaiah, he accordingly interprets “the one who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed” as meaning – and I quote – “Thus one of the blessings of the new age is that of longevity” (vol 3, p. 515).  But let me ask you a simple question: how old do you think you’ll be when you die in heaven???  This passage OBVIOUSLY does not refer to the eternal state, but rather to the Millennium.  The Book of Revelation mentions the Millennium ["Mille anum" = "thousand years"] SIX TIMES in Revelation 20:1-7. But Young cannot consider the Millennium at all because as an Amillennialist he has decided that all the passages in the Book of Revelation that refer to the thousand years of the Millennium are all “allegorical” and there IS no Millennium because there is no reason to have a Millennium because they have interpreted Israel and the eventual fulfillment of prophecies made to Israel out of the Bible.  So all that’s left is heaven.  And he is therefore forced to take an absurd conclusion.  The sad fact of the matter is that the Bible doesn’t drive the Amillennialist’s theology: his Amillennialist theology drives his world rather than what the Bible teaches.

Let me point out again just how incredibly foolish this passage becomes in the words of another top Amillennialist scholar J.G. Voss describing his Amillennialism:

“Amillennialism is that view of the last things which holds   that the Bible does not predict a ‘Millennium’ or period of worldwide peace   and righteousness on this earth before the end of the world.  Amillennialism   teaches that there will be a parallel and contemporaneous development of good   and evil — God’s kingdom and Satan’s kingdom — in this world, which will    continue until the second coming of Christ. At the second coming of Christ the   resurrection and judgment will take place, followed by the eternal order of   things — the absolute, perfect Kingdom of God, in which there will be no sin, suffering nor death.”

But again, THERE IS DEATH in Isaiah 65:20.  WHERE DOES THIS PASSAGE FIT INTO THE WORLD?  There is only ONE possible time period that makes any sense whatsoever: the Millennium.  But the Amillennialist denies the Millennium as any kind of literal time period (of one thousand years as the Bible tells us SIX TIMES in just ONE chapter) and is therefore reduced to idiocy simply because he refuses to believe the clear LITERAL truth of Scripture.

But the worst thing of ALL about Amillennialism – as I believe I have shown - is that the same hermeneutic that is used to justify the same theology that allows you to replace Israel with the Church allows you to replace marriage with homosexuality and precious babies with abortion.  Yes, these things are an abomination if you read your Bible literally.  So more and more “Christians” are saying, “Well, let’s just not read it literally then.”  That way we can have all the benefits of Christianity and all the benefits of secular humanism all at the same time.

Let’s make Christianity compatible with what the secular humanists and the atheists teach.  That way we won’t have any culture wars, you see.

Dinish D’Souza in his great book, “What’s So Great About Christianity” makes this point when he writes, “Unfortunately the central themes of some of the liberal churches have become indistinguishable from those of the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Organization for Women, and the homosexual rights movement.  Why listen to Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong drone on when you can get the same message and much more interesting visuals at San Francisco’s gay pride parade?  The traditional churches, not the liberal churches, are growing in America.” [pg. 4]

D’Souza in his previous paragraphs had documented all the statistics to prove that “fundamentalist” denominations and churches were EXPLODING not only in America but all over the world while mainline liberal denominations were shrinking and dying away.

THAT’S why “Christians” call themselves “Christian” while supporting one thing the Bible decries as evil after another.  And THAT is why fewer and fewer people are identifying themselves as “Christian” in the first place, as the mainline churches that still wield vast institutional influence in both wealth and media coverage die out while the Christianity they used to teach devolves into political correctness and secular humanism.  And the reason that the actual New Testament Christianity that takes the Word of God seriously is exploding around the world is because the Spirit of God is still at work in these last days just before the rapture and the beast of Revelation.

Check out the membership of the wicked Jesus Seminar: Robert Funk is Disciples of Christ – one of ‘the Seven Sisters” of mainline Protestant liberalism.  John Dominic Crossan is a Catholic.  Marcus Borg is an Anglican.  You go down the list of members and without fail you will find mainline liberal denominations that embrace allegorical Amillennialism or Postmillennialism and despise literalist Premillennialism as its members.  These are people who allegorized the Bible in order to accommodate the Word of God to their own massive unbelief – which as I’ve described was how allegoricalism began in the first place.

What has happened is that – without fail – the allegorical non-literal denominations have allowed, enabled and in fact ENCOURAGED their members to deny every key doctrine of the Christian faith.

Christians should be under the Bible as the Word of God to us.  Who is Jesus?  He is who the Bible says He is.  It is as simple as the song: “Jesus loves me, this I know, FOR THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO.”  And it is a result of abandoning the Bible as the literal Word of God that these denominations have increasingly abandoned the Christian faith altogether.

There’s a great metaphor to end on: the violin that was played as the Titanic sank just went for auction for the price of $1.5 million.  The last song played as the ship plunged into its icy grave was “Nearer My God To Thee.”  We can read this and understand that just as there are no atheists in foxholes, THERE ARE NO ATHEISTS ON SINKING SHIPS.  But look at it this way: the Titanic is an appalling example of stunning human arrogance and ignorance and the resulting refusal to understand clear literal warnings of impending doom.  Here’s a stat: they had 20 lifeboats for 1,178 people but they had 2,435 passengers and 892 crew (for a total of  3,327 souls).  Do the math. And as those heedless people perished after putting their trust in fools, they blithely played “Nearer My God To Thee.”  And what I’m saying is that THAT is what the Church is largely like today and it is what most Christians are like today.  The last days are upon us and they couldn’t be more ignorant or more deceived.  DON’T BE LIKE THAT.

