Archive for the ‘Religion and Culture’ Category

Who Is Jesus … REALLY?

July 21, 2014

I grew up going to church.  I’m talking about from my earliest childhood: from the nursery right into Sunday School.

And yet I didn’t actually become a Christian until I was fifteen years old.

I can easily explain why: I had never, until that fifteenth year, truly been introduced to a Jesus I was willing to truly follow.

Oh, the Jesus the kindly Sunday School teachers described was nice enough.  The pictures they had of Him on the walls of the Sunday School room were illustrative: a nice, rather wimpy-looking man surrounded by a bunch of children.  Oh, and He always seemed to be carrying a lamb around His shoulders.

It wasn’t that I “rejected” that Jesus; it was rather more of, “That’s nice,” and I continued on going about my life.

I was, I suppose, too young to ask the questions that I existentially needed the answers to.  Or at least, I was too lazy to ask them, anyway.

Well, between my fifteenth and sixteenth year on this earth I went to a Christian camp called “Forest Home” in California.  And it was there that I first really understood who Jesus was and saw in Him someone for whom I would lay down everything and follow.

The Jesus I welcomed as my Savior and as my Lord was a Man, a tough Man, a bold Man, a Man who stood up for God and refused to back down even when hell itself got in His face.  He stood up to everyone and to everything that was wrong about the world He confronted, from the culture to the government to even His own followers.  This Jesus was the ultimate Hero, who came to save helpless people who otherwise would have perished.

Who is our Jesus, who is our Christ?

According to Colossians, He is the image of the invisible God, which means that Jesus is literally the answer to the question, “What is God like?”  The Gospel of John in the eighteenth verse of chapter one says, “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”  And that verb “explained” is the word from which we get “exegesis.”  It means, “to show the way, to explain.”  That’s what Jesus did: He explained and literally showed us God.  That’s why when Philip said,”Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us,” Jesus responded, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father.”

St. John explained the relationship between God the Father and God the Son in his introduction:

“In the beginning was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was in the beginning with God.  All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.  In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.”

Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses tragically distort the true nature of Christ and in so doing preach “another Jesus” from the Jesus God’s Word presents.  They insert the article “a” to teach that the Word was merely “a god” rather than God.  They artificially manufacture a rule that literally excludes them from ever receiving a higher degree in biblical language.  And they further show their hypocrisy by applying their “rule” only when Jesus’ deity is ascribed.  For instance, by the same “rule,” their translation would say, “In a beginning” rather than “In the beginning.”  Which just gets downright weird, doesn’t it?

What St. John did in Greek was to perfectly differentiate between the Father and the Son.  There was a heresy called Modalism that taught that the Father WAS the Son, like the same actor who put on different hats to play different roles during a play.  Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses demand an article - a “the” – in the Greek for the translation to be “… and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”  But if that article were present, the translation would declare Modalism, that “the Word was God” in exclusion to the Father also being God.  Instead, what St. John is teaching is that Christ, the Word, the Son is God, was WITH the Father from the very beginning, but is not numerically identical with God the Father.  John 1:1 is actually a masterful construction that precisely differentiates the true Jesus between two heresies – the heresy of Modalism that presents God as an actor wearing three hats and the heresy of Arianism that teaches Jesus as a lesser being who was merely a creation rather than truly being God.

The Word of God teaches that it was Christ who created the world: “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”  And therefore, logically, it is IMPOSSIBLE for Christ to have Himself been a created being.  How could Christ create “all things” and have “all things come into being by Him” and He Himself be created???  It’s logically absurd.  And so Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses manufacture a word that is NOT present in the Bible and assert, “all other things came into being by him.”

There’s a short, simple, powerful rhyme that explains it well: “He came to die on a cross of wood, yet made the hill on which it stood.”

Our Christ is the preeminent One over Creation.  Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses falsely seize upon the description of Christ as “the firstborn over all creation” and assert that it means He was “born” in the sense of having been “created.”  That isn’t true: “firstborn” is a title of preeminence, a statement that Jesus – as the Creator as the following verses prove – has a preeminent position over all of creation.  Think of Abraham’s firstborn: who was it?  Isaac or Ishmael?  Think of Isaac’s sons, Jacob and Esau: who was the “firstborn”?  And no matter how you answer I can say, “Wrong!”  Because the “firstborn” son in birth order was NOT the firstborn son who inherited the birthright.  In both of these crucial cases, the “firstborn” turned out NOT to be the “firstborn.”  Isaac was given the inheritance of “firstborn” even though he was NOT born first.  And so was Jacob over Esau, with Esau literally cavalierly selling his birthright for a bowl of stew when he was hungry.  And the point being that “birth” has nothing to do with being “firstborn.”  It is a TITLE in its most important sense that Paul uses in Colossians 1:15.

And so the passage in its context reads:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities– all things have been created through Him and for Him.  He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

By WHOM were “all things created”?  By the One who is called “the firstborn over all creation,” by the One who is “the image of the invisible God.”  And note again He created ALL things, NOT “all other things.”  And not only were all things created THROUGH Him, but FOR Him.  We’re taught in Ephesians chapter one that the Father had a plan to glorify His Son, to literally create a world just so He could point to His Son and say, “Look at My Son!  Isn’t He WONDERFUL!?!?”

Who is our Jesus, who is our Christ?  The entire universe was created through Christ and for Christ.  Our Christ is before ALL things “and in Him all things hold together.”

Jesus Christ is literally the mysterious force that prevents every atom from literally flying apart.  If THAT isn’t absolute power over the universe, what is?

Quite a far cry from the meek little wimp who hangs out with children with a lamb around his neck, you know?

THAT is who our Jesus is.

It was this Christ, who we now know is the Creator who made ALL THINGS according to His Father’s plan to glorify Him, who created Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:27:

God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

You should now understand: in creating human beings, Christ created us in HIS image such that one day He could assume OUR image.

And in the Virgin Birth, prophesied hundreds of years beforehand in Isaiah 7:14, “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.”   St. Matthew completes the picture in chapter one and verse 23 of his gospel:  “BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US.”

Isaiah 9:6 tells us more about this miracle Baby:

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.  There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.

Does that sound like an ordinary human to you?  Does that sound like the work of anything less than God?

The angel who appeared to Joseph, the soon-to-be husband of Mary, didn’t believe so:

But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.  She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” — Matthew 1:20-21

Who does the Bible teach saves people from their sins?  GOD and God ALONE.

The angel who appeared to Mary didn’t believe so:

The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God.  And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.  He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.” — Luke 130-:33

In the Incarnation, which resulted in the Virgin Birth of Jesus, Christ – who was God – assumed a human nature, a human nature untainted by the sin of the Fall that corrupted us, so that He could come to live a perfect life in our place that we could not live and then die as our substitute as “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”

Understand the dilemma: on the one hand, mankind had sinned and mankind had to pay the penalty – which is death – for the wages of sin.  On the other hand, only God can truly save us from sin.  No mere man, no mere angel, can take my sins away from me, such that God cannot see them to hold them against me and rightly judge and condemn me for them.

Only God Himself can do that.  That is why God Himself declares:

I, even I, am the LORD, And there is no savior besides Me.”

And again:

Yet I have been the LORD your God Since the land of Egypt; And you were not to know any god except Me, For there is no savior besides Me.”

That ought to tell you what the real story of the very first Christmas, heralded by an angel, truly was:

In the same region there were some shepherds staying out in the fields and keeping watch over their flock by night.  And an angel of the Lord suddenly stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them; and they were terribly frightened.  But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people; for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.” — Luke 2:8-11

My Savior is none other than God Himself; and that’s why I can know that I am going to heaven.  Because only God can do that work in me.  Anyone else who relies on anything else is lost in their sins.  Because no man and no angel has the power to be your true Savior.

Some day I plan to ask the angel who came to those shepherds and said, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy…” to perform a dramatic reenactment of that scene.  Because for all eternity that announcement will send shivers through my spine.

God was born when God the Son assumed a human nature and entered the world through Mary, a descendant of King David, in Bethlehem as God’s Word foretold centuries before:

“But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.” — Micah 5:2

He came to die on a cross of wood, yet made the hill on which it stood.

What did our Jesus do?  In one of the most beautiful passages in all Scripture, St. Paul gives us a moral lesson for how we should live our lives based on what Jesus did:

Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; 4do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. 5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. — Philippians 2:3-11

The New Living Translation just flat-out says it in verse 6: “Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.”

Although Jesus was truly God, God the Son, the Christ, the Word, as God He did not regard His deity something to cling to, something to be exploited for its own advantage.  But instead, in His other-centered love that ONLY God can manifest, He emptied Himself.  He laid aside the exercise of His deity so that He could become an ordinary man and live among us and fulfill the salvation plan of His Father that Ephesians 1 teaches His Father had established from eternity.

And so Christ came into the world, not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.  That’s not my notion, but Jesus’ Himself:

“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” — Mark 10:45

What did our Jesus do?  He lived a perfect life in my place when I couldn’t.  And then He died the death in my place that I should have died for my sins.  The One who created the entire universe, who created me, took the blame for my sins upon HIMSELF.  On the cross, Jesus literally took the blame of the sin of the whole world upon Himself so that we could be free of the power and death of sin.  And by faith we die with Him – as depicted by going under the water in baptism – and by faith we are raised with newness of life with Christ.  Jesus died because He assumed a human nature.  BUT GOD CAN’T STAY DEAD.  And so He rose bodily from the dead in Resurrection Power.

I love the words of Colossians 3:3-4

For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God.  When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory.

What is God like?  He’s just like Jesus.  And in what way does Jesus show us what God is ultimately like?  In His incarnation.  What did He show us about the nature of God?  Love so astonishing that it is hard to believe.

Jesus showed us what God is truly like.  And what a beautiful God He truly is.

Because no one else would have come to me the way Jesus came for me.

I’ve always believed in God.  The Bible declares it is only the worst kind of fool who does not believe in God.  The Bible declares that the existence of God is self-evident in Creation.   The Bible points out that even the demons believe in God.  What is miraculous beyond belief isn’t that God IS, but that God is so good and so loving and so gracious and so … wonderful that He would come to me even at my very worst and most loathsome point and love me enough to save me when all I deserve is hell.

That’s what my Jesus did.  My Creator saved me from myself and from my sin, which many times seems like an even greater and even more profound miracle than the Creation of the whole universe.  Because it’s one thing to create something from nothing; quite another to fix something that was so hopelessly broken and ruined that for anyone short of God it needs to be destroyed because it is simply too impossible to fix.

Jesus is my hero because I was lost.  I was even worse than lost, I was DEAD.  And Jesus saved me:

 1And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. 4But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.  — Ephesians 2:1-10

Every time a new believer enters the Kingdom of Heaven because of the finished work of Jesus on the cross, there is a staggering miracle of Creation: what was dead is made alive.  What was broken beyond human or angelic repair is made whole.  A destroyed, ruined, broken life becomes transformed in new life.

That transformation is at work in my own life.  It will not be complete in this world, but at the moment of the Rapture I know that no matter what happens in this world I will be the ME that God always intended me to be.  And I will have joy as I share all eternity with my Creator and my Savior and my Lord Jesus.  St. Paul described this moment in 1 Corinthians 15:51-58:

51Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory. 55“O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?” 56The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; 57but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

58Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord.

It’s like that hymn, “Because He Lives“:

Because He lives, I can face tomorrow.
Because He lives, All fear is gone.
Because I know He holds the future,
And life is worth the living just because He lives.

Jesus is my hero because where I had no hope, I now have hope that will literally carry me through this world and into and through the world to come.

I don’t know what anyone else has; I just no it very certainly isn’t better than what I have in my Jesus.

Jesus is my hero, because in a world filled with lies He came to testify to the TRUTH:

Therefore Pilate said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” — John 18:37

I heard you, King Jesus.  Thank God Almighty, I heard you.

I hope you can hear Jesus too.

 

 

Four Blood Moons: The Beginning Of The End? Israel Invades Hamas After Over 1,200 Terrorist Rockets And Two Broken Cease Fires

July 17, 2014

As of yesterday, at least 1,241 terrorist rockets had been fired at Israel and Hamas had broken TWO cease fires – including one just hours ago.  I’d call that more than enough patience.

About two hours ago, Israel began the ground offensive necessary to root out the tunnels that Hamas is exploiting in their efforts to indiscriminately kill and maim as many Jews as possible.

Some 40,000 troops had been massed on the border waiting for the order to go in.  You can’t just keep that kind of force idly hanging around.  When Hamas violated yet another cease fire, it was time to pull the trigger and go.

There’s no reasoning with terrorists.  There’s no chance for peace as long as Hamas has anything to do with the Palestinian government.  You either kill them or let them kill you and your women and children.

Not that the world or the political left cares.

It’s truly amazing: liberals will literally fight to the death and go to extreme lengths for the “right” to murder as many babies as they possibly can.  But they don’t believe the Jews have a right to defend even their own lives against violent terrorist attack.

I put it in 2 Corinthians 4:4 terms:

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

They also cannot see truth, because as Jesus Himself put it:

“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated Me first.  If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.” — John 15:18-19

Israel fights because Israel is FORCED to fight by those who hate her.  Israel “occupies” because if they DON’T “occupy” their enemies will use the ground Israel gives up to murder Jews.  And the reason people cannot see the obvious is because there is a personal Satan – “the god of this age” – who owns them and controls their thoughts and their emotions.

What we see now – both in America and throughout the world – is a spiritual war more than it is a political war.  The Democrat Party is the party that is radically opposed to the God of the Bible and His righteousness as declared in His Word.  They mock it.  They hate it.  They literally decry the Bible as the most evil book ever written because it opposes the homosexuality and the abortion and human government socialism that they worship and love above all things.  They are completely blind.  They have no clue and no desire to have any clue.

And the Bible assured us that in the last days, the world would be truly FILLED with such people.  And that they would turn in violence and hate against the people of God.

And that is surely coming to pass.

The Bible in both the Old and New Testaments repeatedly prophesies that Israel would be surrounded and hated by literally every nation on earth.  That has come to pass exactly as the Bible – which prophesied the rebirth of Israel from dry bones as happened in 1948 – declared it would.  Especially since Barack Hussein Obama was elected president of the United States and turned America’s back on Israel.

A number of significant Bible scholars have seen something that is part biblical and part extrabiblical: the ominous sign of four consecutive blood moons that would occur over four consecutive Jewish holy days.

John Hagee’s book – describing these four blood moons and their ominous portent for the last days – was published in late 2013 to describe what he believed would happen this year.

I’d say he’s got some added credibility now, myself.

There’s a little about that in this article:

In his latest book, Four Blood Moons: Something Is About to Change, Hagee lays out what he calls celestial signals. He describes how a series of blood moons in 2014 and 2015 will have great significance for Israel.

Although single blood moons happen fairly regularly, four appearing so closely together is extremely rare. There have only been a series of blood moons a handful of times over the past 500 years. [...]

Blood moons are set to appear in April 2014, on Passover, and then again in September 2014 during the Feast of Tabernacles, or Sukkot.

The timing is the same for 2015 — a total of four blood moons, all appearing on Jewish feast days.

“The sun and the moon and the Earth are controlled by God almighty,” Hagee said. “He is the one that is getting them in a direct alignment on a certain day at a certain time — but each time, it’s a Passover or Sukkot.

Is it a coincidence that we have what is happening right now in Israel and Gaza right smack dab in the middle of “blood moon” time?

I support Israel and I support Israel’s right to the land that GOD gave her and I support Israel’s right to defend herself.  I do this as a Christian who believes with St. Paul that ultimately, eventually, “all Israel will be saved” as “they look upon Me whom they pierced and mourn as for an only son” when Jesus Christ returns in His glory to reclaim planet earth from the devil and his human tools.