I urge you to read the Bible.  And I urge you to simply let the Bible be the Word of God and allow it to speak to you as it was written to speak to you.

Was Jesus A Socialist? How ‘No’ Can You Go?

October 16, 2013

This is one of the worst lies of the Democrat Party, as the party of slavery (as in when Democrats fought a bitter Civil War to keep slavery that Republicans finally won before a Democrat murdered one of the greatest American presidents in revenge.  Oh, and then Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan as the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party); as the party of genocide (with more than fifty-five million innocent American babies murdered by Democrats so far); as the official party of sodomy and the party of Romans chapter one: that Jesus was somehow a Democrat who would have urinated all over a Bible and voted with them in their demonic agenda.

The liberals’ argument that Jesus was a socialist boils down to this syllogism: a) Jesus loved the poor.  b) Government welfare programs help the poor.  Ergo c) Jesus loved big government welfare programs.

It’s kind of like this syllogism, however: a) Jesus loves the sun.  b) The sun shone on Charles Manson’s murder spree.  Ergo c) Jesus loves Charles Manson’s murder spree.  The logic flow in both cases is simply non sequitur.

The problem is that there’s an implicit assumption that only government programs can help the poor.  Individual people have no right or responsibility to help the poor with their own money; therefore government should seize their money and redistribute it themselves.  There is an implicit assumption that totalitarian government is an inherent and intrinsic good and that individuals having any right to their own money is an inherent and intrinsic evil.

For the official record, no, JESUS WAS NOT A SOCIALIST.

Now, I could argue this two different ways.  I could argue that the “war on poverty” has been an incredibly expensive FAILURE that did NOTHING to reduce poverty.  I could document that by showing that the poverty rate was actually already declining prior to Democrats’ “war on poverty” and that the poverty rate actually went UP because of the welfare state that Democrats created.  I could also then document that welfare has been moral poison as we have trained – “indoctrinated” is a far better and more accurate term – a massive segment of our society if not an entire generation to view themselves as “victims” who are “entitled” to a lifetime of “government assistance.”

But that’s been done at length.  What hasn’t been dealt with nearly enough is the Democrats’ convenient method of barring Christianity from public discourse UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS CONVENIENT TO THEM.  And then all of a sudden you have the same people who have waged the “separation of church and state” war talking about how Jesus would have loved their big government welfare state.

The problem is that it is simply false.

St. Paul is the only figure in the Bible who said, “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1).  That’s a rather bold statement when you stop and think about it: would YOU put that in writing to all of YOUR friends?  But the man who wrote 2/3rds of the books in the New Testament turns out to be the most Christlike men who ever lived.  And what did he say about “welfare”???  Try this:

For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. — 2 Thessalonians 3:10

I submit to you that what Paul – and frankly therefore what Jesus Christ – taught is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Democrats teach and practice in their stupid and immoral laws.  Which is why the king of the depraved Democrat (which stands for “DEMOnic BureauCRAT”) has exploded the welfare state.  And it was not to help the poor or to provide health care; it was to create an entitlement mindset that would politically perpetuate the PARTY of entitlement forever – or at least until America collapses upon which time their “Cloward and Piven” strategy will kick in [for that see here and here and here and here and of yes HERE and here and here as I've been pointing this out since Obama took office.

How can you say that a welfare system in which sitting on your lazy butt and collecting the redistributed wealth of people who actually bother to WORK such that in 39 states receiving welfare pays BETTER than a secretary's job - and that in 47 states it pays better than a janitor's salary - is anything other than morally depraved?  What can you say about a system created by the Democrat Party in which people who bother to work are "suckers" as the labor participation rate drops beneath extinction levels and continues to and drop and drop some more under the Food Stamp president???

How can anybody with a single moral clue say that these are good things and not evil things???

How can you say that a nation whose debt now vastly exceeds the GDP of the entire planet is anything other than demonic???

But let's leave that aside for the rest of this article and instead examine what the BIBLE says about the role of human government in poverty.

We can go back to 1 Samuel chapter 8 to begin answering our question as to whether God loves giant human government to rule over everything and everyone:

and they said to [Samuel], “Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.”  But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the LORD.  The LORD said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.  “Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day– in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods– so they are doing to you also.  “Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them.”

So Samuel spoke all the words of the LORD to the people who had asked of him a king.  [God] said, “This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots.  “He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.  “He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers.  “He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants.  “He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants.  “He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work.  “He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants.  “Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”

Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and they said, “No, but there shall be a king over us…  1 Samuel 8:5-19

Did God want gargantuan human government?  The Bible is clear: NO.  Government is simply NOT the answer that the Bible points to as the solution to our problems.  Seven times in that passage you have your “he will take” showing us what a tax-and-cynically-spend-for-his-own-political-advantage President Obama would do.  And the result is that the people will ultimately “cry out in that day because of the king whom you have chosen for yourselves.”  And we’re already seeing that (it’s called ObamaCare and it is as failed as it is evil).

A professor of Old Testament studies comments on this passage and big government:

Under the monarchy, a centralized government was established and with it came luxurious living and a large bureaucracy, two things that required a larger expenditure, and therefore a heavier taxation.

Samuel warned the people about how the king and his government would operate. He told the people that the king would take their sons and make them soldiers. The king would put some of the people to forced labor to work on his farms, plowing and harvesting his crops. The king would conscript some of the people to make either weapons of war or chariots in which he could ride in luxury.

Samuel also said that the kings would conscript some women to work as beauticians and waitresses and cooks. He would conscript their best fields, vineyards, and orchards and give them over to his officials. He would tax their harvests and vintage to support his extensive bureaucracy. He would take their prize workers and best animals for his own use. He also would lay a tax on their flocks and all their property and in the end the people would be no better than slaves. Then Samuel warned the people that the day would come when they would cry in desperation because of the oppressive burden imposed upon them by their king (1 Samuel 8:10-18). The day came, the people cried, but it was too late.

And it is more tyrannous and more oppressive under King Obama today than it EVER was during the reigns of even the most wicked kings of Israel.

Here’s another question: is giving to aforementioned big government the same thing as giving to God, as Democrats believe?  Let’s let Jesus speak:

Then the Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap Him in what He said.  And they sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any.  “Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?”  But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, “Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites?  “Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax.” And they brought Him a denarius.  And He said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?”  They said to Him, “Caesar’s.” Then He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”  And hearing this, they were amazed, and leaving Him, they went away. — Matthew 22:15-22

Okay, so you can give to Obama.  OR YOU CAN GIVE TO GOD.  BUT GIVING TO OBAMA IS NOT THE SAME THING AS GIVING TO GOD.

What Democrats dishonestly and falsely tell us is that giving to the government – which they say redistributes the wealth and gives to the poor - IS giving to God.  God is the State and the State is God.  And Republicans are greedy and evil for not wanting to give to the State God to help the poor.  WRONG.  JUST ASK JESUS.  Paying your exorbitant taxes and rendering to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s is a very different thing from rendering to God the things that are God’s.

Here’s another one: consider the poor widow in Luke 21 and tell me where Jesus enlisted big government programs to help her:

As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury.  He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins.  “I tell you the truth,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others.  All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.” — Luke 21:1-4

Did Jesus demand the creation of a giant welfare state to care for this poor woman?  No.  Did Jesus condemn that this poor widow should be “forced” to give while rich people got away with not giving enough, etc.?  No.  Jesus praised this poor widow for giving all she had – NOT TO THE STATE BUT TO GOD.

In fact, I submit to you that NOWHERE IN THE ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT does Jesus or any apostle or anybody else for that matter exalt the goodness of government or call for a welfare state.  In fact, the ONLY place in the entire New Testament that government is described as anything other than evil is in Romans 13:4, in which their role is to do something that many Democrats REFUSE to do: punish wrongdoers.  The only “wrongdoers” Obama wants to punish are tea party Republicans via his IRS sledgehammer.  If you foolishly think that Democrats want wrongdoers punished, consider California where liberal judges dictated that the state must provide exorbitant health care to inmates – (frankly better than what LAW-ABINDING CITIZENS receive) – and release thousands of violent criminals to prevent “inhumane overcrowding.”  If you want to find any passages at all on the government caring for the poor, you have to turn to the THEOCRACY of Old Testament Israel.  In a theocracy, for the record, we’d be STONING to death people who believe in homosexual marriage and abortion.  Now, if Democrats truly want a theocracy – and the moral laws that go with it – fine by me.  But of course they DON’T, do they?  They want only what they want, and hypocritically ignore everything that they don’t like.  They cynically use the Bible to “justify” things the Bible actually decries while ignoring the parts they don’t like.  And yes, hypocrisy DEFINES their quintessential essence.

You need to understand something very important, because with Democrats it’s always a bait and switch: should we care for the poor?  You’re darned right we should care for the poor.  Does that mean we should have a giant welfare state?  Absolutely NOT.

Let’s again see what Jesus has to say about this:

13 When Jesus heard what had happened, he withdrew by boat privately to a solitary place. Hearing of this, the crowds followed him on foot from the towns. 14 When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick.

15 As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, “This is a remote place, and it’s already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food.”

16 Jesus replied, “They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.”

17 “We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish,” they answered.

18 “Bring them here to me,” he said. 19 And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. 20 They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 21 The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children. — Matthew 14:13-21

Allow me to put it in crystal clear terms: if Democrats were even remotely CLOSE to being correct in their socialist views, Jesus would have listened to His disciples and said, “They need to go to King Herod.  We need a giant welfare system that will empower the government to grow gigantic and put half of the people on food stamps.”  He says the exact opposite: he says, “YOU feed them.”  YOU, as in individual people and NOT the State.

What does St. Paul have to say about being angry over being poor?

Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am.  I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need.  I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. — Philippians 4:11-13

For the factual record, “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me” is NOT a reference to Obama or his giant socialist welfare state.  Paul also doesn’t in any way, shape or form argue that it’s unjust or unfair or immoral for the rich to be rich and the poor to be poor, nor does he call upon any government to seize the wealth of the rich and give it to the poor.  What Paul says is that he has learned to be content in whatever circumstances he is in – unlike Democrats who are bitter and angry and whiny if they don’t get to have their neighbor’s stuff whether or not said neighbor worked eighty hours a week to get that stuff or not.

Let’s contrast Paul’s attitude with being content in poverty to Karl Marx’s.  And then let’s ask the question, who does the Democrat Party agree with more, St. Paul or St. Marx???  The essence of the Democrat Party today truly is Marxism, rather than anything even remotely close to the teachings of Jesus.  I’ve written about this in the past, so I will merely quote myself:

Atheism and a spirit of hostility and hatred toward God and toward religion is at the very core of Marxism.  In the words of Karl Marx:

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.

What did Karl Marx mean by this?