These are frightening times – as the establishment of a caliphate across Iraq and Syria, the shooting down of a commercial jet with nearly 300 souls BY RUSSIA through their separatist proxies, and now this.

But Jesus told us that the end would be characterized as nation arising against nation, and that the violence would come closer and closer together as birth pangs come upon a woman about to give birth.

Christians can be steadfast and immovable because we alone can know beforehand where the world is going and where WE’RE going.

The Rapture is at hand.  And if you aren’t looking up you are in danger of being left behind to see the coming Antichrist and the coming Tribulation and the coming Armageddon that the Bible describes.

I pray for the Israeli soldiers, that they be safe.  I pray for the safety of the Israeli people, whom God has miraculously protected just as He declared He would in the last days.  And I pray for the safety of innocent Palestinians who are forced to endure misery because they allowed a terrorist state to represent them.  Most of all, I pray for the salvation of people – Jew, Muslim and all other Gentiles – as the world prepares to worship the beast and take his mark in these last days.

For the record, let me give you this spoiler alert: if you read the Bible, you find that God wins.  Jesus Christ will return at the end of the seven-years Great Tribulation that is coming upon the world as King of kings and as Lord of lords.

Maranatha, Lord Jesus.  I pray You come quickly.

 

Frothing Liberals AGAIN Document They Are FASCISTS With Their Rabid Response To The Hobby Lobby Case

July 1, 2014

It’s always an amazing thing to watch liberals being hypocrites.  Liberalism is ABJECT personal moral hypocrisy; liberals are people who say what is always fascist for thee to do is never fascist for me to do.

Under the warped doctrine of “separation of church and state,” liberals have attacked and successfully purged most vestiges of God and Judeo-Christianity from society.  No Judeo-Christian practice or doctrine or belief can have anything whatsoever to do with culture.  But then you take liberal’s Church of the Ungodly Nazi Bureaucrat, and suddenly on their view the church IS the state and the state IS the church.  So you can’t have a cross representing veterans who gave their lives on public land, but you can sure force the owners of businesses to violate their most deeply held moral beliefs by exploiting the raw, naked force of government.

Liberals are either pathologically stupid people or pathologically evil people – or both, as I believe.  You can surely see this again in the shrill, unhinged rhetoric flying around from the left in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision.

If I had a nickel for every liberal who came out and claimed that somehow the Supreme Court just took away birth control from women, I would be a very rich man.  When the truth of the matter is that birth control is as available today as it was before yesterday.  The only thing that has been taken away is the “right” of liberals to impose THEIR religious beliefs onto the owners of businesses who have different religious beliefs when it comes to abortion.

To wit, Hobby Lobby – long before this court decision – had been providing SIXTEEN different forms of birth control to female employees as part of their generous health care coverage.  The only forms of “birth control” they didn’t want to pay for were abortifacients which do NOT prevent a conception but kill a baby.  And the members of the Church of the Ungodly Nazi Bureaucrat screamed, “Nein!  Nein! Nein!  You WILL cover our religious right to murder babies!!!  Our god (human government) has the divine power to FORCE you to kill babies for us!!!”

You need to understand why liberals get into such an unhinged frenzy.  For them, human government is God and God is human government.  They have no other gods before human government.  And so when they are confronted with a ruling like this one, well, their god let them down and abandoned them.  And they therefore simply have to race around cursing like rabid vermin.

There are so many ways that liberals are abject hypocrites jus on this case that it is beyond unreal.  Let’s look at a few:

First, there’s the fact that to be a liberal is to be not only a fascist but a Nazi.  Take a look at the vicious threats against Hobby Lobby from the left.  I apologize for the language in advance, but you have to consider the unhinged, rabid, VIOLENT, viscious, rabid hate that characterizes liberalism when one of the things that these fascists try to impose on everybody else gets taken away from them:

‘Fu*k you:’ Left-wingers want to ‘burn down’ Hobby Lobby after SCOTUS win
Posted at 10:42 am on June 30, 2014 by Twitchy Staff | View Comments

Let it all out. Exhale.

Stay classy. And peaceful:

For the record, my copy and paste didn’t grab all of the hate.  But you ought to get the idea.

The first one above gives you the noxious, rotten flavor that is liberalism: “F- you, you narrow-minded, anti-women pieces of feces!!!!!!”  Because this person is CLEARLY “tolerant” and open to disagreeing points of view, isn’t she?  And as for the “anti-women” thing, I looked at the images of the gathering outside the Supreme Court taken by the reliably leftist Los Angeles Times and there were far more women cheering the decision than men.  And so what Sandra McMahan is really saying is that “feminists” are so rabid and so toxic that they – like Hitler – are willing to STRIP AWAY the femaleness of pro-life women the way that the Führer rhetorically stripped away the humanity of Jews.  You simply have to think exactly like these people.  Period.

Liberals have pissed away the image of God in what used to be their “human natures.”  They fully qualify for the words of Proverbs 12:1

Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is brutish.

The word “brutish” – most often translated as “stupid” – refers to stupid, brutish animals who lack the capacity that humans have for moral reasoning and receiving wisdom.  It’s what Romans chapter one teaches, “God gave them over” to their stupid, brutish natures.

That is why liberals are so often so pathologically stupid and dishonest, such as the liberals exemplify when they claim that “Scalia law is like shariah law.”  These people are literally that stupid and that evil, that there is no difference to them between asking a woman to pay for her own abortion-inducing drugs and stoning a woman to death.  They are stupid, brutish animals who can’t distinguish the difference.

So, yeah, to be a liberal is to be a violent, vicious, fascist thug.  When John Roberts basically betrayed conservatives and re-wrote the damn ObamaCare law to make what was explicitly ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL fly, did conservatives threaten to burn down the world?  Nope.  When the Supreme Court voted for the wrath of God as per Romans chapter one and ruled to abandon DOMA, did conservatives threaten to burn down gay bars?  Nope.  Because we’re not fascists like liberals are.

Here’s another example of pure, unadulterated hypocrisy.  Meet Harry Reid, hypocrite:

“It’s time that five men on the Supreme Court stop deciding what happens to women.”

I mean, Harry Reid is FINE with five men deciding what happens to women.  As long as the five men think exactly like HE does.

EVERY SINGLE ONE of Harry Reid’s top staffers are MEN.  Which is a characteristic ENDEMIC to the left.  But what can I say?  When you’re a Nazi, you demand that Jews be treated one way and that you as a Nazi be treated a different way.  So the same rules you want to apply to “the other” should NEVER apply to you.

Liberals hate truth.  Jesus said, “Everyone who is on the side of truth listens to Me.”  And they held their ears and began screaming f-words and shouting to burn Jesus down, to crucify Him.  Jesus told us that liberals would hate us and He pointed out, “They hated Me first.”  And that’s why they hate Jesus for describing marriage as the union between one man and one woman.  It’s why they despise the Word of God when it teaches that God forms the unborn child in the womb.  When the Virgin Mary was pregnant with the baby Jesus, they howl in rage that she didn’t abort Him and murder Him in the womb.  And when the unborn John the Baptist kicked in the womb when he neared the unborn Jesus in Mary’s womb, they wish that instead of the unborn John kicking in excitement both woman had instead headed to the nearest “clinic” to get rid of the parasites invading their bodies.

Liberals HATE the truth with a passion.  The “truth” is a rhetorical game for them to exploit with propaganda, the way they have exploited their bogus “war on women.”

 

 

Not With A Bang But A Whimper: LA Times Admits That Obama’s (And Hillary Clinton’s) Intervention In Libya Was A MAJOR Disaster

June 27, 2014

We hear all the time from liberals that George W. Bush broke the law when he attacked Iraq and that Bush turned Iraq into a hellhole with his warmongering.

It’s time to point out a few things.

Number one, no, Bush DIDN’T break the law when he attacked Iraq; he actually passed “the Iraq War Resolution” that Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, John Kerry, etc. voted for.  And when George Bush attacked Iraq, he did what nearly sixty percent of the Democrats in the US Senate authorized him to do.  And number two, when George Bush LEFT Iraq, he left a safe, stable region that prompted Joe Biden to say:

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”

… and for Barack Obama to boast in 2011:

“This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.”

and:

“[W]e will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe haven to terrorists.”

Bush left behind a safe, stable Iraq.  And all Barack Obama had to do was keep a small US force there to keep safe and stable what we had fought to make safe and stable.  Obama failed as only the worst kind of FOOL can fail by ignoring his top general’s urgent warnings and pleas to keep a force in Iraq:

WASHINGTON, Feb 2 2009 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”

Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.

Do you want to know who broke the law and then left a ruined country that is completely going to pot now?

Barry Hussein Obama, that’s who.  Even the fool’s own damn LAWYERS told him that what he was doing was illegal and criminal.  But the thug in chief was above the law.

Obama’s reckless action in Libya prompted even a DEMOCRAT to say this about false messiah Obama:

Representative Lynn Woolsey charged the President of showing “contempt” for the Constitution, and insulting the intelligence of the American people.  Woolsey made the following statement: “The Obama Administration’s argument is one that shows contempt for the Constitution and for the executive’s co-equal branch of government, the United States Congress.  To say that our aggressive bombing of Libya does not rise to the level of ‘hostilities’ flies in the face of common sense and is an insult to the intelligence of the American people.  This act must not stand, because we can’t afford another full-blown war—the ones we’re already fighting are bankrupting us morally and fiscally.  Let those who support the military campaign against Libya make their case, in an open debate culminating with a vote in the U.S. Congress.  The American people deserve nothing less.”

And yes, the criminal fascist thug Obama DID what he ACCUSED George Bush of doing when he attacked Libya without bothering to get ANY Congressional approval:

Senator Obama, taking a cheap shot at then-President Bush:

Barack Obama: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.

“As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States,” Obama continued. “In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.”

Do you remember being attacked by Libya?  Did the Libyans invade us?  I mean, maybe I was just asleep when it happened or something.  Otherwise, Barack Obama ought to be impeached, and the single witness against him should be … Barack Obama.  Barack Obama trampled all over the Constitution according to none other than … that’s right, Barack Obama.

George Bush got Congress’ approval before BOTH of his attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq.

And not only did Obama’s adventure in Libya NOT have the approval of Congress, but it also has less approval than ANY US military action in the last four decades going back to Vietnam.

And just what in the hell made our Idiot-in-Chief decide to be the first president in the sorry history of Gaddafi’s forty-plus years of abusing his own people to shake hands with the monster?

Do you see what a meandering idiot this guy is?

So having just taken that trip down memory lane, let’s see what the uberliberal leftist snot rag the Los Angeles Times has to say about the hellhole that Libya has become under Obama’s hypocritical and incompetent watch:

U.S. intervention in Libya now seen as cautionary tale
By Paul Richter,  Christi Parsons
June 27, 2014, 4:00 AM|Reporting from Washington

  • SHARELINES
    3 years after U.S. military intervention, Libya has become what U.S. officials dread most
    As the U.S. considers a limited intervention in Iraq, the experience in Libya is seen as a cautionary tale
    More than 50,000 people, including refugee and migrants, have flooded to Europe through Libya’s porous borders

A group of U.S. diplomats arrived in Libya three years ago to a memorable reception: a throng of cheering men and women who pressed in on the startled group “just to touch us and thank us,” recalled Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security advisor.

The Libyans were emotional because the U.S. and its allies had toppled leader Moammar Kadafi in a military campaign that averted a feared slaughter of Kadafi’s foes. Obama administration officials called the international effort, accomplished with no Western casualties, a “model intervention.”

But in three years Libya has turned into the kind of place U.S. officials most fear: a lawless land that attracts terrorists, pumps out illegal arms and drugs and destabilizes its neighbors.

Now, as Obama considers a limited military intervention in Iraq, the Libya experience is seen by many as a cautionary tale of the unintended damage big powers can inflict when they aim for a limited involvement in an unpredictable conflict.

“If Iraq and Afghanistan are examples of overkill and overreach, Libya is the reverse case, where you do too little and get an unacceptable result,” said Brian Katulis, a Middle East specialist at the Center for American Progress, a think tank. “The lesson is that a low tolerance of risk can have its costs.”

Though they succeeded in their military effort, the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies fell short in the broader goal of putting Libya on a path toward democracy and stability. Exhausted after a decade of war and mindful of the failures in Iraq, U.S. officials didn’t want to embark on another nation-building effort in an oil-rich country that seemed to pose no threat to Western security.

But by limiting efforts to help the new Libyan government gain control over the country, critics say, the U.S. and its allies have inadvertently helped turn Libya into a higher security threat than it was before the military intervention.

Libya has become North Africa’s most active militant sanctuary, at the center of the resurgent threat that Obama warned about in a May address at West Point. A 2012 terrorist attack against the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

Arms trafficking from Libya “is fueling conflict and insecurity — including terrorism — on several continents,” an expert panel reported to the United Nations Security Council in February. Weapons smuggled out of Libya have been used by insurgents in Mali, by Boko Haram terrorists in Nigeria and by Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip.

More than 50,000 people, including refugees from Syria and migrants from North Africa, have flooded into Europe through Libya’s porous borders, sharpening the continent’s immigration crisis.

The latest U.S. State Department travel warning portrays Libya as a society in near-collapse, beset by crime, terrorism, factional fighting, government failure and the wide availability of portable antiaircraft weapons that can shoot down commercial airplanes.

U.S. officials, now scrambling to reverse Libya’s downward spiral, say blame rests with the Libyans who took control of a country that has proved more dysfunctional than expected.

[...]

Some observers are warning that the administration eventually may be forced to do more. A Rand Corp. report this spring predicted that if Libya’s problems continue to worsen, another NATO intervention might be required.

“Libya is a lesson about the risks,” said Robert Danin, a longtime U.S. diplomat in the Middle East who warned about the risks of ensuing chaos. “With nation-building in disrepute, there’s a tendency now to want to declare victory and move on. But interventions can’t be done neatly.”

Here’s the money quote:

“If Iraq and Afghanistan are examples of overkill and overreach, Libya is the reverse case, where you do too little and get an unacceptable result,” said Brian Katulis, a Middle East specialist at the Center for American Progress, a think tank. “The lesson is that a low tolerance of risk can have its costs.”

That’s precisely what Obama did across the Middle East: he declared victory and moved on.  It’s what he did in Iraq in spite of the fact that he refused to deploy ANY security force whatsoever; it’s what he did in Libya after he bombed the country into rioting and terrorism that led to the Benghazi debacle and Obama’s cover-up of that debacle; it’s what he did in Syria after his weakness-personified “red line” and his deal with Putin that secured Assad’s power-grip and ultimately led to the rise of ISIS that is owning Obama right now.  Again and again, Obama declared victory and moved on, having done little or nothing.  He assured us that al Qaeda – which is now larger, more powerful, wealthier and controls more territory than EVER in it’s history – was “decimated” and “on the run.”  But they WEREN’T running; they were running their FLAG up over OUR embassies!!!  And Obama declared that ISIS was “JV” and that just because they dressed up in Laker’s uniforms didn’t make them Kobe Bryant.  When we can now see that it’s OBAMA who is “JV” and ISIS is looking like Kobe Bryant at the very top of his game in comparison to anything our weak president is doing.

Obama lied to you, America: you can’t eat your cake and have it, too.  We either fight to win or we lose and ultimately we die.  Those are out choices.

Whether in Iraq, or Libya, or anywhere ELSE you want to name, “worst-case scenario” is now becoming the normal state of affairs under this spectacularly failed presidency.

The point is this: Bush went on the offensive and there are those who argue that he failed.  Mind you, Bush left office with a JUST A SMALL FRACTION OF THE FORCE that Obama escalated Afghanistan into and was responsible for about a fifth of the casualties suffered in Afghanistan and HE WON IN IRAQ UNTIL OBAMA PISSED VICTORY AWAY (see also here and here).  And here for what I predicted back in 2011.