Basically, Marx taught that the world is divided into the haves and the have-nots – which is everywhere being shouted around us today.  And the have-nots were being oppressed by the haves.  But rather than the people rising up in rage and seizing what Marx declared was theirs by force as Marx wanted them to, the people were instead happy in their religion, which according to Marx had been invented by the rich to keep the proletariat in bondage.  Marx acknowledged that in his day, religion was the order of the world; but he determined – and in fact succeeded – in imposing a NEW world system.  Since religion is nothing but an illusion, and materialism is all there actually is, the happiness that the people had in their Christianity was nothing more than a narcotic that kept them in bondage.  The only “real” reality is economic reality.  And therefore the solution presented by Marx was for the people to set aside their shackles of religion and rise up in a spirit of rage and take what was theirs by force.  Only then could the people have actual, “material” happiness.

The eight commandment in the Holy Bible is “You shall not steal,” and the tenth commandment is, “You shall not covet.”  Both ultimately flow from violation of the first commandment, “You shall have no other gods before Me.”  Marxism – as Marx acknowledged – overthrew this system and imposed one in which the State replaced God.  And where God in the Bible had commanded man NOT to covet anything that belonged to his neighbor, Marxism was in fact BASED on coveting.  “Hey, look at those damn rich people!  They’ve got everything!  Let’s take their stuff!”  Because apart from that looking over the wall at your neighbor’s house and coveting what he had and becoming angry that he or she had things that you did not have, Marxism never gets off the ground.

God said, “Thou shalt not covet.  Thou shalt not steal.”  And Marxists – and frankly liberals and Democrats – declared instead,  “Thou shalt covet thy neighbor’s possessions, and thou shalt seize them and redistribute them.”

So much for Democrats ever learning to be content in their circumstances; because they have been indoctrinated to be the exact opposite of what the Bible told them.

The fact of the matter is that the same Democrats who have wickedly tried for years to purge God out of every facet of government are wickedly trying to steal from God and seize and “redistribute” wealth that belongs to HIM.  They not only know how to use other peoples’ money better than the people who actually worked to earn it; THEY KNOW HOW TO USE IT BETTER THAN GOD HIMSELF.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have both demonized the GOP as “anarchists,” which means they hate human government.  Okay, fine.  But Democrats are statolatrists who worship human government in place of God and hate GOD.

Having established that the Bible NOWHERE supports the Democrats’ depraved view of the totalitarian welfare state, allow me to point out that the biblical word “hypocrites” is in fact the best description of the Democrat Party that there is.

Let’s look at our two greatest Democrats and see how they lived this out, starting with the Obamas:

In 2002, the year before Obama launched his campaign for U.S. Senate, the Obamas reported income of $259,394, ranking them in the top 2 percent of U.S. households, according to Census Bureau statistics. That year the Obamas claimed $1,050 in deductions for gifts to charity, or 0.4 percent of their income. The average U.S. household totaled $1,872 in gifts to charity in 2002, according to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

The national average for charitable giving has long hovered at 2.2 percent of household income, according to the Glenview-based Giving USA Foundation, which tracks trends in philanthropy. Obama tax returns dating to 1997 show he fell well below that benchmark until 2005, the year he arrived in Washington.

Both Obama and his wife, Michelle,  declined to respond to questions about their charitable donations.

Socialism is love of other people’s money.  And ONLY when it comes to seizing other people’s money and cynically and greedily bankrolling their massive bureaucracies can we talk of Democrats in terms of “love.”

Allow me to contrast Democrat Obama with the Republican whom the American people rejected because he wasn’t “socialist” enough:

“[D]uring a comparable period before Obama and Romney were running for president, Romney’s giving probably was at least ten times Obama’s as a percentage of their incomes, and possibly much more.”

In other words, even when Obama was president of the United States, he wasn’t even one-tenth as personally generous with his own money as Mitt Romney was (and was over his entire life as opposed to the Obamas, who were stingy, greedy, nasty people until they started campaigning themselves for public office.

But maybe that’s just an anomaly.  Surely the Democrat Vice President must be better (I mean, it would be hard for him to be worse, right?):

Looking at the ten-year total of Biden’s giving, one percent would have been $24,500. One half of one percent would have been $12,250. One quarter of one percent would have been $6,125. And one eighth of one percent would have been $3,062 — just below what Biden actually contributed.

“The average American household gives about two percent of adjusted gross income,” says Arthur Brooks, the Syracuse University scholar, soon to take over as head of the American Enterprise Institute, who has done extensive research on American giving. “On average, [Biden] is not giving more than one tenth as much as the average American household, and that is evidence that he doesn’t share charitable values with the average American.”

Oops.  I guess the person greed and stinginess of the Obamas as they cry out for more people to have more of their wealth seized by the divine State is the model of Democrat generosity, after all.

Dick Cheney gave 78% of his wealth to charity.  John McCain, for the record, gave 28% of his income to charity.  Let’s just call Republicans what they are: BETTER HUMAN BEINGS.

The trend follows nationally by the way: Republicans are much more generous than liberals.  At least when you’re talking about with their own money, rather than with other people’s money.

It’s simply a fact: the party that is true to the Word of God in terms of human life and sexual perversion is also the most true to it in being generous to the poor and the needy.

Democrats are a people who selfishly, greedily, bitterly covet and then empower their government to steal in the name of the people.  And what they end up with is a massive bureaucracy ran in the interests of the Democrat Party agenda rather than any real help for the poor.  As an example, ObamaCare was NEVER about caring for the poor or about providing healthcare to those who couldn’t afford it.  Not only are the deductibles in ObamaCare so high that nobody will be able to afford to get the dwindling health care resources in the aftermath of this terrible “Affordable Care Act”  (see also here), but ObamaCare has been used as a cynical attempt to drive religious organizations from providing help to the needy so that the socialist State is all that is left for increasingly desperate people to turn to.