Obama’s “red line” fiasco turned into a bloodbath in Syria.  Obama’s complete withdrawal from and abandonment of Iraq turned into the largest terrorist caliphate the world has ever seen.  And it will be coming at us soon because they’ve SAID it would be coming:

[The United States] intercepted a letter written from Al-Zawahiri to the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The letter described four stages that they would engage in: drive the Americans out, establish a caliphate in Bahgdad, use that base to attack other countries, attack Israel.

And as Obama has – as a result of his “policy” – utterly abandoned the Middle East to chaos and terrorism and murder – it is now obvious that Obama has failed FAR WORSE than Bush or any other president who ever lived.

Did you notice that Susan Rice was there again, she who is Obama’s top liar of choice first in Benghazi and more recently in the Bowe Bergdahl trade-your-soul and your five captured terrorist generals for a worthless turd deal???

I also can’t help but laugh that the same damn fool president who caused such a humanitarian crisis in Libya has also caused a similar one on our very own border with his ridiculously failed morally idiotic policies.

Somehow I remember the mainstream media propaganda that is our “journalism” today going ape poop over the Bush administration prediction that “we’ll be greeted as liberators” line.  But where have they been in the three years since Obama’s reckless, criminal and incompetent action in Libya broke down all civilized structures in Libya?  NOWHERE.  Because if you’re a reporter today, you view yourself as serving your messiah Obama and the Ultimate Cause of liberalism and secular humanism.  And you are willing to lie for your god and for your cause because you believe the ends justify the means.

George Bush essentially won the Iraq War in 21 days.  That’s how long it took for the air power to cripple Iraq’s ability to wage war and for US troops to largely secure the most vital parts of the country.  The rest of it was the attempt to “build and hold.”  Obama didn’t bother with that in Libya.  Hell, he didn’t even bother with it in Iraq.  As Jonah Goldberg pointed out:

Hillary Clinton has defined leadership in a democracy as a relay race: “You run the best race you can run; you hand off the baton.” Obama was handed a baton he didn’t want, so he dropped it.

Which is to say that even by Hillary Clinton’s standard, Barack Obama was a complete, unmitigated FAILURE who screwed America horribly in Iraq.  Obama lost what had been won at great cost because he didn’t like the baton he was held and threw it away like it was a piece of trash even as he claimed credit for the victory that he was about to piss away with his abject fool stupidity.

When you secure something, you stay there to make sure it STAYS secured.  That’s one of the great lessons that we learned in Vietnam.  We would take a hill at bloody cost, like “Hamburger Hill, and then withdraw a day after we took it to allow the communists to occupy it all over again.  We learned not to do that by paying a terrible price for our stupidity.  Only to have Barack Obama UN-learn it for us so we get Vietnam all over again.

At this point I submit that there is only one thing left to try regarding the Middle East: the World War II strategy.

In World War II we did not concern ourselves with “collateral damage.”  If you were a civilian and you were sitting on a Nazi tank, too damn bad for you.

We FIREBOMBED Dresden.  We killed something like 135,000 people.

We FIREBOMBED Tokyo.  We killed about 100,000 people - nearly as many as both the two atomic bombs combined did.

We were able to do that because we were a people who had something to live for, something to fight for, and therefore something to kill our enemies for.

We HAVE to respond to terrorist attacks.  And frankly at the same time, we’re simply not prepared any more – for various reasons including sheer exhaustion – to conquer, hold and rebuild.

All that is left is to bomb the populations that allow terrorism to fester into the stone age.  And if they start to get nasty again, bomb the rubble into smaller particles of rubble.  And DON’T GO IN.  LEAVE THEM to the consequences of their evil ideology.

Turn Afghanistan into “Lake Afghanistan” if that is what it takes to end the scourge of Islamic violence.  Because at this point, if these people are going to act like cockroaches, they need to be STOMPED like cockroaches.  And we don’t need to send in troops as long as we’ve got a big enough fly swatter from the air and our naval platforms out at sea.

I truly believe that if the message – the clear, consistent message regardless of president or party – was, “If you threaten us or our interests, we will bring the fire of hell to you, to your women and to your children,” terrorism would become a lot less popular.  All these Muslims would have to see is that yes, we DO mean business and we mean it in a very painful way.  But as it is now, there is no down-side to fostering terrorism whatsoever.  We do these precise, surgical strikes to avoid actually hurting anybody.  And all our enemies have to do is put a hand-lettered sign that reads “Baby milk factory” and our destruction of a weapons-of-mass-destruction facility becomes a war crime:

One of [CNN reporter Peter] Arnett’s most controversial reports during the Gulf War was a report on how the coalition had bombed a baby milk factory. Shortly after the report, an Air Force spokesman stated “Numerous sources have indicated that [the factory] is associated with biological warfare production”. Later the same day, Colin Powell stated “It was a biological weapons facility, of that we are sure”. White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater stated “That factory is, in fact, a production facility for biological weapons” and “The Iraqis have hidden this facility behind a façade of baby-milk production as a form of disinformation.”

The image of a crudely made hand-painted sign reading “Baby Milk” in English and Arabic in front of the factory, and a lab coat dressed in a suit containing stitched lettering reading “BABY MILK PLANT IRAQ” only served to further the perception that purportedly civilian targets were simply being made to look like that by Saddam Hussein, and that Arnett was duped by the Iraqi government. The sign appeared to have been added by the Iraqis before the camera crews arrived as a cheap publicity ploy. Newsweek called the incident a “ham-handed attempt to depict a bombed-out biological-weapons plant near Baghdad as a baby-formula factory.”

Arnett remained firm. He had toured the plant in the previous August, and was insistent that “Whatever else it did, it did produce infant formula”. Described as being a veritable fortress by the Pentagon[citation needed], the plant, Arnett reported, had only one guard at the gate and a lot of powdered baby milk. “That’s as much as I could tell you about it … [I]t looked innocent enough from what we could see.” A CNN camera crew had been invited to tour this plant in August 1990. They videotaped workers wearing new uniforms with lettering in English reading, “Iraq Baby Milk Plant”.

If we’re not going to fight back – and fight back like we really mean it – we truly deserve to die.

I mean, my God, you pathetic, apathetic coward herd animals, just bleat until you die like the sheep you are.

Here’s another thing: the terrorists ARE fighting for a cause that they believe is very much worth dying for.  Versus us: what the hell are WE fighting for?  Are we fighting for Obama?  Are we fighting for political correctness?  Are we fighting for the determination to not allow God or any transcendent cause whatsoever to interfere with our abortion and our homosexual sodomy???

If I had a son, I would urge him with all the passion I had not to waste his life for this country at this point.  I served, as did my father, my father, my grandfather and my grandfather’s father before me.  But we served a very different nation which did not piss in the Eye of God.

We are losing the war on terror because secular humanist liberals like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have eradicated ANY reason whatsoever to actually fight for our own worthless lives – and if you believe in abortion your life is worthless by definition because you acknowledge that you began as the kind of thing that could have and even SHOULD HAVE been killed as a parasite or a disease - and our own worthless values.

We need to either figure out what it is that is worth fighting for in our age of secular humanism or we need to go out “not with a bang but a whimper” as the T.S. Elliot poem predicted we would.

Because in the age of Obama, a whimper is about all we’ve got.

Obama’s policy of inaction, of too-little-action-way-too-late, of bogus “red lines,” of retreat, of withdrawal, of apologizing, of weakening America and broadcasting the message of weakness to the world, has resulted in the world erupting into a firestorm that we now cannot put out with our meaningless and frankly depraved values.

Our own pathetic secular humanist values have been used against us and turned into a weapon of our own mass destruction.  We COULD fight, but as morally insane secular humanists we put on a strait jacket – and now we’re helpless while our rabid enemies are coming at us with the passion that comes from having a powerful cause that we long-since abandoned as a post-Christian culture.

And that’s why Armageddon is coming.

 

Liberalism = Insanity Alert: California Public Elementary School Forces Girls To Announce To Boys Whether They’ll Go All The Way For Them

June 9, 2014

Just another amazing day in the life of “God damn America”:

Girls To Publicly Declare How Far They Will Go Sexually
The Daily Caller
June 8, 2014 1:20 PM

At least one pair of parents is fuming after their eighth-grade daughter came home from school saying that every student in her class had to indicate – publicly – how far they are prepared to go sexually.

The incident happened this week at Woodland Park Middle School in the San Diego, Calif. suburb of San Marcos, reports local ABC affiliate KGTV.

The parents, who don’t want to be named, say their 14-year-old daughter was embarrassed because the teacher in her family life and health class instructed her and all of her classmates to stand under one of several signs. Each sign was labeled with a different phrase.

Some of the labeled signs were innocuous, according to KGTV. These included “smiled at,” “hugged” and “kissed.”

Other signs, such as “above the waist,” “below the waist” and “all the way,” were to varying degrees considerably less innocuous.

“To put them up in front of their friends to be humiliated or to be asked questions that I believe are personal, it’s really none of the school’s business,” one of the peeved parents told the ABC station.

The parent added that her daughter felt confused and peer-pressured afterward.

Officials at the taxpayer-funded school defended the exercise, calling it a dating lesson.

“The parents sign permission slips for the class and can look at the curriculum prior,” the Woodland Park Middle School told KGTV. “The purpose of the lesson was to open the lines of communication between parents and students about dating expectations.”

It’s not clear how standing under signs labeled “above the waist” or “all the way” while at school would open up lines of communication between eighth graders and their parents.

The principal added that the school found the lesson at a community clinic and has used it for several years now.

According to the middle school’s website, the principal is Brian Randall.

The angry parents suggested that perhaps an anonymous student survey could be less humiliating for students.

Follow Eric on Twitter and on Facebook, and send education-related story tips to erico@dailycaller.com.
Join the conversation on The Daily Caller

The White House has played this game with mainstream media “journalists” and every single one of them proudly stated that they would happily go “all the way” for their messiah Obama and whore their integrity for him by writing lies in place of “news.”

I had to laugh when I saw the very last sentence: “The angry parents suggested that perhaps an anonymous student survey could be less humiliating for students.”  Because first of all, YA THINK?  And second of all, maybe teaching students to read and write and do arithmetic instead ought to be worth a try.  Because these God damned – and I’m using that as a technical term as used by St. Paul in Galatians 1:9 – government schools are indoctrinating our children into the homosexual/abortion/Obama culture rather than teaching them much of anything else.

Let me call this what it is: PEDOPHILIA.

Can you imagine your daughter standing under the “hugging” sign and being mocked as a prude and indoctrinated into the “all the way” club???

And the reason I call pedophilia that is because these CHILDRN are UNDER THE AGE OF LEGAL CONSENT to consent to any sex act.  They CANNOT legally enter into a sexual relationship; it is a CRIME to attempt to induce them to do so.  Which is to say that the police should be ARRESTING and PROSECUTING the principal, all the teachers involved, and every single adult who was present and did not stop it.

If you do not see this as sick, I can safely know that you are truly sick.  And if your argument is that parents ought to hire lawyers to read all the fine print of the permission slips, you are a demon-possessed bureaucrat (i.e., a DEMOCRAT).

If I were a parent in a school that did anything remotely like this, I would yank my kid out so fast I’d look like the Roadrunner in the Wile E. Coyote cartoons.  Either that, or I would show up with a baseball bat and just END the principal and teachers that just used peer pressure to cynically indoctrinate my child into a life of sexual promiscuity.

In God damn America few parents stand up for their children.  Which is why our culture keeps growing sicker and sicker and more and more degraded every hour of every day.

Let me point out a FACT, not an opinion: liberalism is moral insanity which leads to intellectual idiocy.  Take the indoctrination of homosexuality.  Well, don’t these same people teach Darwinian evolution?  And what is homosexuality in Darwinian terms?  A dead end.  The “fittest” are defined as “those who leave behind the most offspring.”  And homosexuals are biologically UNFIT by the tenants of evolution.  And to the extent that evolution ought to have ANY effect on morality – and it SHOULD if it is true just as it should NOT if it is false – homosexuality is about as immoral as you can get in evolutionary terms.  And yet liberals hypocritically and irrationally indoctrinate both at the same time without bothering to point out that the one fundamentally contradicts the other.  Because the last thing you should be encouraging is behavior that your own theological system (and that’s what evolution is) describes as a dead end.

In the same way, you’ve got liberals on the one hand literally caught in the act here indoctrinating children into sexual promiscuity even as the numbers of sex abuse cases SKYROCKET in our society.  And of course they’re doing it at every level of society: politically and judicially as liberals continually drive out morality and replace it with a grotesque mockery of morality, culturally in our movies and television programs (all run by Hollywood liberals), and educationally in our schools where they’re able to indoctrinate our youngest and most vulnerable minds.  Sexual abuse is up FIFTY PERCENT under Obama.  What’s funny is that liberals are now blaming women and arguing they must be lying because otherwise how could the statistics be so horrible?  And I’ll tell you how: there is now NO MORAL FRAMEWORK WHATSOEVER that makes rape wrong apart from the notion that Obama doesn’t like it.  Liberals have ended the world of “God” and “Thou shalt not” and now we’ve got the consequences.  What makes a behavior wrong?  What makes it right?  Liberals saying one thing after having said its opposite?  That’s bullcrap, and the skyrocketing sexuality and sexual assaults among our young people in our uberliberal colleges and universities is proof that young people at some gut level understand that it’s bullcrap.

Again, you’ve got to be EVIL and INSANE to indoctrinate young people into sexual promiscuity – and yet liberals are doing it.  Because these sodomy-worshiping baby killers are the devil’s fools and the devil’s tools.

Liberalism heralds itself as “pro-education.”  Liberals are no more “pro-education” than these the people who have murdered more than 55 million babies are “pro-child” (which they also insanely claim themselves as being).  Consider how vicious liberals are toward homeschooling.  Consider that through homeschooling, one family has put SEVEN children into college – ALL BY AGE 12.  And if you think that your local government school with its “dating game” wickedness is capable of that, I’ve got all kinds of bridges and statutes to sell you, fool.

In the same vein, liberals are on a similar jihad against private schools – and especially Christian private schools.  They have done EVERYTHING and thrown up EVERY OBSTACLE to prevent children from having a real education rather than a government indoctrination.  It doesn’t matter that it is simply a beyond-plain-as-day FACT that Christian schools so massively outperform government schools that it is beyond ridiculous.  But the liberals who go psycho whenever Christian schools are brought up don’t care: all they care about is ideology and the unions who provide the muscle to their fascist ideology.

There is something beyond hypocritical and even beyond irrational on the part of liberalism when they claim to be for the very things they are doing everything they can to either outright destroy or to undermine.

In the same beyond-insane manner, liberals pride themselves on their “tolerance” when in fact they are as rabidly intolerant as the Taliban and as likely to purge and “purify” institutions as Stalin.  This one article about says it all:

College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

“What’s most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field,” said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. “There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It’s a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you’d expect to be dominated by liberals.” [...]

Rothman sees the findings as evidence of “possible discrimination” against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Even after factoring in levels of achievement, as measured by published work and organization memberships, “the most likely conclusion” is that “being conservative counts against you,” he said. “It doesn’t surprise me, because I’ve observed it happening.” The study, however, describes this finding as “preliminary.”

If Osama bin Laden is “tolerant,” then you can call the liberals who have purged their way into total power in our education system as “tolerant.”

Liberals have abandoned discussion for fascist intolerance and in so doing have abandoned young people to indoctrination rather than anything approaching “education.”

Liberalism has, furthermore, abandoned young people economically – again by moral insanity that leads to intellectual stupidity.  Jack Kemp put it best in his slogan, “You can’t love jobs and hate job creators.”  But that is precisely what hypocrite and moral-idiot liberals DO: they despise job creation by demonizing job creators as selfish and greedy and imposing stupid and inherently destructive regulations and tax burdens upon them.  And the only Democrat that liberals can point to as an economic success was Bill Clinton – but that was ONLY because Bill Clinton essentially agreed that liberalism was inherently self-defeating when he declared, “The era of big government is over.”  Because when liberalism and the big government that liberals impose is allowed to kick down the door of the economy with its jackbooted feet, jobs go bye-bye.