ObamaCare was ALL about “the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to  put the legislation together to control the people,” just as a Democrat once inadvertently said it was.  All it was ever about was more power for the State God.  And Democrats will feed their God as many human sacrifices as necessary to “control the people” and give their God the State more power and more control and more ability to pick winners and losers.

Jesus was someone who did not look to the state or to human government to provide for ANYTHING.  Rather, HE was the provider, the healer, the giver.

The Democrat Party has been at war with God and with Judeo-Christianity and with the Bible and yes, with Jesus Christ for the past fifty years.  And whenever they bother to talk about Jesus (or even ALLOW talk about Jesus under their communist separation of church and state dogma) – and see here - they profoundly misrepresent Him and remake Him into their image which was always the essence of idolatry.

The notion that God wanted the United States of America to plunge into the black hole of demonic debt and literally make their own children – at least the ones they didn’t murder in the hellhole of abortion – debt slaves is frankly about as evil and demonic as it gets.

Now, having said all of this, allow me to address how government could take a giant step in the right direction if liberals would just allow it.

In the 1930s, there was something that many conservatives (I being VERY conservative, I assure you) would approve of today: the Works Public Administration – at least if it were done apolitically rather than being cynically exploited for ideological party [read "Democrat"] gain.

People who refuse to work should NOT eat.  We should not be taking care of these people, let alone creating giant bureaucracies who literally have conferences desperately searching for ways to get more and more people and groups of people hooked on the government welfare dole.  At the same time, there are many people who WOULD work if given the chance, but because of various factors (e.g., medical condition, children, less than ideal resumes), they don’t know how to get started and frankly don’t have much hope that they could get a job even were they to go to every business in town applying.

As a conservative, I would be all for an end to the “welfare state” and the beginning of a new “works public administration.”  People without jobs could come to the government to work and be PUT TO WORK on various public projects.  The government could also hire these people out to businesses that needed temporary assistance.  Those with physical disabilities could go into the administration end or into the childcare end, for example.

There is also the military.  People who can serve should serve.  We only need so many soldiers, but there are a lot of outlets in which out-of-work people could be put to work.

And having a job and demonstrating the ability to show up on time and simply WORKING would be a huge help to many.

Granted, there are people (for example, people with severe mental conditions) who simply cannot work; but these are the vast minority of Americans who don’t have jobs and frankly haven’t had jobs for years.  People who cannot work should be taken care of; frankly no one should starve to death ANYWHERE, let alone in America.  But if we could end the cycle of dependency, the people would be better and the nation would be stronger.

Human beings were created to work.  We need it physically, psychologically, emotionally and spiritually.  People who work for their own bread rather than holding out their hands for a check or an EBT card will be far better off than the current Democrat-imposed alternative.

Saul Alinsky Was RIGHT In The Liberal’s Book He Dedicated To Lucifer: Christians Need To Start Living Up To The Book Of Rules

August 2, 2013

I was working out in my gym training legs.  I noted that the hack squat machine was in use, so I went over to the squat rack.  I did five good, hard sets.  During that time, the guy on the hack squat machine had done maybe ONE set because he was so occupied with his cell phone and his texting.  Right next to a sign that reads, “Cell phone use is prohibited while using equipment.”

Well, I wanted to use that hack squat machine, but the rude dude was still wasting his time on it.  So I went to the seated calf machine and did six good, hard sets of calves.

You guessed it: when I was done with that piece of equipment, the rude dude was still wasting his – and worse yet MY – time on the hack squat machine.

So I went over to the leg press machine right next to the hack squat machine.  And I was mostly done with the five sets on that before Mr. Cell Phone finally left.

Because I was right next to the hack squat machine, I was able to readily note two other facts: he didn’t re-rack his weight – in spite of the fact that he was literally “exercising” directly under a giant banner with two foot high letters that read, “Re-Rack Your Weight”; and he didn’t wipe down the machine after using it in spite of the sign right next to the banner that read, “Wipe down your equipment after use.”

Basically, there was no possible way this guy could have been more rude or more discourteous.

Well, here’s the rub: this guy, Mr. Cell Phone, is, rather amazingly, a “pastor.”  His church is virtually right next door to the gym.

I thought about confronting him for his unbelievable rudeness, but he’s a black guy.  And you know how THAT tends to go now that Obama has healed the racial divide.

The Bible tells Christians to confront brothers who are acting shamefully.  But tragically, in these slimes that are the times, it’s seriously risky to dare to treat certain people like “brothers.”  And I didn’t want to be the source of a rift – no matter how right I would have been – that very likely would have degenerated into a charge of “racism.”

All I can tell you is that man publicly shamed the name of Jesus Christ.  And it doesn’t really matter what color this “reverend’s” skin is when he acts like that man acted.  At least, not to me.

I wear a Cross or a Star of David every time I work out – and frankly virtually every time I appear in public.  There have been more than a few times that I’ve thought about saying or doing something and changed my mind because of the symbols I was wearing around my neck.

So I don’t even BRING my phone into the gym; I ALWAYS re-rack my weight every time I use a piece of equipment; and I wipe down the equipment I’m using TWICE – once before I use it (because there are a lot of rude people like Reverend Cell Phone) and once again after I’m finished.

I try to publicly live up to that cross – even though I have to confess that I’m not thinking very nice thoughts about the incredibly rude and ungracious people all around me.