And so, thanks to Obama, thanks to Harry Reid, thanks to Nancy Pelosi, all the young people even HAVE now is sexual promiscuity and the sexual assaults that go hand-in-hand with such rabid sexuality.

 

Barack Obama, The Worst Of Nixon, The Worst Of Carter, The Worst President In History – And You’re Going To Pay For It

May 30, 2014

Something occurred to me as I watched yet another massive Obama administration scandal develop and saw yet another dishonest, incompetent response to it.

Barack Obama is truly a historic figure.

But in a really, really BAD way.

Barack Obama manages to unite the very worst of the two worst presidents in modern America.  And in so doing he becomes easily the worst president we’ve ever had.

It occurred to me that Obama manages to combine the very worst of Jimmy Carter AND the very worst of Richard Nixon.

How so?

Well, Richard Nixon was corrupt, but he wasn’t incompetent.

Jimmy Carter was incompetent, but he wasn’t corrupt.

Barack Obama is easily every bit as incompetent as Jimmy Carter and easily far more corrupt than Richard Nixon.

As for Carter-level incompetence, all I have to do is say “ObamaCare website.”  Here was THE signature legislative accomplishment of Obama, and we find him to be completely uninvolved, completely ignorant, and completely incapable of reacting and making ANY changes.  The damn website is STILL fundamentally screwed up, with the “back end” nonexistent and all kinds of security issues.

Again and again and again, Obama has fallen back on the same pathetic strategy of essentially pleading ignorance and incompetence.  He was supposed to know, as president, but he was caught off guard by his own admission again and again.

Nixon merely TALKED about using the IRS to target his political enemies; Barack Obama actually DID it.  What we already know about the IRS scandal is that the orders DID come from Washington – contrary to Obama’s repeated lies – and in fact came from AN OBAMA APPOINTEE (one of only two in the entire IRS organization).  We know that the IRS targeted “anti-Obama rhetoric.”  We know that this targeting was preceded by Obama bitterly demonizing the Supreme Court for its Citizens United verdict (because how dare they “open the floodgates” for the same kind of unholy billion-dollar-money that Obama himself had raised for his election when he was the FIRST presidential candidate from either party to refuse the public matching funds program that had been implemented BECAUSE OF NIXON’S CORRUPTION?

Barack Obama has been a more unholy WHORE for money than any of the last FIVE presidents combined.

Obama massively outspent McCain in 2008:

How did Mr. Obama use his massive spending advantage?

He buried Mr. McCain on TV. Nielsen, the audience measurement firm, reports that between June and Election Day, Mr. Obama had a 3-to-2 advantage over Mr. McCain on network TV buys. And Mr. Obama’s edge was likely larger on local cable TV, which Nielsen doesn’t monitor.

A state-by-state analysis confirms the Obama advantage. Mr. Obama outspent Mr. McCain in Indiana nearly 7 to 1, in Virginia by more than 4 to 1, in Ohio by almost 2 to 1 and in North Carolina by nearly 3 to 2. Mr. Obama carried all four states.

Obama outspent Romney in 2012 by a 2-1 margin:

Obama spent $52,006,072 compared to Romney’s $26,230,293. The $52M Obama spent is about $12 million more than it cost to build the Lincoln Memorial and $26 million more than Romney spent.

But this demon-possessed man – the essence of “Democrat” is “DEMOn possessed burueaCRAT” – was rabidly furious that the Supreme Court would allow the Republican Party to be the same kind of whore for money that Obama had been.  And he set about to exploit his own power as the Führer-in-chief to countermand the Supreme Court’s verdict and punish his enemies for exercising rights the Supreme Court of the United States declared they had.

The result was the IRS scandal, in which hundreds of conservative groups were targeted and systematically threatened and harassed into silence.  No liberal groups were damaged, according to the Treasury IG.  I repeat, NO liberal groups.  Versus the 300 who were attacked for being conservative.  And “anti-Obama.”

Punish your enemies and reward your friends,” Obama advised his cockroach army.  That has been his political philosophy throughout his corrupt presidency.

Obama began this dishonest thug practice immediately upon taking office with his massive $862 billion (actually $3.27 TRILLION) “stimulus” that he ultimately admitted wasn’t “shovel-ready” after all as he had dishonestly promised the American people it would be when he sold the lie to them.  Call him “Captain Obvious” for that admission.  It is a sad and cynical fact of history that money overwhelmingly went to blue states and areas that voted for Obama and was denied to red states and areas that voted for McCain as a political club rather than as an economic engine.  Nixon never came anywhere CLOSE to that level of political corruption.

Similarly, eighty percent of ALL the money Obama doled out for “green energy” projects was nothing more than cynical and corrupt payoffs to LIBERALS who supported Obama:

The Solyndra President.  Well, make that the Solyndra-EverGreen-SpectraWatt-First Solar-Solar Trust-Abound Solar-BrightSource-LSP Energy-Ener1-SunPower-Beacon Power-ECOtality-A123-Uni Solar-Azure Dynamics President.  Not to mention all the other now-bankrupt green energy crony-capitalist businesses that have stolen more than $2 billion dollars of the American people’s money.

And few Americans have any idea whatsoever how transparently corrupt Barack Obama is.

Eighty percent of all green energy loans provided by the American people’s stimulus money were given to crony capitalist-fascist Obama donors.  Obama is using the American people’s money as a political slush fund to reward his friends:

A new book by Hoover Institution fellow Peter Schweizer details the startling extent of the cronyism that has pervaded President Obama’s “green jobs” push. According to Schweizer, 4 out of every 5 renewable energy companies backed by the Energy Department was “run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers.”

“Nixonian” doesn’t BEGIN to describe the magnitude of corruption that has been business-as-usual in the Obama White House.

And as we speak, the Obama Department of Justice has been dishonestly targeting LEGITIMATE businesses they don’t like by exploiting a law that allowed them to go after corrupt business (see also here and here):

Back in March 2013, the Obama Administration unveiled Operation Choke Point, a collaborative effort between the Department of Justice, the FDIC, and the Federal Trade Commission aimed at rooting out bad money; think con artists, drug traffickers, and money launderers who have checking accounts. According to a report filed by the Washington Times, however, it appears that Operation Choke Point is now being used to target legitimate gun retailers.

Take for instance the case of Top Gun Firearms Training & Supply, a Miami retailer that just got dropped by BankUnited N.A. last month. Then there’s the case of McMillan Group International, a successful 12-year-old firearms manufacturer from Phoenix that got dropped by Bank of America in 2012. This despite the fact that the company never missed a single payment or bounced a check.

So why is this occurring? The original goal of Operation Choke Point was to closely monitor “high risk” clients. It basically gives the government permission to use a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) to request that a bank give up all the info it has on a particular client. Well, it just so happens that the mammoth regulation that is Operation Choke Point is a huge burden. As a result, bankers allegedly feel the need to choke off “high risk” clients to save themselves from any potential hassle.

Imagine the hell that would emerge if a conservative president were similarly dishonestly exploiting a law to attack pro-liberal businesses such as abortion clinics or ObamaCare businesses, etc.  Imagine Bush going after pro-liberal businesses.  If you are a Democrat, you frankly deserve to have your business seized, your home seized, hell, your children taken away as PAYBACK because of what you allowed your Thug-in-Chief to get away with.

This is THE most corrupt presidency America has ever seen, bar NONE.

We saw not only a cover-up, but a cover-up of the cover-up in the Benghazi scandal, where Obama falsely lied to the American people and claimed that he had broken al Qaeda (which we now know is stronger than its ever been and commands more territory than it has ever commanded, contrary to Obama’s dishonest, partisan ideologue lies from hell).

Obama KNEW he was lying:

As President Obama ran to election victory last fall with claims that al Qaeda was “decimated” and “on the run,” his intelligence team was privately offering a different assessment that the terrorist movement was shifting resources and capabilities to emerging spinoff groups in Africa that posed fresh threats to American security.

Top U.S. officials, including the president, were told in the summer and fall of 2012 that the African offshoots were gaining money, lethal knowledge and a mounting determination to strike U.S. and Western interests while keeping in some contact with al Qaeda’s central leadership, said several people directly familiar with the intelligence.

The gulf between the classified briefings and Mr. Obama’s pronouncements on the campaign trail touched off a closed-door debate inside the intelligence community about whether the terrorist group’s demise was being overstated for political reasons, officials told The Washington Times.

And what’s happened since proves the FACT that he materially lied to the American people:

Such that:

Al Qaeda in Iraq’s ranks doubled after the Obama pullout. They have since increased fivefold.

Under Obama, Al Qaeda has not only rebuilt, it has made gains that put it vastly beyond where it was before September 11. All the sacrifices and hard work were undone in a matter of years by Obama.

And:

(CNN) — From around Aleppo in western Syria to small areas of Falluja in central Iraq, al Qaeda now controls territory that stretches more than 400 miles across the heart of the Middle East, according to English and Arab language news accounts as well as accounts on jihadist websites.

Indeed, al Qaeda appears to control more territory in the Arab world than it has done at any time in its history.

Well, since Obama made his false and despicable lie to the American people in order to get fraudulently re-elected that al Qaeda was “on the run” and “decimated,” al Qaeda just held it’s largest meeting ever – and did so IN BROAD DAYLIGHT to mock a weakened America.

And what did Obama immediately do after cynically lying about national security – THE most sacred thing a president deals with?  He immediately framed ANOTHER lie to cover up his first gross and disgusting lie.  That the pre-planned and coordinated terrorist attack on the Benghazi compound was NOT because of a “broader failure of policy” but rather because of an American citizen who made a Youtube video that somehow caused a “spontaneous uprising” that the administration somehow couldn’t figure out was coming.  Even though it happened on 9/11 and terrorists LOVE anniversaries.

Obama and his entire administration claimed that the talking points they’d sent administration stooge Susan Rice out with had come from the CIA.  But we know that was a LIE:

Rice appeared on five Sunday talk shows two days later and on each show, she falsely claimed that an internet video caused a “spontaneous” demonstration that eventually erupted into the deadly violence in Benghazi.

But that never made sense, because the CIA memo never mentioned anything about a video.

So where did she get that completely erroneous information?

Straight from the Obama White House, that’s where.

Mike Morell – a political hack who proved he is a political hack by working for a Hillary Clinton think tank -

Before Mike Morrell left the CIA, he disclosed to the Wall Street Journal his interest in “advising future presidential campaigns.” Morrell then joined Beacon Global Strategies, a firm founded by Phillippe Reines, who has been described as Hillary Clinton’s  “principal gatekeeper.” Morrell is currently a paid contributor for CBS News.

- was forced to admit that the “Youtube video” claim did NOT come from the CIA analysts (who also admitted had completely ignored ALL the field reports that flooded in):

Why, the letter asks, did “Susan Rice… claim that the attacks on our compounds were caused by a hateful video when Mr. Morell testified that the CIA never mentioned the video as a causal factor and made no reference to the video in any of the multiple versions of the talking points?” (Source: CBS News)

In former Deputy CIA Director Morell’s own words:

“When she talked about the video, my reaction was, that’s not something that the analysts had attributed this attack to.”

Mind you, in pretty much everything else, this dishonest political hack lied like the weasel he is.

We also know that, contrary to the White House’s ocean of lies, yes they WERE TOO the ones who edited the Benghazi talking points for cynical political reasons.

This was WORSE than Watergate because the last I heard, no one was abandoned and left to die horribly during Watergate, versus the first American ambassador since the failed CARTER years to be tortured and murdered along with three heroes who tried to do what Obama refused to do and save their ambassador.

It also shouldn’t therefore surprise you that this “government-as-God” president has spent more borrowed money and thereby risked the bankruptcy of the United States of America than all of America’s presidents COMBINED.  There are a lot of enemies to punish and a lot of friends to reward.  It costs money to be the most corrupt human being who ever lived in all of human history.

Jeremiah Wright – Obama’s “reverend” for 23 years – spoke as a prophet.  He declared, “No, no, no!  NOT God bless America!  God DAMN America!”

We’re seeing a collapse of America in only a few years that is simply mindboggling.  I remember when I first became interested in Bible prophecy in the late 1970s/early 1980s that my biggest “sticking point” was the fact that America was nowhere mentioned in prophecy.  And how could the mightiest nation in the history of the world not be mentioned in the Bible’s description of the very last days?  And now I have the answer: because America is going down and going down HARD.

And this corrupt, incompetent, disgraceful LIAR is at the very heart of that collapse.

God is damning America.  It’s like the Book of Amos, where God declared that in judgment He would destroy one region with savage drought and another with terrifying floods  (and see here and here).

Now read Amos 4:7-8:

“I also withheld rain from you when the harvest was still three months away. I sent rain on one town, but withheld it from another. One field had rain; another had none and dried up.  People staggered from town to town for water but did not get enough to drink, yet you have not returned to me,” declares the LORD.

There’s nothing new under the sun, the Word of God declares.  Including divine judgment of a nation for the wickedness of the corrupt and incompetent and dishonest and disgraceful king who slanders God and His character in every act he undertakes as president.

Obama just gave a speech on national security that was universally panned as incoherent by the right and by the left as LUDICROUS.  He kept asserting that America had NOT become weaker, stupidly refusing to understand that if you have to say you’re not getting weaker, IT’S BECAUSE YOU’RE GETTING WEAKER.  There is no country on earth that has a better, closer relationship with the United States than when George W. Bush was president; there are NUMEROUS countries that hate us more than ever.  And as you look across the Middle East, such as Syria – where more than 160,000 people are dead and millions displaced along with Obama’s “red line” fiasco – the entire region is in stunning disarray.  Meanwhile Russia and China are either seizing territory as has not happened since Hitler and Stalin and World War II, or they are threatening to do so as their militaries grow more powerful while ours grows weaker.  And the fool actually claimed that our greatest enemy was “climate change.”  When our greatest enemy is a stupid and arrogant commander-in-chief who has made GOD America’s enemy.

I have a feeling I know just how the end will come for America.  Because Obama has recklessly and wickedly and foolishly borrowed so much and devalued the dollar so much, and because he has economically and militarily weakened America so much, it is only a matter of a (probably short) time before America is replaced as the world’s reserve currency.  Already, most of the world’s economic powers are on board to dump the dollar.  When that happens, America won’t be able to print money any more than any other nation is – and we will catastrophically economically implode overnight.  It will be a fitting end to God damn America (see here and here for articles on that).

Realize that when you voted for Obama – and particularly when you voted to actually re-elect him – you voted for the wrath of God on yourselves according to Romans chapter one.  You participated in the holocaust murders of more than fifty-five million innocent human beings and the destruction of marriage and the family in your vote.  You participated in the reckless and demonic devaluation of America’s creditworthiness and military and economic clout that made us a force in the world that could not be bypassed until Obama ruined us.  And as Jeremiah Wright put it, “your chickens have come home to roost.”

Moral Outrage About Liberalism’s Vile ‘Moral Outrage’

May 28, 2014

I came across an all-too typical liberal op-ed from a Harvard professor from the Kentucky School of Government named Moshik Temkin.

The subject in this case was the death penalty.  Basically, Professor Temkin says that Obama ought to once again ignore the constitutional limits on his power and declare as our Führer that the death penalty is immoral and he will not stand for it.  He ends his screed saying:

What abolitionists need to do is call for change to emanate from the very top. The president (whether the current one or a future one) will need to express a principled opposition to the death penalty in terms of the sanctity of human life and dignity.

Here I see some room for guarded optimism. Obama does not need to worry about his political future. This could be the moment for him to take a stand against capital punishment, the way he did on gay marriage. But he will probably not do this on his own; public pressure is the key.

Those of us horrified by the death penalty should not look to the courts or the states. We must look toward our national leaders and demand that they do what is right.

In the print version, the giant bold type face screamed, “Outrage over botched executions isn’t enough.  It’s about a moral stand.”

It’s an interesting thing to consider what the left would do if a right-wing president used the tyrannous dictatorial power the way Obama has to merely impose his law in place of the rule of law.  Basically, liberals are people who shout, “It’s never fascist when WE do it; it’s ALWAYS fascist when you do what wasn’t fascist for us to do!”

And they are morally idiotic enough to actually believe it, which is the truly astounding thing.

I leave my case to a LIBERAL legal scholar who has had more than enough of Obama’s fascism.  What is Jonathon Turley saying about Obama?

I have great trepidation of where we are headed, because we are creating a new system here – something that is not what was designed. We have a rising fourth branch in a system that was tripartite. The center of gravity is shifting and that makes it unstable. And ithin that system, you have the rise of an Uber-Presidency. There could be no greater danger for individual liberty. I really think that the Framers would be horrified by that shift, because everything they dedicated themselves to was creating political balance – and we’ve lost it.”

And:

“…the President is outside the line… we have the most serious Constitutional crisis I view, in my lifetime… this body (Congress) is becoming less and less relevant.”

And:

“The president is using executive power to do things Congress has refused to do, and that does fit a disturbing pattern of expansion of executive power under President Obama. In many ways, President Obama has fulfilled the dream of an imperial presidency that Richard Nixon strived for. On everything from (the Defense of Marriage Act) to the gaming laws, this is a president who is now functioning as a super legislator. He is effectively negating parts of the criminal code because he disagrees with them. That does go beyond the pale.”

Our system of government is intentionally tripartite, with each branch holding certain defined functions delegated to them by the Constitution. The President is charged with executing the laws; the Congress is charged with writing the laws; and the Judiciary is charged with interpreting them.

The Obama Administration, however, has blatantly, repeatedly and defiantly ignored the Constitution’s carefully balanced separation of powers and unilaterally granted itself the extra-constitutional authority to amend the laws and to waive or suspend their enforcement at his dictate.

In place of the checks and balances established by the Constitution, President Obama has proclaimed that “I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer” and that “where [Congress] won’t act, I will.” Throughout the Obama presidency we have seen the same pattern repeated over and over again: President Obama circumvents Congress when he doesn’t get his way.

And fascists like Temkin – a vile hypocrite in that he would be SCREAMING FROTHINGH RABIDITY if a right wing president declared anywhere NEAR similar power for himself – is encouraging him to go farther.

And I am outraged that a documented FASCIST like Moshik Temkin is allowed to hold a position whereby he can pollute the minds of young people with ideas that history has declared to be truly evil.  Fascism is ugly.  It is immoral.  We fought a World War to stop it.  We shouldn’t be forced to have to fight the same war over again.  But fascist progressive liberal secular humanist atheists appear to be ensuring that we will have to.

People like Moshik Temkin yearn for a dictatorship, so long as the dictator is a liberal progressive secular humanist atheist like themselves.  These roaches WELCOME Big Brother as long as they get to choose their Stalinist totalitarian dictator.

I frankly laugh in disgust and contempt at anyone who wants to impose “morality” on a people not through the legislative process, but through the unconstitutional dictate of a tyrant.

On that “secular humanist atheist,” aspect, I quote Temkin as declaring that the death penalty is immoral in terms of “the sanctity of human life and dignity.”

As I read that line, I thought about Isaiah 5:20:

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!

I want you to stop and think about what Temkin is asserting: the people who have now murdered well over 55 million innocent human babies in their abortion mills are now asserting that “the sanctity of human life” that they have viciously refused to apply to the most helpless and the most innocent among us – and if you didn’t have your start in your mother’s womb, this doesn’t apply to you – ought to apply to the most depraved torture-rapist-murderers among us.

Let us see what the Bible says about children in the womb, with this being but one example:

For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:13-16).

In 1999, Clayton Lockett – the heroic martyr of liberalism – kidnapped, beat, and shot nineteen-year-old Stephanie Neiman and ordered an accomplice to bury her while she was still breathing. She slowly died after having been buried alive from two wounds from a shotgun fired by Lockett. In 2000, Lockett was convicted of murder, rape, forcible sodomy, kidnapping, assault and battery and sentenced to death.

According to progressive liberal secular humanist atheist, this monster deserves to be honored with the recognition of the “sanctity of his life” and his “dignity.”  But you can and should go on exterminating human beings in the womb in a vicious manner that these selfsame self-righteous liberals would be weeping over if we did the same thing to rats.

“A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy,” declares these truly morally stupid and morally evil people.  That is the soul-diseased left talking.

God declared capital punishment in very simple terms:

“Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind. — Genesis 9:6

I want you to notice here that God explains that it is precisely BECAUSE of “the dignity of human life” - that results from being made in the image of God and from NOTHING less and nothing ELSE – as the reason why there should be a death penalty.  It comes down to this: when one human being literally takes the power of GOD into his or her own hands to destroy the image of God in another human being, that murderer needs to die in order for the dignity of human life to be honored.  To allow such a murderer to live after that murderer took another human life is to DISHONOR and DISGRACE the image of God and to spit on the memory of the victim(s) of such a monster.

To argue that murderers ought to be spared but helpless innocent babies ought to die horrifying deaths as they are literally torn to pieces while they try to avoid the medical implements that are killing them, burned alive by acid, and ripped apart by suction (see also here), is evil.  And to repeat that evil more than fifty-five million times makes the Nazis look positively humane.

But the thing is that that means absolutely NOTHING to a genuine moral idiot like Moshik Temkin.

No, liberal secular humanists stand in JUDGMENT of God and they have declared Him evil and His ways wicked.  They have placed themselves above God and condemned Him.  And that is why they hate Christians and conservatives who try to live according to the morality God provided in His Word.

Jesus taught in John 15:18-22 (NLT):

“If the world hates you, remember that it hated Me first.  The world would love you as one of its own if you belonged to it, but you are no longer part of the world. I chose you to come out of the world, so it hates you.  Do you remember what I told you? ‘A slave is not greater than the master.’ Since they persecuted Me, naturally they will persecute you. And if they had listened to Me, they would listen to you.  They will do all this to you because of Me, for they have rejected the one who sent Me.  They would not be guilty if I had not come and spoken to them. But now they have no excuse for their sin.”

Progressive liberal secular humanists hate me and hate my ways because they love evil and because they hated Jesus first.

That is why they have become the official party of the wrath of God according to the divine condemnation of Romans chapter one (see here and here).

Liberalism is a rejection and a replacement of all ten of the Ten Commandments.

Liberalism is the defiant contempt of God and God’s ways and God’s people, nothing more and nothing less.  Liberals are people who kicked God out of America with their contrived “separation of church and state” myth that is NOT found in our Constitution but IS found in the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  And having exorcised God much the way Jesus exorcised demons and banished God in the name of “secularism,” they rapidly moved in to replace God with their totalitarian State that abrogated all of the divine prerogatives of God unto themselves.

Communism is State atheism.  And it is therefore no surprise that progressive liberal secular humanists would embrace the essence of Communist theory: The dictatorship by the proletariat embodied in their leader will bring about a Utopia.  And I still hear the Satan that is Obama shouting, “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek” while his followers worshiped him like a god.  I still think of Obama actually saying that as a result of his presidency, “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.”  I still remember liberals literally teaching their own children – along with as many OTHER people’s children as they could – to worship Obama in songs to their deity.  I wanted to puke.  But liberals are a stupid enough, depraved enough, leader-worshiping enough bunch of moral idiots to fall on their knees before this pseudo-messiah.

You show me doing any of that crap with Bush.  By a wide margin over the 2nd place Abraham Lincoln, Americans say that Ronald Reagan was our greatest president.  But even with Reagan, conservatives never worshiped the man the way liberals have worshiped Obama even as Reagan led America upward versus Obama who has led this nation downward and further downward.  Liberals are quintessentially FASCIST; they YEARN for a Führer.  They’ve basically found one in Obama – and they want him to keep moving his Führership forward to the next level and then the next one after that.

It is and always has been the LEFT that 1) purges God from society and 2) establishes a cult of personality for its leaders.  Something must fill the vacuum when God is removed.  And leftists fill that vacuum with the State as epitomized in their current Stalin, their Obama.

In progressive liberal secular humanism, just as in Stalinsim, we have an ideology that suggests society would be better if it could be purified.  Stalin purged “kulaks” by the millions.  HE alone got to define what or who a “kulak” was.  Just being so labeled pretty much meant you were finished.  And now we’re seeing JUST ALL OVER THE LEFT that the same fascist murderous heart that beat in Hitler and in Stalin beats in the liberal progressive as well.  A modern “kulak” today in America is pretty much anybody that says or does anything progressive liberal secular humanists don’t like.  And they will come after their “kulaks” with a rabid hate that is astounding because the very same people endlessly talk about how “tolerant” they are at the same time they’re dumping hate on you for disagreeing with them:

Howard Dean, who is still alive, told attendees at a fundraiser for a Democratic congressional hopeful that Republicans “are not American” and would “be more comfortable in the Ukraine or Russia.” He also screamed that GOP supporters should “stay away from our country.”

Dean, a former Vermont governor, a former Democratic National Committee chairman and a 2004 presidential candidate, made the statements last week in a fit of zeal as he was speaking in support of Colorado 6th Congressional District candidate Andrew Romanoff.

“This is a Republican party that has decided they like power so much that they think it’s okay to win by taking away the right to vote,” Dean told the gathered assembly of 750 people at Dora’s Mexican Restaurant in Aurora, Colo.

“They are not American,” he bellowed. “They could be more comfortable in the Ukraine or Russia but stay away from our country. This is based on the right to vote.”

Amusingly, Dean then lectured Republicans on tolerance and love:

“We have had enough of the extreme right wing,” Dean continued. “We have had enough of the politics of anger, we have had enough of the politics of hate, we have had enough of the politics of division,” Dean told the estimated 750 in attendance at Dora’s Mexican Restaurant.

You’d think their skulls would explode trying to contain all the massive contradictions, but not progressive liberals; their very ideology is pathological hypocrisy.  And so what they say versus what they do and how they demonize others for doing a fraction of the evils they do is an intrinsic part of liberalism.  Such that if you removed the hypocrisy from a liberal he or she would utterly dematerialize never to be seen again.

Progressive liberals say they’re like Jesus because they want socialism to care for the poor.  No.  You’re NOT like Jesus because Jesus never taught socialism: when the disciples came to Jesus and told Him that there were 5,000 men (probably on the order of 15,000 people altogether), Jesus did NOT say to call Herod or Pilate and urge them to begin a government welfare program; He said “YOU feed them.”  The ONLY places that talk about big government in the Bible, such as 1 Samuel chapter 8, CONDEMN IT.  No, you’re not like Jesus for wanting socialism, liberal; you’re like Hitler and Stalin.  You’re like Hamas and Hezbollah and other terrorist groups with supposed programs to care for the poor.  And oh, yes, you really are like them.

Jesus very definitely found nothing of Himself in a liberal system by which one group forcibly seizes the wealth of another group and then gives that money not to the poor but to a totalitarian State that endlessly promises to help the poor but which year after year and decade after decade pisses away more than a half a billion dollars every single day.

If you think that Jesus believed in homosexual marriage, you’re beyond morally idiotic and you’re just plain evil.  Jesus taught that He had come to fulfill ever single jot and tittle of the lawwhich very definitely called homosexuality an “abomination” and “a detestable act.”  And Jesus commissioned the New Testament, which very clearly condemns homosexuality every bit as forcefully as does the Old Testament that Jesus lived and breathed.

For the record, one of the things Jesus lived and breathed and said He came not to abolish but to fulfill was the commandment concerning the death penalty for murderers.  That’s there, too, you know.

I read through articles in which people actually try to argue that the Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality and simply marvel at the determination to self-deceive and to deceive as many others as possible.  Paul spoke of these minds that “profess themselves to be wise, but become fools” (Romans 1:22) as “always learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7).

You’re definitely not like Jesus when it comes to children; Jesus said, “Let the little children come unto Me.”  In the entirety of the Bible and the biblical worldview, children were (and are) a sign of blessing from God.  But YOU say, “we define fifty-five million dead children as ‘a good start.’”

I recently wrote an article titled, Evolution Vs. The 10 Commandments: And The Winner Is…?.”   Secular humanists routinely and constantly mock and slander “Christian morality,” but I’ll take that over “Darwinian morality” every day of the year given the catastrophic consequences of embracing the “morality” of the left.  One moral system is timeless and based on God; the other continually evolves at the whim of a group of people who crave for themselves the place of God.

If there is no God, there IS no “morality.” We should act like the beasts we are. But what these people are truly looking for is to stand in the place of God over the human race (which they are strangely part of even as they view themselves as inherently superior over it) and impose THEIR vision, THEIR stamp, on the human race. We shouldn’t do what GOD says, we should do what Barack Obama says.

Such a person’s “moral outrage” is itself morally outrageous.

 

 

 

A Warning To The Republican Party Establishment RE: Trying To Force ‘Moderates’ On Conservatives

May 24, 2014

As a California conservative, politics are almost invariably less than “happy.”

A conservative trying to be happy in the People’s Republic of California is rather like like trying to be “Happy” in Iran; we just don’t get to be.

Even when the people vote our way, some fascist liberal judge dictates that the will of the people WILL NOT be respected.  As an example, TWICE now, with Proposition 22 and again with Proposition 8, a judge has overturned the clear will of the people and acted like an ayatollah.  Progressive liberal activists exploited the donor lists as well as their own innate fascism to pursue a vendetta of political thuggery against Prop 8 donors.  And of course we just saw that hard-core leftist fascism demonstrated again when a CEO who had helped build a major company was destroyed because he foolishly thought he had a right to donate to political issues that he believed in (and see here).

So, yeah, as a California conservative, I know that things will rarely ever work out the way I want them to.

And therefore, I’m willing – eager even – to compromise if I can at least have some of my core priorities maintained.

But that won’t happen in California.  Or California would stop being California, wouldn’t it?

We’ve got our primaries coming up and there are two candidates for governor on the ballot to oppose Democrat Jerry Brown in November.

One of them is – by most media accounts – a rabid nutjob who is a racist, who hates immigrants and who has an unnatural love of gunsThe other one is a “moderate” who celebrates homosexual marriage and the right of women to kill their babies with those children’s fathers being denied any rights to their children whatsoever.

Turnout in June is expected to be far older, more white and more conservative than the overall California electorate, posing additional challenges for moderate candidates like Kashkari, who supports gay marriage and abortion rights.

Concern over Donnelly’s emergence prompted businessman Bill Bloomfield to put $142,000 into an independent expenditure campaign for Kashkari. Bloomfield quit the GOP in 2011 over what he saw as extremist views.

So do I vote for the whackjob conservative or the baby-murdering sodomite worshiper?  Decisions, decisions.

I’m not a fan of Donnelly.  I think he’s an inferior candidate at best.  But at least I don’t have to participate in two of the most grievous sins in order to vote for the guy.

It’s not exactly a happy pace to be.  So Iran doesn’t have to worry about my “Happy” video.  There will be no Snoopy dancing for conservatives in California.

Do you know why California is going to have a truly disastrous “wrath of God” style earthquake soon?  Because it will deserve it.  We’re already experiencing the wrath of God in the form of devastating drought.

Let me tell you who I am going to vote for in the primary, California Republican Party.  I’m going to vote for the guy who ISN’T a baby-murdering sodomite worshiper.

There are a lot of hills that as a conservative I’m not willing to die on.  I’m willing, for instance, to support a candidate who favors immigration policies that I would rather not see implemented.  Because I would just like to have somebody who represents me at least a little bit on the issues I most care about.