When I gave my life to Jesus Christ, I very quickly quit smoking.  Why?  Because I thought of the image of myself trying to tell somebody about how Jesus Christ changed my life with a stinking cigarette hanging out of my tobacco-stained teeth, and it was enough of a visceral disconnect that I knew what I had to do.

More recently, I’ve lost over seventy pounds over the last 11 months.  And one of the driving forces to my success was the fact that I am named “Michael” and it was time to start LOOKING like the archangel I was named after.  Because in this postmodern, secular humanist culture that Hollywood liberalism has bequeathed us with, how you look very often determines more than anything else how people perceive you.  And I recognized that it was time for me in these last days before the Antichrist that it was long-past time for me to shape up in every way I could.

But all that said, it’s time for me to have my own mea culpa: I have too often resorted to name-calling in my articles and in my responses (to hateful comments).  And I was wrong to do that.

Anyone who has read much of what I’ve written has likely come upon terminology such as “turds” and “cockroaches” in my descriptions of the left.  I’ve been called much, MUCH worse myself – usually before my own use of such terms – but that doesn’t justify my behavior.

I’ve also been guilty of calling liberals “idiots” or “stupid.”  And while it is true that many liberals ARE ignorant and frankly stupid people, it is also quite true that some of the most brilliant minds routinely believe the most stupid things, such that George Orwell pointed out that “There are some ideas so absurd that only an ‘intellectual’ could believe them,” because no ordinary man was capable of being such a fool.  And thus it is not always easy to tell whether you are talking to a “stupid idiot” or a “brilliant idiot.”

I won’t call liberals “stupid” anymore because they may be very intelligent people who are merely a) evil and b) deluded.  Which is to say they might be very brilliant moral idiots – but not “stupid.”

Saul Alinsky – in his “Rules for Radicals” (which was dedicated to Satan and which Obama once taught in his days as a community organizer) has one rule in particular that liberals have loved to apply to me:

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

I’ve had many liberals follow up on my response to hateful comments by liberals such as this one - “You are such a moron. I cannot waste anymore of my time talking to someone who is lost in an alternate universe. I only hope that you get hit by a truck or die a horrible death. You are an enemy of America scumbag. THATS A FACT” – by attacking me as a terrible Christian in my response.

I’ve noted to these liberals who follow the crash and then pile on:

It’s kind of strange.  I wrote an article never ONCE hoping anybody got hit by a truck or died a horrible death.  I never degenerated into that level of viciousness.  And nobody else did either.  Because that level of pure hate doesn’t happen UNTIL THE LIBERALS SHOW UP.

Here’s the liberal game plan for those who haven’t learned it.  Liberal A comes along and just viciously personally attacks the conservative.  Often they show up in rabid packs and just dump hate on the Republican.  And then, when the conservative responds with anger of his own, well, that’s when liberals like YOU show up.  The sanctimonious, self-righteous ones who pointedly ignore the hate that their own side just dished out and instead personally denounce the “hate” of the conservative.  That hateful, divisive conservative shouldn’t have responded angrily to all that liberal hate.  It’s wrong.  It’s evil, even.  And that sanctimonious, self-righteous liberal often proceeds to then attack the Republican’s Christianity.  Which is of course an even MORE hateful attack than the liberal haters that got the conservative to respond with anger, of course, but what does that matter?

And if you were to keep reading Saul Alinsky’s book where he gives his rule to “make opponents live up to their own book of rules”, you find that this leftist who called upon his fellow liberals to demonize others as evil really couldn’t have cared LESS about morality applied to himself or his liberal movement:

The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means. It is this species  of man who so vehemently and militantly participated in that clasically  idealistic debate at the old League of Nations on the ethical differences  between defensive and offensive weapons. Their fears of action drive them to  refuge in an ethics so divorced for the politics of life that it can apply only  to angels, not men. — P.26

One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s  personal interest in the issue. — P.26

The fifth rules of the ethics of means and ends is that concern with ethics  increases with the number of means available and vice versa. To the man of  action the first criterion in determining which means to employ is to assess  what means are available. Reviewing and selecting available means is done on a  straight utilitarian basis — will it work? Moral questions may enter when one  chooses among equally effective alternate means. — P.32

The seventh rule of ethics and means and ends is that generally success or  failure is a mighty determinant of ethics. The judgment of history leans heavily  on the outcome of success and failure; it spells the difference between the  traitor and the patriotic hero. There can be no such thing as a successful  traitor, for if one succeeds he becomes a founding father. P.34

The ninth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that any effective means is  automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical. — P.35

The tenth rule of the ethics of rules and means is that you do what you can with  what you have and clothe it in moral arguments. …the essence of Lenin’s speeches  during this period was “They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and  for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be  through the bullet.” And it was. — P.36-37

Eight months after securing independence (from the British), the Indian National  Congress outlawed passive resistance and made it a crime. It was one thing for  them to use the means of passive resistance against the previous Haves, but now  in power they were going to ensure that this means would not be used against  them. — P.43

All effective actions require the passport of morality. — P.44

And just to ensure that any true morality NOT be pursued by the left, Alinsky wrote:

With very rare exceptions, the right things are done for the wrong reasons. It  is futile to demand that men do the right thing for the right reason — this is a  fight with a windmill. — P.76

So, the bottom line is that liberals acknowledge that they HAVE no “book of rules,” no true morality, and that “morality” for them is “a means to an end” to be invented and reinvented as it suits them in order to attack their enemies.  “Morality” and the Word of God become nothing more than a tool for hypocrites to attack those who actually TRY to follow morality and the Word of God.

That’s just a fact.