But I will NOT violate my conscience.

I am NOT going to add my name to the list of people who are directly, personally responsible for the murder of more than 55 million innocent human beings since 1973.  I’m just not.

I am NOT going to add my name to the list of people who are defying God to impose His wrath according to Romans Chapter One.  I’m just not.

That is why I am NOT going to cast my vote for Neel Kashkari.  I am not going to vote for him now in the primary and I am not going to vote for him if he is the candidate in November.  I am not going to be put in a position where I am saying, “Hmm.  This baby-murdering sodomite worshiper isn’t quite as bad as this baby-murdering sodomite worshiper.”

I’ve been amazed at Neel Kashkari’s ads.  He keeps calling himself a “conservative.”  Like that means ANYTHING when a guy like him is saying it.  And his ads keep announcing “I’m not a politician.”  Nope – you are just desperate to BECOME one.  But you’ve already sold your soul.

I understand that Donnelly doesn’t have a chance in hell of winning.  Because California has BECOME hell and will soon surely burn in hell due to it’s wrath-of-God drought as it collapses into the ocean due to its wrath-of-God earthquake.

The funny thing is that in spite of ALL the big money going to Kashkari, Donnelly is STILL well ahead of the leftist “moderate” RINO in the polls.  So it doesn’t look like Kashkari has much of a chance of winning, either, does it?

I’m just writing this to the so-called “moderates” who want to expand the Republican Party base.  There are issues you can “expand” on and there are issues you can’t and hope to keep voters like me WHO CAN BE COUNTED UPON TO GO OUT AND VOTE.  The Republican Party platform very clearly states that the Republican Party is pro-life – which means anti-abortion – and pro-marriage – which means anti-homosexual marriage.  Don’t betray the foundation of the party to “reach out” to people who will ultimately end up voting for the other side, anyway.

Abortion and the perversion of marriage are my two hills to die on.  And that is going to remain true even as I watch the American people and the people of California become increasingly wicked in these last days just as the Bible warned me would happen.

DO NOT THINK THAT I (OR CONSERVATIVES LIKE ME) WILL BE WILLING TO PUT ASIDE MY CONSCIENCE IN ORDER TO SUPPORT SOMEBODY JUST BECAUSE THERE IS AN ‘R’ IN PARENTHESES AFTER HIS OR HER NAME.  THAT AINT GOING TO HAPPEN.

If Neel Kashari wins, I will leave my ballot blank for governor.  And that’s a promise from a guy who truly is NOT a politician.

 

Evolution Vs. The 10 Commandments: And The Winner Is…?

May 22, 2014

One of the things that makes living a moral life – keeping the 10 commandments – discouraging and disheartening these days is the fact that people all around us are NOT keeping them.  If you’ve been around kids you know how kids invariably look at other kids as the measure of what should and shouldn’t be okay.  When exasperated children say, “But all the other kids are doing it!” parents offer the knee-jerk response: “If all the other kids jumped off a cliff, would you do that, too?”  And that’s a valid point, of course.  But your kid isn’t asking to jump off a cliff; he’s asking to stay out late or he’s asking to go to a concert or something else that he simply doesn’t view as tantamount to leaping off a cliff to his certain death.  What that child sees is a fun thing that the other kids are doing that he can’t do, and as a child who has himself been confronted with “the cliff” question, I can tell you that it might end the argument but it hardly ends a kid’s angst.

It would be a very different world if someone received heavenly electroshocks from God every single time they violated the 10 commandments.  But that isn’t the way it happens.  David and later Jeremiah famously asked the question we’ve all likely asked at one time or another: “Why do the wicked prosper?”

It’s not merely that so many people break God’s laws all around us and seem to get away with it and even seem to get rewarded for it that creates discouragement, however.  It’s also that there is an entire worldview that explains this apparent state in terms of a presentation that God’s laws aren’t really even “laws” at all but merely intolerant edicts written by intolerant, superstitious and frankly bigoted human beings who invented God as a means to control and dominate people.  Sometimes it very much seems like the whole world system has been designed to confuse and discourage God’s people into wondering why we bother to follow God’s commands.  In place of God today we are instead being offered a Darwinian system of evolution that is being held up as “science” and therefore beyond question.

We’ve all heard about the Ten Commandments in the Bible.  And it occurred to me that it would be interesting to explore them from the viewpoint of Darwinian evolution – consistently applied – and see how the results strike your moral intuitions.  I submit to you that sometimes the best way to finally put your trust on God’s system is to consider the results of man’s systems and see their end.  That’s ultimately how David began to receive his answer to his question of why the wicked prosper: in verse 17 of Psalm 73 David said, “then I understood their final destiny.”  We need to be able to do that with Darwinism.

When Jesus Christ and His Word are your source for ideas, you simply do not need to be afraid of the competition.  The best antidote to all the lies that surround us is the truth.  And so I would like to take some time to survey the truth: the truth about science and where it came from; the truth about some very interesting issues in which science is surprisingly ignorant; the truth about a giant flaw in Darwin’s presentation; and finally an examination of what Darwinian “ethics” would look like to show you its end.  And what I want you to see is that God’s law makes absolute sense in light of its vicious Darwinian competition.

So I begin with the origin of science: how did we get science?  Should we view it as incompatible with Christianity?  Well, it turns out that we got science from Christianity.  Here’s an interesting fact I link to in my notes: The scientific method itself and the founder of virtually every single branch of modern science was discovered by a publicly confessed Christian.  Dr. Rodney Stark, a sociologist, “researched the leading scientists from 1543 [– the beginning of the scientific revolution –] to 1680 and found that of the top 52 scientists, one was a skeptic, one was a pantheist and 50 were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as devout because of their zeal.”  We find that science arose only once in human history – and it arose in Europe under the civilization then called “Christendom.” Christianity provided the worldview foundations necessary and essential for the birth of science: The earth was not the illusion of Eastern religion and philosophy, but a physical, tangible place. And the material world was not the corrupt and lower realm of Greek religion and philosophy, but God created it and called it “good.” And God endowed the capstone of His creation, man – as the bearer of His divine image – with the reason, the curiosity, and the desire to know the truth. And God – who designed an orderly and law-abiding universe and earth for man – made man the caretaker of His creation. And thus the great astronomer Johannes Kepler described his project as “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”  And that is frankly why 106 of the first 108 colleges in America were founded as religious Christian institutions.  My point is this: is Christianity at war with the essence of science?  NO!  Atheism is at war with the essence of science.  It is simply a demonstrable lie that legitimate science is at odds with Christianity; and this lie should not trouble you no matter how often you hear the lie or who repeats it.

There’s another myth that I would like to briefly examine; and that is the myth of science as some monolithic field that has answered all of the profoundly important questions.  That is how it is frequently presented in the media; but when you listen to scientists themselves you get a very different story.  I’ve recently began watching a Science Channel program called “Through the Wormhole.”  And I’ve been shocked at just how little science genuinely knows when the scientists and not the news media discuss science.

For example, take black holes:  We find that “black holes are places where the accepted laws of physics break down.”  Dr. Gabor Kunstatter of the University of Winnipeg physics department, defines black holes as a “a tiny region of space where the known laws of physics break down.”  It turns out that every system of physics known to man – Newtonian, Einsteinian, Quantum Mechanics, String Theory – all are falsified inside black holes.  And by the way, this is kind of a big deal because there are something like 100 million black holes in our galaxy.  It’s simply not true to claim that science accounts for all reality.  It simply doesn’t.

Here’s another one that surprised me.  If you try to reconcile Einstein’s relativity with Quantum Mechanics, a strange thing happens: you’re left with an equation that has no ‘t’ variable for time.  Time gets cancelled out of any equation that tries to harmonize these two widely held theories.  Since this runs counter to observable reality, most scientists rightly believe that quantum physics and relatively theory “don’t play well together.”  In fact, they invalidate one another.  It is rather astonishing that modern physics can’t account for something as basic to human existence as time.  But some physicists are so determined to believe their theories that they literally argue that if their equations says time doesn’t exist, then time doesn’t exist.  I laughed as a Rutgers University philosopher of physics named Tim Madulin explained that these guys are spending way too much time with numbers and not enough time with reality.  But that’s what is going on far too often in what is passing for “science” today – especially evolutionary science.

How about this one: 95% of the universe that physicists depend on for their theories is MISSING.  “An enormous chunk of the Universe seems to be invisible. We can’t see it, hear it, or detect it in any way… To crack the cosmic code that underlies our Universe, we have to understand energy in all its forms. But what if almost 95% of the Universe is made of a form of energy we can’t see and don’t understand?”  The 95% of the universe that they can’t detect in any way is there because it HAS to be there for their theories to hold up.

Here’s another one  – and it’s actually quite a doozy: the Big Bang.  99.9% of working scientists in relevant fields of astronomy accept the Big Bang.  But taking what had to happen into account, what is the likelihood of a life-supporting universe coming into existence by chance?  Think about it: there’s nothing, there’s nothing, there’s nothing.  And then POOF! There’s everything.  Just what are the odds of something like that just happening by chance?  According to the great mathematician Roger Penrose, who calculated the odds of what had to happen for the Big Bang, the odds against such an occurrence happening by chance were on the order of 10^10^123 to 1.  How big of a number against the Big Bang happening by chance is that?  I’ll let well-known theoretical physicist Laura Mersini-Houghton – who is an atheist, by the way – tell you. From “Through the Wormhole”: “The seed of this idea was planted many years ago when she realized she had a problem with the Universe – a pretty big problem. According to her calculations, the Universe should not exist. “The chances to start the Universe with the high-energy Big Bang are one in 10 with another 10 zeros behind it and another 123 zeros behind it. So, pretty much, zero.”  As a result of these odds, Mersini-Houghton wrote a paper proposing what she acknowledged to be a “highly speculative” theory denying Big Bang cosmology which might provide the materialists with a way to rescue their atheistic belief system.

The big problem with the Big Bang is that the Big Bang requires a Big Banger.  All matter, all energy, all space and all time came into existence.  You need somebody to make that “POOF” happen – someone who Himself is not limited by matter, energy, space or time.  Only the Bible identifies Him:  “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”  We need that Guy.  We need God.

The strongest argument against “science” disproving the existence of God is SCIENCE.

Let me leave you with one last example right out of the Bible: Jeremiah 33:22 records a statement by God that the stars in the sky are “countless.”  That may not sound like that big of a deal, but consider: In 128BC Hipparchus claimed to have counted the stars, with their number being 1,026.  That number stood as the official count of the stars of the sky for seventeen hundred years until 1600AD, when Kepler counted the stars and concluded that Hipparchus had double-counted some: and the updated number was 1,005 stars.  Was God wrong?  Well, with the aid of the Hubble telescope scientists now estimate that there are 70 sextillion – that’s a number followed by 21 zeroes – stars in over 1 billion galaxies.  And that number actually exceeds the number of grains of sand on all the seashores on earth, to complete the proof of Jeremiah 33.

We don’t have to be afraid to debate the truth.  We don’t have to be afraid of the facts.  We don’t have to play games with the numbers and the evidence in order to support our faith.  THAT’S WHAT THE OTHER SIDE HAS TO DO.  Another way to put it is this: don’t let science or anything else tell you how to read your Bible.  Because you are a LOT more warranted to let your Bible tell you how to read everything else.

So with that as a primer, let’s begin to contemplate Charles Darwin and his Darwinian evolution. There is one primary reason that Darwinism is accepted as a “valid scientific theory” and “Creationism” or even “Intelligent Design” is not so accepted: and that is that we’re told that Darwinism passes the bar of being “testable” or “falsifiable” but theories that depend on God in any way are NOT so testable or falsifiable.  We’re told that we can’t put a Creator God under a microscope and observe Him creating.  But let me show you how utterly fallacious that standard is by showing you Darwin’s “test” for his theory: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Well, Darwin himself said the eye as a refutation of his theory gave him cold fits.  He wrote in a letter: “I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now small trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable.  The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!”  A couple of things leap out of that: the first thing is that Darwin is clearly not an objective scientist who is willing to go wherever the evidence leads; he is passionately determined to get God out of the picture.  It makes him literally “cold” and “sick” to see any evidence of a Designer, doesn’t it?  With that said, let’s talk about Darwin’s own dilemma with the eye.  The thing about an eye is that it doesn’t work unless all the components are properly in place.  It’s not like you can grow an eyeball but not have any optical nerves and still see a little bit.  You’ve either got the whole eye or you’ve got squat.  I read Richard Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker during a period when I was genuinely doubting whether God really existed or not.  And when I saw his account of how the eye developed a little tiny bit at a time, it was a laugher for me, even being the skeptic that I was.  On his account, the first eye began to form from a photoreceptor cell on a depression in some early creature’s body – as though we all need to go home and check our belly buttons every day lest an eye is starting to grow out of it.  And as Dawkins presented this bizarre story of how the eye formed by “numerous, successive, slight modifications,” his story just got worse and worse.  It amounted to a fairy-tale for atheists.  It had to happen this way to keep God out of the picture, so that’s clearly how it happened no matter how implausible or even ridiculous it sounds.

And it actually gets WORSE for Darwinists, because we now know that the cell is filled with incredible tiny machines that all have to be present in a cell in order for that cell to work.  And scientists point out that it would take a good 50 times even the 4.6 billion of years earth has supposedly existed for random chance to manufacture just one useful protein for even the simplest bacteria cell.  That’s not amoeba to man; “numerous, successive, slight modifications” can’t even get Darwinism to a bacteria cell!  We now know a lot more about what the Bible describes: that we are truly “fearfully and wonderfully made” just as Psalm 139:14

But there is actually an even more glaring problem with Darwin’s “falsifiability” than most Christian thinkers have attacked.  Let’s look at the Darwin’s falsifiability standard again: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”  That is a nearly impossible standard to defeat: we have to prove something is absolutely impossible.  But let me try doing the same thing with my Creationist theory so you can see the bait-and-switch that’s going on here: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not have possibly been formed by God, my Creation theory would absolutely break down.”  My point is that Creationism and Intelligent Design have been ruled out without any consideration by the modern scientific establishment because they are “not falsifiable” when the Darwinism that they want to embrace is actually no more falsifiable than our Creation theories are.  The only difference is that when atheists tell their stories about how time and chance and random mutation managed to pull off one impossible miracle after another, OUR STORIES MAKE A LOT MORE SENSE!  You need to understand that there is a true spirit of delusion and hypocrisy at work in our world.

So science itself originated out of Christian thought on fundamentally Christian precepts of intelligence and design and the science that arose out of and because of Christianity clearly isn’t incompatible with Christianity; so science really truly doesn’t know that much about the ultimate nature of the universe and what it DOES know confirms rather than contradicts that our universe and life itself was the product of supernatural Intelligent Design; and so Darwinism amounts to an atheist polemic that has support merely because it illegitimately rules out its rivals on utterly fraudulent grounds.  Are you with me so far?

With all of that as our backdrop, let us now ponder the implications of Darwinian morality.  As a young man with a mangled faith, wondering if God truly existed and cared about how I lived, I realized something: if evolution is true and there is no God, then there is no such thing as human morality, either.  And I literally not only could but frankly ought to have been utterly amoral if that was the case.  As soon as that thought occurred to me, however, it frightened me far more than it reassured me.  Because I had not been raised to be amoral.  Everything I had been taught in my entire life up to that point had directed me to believing in right and wrong.  And it was a dark thought indeed that there was no God and morality flowed from Darwinism.  Because Darwinian morality is as vicious as it is violent.

Let’s start with the fact that evolutionists claim that their system of Darwinism is simply the way the world works.  Assume that’s true for a moment.  And then look at the world around you.  Because like it or not, Darwinism entails social Darwinism.  What is true for nature must be true for the individual and society.  If nature progresses by competition for survival, and the victory of the strong over the weak, then all progress must come the same way.  If life is an unceasing struggle for existence, and its outcome is the survival of the fittest, as Darwin claimed, then that is how we ought to function as individuals and as a society.

Modern Darwinists want to use their system to violently club God to death, then drop that club and say, “Now that Darwinism has killed God and religion, let’s not live as if our system that says life is a struggle for existence in which only the fittest survive and the weak are a threat to the rest of the herd is actually true.”  Like so many other elements of Darwinian thought, there is a massive self-contradiction.

Richard Dawkins has laid war and death on the back of religion, but he refuses to accept the far greater holocaust of death on the back of his atheism.  When we rightly point out that atheistic communism was responsible for the murder of more than 110 million people during peacetime alone, Dawkins claims that communism and atheism have nothing to do with each other.  But as I showed last week, that simply is false: atheism was at the very core of Marxism.  If you look up “state atheism,” you find that it is virtually identical with communism.  And it is no coincidence that not only did Karl Marx identify with Charles Darwin as strongly supporting his theory of class struggle and write that Darwinism was “the basis in natural history for our views,” but Nazism was also little more than applied Darwinism – with the rationale of both creating a master race and exterminating the Jews being profoundly Darwinian.  Hitler even made his own people the victims of his Darwinism, stating, “If the German Volk is not strong enough and is not sufficiently prepared to offer its own blood for its existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.”  That is profoundly Darwinian.  Now intellectual frauds like Richard Dawkins are trying to go back and rewrite history to expunge the incredibly tragic results of Darwinism being applied to the actual world and society.

And the horror that results in society is equally true of the individual who lives by Darwinism.

Why do we as individuals rape, murder and sleep around?  Becauserape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.”  Darwinism is “a scientific idea that, if true, consigns traditions of self-restraint, loyalty, the very basis of family life, to the shredder.”  Now go ye and do likewise.  Unless something inside of you screams “NO!  I will NOT live in accordance with that terrible, wicked, demonic theory of Darwinian evolution!”

I like to watch nature programs on TV, although it is often hard – because the stories end so bleakly.  In one episode, I watched a dominant female baboon whose had baby died because she couldn’t produce milk snatch the baby of a healthy mother.  And of course that baby died because the dominant baboon female couldn’t produce any milk but wouldn’t return it to its mother.  In another program, I watched a lion cub get trampled by buffalo when the herd suddenly changed direction; its pelvis was crushed and it was dragging itself around by its front lets with its hind legs useless.  What happened?  Was there a lion welfare program?  No.  The mother and its siblings and the pride abandoned it after a few days, and it surely died horribly.  Because in nature the weak, the sick and the injured are a liability and even a threat to the rest of society and they should die so the strong can live.  That’s the way the world often is in the aftermath of the Fall.

Have you ever wondered why God allows animal suffering like that?  Let me offer an answer: because God wants us to look at the animals and see that He created us different.  We are NOT animals; we are made in the image of a rational, moral God.  And we should not live or think like beings lacking the Imago Dei.

Now, in the time that I have left, let me finally get to the essence of the 10 Commandments.  God told Israel in Exodus 20:2, “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery .“  Allow me to restate that in a slightly different way: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you OUT” of that animal state of bondage.  You will NOT live like animals in some Darwinian state; instead you will live like My people whom I created and whom I love and hold to a higher standard than any beast of the field.

Why is it that the first five commandments focus on man’s relationship to God?  Today, our government schools are trying to abandon the commandments focusing on God but somehow keep the ethics of the last five.  A US District Court Judge actually tried to cut the Ten Commandments down to six.  One pastor recently preached on that and said, “The educators are attempting to enact the ethics of the second half of the Ten Commandments which have to do with not lying, stealing, etc. without taking heed to the first half!  They are trying to teach young men and women how to love their neighbor without first training them to love God!  All such attempts will fall short, because unless you first love God, and have God living in you, it is not possible to live out his character, which is what loving your neighbor is all about.”

In light of what you have just heard on Darwinism, let me sing the same song again: because we are NOT to live like animals; we are NOT to live like a bunch of creatures who invent our own meanings and values for ourselves; instead we ARE to live in the light of our relationship to our Creator from which our love for our neighbor flows.  We are to live up to the image of God in us as humans.  And frankly if we truly love the Lord our God with all of our heart, mind and strength, and if we truly have the love of God in Christ in our hearts, we cannot help but love our neighbors as we love ourselves.  It flows out of us like water flows out of a spring.

There’s a powerful reason for this: it derives from the fact that community is central to the heart of the Trinity.  There’s a theological term in Greek called “Perichoresis.”  It means, “to dance around.” The divine dance within the Trinity.  It derives from passages such as John 14:10, in which Jesus asked, “Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?”  The Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father.  The Father loves the Son and the Spirit, and the Son and the Spirit cooperate together to bring joy to the Father.  You have every element within the Trinity that you need to have complete community.  God did not have to invent community the way man invented the wheel; community was central to the heart of God.

You can’t give what you don’t have.  If God were strictly one in the most rigorous sense, as Allah is in Islam, where would we get true, genuine community?  When God created man in His own image, according to Genesis 1:27, how was it that Adam and Eve were relational and communal beings unless community were an essential part of the essence of the God who had created them?  When you love your neighbor as you love yourself, as taught in both the Ten Commandments and by Jesus, what else are you doing but modeling the love that was essential to the “divine dance” of the Godhead before the Creation of the world?

You don’t get that from Darwinism.  In fact, you don’t get anything good from Darwinism at all.

In allowing the demonic doctrine of Darwinism, God allowed a very stark contrast between His way and the way of fallen man.  Joshua told the Israelites in Joshua 24:15, “choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve.”  And like the Israelites of old, we too have a choice to make.  The resurrected Jesus tells the Laodiceans in Rev 3:15-16, “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.”  We need to stop living with one foot in the “survival of the fittest” world of Darwin and the other foot in the “love your neighbor as yourself” world of Jesus and truly choose this day whom we will serve.  There is a gigantic gulf between the “vicious animal” world of Darwinism and the “image of God” world of Christianity.  There are two natures – the selfish animal nature of Darwinism and the selfless divine nature of God – that are profoundly and fundamentally opposed to one another.  And they are at war within you.

The Ten Commandments as Jesus taught were not given to the descendants of animals, as Darwinism teaches; they were given to the children of God who love Him and want His love to flow through them to others.

Let’s pray that we may be radical followers of the Ten Commandments as they were taught in both the Old and New Testaments.  It’s evolution vs. the Ten Commandments; it’s Darwin vs. Jesus.  Who will be the true winner in your life?

Secular Humanism The Source Behind Education’s Ills Across The Board As We Decline In Knowledge, In Tolerance And In Morality

May 19, 2014

Secular humanism – in religious terms you can label it “atheism” and in political terms you can label it “progressive liberalism” – is a shell game that tries to hide the existence of the human soul.

The soul is there, of course.  It simply HAS to be there for humans to be in any meaningful way categorically different than the beasts, or for human justice to be anything other than a morbid joke as “beasts” judge one another for acting like beasts.  But the project of secular humanism is to only allow as much “soul” as is absolutely necessary to allow society to function while at the same time denying it’s reality lest the people reject the atheism and the progressive liberalism that are based on the denial of the soul.

The problem is that the soul is NOT a degreed property.  “Size” and “weight” are a degreed properties; a thing can have more of it or less of it and still be the thing itself.  But in this case the soul must be the kind of thing (a substance) that HAS properties rather than a property that has degrees.  We therefore either have souls – in which case the secular humanists are entirely wrong about the nature of humanity, the nature of religion, the nature of morality, the nature of science and the very  nature of the universe – or we do NOT have souls and therefore we do NOT have “free will” in which case human society, human justice and basically everything worthwhile about “humanity” is an entirely manufactured lie.

Look, I am either a soul – created in the image of God – that has a body, or else I am nothing more than a body – and frankly a meat puppet - which was the result of random DNA conditioned by my environment.  It’s one or the other; there is no middle ground.  Free will becomes a logical as well as biological impossibility for the latter view - which is why secular humanist scientists and philosophers are increasingly rejecting the very possibility of free will.

The problem is that if you were to actually assume the latter was actually true, then how could you hold anybody responsible for anything?  It’s really a frightening thought.  After all, if I commit a brutal murder, but there really is no “me” inside of me to truly hold accountable, but rather I was conditioned by genes I didn’t choose and an environment I didn’t choose, why should I be held accountable?  How is this not like holding a child responsible for what his parents did?  But of course, on this view, you can’t hold the parents responsible any more than the child, because they suffer the same complete lack of moral free will that their child does.  And the final result of this view is that we should no more hold a human being – who is NOTHING but an evolved monkey, after all – any more morally responsible for his or her “crimes” than we would hold a tiger responsible for killing a goat.   Because in both cases, you merely do what you “evolved” to do.

Therefore, the people who claim the latter (no God, ergo sum no imago dei ergo sum no free will) is reality have to pretend for the most part that it is most definitely NOT reality in order to have any kind of functioning human society.  What they have done is determined that humans are in fact “animals” (or beasts); and that, more specifically, we are “herd animals.”  Mind you, we are also clearly – judging by human experience – “predator animals” who prey on herd animals.  And so the secular humanists have construed for themselves a “foundation for their description of reality” in which they have appointed themselves the outside role of “the bureaucrats” and “the professors” and “the journalists” (etc.) who shape and control the behavior of the herd and attempt to keep the herd animals relatively safe from the predator animals.

And of course liberalism only becomes consistent in their anthropology when they refuse to execute murderers (after all, THAT would be holding someone accountable for their moral crimes when that man is merely a beast who merely did what his brain had evolved to do); so we house them, keep them locked up in cages.  Just like animals.  Because they ARE animals and nothing more than animals conditioned by DNA plus environment.  Just like YOU’RE nothing more than a mindless animal purely conditioned by DNA plus environment.

I suggest that the increasing breakdown of society under the control of secular humanism is itself a refutation of their system.  We are skyrocketing out of control as a species because when you treat men like beasts, like beasts men shall increasingly become.  As the Bible puts it, “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7).  But we can offer a great deal more of an analysis than merely pointing out that “by their fruits shall ye know them” (Matthew 7:16-20).

One of the things you need to realize is the bait and switch you have received regarding science and the nature of science.  You have been fed a pile of lies in the form of a narrative that science is incompatible with religion and that “science” produces open-mindedness and tolerance for new ideas whereas “religion” produces close-mindedness and hostility to new ideas.  But that is simply a lie: as a matter of factual history, “science” is uniquely a product of Judeo-Christianity.  It arose ONLY in Christendom as the result of belief in a Personal, Transcendent Creator God rather than anywhere else on earth.  Belief in God was a necessary condition for the rise of science as not only the discoverer of the scientific method itself (Francis Bacon) but the discoverer of every single branch of science was a publicly confessing Christian who “sought appreciate the beauty of God’s handiwork” and who “wanted to think God’s thoughts after Him.”

J.P. Moreland (Source: The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, p. 17) listed some of the philosophical presuppositions – based on the Judeo-Christian worldview – that were necessary for the foundation of science:

1. the existence of a theory-independent, external world

2. the orderly nature of the external world

3. the knowability of the external world

4. the existence of truth

5. the laws of logic

6. the reliability of human cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as -truth-gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment

7. the adequacy of language to describe the world

8. the existence of values used in science (e.g., “test theories fairly and report test results honestly”)

9. the uniformity of nature and induction

10. the existence of numbers

Good luck in starting science without all of these assumptions – of which the assumption of God according to the Judeo-Christian worldview was necessary to provide.  Science could not verify or validate any of the list above for the reason that they already needed to be accepted in order for science to ever get off the ground in the first place.

To put it crassly, if it were up to secular humanists, we would still be living in caves and afraid of fire.  And if it left up to secular humanists, we will ultimately be living in caves and afraid of fire again.  And all you have to do to realize that society is not advancing under their standard, but degenerating, to know that.

God created the world as a habitation for the capstone of His creation, man.  And then God created man in His own image and therefore able to see and fathom the world which He had created for humanity.  That is the basis for science.

Gleason Archer framed an insurmountable intellectual contradiction for the “scientific atheist”:

“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 won 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

Basically, if the atheist is right, then “human reason” becomes a contradiction in terms and let’s just live like the beasts they say we are and be done pretending we’re something we’re not.

What secular humanists have been trying to do – frankly for generations – is to perpetuate a fraud.  It would be akin to me intercepting a great thinker’s work and trying to pass it off as my own.

But imagine – for the sake of argument – what would have happened had I done such a thing with the work of Albert Einstein.  Imagine I had enough of a vocabulary to pass myself off as a great scientific mind.  What would have happened to science as a result of my limiting it?

And that is what’s essentially being described in the R. Scott Smith article below.  Education – the teaching of science and of how to do science, for example – would suffer more and more as fools who are “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7) hijacked the agenda.

I would like to begin this discussion with an article on the logically-entailed implications of Darwinism in crucial human pursuits by beginning with an article detailing the ramifications of Darwinism on education:

Winter 2014
Does Darwinian Evolution Actually Undermine Education?
By R. Scott Smith

Low standard test scores, serious budget crunches and more — our public schools face daunting challenges. But perhaps they face a deeper issue, one not being mentioned in recent public discussions: What if they aren’t really teaching our youth knowledge?

Today’s education is based upon the assumption that science gives us knowledge. But other disciplines give us (at best) “inferior knowledge,” or just preferences and opinions.

And today’s scientific orthodoxy is Darwinian and naturalistic, meaning all that’s real is natural, or material; there isn’t anything real that’s supernatural or immaterial. There’s no God, souls or minds, and so no real “mental states” — thoughts, beliefs, experiences, intentions, etc.

If that seems overstated, notice what Daniel Dennett, a leading philosopher of neuroscience at Tufts University, says. He admits that according to naturalistic evolution, the dominant scientific theory, brains and physical patterns of physical forces exist. Physical stuff (matter) is real, but things like mental states aren’t.

Yet when we do science, pay our taxes or watch a football game, it seems we really think, have beliefs and experience things. So, how can that be?

According to Dennett, all that’s going on is the interpretation of the behavior of “intentional systems,” like sophisticated chess-playing computers and people. While observing them, we try to interpret and predict their behavior. For instance, we might interpret a computer’s move in a game as “intending” to checkmate its opponent, whereas the human player “thinks” or “believes” she can escape by making a certain move. We just interpret their behaviors by how we conceive of (or talk about) their behaviors as mental states — but that’s all there’s to it. There are no real beliefs, thoughts or observations.

However, suppose a person comes here from a fourth-world country. She’ll need to get a concept of what a traffic light is and that she can cross the street on a green light, not red. To learn that, she’ll need experiences and thoughts of what these things are, and then form a concept of when it’s safe to cross a street.

So, for Darwinian evolution and naturalism, there’s a crucial problem here: How could anyone make observations and form concepts and interpretations? To do these seems to require we use the very mental things we’re told don’t exist.

Yet without real observations, we don’t seem able to do any scientific experiments. Without concepts, thoughts and beliefs, how could we even form, test and accept scientific theories?

Worse, how could we have knowledge if there aren’t real beliefs we can accept as true? We also need adequate evidence for our beliefs to count as knowledge. But with Darwinian, naturalistic science, evidence from experience seems impossible.

Now, maybe Michael Tye (a philosopher at the University of Texas at Austin) could reply that we do have mental states, yet these really are just something physical, like brain states, being conceived of as being mental. But, that won’t work — to even have concepts, we need real mental states to work with.

So, it seems the assumption upon which our education system is founded — that Darwinian evolutionary, naturalistic science uniquely gives us knowledge of the facts — cannot be true. And, Darwinian evolution also is mistaken, for on it we couldn’t know anything. Yet we do know many things — for instance, that we’re alive.