But you know what?  It doesn’t matter.  Because, as Saul Alinsky points out, unlike liberals, unlike secular humanists, yes, unlike Democrats, we DO have a “book of rules” that should be our guide to live by.  Unlike the Lucifer-Loving Left, we actually BELIEVE in morality and strive to be moral, decent people.

As I reflected upon the absolutely despicable example of “Reverend Cell Phone,” I had to face up to my own “issues.”  And yes, I tend to get very angry with hypocrites and slanderers who constantly hurt others with vile policies that they then want to exempt themselves from.  And just as one of MANY examples are the Democrat politicians and their staffs, the labor unions, the IRS workers, who – after fighting to impose ObamaCare on everyone else – now fight even harder to exempt themselves from what they just inflicted on everybody else.  I knew that this demonic piece of horror would hurt people.  And, yes, I am beyond LIVID that the very people who imposed this demon-possessed evil on everyone else would say, “Good enough to force on thee, but not good enough for me.”

I am angry at the people who are working so hard to do so much evil, who want to bring the Antichrist and the Mark of the Beast upon the rest of us.

And in my anger, I sinned.  And I fell prey to the trap of the rules for radicals devoted to Satan.

I’m going to try from now on not to do that.  I’m going to try very hard to – unlike liberals, unlike secular humanists, unlike Democrats – to actually LIVE UP TO THE BOOK OF RULES.

The Bible says in Ephesians 4:26, “Be angry, yet do not sin.”  We’re not told NOT to be angry.  We’re told that JESUS was angry (Mark 3:5).  And anger can be positive when it is harnessed and controlled in righteousness.  Anger is a “stimulant” that can get you off your rear end DOING something rather than standing idly by gaping while terrible things are happening all around you.  But you can’t allow anger to master you even while hypocrites are actively trying to bait you into it.

I’m going to quit my name calling, even when I’m called so many names.

But I’m going to replace name-calling with HONEST and ACCURATE DESCRIPTIONS of the people who are doing so much evil in these last days before the beast comes.

To wit, I’m no longer going to label Democrats and liberals as “turds” or “cockroaches.”  Because, very technically speaking, these people are neither insects nor are they composed entirely of fecal matter.  Rather, I’m going to call them what they truly technically ARE: government worshiping baby killing marriage-and-family murdering sodomy-lovers.  Because that is simply a fact.

I’m going to stop resorting to name-calling and start using the actual TRUTH to fight for the truth.

When you call somebody a name like a “turd” or a “cockroach,” you are no longer operating on factual grounds.  A liberal can respond, “I am not a turd.  I am not a cockroach.  You’re a liar and you’re hateful.”  But when you simply call these people what they truly ARE – and that is WORSE and more shameful than ANY name you can call them – well, they can call you “hateful” all day long, but that is only because they are people who find “truth” as “hateful.”  But given the facts that they ARE for government that replaces God; that they ARE for the continued holocaust of babies that has murdered more than 55 million children so far; that they ARE for a radical redefinition of marriage and family that has progressively eroded and undermined both marriage and the family; and that they ARE for homosexual sodomy along with numerous other perversions that are specifically condemned as “ABOMINATIONS” by the Word of God that Saul Alinsky wants us to follow, well, they can hardly call me a liar.

There’s a tactical aspect to this decision as well.  I’ll get one liberal who uses all kinds of terrible names on me and just dumps hate on me – literally wishing my death.  And I respond with my own anger.  Then comes the next liberal who is just shocked and appalled that any human being on earth could be so “hateful” as a conservative – conveniently (of course hypocritically) overlooking the liberals who wrote far uglier things.  And of course, given that this second attack from the liberals doesn’t employ such labels as “turd” or “cockroach,” they assign themselves the moral high ground when they call me “hateful.”

So on the one hand I am a) going to start trying to follow what the Bible teaches on hate and anger and b) just not give liberals an easy way to attack me literally about my religion (mind you, it would be a TERRIBLE thing according to secular humanist political correctness for me to attack someone of a different religion qua religion).  It’s never wrong when they do it; it’s always wrong when I do what they do.  But that doesn’t matter, because what matters is that I WILL TRY TO LIVE UP TO MY BOOK OF RULES.  The fact that liberals don’t HAVE a “book of rules” and the fact that they are hypocrites is immaterial.

Jesus famously guaranteed to His disciples that the world would hate them because they hated Jesus first (Matthew 10:22 cf. John 15:18).  And why does the world hate Jesus so?  Because (as Del Tackett so brilliantly pointed out in the Truth Project), Jesus came to testify to the Truth.  And that everyone – and only those – who would be on the side of truth would listen to Jesus (John 18:37).  And what is the truth about these people who hate us?   Their deeds are evil (John 3:19) and the truth is not in them (1 John 2:4).

Liberals can slander me any way they want to.  I don’t follow them.  They can label me as a “hater” because I declare the truth about them and they hate the truth.  And they hate the truth because they are children of the devil and enemies of everything that is right (Acts 13:10).

I’m going to declare the truth and ONLY declare the truth, and let the truth be my defense.  Which is why in hindsight I realized I should have got in that bogus pastor’s face and pointed out how incredibly rude he’d just been and what a lousy example of a Christian – let ALONE a “pastor” – he was and called upon him to either live like a Christian or at least to stop calling himself one.

‘Brain Dead’ Woman Wakes Up As Her Organs Are About To Be Harvested (100s of Millions of Babies Know Exactly How THAT Feels)

July 9, 2013

This was a rather interesting development in “the assured results of medical science”:

‘Dead’ woman wakes up as her organs are about to be harvested
Woman had been pronounced dead by medical staff and parents had agreed to donate her organs
Heather Saul   Tuesday 09 July 2013

A ‘dead’ woman awoke on an operating table in America just as her organs were about to be harvested for donation.