Therefore, real, immaterial mental states must exist. While this essay doesn’t prove it, it suggests something very important — supernaturalism isn’t far-fetched after all. Indeed, we can infer even more. If we can have real immaterial thoughts, experiences, beliefs and more, then it seems that there must be something immaterial that is real which can have and use them. That suggests that we have minds, even souls, that are real and non-physical. So, how then do we best explain their existence? Surely not from Darwinian evolution. Instead, it seems that this short study highly suggests that God exists and has made us in a way that we can have knowledge. I am reminded of what Solomon said: “To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord” (Prov. 1:7, GNT).

Thus, fixing our education system seems to involve, in part, a  repudiation of naturalism and Darwinian, naturalistic science. For on it, we lose all knowledge whatsoever. But since we do know many things, that fact strongly suggests that God exists.


R. Scott Smith (M.A. ’95) is an associate professor of ethics and Christian apologetics in Biola’s master’s program in Christian
apologetics. He holds a Ph.D. in religion and social ethics from the University of Southern California.

Science isn’t “discovering” very much.  We put a man on the moon in the 1960s and we literally aren’t capable of repeating that feat today.  The first computer was invented by a Christian, of course.  We keep making them smaller and faster, but we haven’t had any major leaps for decades.  We’ve been following Moore’s Law rather than any “scientific advance.”  We’ve been very successful at “technology,” and at reducing the size of previously designed devices or at creatively marketing/engineering a device based on the success of a previous device.  But contrary to your secular humanist, we’re not making giant leaps and bounds on the frontiers of science.

And that is most definitely true of education – and especially education in America relative to other nations as we plunge ever more deeply into the philosophy of secular humanism that had NOTHING to do with the origin of science or the origin of ANY OTHER MEANINGFUL THING.

I look at education and I see what many parents as well as many educators see: kids that are getting dumber and dumber.

And you have to ask yourself, why is that, given that we’re spending more per pupil than ever???  Why do we keep falling behind?  And why do Christian schools run circles around the government (secular humanist education center) schools???  Because it is simply a FACT that they do:

If you want a flourishing education system – you know, the kind of system that put a man on the moon – you need to demand a return to a religion-friendly education system rather than the one that has replaced the system that made America great.

It is a fact of history that American public education began as a RELIGIOUS ENDEAVOROf the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian.  As a native Californian, I also marveled to learn that Christianity and churches EXCLUSIVELY bore the burden of education for basically the first hundred years of westward expansion.

I’ve written about what happened as government invited itself in to take over education:

Then what turned out to be a Faustian bargain was struck.  Government took over the education system, ostensibly allowing the churches and denominations to pursue other noble work such as the mission fields.  It didn’t take long for the same government that had protected human slavery and created the Trail of Tears to begin systematically removing Scripture, God and prayer from the classrooms and thus from the children of each successive generation’s minds.

Christians stepped away from the work of education that they had historically devoted themselves to and began to put the overwhelming majority of their funds into their churches and their missionaries.  Meanwhile, liberals began to place virtually all of their funds into the universities and thus began to increasingly shape the curricula.

Ultimately, as a result, the Christians who began the universities and schools found themselves completely shut out of their own progeny.

Look what’s happened.  Liberals have purged out conservatives.  The snootiest, most hoity toity, most sanctimonious lecturers about “tolerance” are THE most intolerant people of all:

College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

“What’s most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field,” said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. “There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It’s a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you’d expect to be dominated by liberals.” [...]

Rothman sees the findings as evidence of “possible discrimination” against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Even after factoring in levels of achievement, as measured by published work and organization memberships, “the most likely conclusion” is that “being conservative counts against you,” he said. “It doesn’t surprise me, because I’ve observed it happening.” The study, however, describes this finding as “preliminary.”

By the way, I’m “possibly” liberal by that standard of measurement.  Yeah, being conservative or being a Christian (and recall that it was the Democrat Party that voted to remove “God” from its party platform until God was illegally put back into the platform amid a chorus of boos) most definitely “counts against you” in the stacked deck that liberalism has created to benefit itself and punish its enemies.  As Professor Guillermo Gonzalez found out the hard way when liberals denied him tenure because he had the gall to write a book expressing his belief in an intelligent designer of the universe.  And after denying him tenure because he believed in God and they are fascists, they fired a professor who should by all rights have been celebrated.

Because liberals are in fact the most intolerant people.  Once they took over the universities, they made very certain that they would never lose that control by making certain that conservative faculty would be systematically denied tenure and purged out.

That was our strike two for us [note: I write about three strikes in the article].  Liberals got into the education system and then barricaded the door behind them.

By the way, the two fields of academia liberals most hijacked were the fields of education and law.  They trained up the teachers and the lawyers who would be able to indoctrinate their students and more lawyers who would be able to basically make the Constitution an infinitely malleable document that basically means whatever liberals think it means.  By taking over education, liberals were able to introduce increasingly and frankly wildly failed teaching methodologies that brainwashed kids into liberalism without bothering to teach them reading, writing, arithmetic and history.  Our government school system has completely broken down and failed because liberals turned education into indoctrination.  And what is even worse, the more liberal teaching methodologies fail, the more liberals exploit their failure to usher in even WORSE methodologies.  It has become a vicious circle.

Today we have an “education system” ladened with secular humanist theories which don’t teach children because as secular humanists they have understanding of “humanity” or the little souls whom they seek more to indoctrinate than to educate.

Johnny can’t read, at least he can’t read very well.  But that’s okay; he doesn’t need to be able to read very well in order to serve the future State or the crony capitalist corporations in the progressive liberals’ fascist system in order to be a good drone worker bee.  When your child is toiling away at his or her menial job, feel good in the knowledge that your child will do so believing that being a good citizen and taking your place as one of myriad cogs in the machine will keep him or her moving mindlessly forward.

In a way, I’ve already also described the rabid intolerance that is the quintessence of secular humanism in describing above the purging of conservatives by liberals.  But believe me, there is way, way more than that.

One of the frightening things about the Holocaust was that only one who closely followed the theories presented in the German universities could see it coming.  But those who DID follow what was being taught in the elite German universities could see it coming very clearly.  Many of those who did follow what was being taught were terrified and tried to warn the free nations about what was happening.  But of course nobody listened.  And so it all played out exactly as the most strident voices warned it would play out unless something was done.  That “play” was World War II and the death camps that accompanied it.

The lesson of history is that ideas have consequences.  And terrible ideas have terrible consequences, indeed.

So with that introduction, allow me to replay a recent article written by a student of one of the most – if not THE most – prestigious of universities in America reflecting a new rabid intolerance of free speech in academia:

 In its oft-cited Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the American Association of University Professors declares that “Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results.” In principle, this policy seems sound: It would not do for academics to have their research restricted by the political whims of the moment.

Yet the liberal obsession with “academic freedom” seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has “full freedom” in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever “free” from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?

Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of “academic justice.” When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue. [...]

It is tempting to decry frustrating restrictions on academic research as violations of academic freedom. Yet I would encourage student and worker organizers to instead use a framework of justice. After all, if we give up our obsessive reliance on the doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just.

Basically, she says that free speech on campus should be abolished and professors with opposing views be fired.

Here as in so many other ways, secular humanist “liberalism” is Nazism.  Period.

I want you to consider the bastion of bias and intolerance that academia has truly become:

AN ANTONIO — Some of the world’s pre-eminent experts on bias discovered an unexpected form of it at their annual meeting.

Discrimination is always high on the agenda at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s conference, where psychologists discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities. But the most talked-about speech at this year’s meeting, which ended Jan. 30, involved a new “outgroup.”

It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.

“Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”

We are now seeing a massive effort on the part of students who have been brain-washed by the above secular humanist dictatorship of academia in which they simply refuse to tolerate or even listen to any ideas that disagree with their dogma.

Students are now shouting down anyone with whom they disagree.  It doesn’t matter how many other students want to hear a speaker: secular humanist liberal students and faculty are fascists who impose their will and dictate their agenda on others (even when they are in the very tiny minority):  And so:

At least three prominent leaders — former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde, and former UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau — cancelled their commencement speeches this spring after a typhoon of campus activism.

Consider what happened this week with Birgeneau, who had been scheduled to speak at Haverford College, a close-knit liberal arts school just outside Philadelphia.

By some measures, Birgeneau is the perfect person to give a graduation speech: Successful, civic-minded and notable, not least for guiding Berkeley as it became the first American public university to offer comprehensive financial aid to students in the country illegally. But Birgeneau was actually far from ideal, some Haverford students and faculty decided.

Despite his left-friendly work on immigration, they said they wanted Birgeneau to apologize for how campus police brutalized Occupy Wall Street demonstrators in 2011 — or else they would protest his graduation speech.

In response, Birgeneau decided not to attend the graduation. His cancellation, the most recent of the three, is raising concerns in some quarters that campus leftist groups are putting so much emphasis on social justice issues that they’re squashing the spirit of open debate. [...]

But some observers say the recent campus blow back belongs in its own category, which political writer Michelle Goldberg, in a column for The Nation, called “left-wing anti-liberalism” – the idea that some speech and some people are so politically disagreeable that their views don’t need to be heard.

Lukianoff, of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, pointed to a 2013 dust-up at Brown University in which former New York police head Ray Kelly’s speech to students had to be canceled after he was shouted down and unable to speak.

Kelly has long been despised by the left for his defense of stop-and-frisk policies and how the NYPD cracked down on Occupy Wall Street protesters. His embarrassment at Brown became a YouTube moment that other officials would likely hope to avoid. [....]

For centuries, universities – which again were started by Christians out of the monasticism movement (as in America, where 106 of the first 108 universities in America including ALL the Ivy League schools were began by Christians; and of the first 126 colleges, 123 were Christian) have celebrated their institutions as bastions of free expression and the interchange of ideas.  That is a lie today.  You don’t GET to learn “ideas” any more; you get to learn THE idea of secular humanist liberalism and nothing else.  Because whether you are a student or a professor or an administrator, these secular humanist liberals will come after you if you commit the sin of heresy in their rabid eyes.

Therefore, what has happened in the colleges and universities is analogous to a wayward girl who began to date a monster and ultimately helped murder her own parents in the night.  That’s what secular humanism did in purging the universities and colleges from the Christian tradition that gave BIRTH to those universities and colleges.

I compare what I’m seeing today to the French Revolution.  It, like what we’re seeing today, was the result of secular humanism.  And like what we’re seeing today, the French Revolution quickly degenerated from a bunch of hoity-toity pronouncements to hell on earth as the French Revolution rapidly degenerated into the Reign of Terror.

It is an easy thing to prove that rabid intolerance is a defining feature of the (secular humanist “liberal”) left today.  We are seeing the left declare open war on free speech and on the exercise of First Amendment rights as this nation has never seen before.  Executives are being forced out of companies they helped found because they had the audacity to exercise their free speech rights as AmericansJournalists are getting purged for daring to speak the truth.   And just consider the vicious, rabid leftist Occupy Movement compared to the conservative Tea Party that was so demonized by the leftist press:

Occupy Movement Costs America UNTOLD MILLIONS ($2.3 Milion In L.A. ALONE) Versus Tea Party Movement Which MADE Cities Money

Liberalism = Marxism. See The Occupy Movement Shutting Down Ports, Capitalism, Jobs To Get Their Way (Communist Russian Revolution Part Deux)

After Obama Deceitfully Demonized GOP For ‘Dirtier Air And Dirtier Water,’ His Occupy Movement Leaves Behind 30 TONS Of Diseased Filfth At Just ONE Site

Vile Liberal Occupy Movement Killed The Grass At L.A. City Hall – What Should Be Done Now?

Occupy Movement Officially A Terrorist Group Now

The American Left Personified By Occupy Movement: Vile, Violent Fascist Thugs

Occupy Movement Is Destroying Jobs And Hurting Little People

Consider The Fundamental Incoherence And Hypocrisy Of The Left And The Occupy Movement

Occupy Wall Street Movement Ranks Have Criminals, Rioters, Rapists, Terrorists And Now Murderers

There have been 7,765 documented arrests of leftist Occupy Movement fascists.  Versus ZERO for the Tea Party.

Occupy – as a symbol and a symptom of the left – believed it had the right to “occupy” private property, to destroy property, to destroy jobs, to pretty much take over.  And in the case of UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau, we discover that it is a sin punishable by the maximum penalty to apply law and order to the left.  Better to just let them occupy and riot and vandalize, I suppose.

Liberalism is fascist intolerance when “liberalism” has been hijacked by secular humanist progressive liberalism.  Liberals are simply pathologically intolerant people across the board as expressed in pretty much any way you can measure it.

I come at last to sexual assaults.  They’ve either absolutely skyrocketed in Obama’s military and in liberalism’s universities or Obama has – incredibly cynically – manufactured a political crisis to demagogue.  Let’s just assume the data we have is correct and Obama ISN’T an incredibly evil man and go with it.  Sexual assaults have skyrocketed on his watch during his administration.

Secular humanists have no answer for why this would be.  After all, they’ve been talking about it and requiring more enforcement – including universities which clearly aren’t able to deal with the crisis – and punishing it more than ever.  So why is it growing out of control on a liberal president’s watch?

The answer is easy.  On my Judeo-Christian view, rape is wrong, wrong, WRONG.  Because contrary to secular humanism, we’re NOT just DNA-plus-environment-plus nothing meat puppets; we are human beings created by God in His image.  And to sexually assault another human being is to ignore, degrade and pervert the image of God in another soul.

On a secular humanist, not so much.

Oh, your liberal feminist asserts it’s wrong.  But when you stop and consider the tenets of Darwinian evolution, on what grounds do they assert such a thing?

Evolutionists have long talked about rape in terms of advancing evolution.  We’re equipped for fleeing, fighting and fornicating, we’re told.  There’s such a thing as a “rape gene,” we’re told.  And since Darwinism is all about “survival of the fittest,” and since the fittest survive precisely by passing on their DNA, well, rape is merely one of many possible pathways for an organism to strive to be the fittest in Darwinan terms.  And of course the animal world abounds with examples in which humans would call it “rape” but animals would call it “reproducing.”

Why do we as individuals rape, murder and sleep around?  Because as evolutionists explain:

“rape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.”

Darwinism is “a scientific idea that, if true, consigns traditions of self-restraint, loyalty, the very basis of family life, to the shredder.”  Now go ye and do likewise.  Unless something inside of you screams “NO!  I will NOT live in accordance with that terrible, wicked, demonic theory of Darwinian evolution!”

Rape isn’t wrong because secular humanists say it is.  That’s not a good enough reason.  Certainly not for the increasing numbers of humans committing sexual assaults it isn’t, anyway.

Why is rape wrong?  Frankly, in our new system of “morality,” rape is wrong because Obama says it is wrong.  That’s certainly the “logic” Obama used to first say that homosexual marriage was wrong when it was politically convenient to do so and that it somehow became right when it was politically convenient for him to say it was right.  I mean, literally, gay marriage was wrong until Obama said it was right.  And now it’s right.  But anyone who thinks that this is the way morality works is quite literally morally insane.

And so we have insane sexual assault statistics to go with it.

If secular humanist liberalism is in any way, shape or form true, THERE IS NO REASON TO BE TOLERANT.  In fact, we ought to be as vicious, as ruthless, as determined to win in our struggle for ideology – which of course is merely the result of how our brains happened to be randomly wired versus having any “truth” to them if secular humanism is true – as is necessary to prevail.

If secular humanist liberalism is true, then the struggle for “ideas” today is no different between rival packs of baboons fighting over the same turf.

And the reason the beast is coming is because God foreknew 2,000 years ago and beyond that in the last days, the most vicious pack of baboons (the secular humanist liberals) would prevail in a world in which rational argument and debate had been expunged by “liberalism.”

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 513 other followers