Colleen Burns had been pronounced clinically dead by medical staff following an overdose of Xanax and Benadryl, The Post Standard newspaper reported, and after arriving at the St. Joseph’s Hospital Health Centre in Syracuse was declared a victim of “cardiac death”. Doctors had notified her family and they agreed to switch off her life support machine and donate her organs.

The 41-year-old had in-fact slipped into a deep coma as a result of her drug overdose and her condition had been mis-diagnosed as irreversible brain damage.

When Ms Burns was wheeled into surgery where her organs would be removed for transplants, her eyes opened in response to the bright lights in the operating theatre, causing doctors to immediately call off the procedure. The mother-of-three was discharged from hospital two weeks later.

According to Ms Burns mother Lucille Kuss, not only were medical staff at the hospital unaware that she was alive and demonstrating signs of brain activity, but doctors never explained exactly what had lead them to incorrectly believe her daughter had died. “They were just kind of shocked themselves,” she said. “It came as a surprise to them as well.”

The family did not sue and the hospital was charged just $6,000 by the State Department in September 2012. They were also ordered to hire a consulting neurologist to teach staff how to accurately diagnose brain death, as a nurse had performed a reflex test on her feet before the procedure by scraping a finger across the bottom of her foot. The toes allegedly curled downwards.

According to the paper, Dr Charles Wetli, a New Jersey based forensic pathologist said that Ms Burns reactions should have immediately suggested that she was alive and responsive.  “Dead people don’t curl their toes”, he said. “And they don’t fight against the respirator and want to breathe on their own.”

The case was only investigated by the state in March 2010 when the newspaper requested information under the Freedom of Information Act. A review by the Health Department found that key tests had not been performed to scan for brain activity or assess if her condition was improving.

In a report produced by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, it said: “Intensive objective peer review and root cause analysis of the case was not done by the hospital’s quality assurance program until prompted by the Department of Health.”

The investigation did find, however that St. Joseph’s had acceptable organ procurement policies and procedures.

Kerri Howell, spokeswoman for the hospital, told the newspaper: “St. Joseph’s goal is to provide the highest quality of care to every patient, every time.

”These policies were followed in this case, which was complicated in terms of care and diagnosis.

“We’ve learned from this experience and have modified our policies to include the type of unusual circumstance presented in this case.”

16 months after being wrongly pronounced dead, her daughter committed suicide.

“She was so depressed that it really didn’t make any difference to her,” her mother told the Post Standrad.

Let me be crystal clear: any argument that went, “fetuses don’t have brain waves, so ergo sum they are not living human beings” were just entirely refuted.

For one thing, human beings are NOT our brains.  We are, rather, the kind of creatures that HAVE brains.  We were created in the image of God.  God is a Soul, not a giant Brain.  Whether or not we have “brain waves” is utterly immaterial to our humanity and our dignity and our incommensurable worth.  And on the medical front, in support of this fact, we have had patients who literally had an entire half of their brains removed.  Do you know what happened?  First allow me to tell you what did NOT happen: what did NOT happen was that a patient who had had the “emotional” part of her brain removed did not suddenly become a Vulcan of pure reason.  Rather, what happened is that the half of her brain that remained compensated for the half that had just been removed, such that she was able to be completely normal.  I can literally cite dozens of cases just like this.  Just a few:

http://www.themedguru.com/articles/girl_with_half_brain_removed_returns_home_another_medical_victory-8617385.html

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/health/Frisco-Girl-Has-Brain-Tumor-Removed-Through-Nose-144467265.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MKNsI5CWoU

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewnews.php?id=178637

Furthermore, the idea that “medical science” should get to decide who has a brain or a brain wave pattern and therefore who gets to live and who gets to die has now been proven to be absurd – and the only people who think that ought to be assumed to have no functioning brain waves and get THEIR organs harvested while they sit there staring at you.

Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961.  Just maybe not in America.  If his mother had had an abortion anytime prior to that date, Barack Obama would have been killed.  To try to argue that, no, a “potential” Barack Obama would have been killed is simply idiotic.  The ACTUAL Barack Obama would have been killed.  And if you doubt this, please produce just ONE “Barack Obama” who is out there floating around right now in some woman’s tummy bearing the exact DNA match of “Barack Obama.”  In all of the entirely of human history – and this according to the most assured medical science we’ve got – there has only been ONE “Barack Obama” with “Barack Obama’s DNA” in all of human history and the entire history of planet earth.  Abortion would have killed Barack Obama, just as it in fact HAS murdered hundreds of millions of innocent human beings.  Such that, yes, if you tell me that abortion only results in the death of a “potential” human being, I would be completely correct to assume – you know, by your own damn standards – that you clearly don’t have any functioning brain waves and to harvest your organs while you stand there idiotically staring at me.

It is a fact as amazing as it is tragic that the “Democrat” Party went from justifying slavery with the argument that it was up to the individual slaveholder whether or not he or she chose to have slaves to their modern argument that it was up to the mother whether or not she wanted to have her baby.  The implicit assumption in both cases was/is that the black person or the baby is not a legitimate human being and therefore ought not possess any rights of his or her own.  And thus did Democrats go from evil to evil, using the same identical argument to justify the two most wicked things ever allowed in America.

The Nazis loved abortion, just as Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, identified with the Nazis just out of her racism.  The Nazis and everyone just like them love to be able to arbitrarily define whatever group of people they want are “not human” and therefore worthy of death.

Case closed.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers