Posts Tagged ‘gay marriage’

I Keep Pointing It Out: The ESSENTIAL Nature Of Homosexual Liberalism Is Pure Rabid FASCISM. And Here It Is Again…

April 24, 2014

Let me point out that these homosexuals are Nazis.  And I mean that LITERALLY, given the historic connection between the rise of Nazism and homosexuality and that Nazism would not have risen had it NOT BEEN for homosexuals who served as Hitler’s brownshirted stormtrooper thugs and beat down the opposition.

And nothing has changed.  Homosexuals are every bit as violent and as hateful as ever.  Look at the history of the “gay rights” movement.  Their “movement” began with violence at Stonewall and the White Night riots.  Today our prisons are CLOGGED with violent and vicious homosexuals who rape one another every chance they get.  And homosexual domestic violence is FAR higher than among heterosexual couplesEven studies that are clearly pro-gay acknowledge this fact.  Gays routinely threaten violence against those who don’t agree with them.

Nazism has its philosophical roots in philosophical worldviews that abandoned truth.  And once truth is dismissed as a possibility, anything and everything is allowed to fill the void.  And homosexuals have that in common with the Nazis, in that the philosophical systems they cling to abandon any and all notion of “truth” as held by classical foundationalism.  It really is no surprise that the two (homosexuality and Nazism) would be so inextricably inter-connected.  I documented this (liberal) philosophical worldview in depth six years ago as Obama was getting elected and these people have obviously become even worse since then.  There are so many examples of it happening it is beyond unreal.

Back on November 22, 2008 I wrote this article: Gay Rights Groups Using Vile Intimidation Tactics To Attack Prop 8 Backers

These people are true fascists.  They are identical to the Nazis – especially the homosexual Nazis who BEGAN Nazism in the first place.

And with that, here we are, detailing AGAIN how homosexuals act identically with NAZIS as they clearly haven’t changed one damn bit, have they?

MSNBC Panel Members Find ‘Disturbing Level’ of Gay Rights Interest in ‘Targeting People’
By Brad Wilmouth | April 19, 2014 | 16:27

On the Friday, April 18, All In show, during a discussion of the firing of former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich for simply donating to a political campaign opposing same-sex marriage, guest Richard Kim of the far left The Nation magazine intoned that he found it “disturbing” that gay activist friends of his have expressed interest in “targeting” more people who have made similar donations, and who have declared they should “find out where they live.” Kim:

Here’s a disturbing thing. I did ask some of my gay activist friends, I was like, “Look, here’s a list; 6,500 people gave the same amount that he did or more in California. Should we go down the list and sort of start targeting all these people?” And I asked this facetiously, and people were like, “Let’s do it. Let’s find out where those people live. It’s all-” To me, that’s a disturbing level of targeting people.

Hayes, who had earlier expressed reservations about Eich’s firing, exclaimed, “Yes,” to Kim’s view that such talk was “disturbing.”

As he brought up the discussion, the MSNBC host seemed skeptical of the former Mozilla CEO’s firing: “And there was part of me that did not know how to feel about how this whole thing unfolded.”

A bit later, as panel member and MSNBC host Karen Finney defended the practice of pressuring company heads about their political views, Hayes brought up President Obama’s previous history of opposing same-sex marriage. Hayes: “Barack Obama in 2008 was opposed to marriage equality.”

Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Friday, April 18, All In with Chris Hayes on MSNBC, with critical portions in bold:

CHRIS HAYES: So here’s the other interesting part of this, and I want to use this to segue to the Brendan Eich story because what you hear and see here are changing social norms, right? It is legal in South Carolina to fire someone because they’re gay. Increasingly, that is not viewed as socially acceptable, right? And rightly so. We agree everyone at the table agrees that is wrong.

But, now, there’s also social norms about whether it is socially acceptable to have the belief that gay folks can’t get married or to oppose gay equality. And this came to a head in the tale of Brendan Eich, who was the CEO of the firm, Mozilla, which makes a very popular Web browser. People found out that he had given a contribution to the wrong side in Prop 8, which was the anti-equality side. It was in a public record.

And there was a campaign that basically got rid of him, basically saying this is an unacceptable view for the CEO of a major firm to have. And there was part of me that did not know how to feel about how this whole thing unfolded. What was your thinking?

RICHARD KIM, THE NATION: Yeah, so I, first of all, say I don’t think anybody’s rights were violated.

HAYES: Nobody has a right to be a CEO.

KIM: Right, exactly, exactly. I do, on the level of proportion, question this. So this guy gave one $1,000 donation six years ago to a campaign that 7 million Californians voted for, that 6,500 people gave a donation at his level or higher. Mozilla has an anti-gay discrimination policy. He had no intent to change that. Marriage in California is settled law.

So there’s a question of whether or not all the sort of fury targeted at him and this one sort of, you know, attempt to oust him is in proportion to any threat that he represents to gay people in the future.

CATHY HENNA, LGBT ACTIVIST: It’s somehow, it’s how the culture works, too. This is a major tech company in Northern California, and, you know, as we were talking about before, you know, this is not just about gay people anymore. This is about allies. I mean, the second this went on social media, on Facebook, on Twitter, people just find this unacceptable. It’s no longer acceptable to be anti-gay.

HAYES: But did they find it unacceptable, there was a weird kind of advertising of one’s own enlightenment that this was part of. You know what I mean? It felt to me a little bit like, “I can like this, I can get behind this because this is a kind of, it’s no skin off my back, you know? Like, I don’t care who the CEO of Mozilla is.” And this shows — that’s what conservatives were saying, right? Conservatives were saying that this is basically hounding people, this is totally “il-liberal.”

HENNA: (INAUDIBLE) -to say that when it works for them because what their big thing is, “Oh, it’s about the free market.” Well, in this case it was the free market. People are making decisions about what they do and what they buy and what the organizations and the companies they support and the decisions they make as consumers voting with their wallets based on the leadership of those companies.

KAREN FINNEY, MSNBC HOST: It’s the little bit of power that we have as consumers. And you hear Karl Rove and the right wing. What do they always say about the companies that give to right-wing causes. We don’t want to have to publish our names. They’re afraid of a backlash. Well, guess what: I can decide I don’t want to spend my money at, with your company if I don’t approve how you spend that money. I can decide-

HAYES: Barack Obama in 2008 was opposed to marriage equality.

FINNEY: And he still got elected, you know, that’s the process.

HAYES: The point, but this guy gave them-

KIM: Here’s a disturbing thing. I did ask some of my gay activist friends, I was like, “Look, here’s a list; 6,500 people gave the same amount that he did or more in California. Should we go down the list and sort of start targeting all these people?” And I asked this facetiously, and people were like, “Let’s do it. Let’s find out where those people live. It’s all-” To me, that’s a disturbing level-

HAYES: Yes.

KIM: -of targeting people.

FINNEY:  But is part of it because Prop 18 is so, it became such a heated issue in this country, and it sort of became, I think, and it is a sort of either you’re on the right side or the wrong side, and, ironically, even the lawyer in the case has been evolving as he’s planning his daughter’s wedding.

I defy you liberals to show me ONE case of a corporate board firing their CEO because he gave money to the “No on Prop 8″ campaign.  Because that never happened.  Only the LEFT is capable of that kind of rabid fascist intolerance.

In the same vein, show me ONE case of “Yes on 8″ supporters viciously targeting their opponents the way the homosexual liberals did.

Who has been caught over and over and over again being rabidly intolerant of allowing people to have free speech?  The left.  Who routinely shouts down speakers if they don’t agree with those speakers to prevent ideas from being presented?  The left.  Who obeys the dog whistle whenever it is blown by chanting slogans rather than engaging in debate?  The left.  Who has been caught over and over again attempting to indoctrinate students in what amount to unhinged political rants in college/university classrooms (hell, this garbage happens all the damn time – here’s another one) and even in public elementary schools?  The left.  Who actually used the IRS as a thug ideological force to punish people with whom they politically disagreed?  The left.  Who systematically suppresses journalists?  The left.  The left is simply and purely intrinsically fascist.

Do you want to know which side routinely “outs” homosexuals publicly?  The left.  You see, certain homosexuals have decided that outing homosexuals is “a moral act, a means to prevent gays from participating in their own oppression.”

That is the essence of who these people are: YOU don’t have any rights; THEY have all the rights.  You have the right to sit down and shut up while they impose their agenda on you.  And if you don’t like it, they’ll come after you with a viciousness and a rabid hate that is beyond stunning.

The thing about the left is that they are pathologically incapable of seeing themselves for what they truly are.  They are your classic projectionists: the more rabidly intolerant they become, the more they project their own viciousness onto their enemies.  And since these people are true fascists, and with true fascists the end always justifies the means, this rabid hate and intolerance that is THEIRS but which they hypocritically project onto their opponents “justifies” them to be more and more evil and use any and every means to attack.

And just like the brutal Nazi stormtrooper thugs who used every tactic to ensure that their opponents were intimidated – if not physically beaten – into silence, the homosexual left is showing that they are the same damn Nazis they were in the 1930s.

 

‘Non-Stop’ Liberal Fascism And The Vileness Of Liberalism Which ALWAYS Twists Truth And Reality

April 15, 2014

What the hell – and I DO mean “hell” because hell is IN these people – is wrong with liberals?

Here’s the latest outrage in which liberals “twist” truth and reality by making the real-life villains the victims and the heroes while making the real-life victims and heroes the villains:

On Saturday, Breitbart.com reported that the villain in Liam Neeson’s new action thriller, “Non-Stop,” is a 9/11 family member who also served in the military.

“‘Non-Stop’ is a good movie,” John Nolte wrote. “Heck, it is darn near very good. But the left-wing sucker punch at the end is a new low, even for Hollywood.”

Nolte said the villain joined the military after losing a loved on in the terror attack on the World Trade Center, but became disillusioned by the ongoing wars.

So, the veteran decides to blow everyone up on a plane so the air marshal can get blamed, causing airport security to be tightened even further.

Worse yet, Nolte added, the villain’s sidekick turns out to be an American military member willing to murder 150 innocent people for money.

Moreover, Nolte said the “one passenger on the plane who is forever helpful, kind, reasonable, noble, and never under suspicion is a Muslim doctor dressed in traditional Muslim garb including a full beard.”

Glenn Beck also excoriated the movie, according to a post at The Blaze.

“It is really great, until you find out that the killer is U.S. military and a guy who believes in the Constitution,” he said sarcastically. “Oh, darn it. Did I just wreck that movie for everybody? Oh, I didn’t mean to…”

Beck said that even in liberal New York, the ending was met with groans.

“I’m not going to say anymore, except the killer is … a schoolteacher and so you completely dismiss him,” he added. “And there’s a little hole in the bathroom where they do a blow-dart, and they kill the pilot.”

The Blaze added:

Beck said the killer’s rationale was something “nonsensical” along the lines of: “It’s the government that has been putting people like you, you drunkard, on planes and allowing you to be our TSA. And that’s just wrong. So I’m going to blow everything up and take the money. I’ve got a parachute here, so I’m going to live. And I’m going to take all the money, and I’m going to get away with it. A-ha, ha-ha, ha-ha, ha-ha.”

He also said the movie shows that “no amount of research … can help these people in Hollywood,” because they simply do not understand what a “wildly, wildly insulting movie” they made.

Beck’s advise: “Don’t go see Non-Stop.”

Nolte had even harsher words: “Sc**w you, Hollywood.”

“Non-Stop” is rated PG-13 by the Motion Picture Association of America for “intense sequences of action and violence, some language, sensuality and drug references,” and was given two out of four stars by the Associated Press‘ Jake Coyle.

That’s right.  It doesn’t matter if in REALITY Muslims are responsible for 99.99999% of all terrorist attacks and 9/11 victims’ families and the heroes who served are responsible for 0.0000001%.  Because to be “liberal” means to think just the opposite of reality and piss on the truth.

Liberals are the people who constantly assure us that Nazis are “right-wing” because everybody apparently just knows that if there was a “National Socialist American Workers Party” the way Nazi stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party,” it would be a conservative Republican Party.  Because you know how we conservatives adore “socialism” and “workers parties” and how much the left despises them.

Oh, wait.  It’s the other way around.  Not that lying liberals give a damn.

Liberals have managed to assure us that women who want to murder their own babies are heroes and victims and the babies they kill are worthless things that have no right to life.  Babies, liberals assure us, have the duty to die for the convenience of their mommies much the same way that Jews had the duty to die for the convenience of Adolf.

Liberals have managed to assure us that homosexual men who lust after being bending over and being sodomized by another man after sucking him to orgasm are “normal” and the people who recognize that these people are depraved, unnatural perverts are the weirdos.

LIberals have managed to assure us that snarling black men who join the Black Panthers with the following message -

We didn’t come out here to play. There is to much serious business going on in your black community to be sliding through south street with white, dirty cracker whores on your arms. What’s a matter with you black man, you got a doomsday with a white woman on your arm.
……
“We keep begging white people for freedom. No wonder we’re not free. Your enemy can not make you free fool. You want freedom you’re going to have to kill some crackers. You’re going to have to kill some of their babies.

Let us get our act together. It’s time to wake up, clean up, and stand up.”

I can’t wait for the day that they’re all dead. I won’t be completely happy until I see our people free and Whitey dead.”

“When you have 10 brothers in uniform, suited and booted and ready for war, white folks know these niggas ain’t their niggas. We kick white folks asses. We take it right to the cracker.”

We’re going to keep putting our foot up the white man’s ass until they understand completely. We want freedom, justice and mutha[expletive]‘ equality. Period. If you ain’t gonna give it to us, mutha[expletive], we’re gonna take it, in the name of freedom.”

- aren’t racist at all.  They aren’t racist – morally depraved jackass liberal pseudo-intellectuals tell us – because black people are people who hold both the presidency and the attorney generalship and are therefore victims forever and thus incapable of “racism.”  Do you know who IS racist?  Republicans.  Not ALL Republicans, they tell us out of their fairness and decency.  Just ALMOST all of them:

WASHINGTON — “Not all” Republicans are racist, said Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) on Sunday, but “to a significant extent, the Republican base has elements that are animated by racism, and that’s unfortunate.”

Israel’s comment was in response to a question from CNN’s Candy Crowley, who asked the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee about remarks by Attorney General Eric Holder this week. In a speech to a civil rights group, Holder questioned his treatment by Republican lawmakers at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, and implied that race may have played a role.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also suggested this past week that racism was a factor in the Republican party’s opposition to immigration reform. “I think race has something to do with the fact that they’re not bringing up an immigration bill,” Pelosi told reporters, adding, “I’ve heard them say to the Irish, if it were just you, this would be easy.”

Which of course means that the same “almost” all of the 54% of Americans who voted to have that Republican majority are clearly “racist,” too.

And of course, liberals have assured us that it is “racist” to try to limit or reduce illegal voting in any way, shape or form.  But that it is most definitely NOT “racist” to stand outside a voting place with clubs threatening and mocking voters of the other political party (and see here and here).

Liberals have assured us that Jesus was a socialist who demanded that King Herod and Pontius Pilate be empowered to radically expand big government to “help” the poor with institutionalized welfare rather than saying to His disciples, “YOU feed them.”  In the same vein, liberals have assured us that Barack Obama and Joe Biden – who gave poor people VIRTUALLY NOTHING from their own wealth are “generous” and that men like Mitt Romney and Dick Cheney – who gave 28% and 78% of their respective incomes to charity – are “selfish.”

Democrats and liberals are people who pathologically pervert the truth and slander reality.

I am so sick to my soul of twisted and perverted liberal “morality” that makes a mockery of everything the Word of God declares it is beyond unreal.

 

 

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

December 30, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

And:

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

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

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

And so:

Destigmatizing Pedophilia
TBC Staff
Sep 8 2011

Researchers push for APA to destigmatize pedophilia [Excerpts]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For The Simple Factual Record, No Homosexual Has EVER Been Deprived Of The Right To Marry.

March 26, 2013

I’ve heard this argument – a la Hitler’s “big lie” – so many times that if I’d vomited every time I heard it, I would have barfed myself into vapor by now.  That’s why they call it “ad nauseum,” I suppose.

“Everyone has a fundamental right to marry,” we’re told.  And so homosexual marriage is not merely a Constitutional issue, but a human rights issue.

But here’s the damn obvious question: when have homosexuals EVER been denied the right to marry?

A homosexual can marry anybody of the opposite sex of maritable age and status who will have them, the same as everybody else.  Nobody has had their right to marry deprived from them.

I challenge anybody to find me an example of a single case in which a homosexual was denied the right to marry, given what marriage is: the union between one man and one woman.  Just find me one time when a homosexual tried to marry and was denied the right to do so.

Let’s put it this way: if homosexuals are somehow being defined as having been denied the right to marry, you have to employ a definition of “marriage” that no society has ever before embraced.  Which is to say that you literally have to assume what you want to prove and then use what you just assumed as your “proof.”  To wit, “marriage” is the union between a man and a woman under God.  That is what it has ALWAYS been.  Which is why no civilization has ever called for homosexual marriage.  And unless you assume that marriage is somehow something else (which it isn’t and has never been), no homosexual has EVER been denied “the right to marry.”

That’s what we call facts.  That’s what we call logic.  That’s what we call morality.  And that’s what we call history.  Homosexual marriage fails on all counts.  It is an oxymoron.  “Homosexual marriage” is like “liquid solid.”  It is like “adult children.”  You can’t have both.  It is either one or the other.  Unless you want think of “adult children” in the Obamanomics sense in which young people have been “fundamentally transformed” into permanent “children” because they’ll never be able to get a job in this disastrous economy and will therefore be helpless dependents forever.  In that Orwellian sense in which “freedom is slavery” and “ignorance is strength,” I suppose anything is possible – even “homosexual marriage.”

“Homosexual marriage” is non sequitur unless you begin by perverting the thing in language that you then want to pervert in actuality.  When I hear somebody mouthing this idiocy of homosexuals being denied the right to marry, I know that I am in the presence of a true moral and intellectual idiot.  And I excuse myself in search of somebody who is actually worth having an intellectual conversation with.

If homosexuals don’t want to marry, fine by me.  But don’t whine because you don’t want what decent, healthy people want.

Homosexuals don’t want the right to marry; they want the right to pervert the institution of marriage.  Period.

Suddenly Everybody Who Is Anybody In America Says Gay Marriage Is The Best Thing Since Sliced Bread. That’s Because This Is God Damn America Now.

March 20, 2013

Hillary Clinton just came out in a slick video stating that homosexuals are “citizens” who therefore have the right to marry.  She of course used to say the exact opposite.

I completely agree with the actual facts in her statement.  As depraved and perverted as homosexuals are, the ones who were born here (remember, Obama is trying to open the immigration floodgates to as many homosexuals from other countries as he can) ARE in fact citizens.  And of COURSE U.S. citizens ought to have the right to marry.

Which is why I believe that a homosexual has the right to marry any legally competent adult of the opposite sex who is stupid enough to have them.

That’s because marriage is the union between one man and one woman – as Obama famously said not only in Rick Warren’s forum, but on the very eve of the 2008 election on November 3rd.  But it’s one thing to have “the right to marry” and quite another thing for homosexuals to have the “right” to pervert and degrade marriage to make what was formerly holy matrimony as depraved as they are.

Of course Obama is now celebrated by the left for baiting and switching, much the same way he’s celebrated for demonizing George Bush as being “unpatriotic” and “un-American” for his $4 trillion in debt over eight years before racking up $6 trillion more in debt in only four years.

Under liberalism, abject moral hypocrisy is a virtue.  That’s just the way these people are.

And that’s the way all RINOs are, too.  They are people who hold up their finger to the political winds and, standing for nothing, shift in whichever direction those winds blow.

Republicans ran a RINO against Barack Obama in 2008.  The RINO lost.  They ran a RINO against Obama in 2012.  And sure as shooting cow pies in place of skeet, the RINO lost.

Rob Portman is clearly hoping to be the RINO who gets to lose in 2016.

I love Portman’s reasoning.  His son is homosexual, so he’s for gay marriage.

I mean, if Portman’s kid was a rapist child molester, would Portman suddenly support rape and child molesting?  The answer, of course, is that he most certainly WOULD support rape and child molesting – if that’s what was popular.

That’s the thing about RINOs.  They are morally weak people who stand for nothing.

I think Americans have proven they will vote for somebody who is authentically evil over somebody who is inauthentically a puff of fart gas in the wind.

I am sick to my guts of RINOs.  I’ll never vote for a damn RINO again.  If Rob Portman is the GOP nominee, I’ll be penciling in Bugs Bunny – who at least always had the virtue of ending up as the winner in all the cartoons.

The gay rights movement used to feature a group called NAMBLA.  That’s the “Man/Boy Love Association.”

Here’s the skinny on that inconvenient truth:

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

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

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

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

Given the fact that judges can usurp the clearly expressed will of the people and impose their own “morality” as they choose, it is guaranteed that we will legalize the buggery of young boys down the road.  Secular humanism  simply doesn’t have the moral resources to prevent it.

Who are you not to allow your little boy to get married to some forty-year old “lover,” you intolerant pig?

Sodomizing young children used to be perfectly fine with the homosexual movement, and you can rest damn assured that it will be for it again – much the way Barack Obama was “for” gay marriage before he was “against” it before he was “for” it again.

Democrats would assure you that such a thing will never happened.  Other than the fact that these liberal turds have ALREADY BEEN FOR IT aside, of course.  But what happened with your Barack Obamas and your Bill and Hillary Clintons will happen with child molesters, too.  Just remember a few facts: 1) pedophiles were born that way as much as homosexuals were born queer; and who are we to legislate against “nature”???  2) Times have changed, and what was wrong when it was convenient for it to be wrong is now just as right as it used to be wrong.  3) If we allow young girls the choice to get legal and free abortions when their “old man” knocks them up, why shouldn’t we allow young boys the right to bend over for some older man???  And 4) when liberals do it it’s called “evolving” but when conservatives do it its called “flip flopping.”

So let me assure you that as part of Barack Obama’s “fundamental transformation of America” we’re soon going to have child molesters, practitioners of bestiality, and group marriages to be legal.  Because, after all, we’re “tolerant,” aren’t we?  And these people should all have the right to follow their hearts and marry whomever they wish.  And of course if a guy wants to marry his canary, or if a woman wants to marry her stallion so she can be mounted the way she’s always dreamed, then who the hell are YOU to judge, you intolerant prick???

Liberalism guarantees all of this wickedness along with crap that my mind isn’t diseased enough to even imagine.  Because that’s the essence of liberalism.

The great American pastor John MacArthur recently said that the Democrat Party’s platform is Romans chapter one.  And of course he’s right.

In Romans chapter one, a society continues to morally deteriorate until it sinks to the absolute lowest rock bottom level of moral sewage that sure enough the Democrat Party has sunk America to.

The United States of America used to call itself “one nation under God.”  We used to say, “In God we trust.”  We put our hands on Bibles when we took sacred oaths, as if we believed that the Book that called homosexuality an “abomination” actually meant something.

God blessed this nation as He has never blessed any other.  And when God takes that blessing away, it will amount to a curse such that this nation will fall like no other nation has EVER fallen before.  America’s fall will be cataclysmic and catastrophic simply by virtue of the dizzying heights from which we will fall.

When we voted for Barack Obama in 2008, we voted to inherit damnation such as no nation in all of human history has ever experienced.  And when we re-elected this wicked man, we confirmed that demand to be “God damn America” as Obama’s reverend and spiritual mentor for over twenty years once screeched from the pulpit of Obama’s church.

This country is going to get the hell it voted for.

The beast is coming.  The United States of America will be cheering when he arrives.  And nobody will be cheering more loudly than Democrats.

I write this to you as one who sits on the gate of America the way Lot sat on the gate of Sodom, waiting for the brimstone and the fire to start falling.

Why The Left Will Never Understand Reality. In One Bible Verse.

December 31, 2012

My mother loves the Word of God and has always loved the Word of God, which is why she is the greatest hero of my life.  As a result of that love, she has several “verse a day” calendars in her home that she views every day.  And having heard me describe the moral stupidity and blindness of the left, she made sure I knew about the verse for December 28 (the day I wrote this):

This is what the LORD says, he who made the earth, the LORD who formed it and established it–the LORD is his name: ‘Call to me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you
do not know.’ — Jeremiah 33:2-3

This ties into something I have said again and again and again:

I believe – along with orthodox Christian theology – that man’s nature has been corrupted and we cannot understand truth or reality on our own.  And that the ONLY way we can so comprehend truth and reality is to see the world as God sees it; which is to say see the world through God’s Word.  But liberals despise the Word of God and have tried to replace it with every theory and ideology under the sun.  And the result is that liberal man is stupid; further, he is stupid by sheer brute force of will – he is determined to be stupid.  And the more intelligent the liberal is, the more stupid he becomes – because he is able to even further commit himself to failed liberal ideologies and theories than less intellectual liberals who must still at least partly base their worldviews on common sense because they can’t fully comprehend Marxism or other failed progressive socialist theories.

And:

I too often use the word “stupid” to describe the left.

When I do so, I am not referring to their IQs, their level of education or anything of the sort.  Rather, I am referring to their worldview and what their worldview has done to their ability to comprehend reality.

Understanding the world as it really is boils down to being able to see – at least in part and to a certain degree given our finiteness – the world as God sees it.  The Bible – the Word of God – is the lens that enables us to be able to do that.

Liberals as a whole reject that Book just as they reject the Judeo-Christian worldview that is based on what that Book teaches.

Instead of perceiving Truth, liberals turn to a world of theories such as Marxism (which is fundamentally hostile to the Christian world view).  And as such, they cannot even possibly see or understand the world as it actually is.

They literally make themselves stupid by sheer brute force of will.  They take the image of God that God bequeathed every human being with (it’s something that babies in the womb have, btw) and they piss it away.

That’s how I see the blinders that you describe.  And they are blinding indeed.

And:

I’ve had a couple of insights on the nature of “intelligence.”

1) is that real “intelligence” is the ability to perceive and understand the nature of the actual world.  Ultimately, that is the world as God sees it.  But liberals do not want to see the world as God sees it; and in fact they hate the world as God sees it.  We can begin to see the world as God sees it by reading His Word and believing it; but liberals refuse to do that.  Rather, they live in a world of theories, such as Marxism, or existentialism.  They cannot see the world as it actually is, and they literally end up willing themselves to be stupid by sheer brute force of will regardless of their intelligence quotient.

2) Evil is the ultimate form of stupidity.  And again, it is irrelevant how “intelligent” one is.  Take Lucifer/Satan: he is a super-intelligent being, but in his evil self-will he is determined to try to supplant God (His creator).  His wisdom is far greater than any human being’s, on the measure of intellect.  But in the end, and in the measure of ultimate reality, he is truly stupid.  His perverted will and desire made him stupid.

That’s why a dumb Forest Gump is a hell of a lot smarter than a brilliant liberal.

Liberals love to sneeringly think of themselves as “smart.”  Atheists started calling themselves “brights” as a means of letting us know how intellectually superior they are to everyone else.

The reality is quite the opposite; simply because liberals have inoculated themselves against ever being able to perceive reality.

And:

This in response to your 2/27 comment.

I have always tried to provide links to what I claim.  And even give at least a good chunk of articles for posterity – given that papers like the New York Times have a strange way of purging stories that lead to conclusions liberals don’t like.

But I don’t write to persuade liberals.  Frankly, I don’t think liberals can be reasoned with; they live in their own little self-constructed realities.

On my view, those who do not truly believe in God cannot even possibly see or understand reality as it is.  Such people fabricate their own theories of the world (such as Marxism), and literally use their intelligence to rationalize away the truth in order to “explain” their distorted view of reality.  Only God understands reality as it really is.  And only those who see the world and understand reality through the prism of God’s Word to us can possibly understand the world both as it is and as it ought to be.

J. Vernon McGee put it thus: “Now, you might have a better plan than God.  But what you DON’T have is your own universe.”  Romans 1 is a great chapter that explains that there is a giant group of people who don’t see the truth because they don’t WANT to see the truth.  And so they exchange the truth for a lie.

G.K. Chesterton said, “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything.”  Once you rule out the truth, you open yourself up to increasingly ridiculous lies.  It’s as simple as that.  Self-deception becomes like a cancer that eats away more and more of what little truth you ever had to begin with.

Liberals become idiots by sheer brute force of will.  They won’t see the world God’s way.  So they construct alternate realities for themselves, and buy each others’ garbage views of the world.

The Bible, as usual, gets it right.  Look up Romans 1:18, 1:22, Psalm 52:3, Proverbs 8:36, Micah 3:2, 2 Corinthians 4:4, 1 Timothy 4:2 and 2 Timothy 4:3-4 to see the self-imposed blindness of these people.

I want to reach those who are capable of being reached – the independents who haven’t committed their minds to oppose God and His ways.  I want to reach those people who CAN be persuaded with facts.  And just as important, I want

And:

Orwell said that some ideas are so foolish that only an “intellectual” could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool.  And the record of history proves him correct.  20th century intellectuals were especially appalling in this regard.  Every mass-murdering psychopathic dictator had widespread support among the “intellectual” class.  Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler all had their admiring sycophants among the Western intelligentsia.

I have often said that some of (most of?) our most educated people are true moral idiots.  They refuse to view the world through the prism of God and His Word, and instead view the world through their perverted theories.  The result is that they cannot even possibly see the world as it really is (i.e., as God sees reality).  And they end up becoming profoundly stupid people through brute force of will.

Nazi Germany was the most advanced nation of the world – and yet it was the most morally stupid culture that ever existed.  This sophisticated, advanced, scientific culture warped and degraded themselves into the most murderous of barbarians never once realizing how profoundly stupid they had become.

Paul put it well: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

And:

I don’t believe Obama is capable of “teachable moments” myself.

Obama’s worldview is a bunch of “-isms” such as Marxism and socialism and fascism and racism, etc.

The only way to experience truth is to experience it through Jesus Christ and His Word or to at least have a Judeo-Christian worldview.

Obama most certainly does not.  He has radically rejected Christianity while falsely calling his blasphemy “Christian” as though Jesus would have blessed abortion and literally championed the murder of the Son of God in an unwed teenage mother’s womb.  While he has called for an end to marriage that marks the official end of any scintilla of “Christendom” in Western Civilization.

When you think like Obama, you force yourself to be a moral and ultimately an intellectual fool through sheer brute force of will.  You can not see the truth because you WILL not see the truth.

These are just a few examples pointing out how many times I’ve said that the stupidity of the left isn’t intellectual; it’s moral.  These are truly stupid people because they hate God and hate His ways and WILL NOT seek truth from Him.  And the result is that they are the most demonically stupid leaders of the last generation before the beast comes and big-government-worshiping liberals take his mark and worship him.

Mother Teresa, who understood the full horror of poverty more than all the liberals in the world combined, nevertheless the true enemy of peace:

“But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child – a direct killing of the innocent child – murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?” — Mother Teresa

Every single Democrat – and that means YOU, Democrat – have directly participated in the holocaust-murder of 55 million innocent human beings.  And even eternity in hell will not last long enough for the left to pay for their moral crimes against humanity.

What does the counsel of God that liberals love to despise say about unborn human beings?

“For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.  I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well.  My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.” — Psalm 139:13-16

What was it that God sent an archangel to tell Mary?

But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God.  You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.

Liberals have violently and viciously rejected the truest and deepest meaning of Christmas and the Christ who came.  Because what was in Mary’s womb was NOT a nonhuman lump of goop; it was a Child.  And the Child was not a curse to be exterminated, but a blessing to nurture and love.  And liberals have brutally tried to murder that spirit ever since.  And hell will be their reward.

Let me simply come out and state it as a fact: if the Virgin Mary were a young American teenage girl today, the Democrat Party would have encouraged her to have an abortion and thus murder the Savior of the world.

John MacArthur points out the fact that the agenda of the Democrat Party is the agenda of Romans chapter one.  Because the Democrat Party is the party of homosexual perversion and the party of the damnation of God.

Democrats are the most morally stupid people on the face of the entire earth.  Because they grew up in the nation that most allowed and most cherished the Word of God.  And they are the people who have most turned their backs on the truth that God would have given them had they but turned for one moment to Him.

We are surrounded by the colossal stupidity of Democrats at every level today.

We are seeing a categorical rejection of God and His ways as Democrats impose the way of their god, Satan, and seek to ultimately impose their false messiah, the Antichrist, and the curse of his big government upon the world.

Don’t be discouraged.  Don’t become frustrated that they can’t see the blindingly obvious.  How do you expect baby murderers and depraved perverts to possibly understand economic realities???  What can these people understand when they look at a pregnant mother and can’t realize that there’s a baby in her womb?  They can’t even understand the most basic of moral truths; everything else is as rocket science to a cockroach with them.

The Scripture tells us:

“The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” — 2 Corinthians 4:4

These are blind people who have blindly imposed the destiny of their god on the world and on America.  And it’s not like the Bible isn’t filled with warnings about the stupidity and evil that will characterize the last days.

And as a result:

“Many will follow their evil teaching and shameful immorality. And because of these teachers, the way of truth will be slandered.  In their greed they will make up clever lies to get hold of your money. But God
condemned them long ago, and their destruction will not be delayed.” — 2 Peter 2:2-3 NLT

I believe that America has crossed the threshold of God’s judgment.  We are going to go down hard and we’re not going to get up.  And I believe that that will happen whether or not we go off the damn fiscal cliff.

I am now carrying a different message: don’t look to Republican victories in 2014 or 2016; it is too late to save America and neither politics nor politicians ever COULD save America.

Don’t look to America; for it will be burned up.  Look instead to the Kingdom of Heaven and store up your treasures in the new heavens and the new earth that God will create for His people.

Democrats are the enemies of Jesus Christ.  But Jesus told us to love His enemies even as He loved His enemies.  Which is only possible to do through true faith in Him.

My anger over the sheer pathetic stupidity as we rush to welcome the beast and worship him and take his mark isn’t gone; but I rejoice to say it is going away.  If I have one new year’s resolution it is to put anger and vengeance aside and realize that God is telling His people that the last days are at hand and that God will allow the beast to come so He can defeat the evil, the devil and His Antichrist once for all.

John MacArthur Says Democrats Adopted The Sins Of Romans 1 As Their Platform. Thank God When Prominent Christian Leaders Speak Out

December 12, 2012

For the official record, I actually made this same observation and point back on August 6.  I said:

The lowest point a culture can get is not abortion, as hateful and evil as abortion is; it is the moral crime of condoning and in fact honoring and celebrating homosexuality. It is in the Bible in black and white.

I can explain to you why that is.  It is because after God created man in His image He said to humanity:

God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” — Genesis 1:28

And from the very outset, from the Tower of Babel on, depraved, sinful, wicked man has had an “alternative” to the plan of the God who created one man for one woman.

It is no surprise that the Democrat Party – the party of genuine evil – would slander and pervert God’s will and plan by endorsing global warming and population controls and the most egregious slap in the face to His will of all: open recognition and celebration of homosexuality.

And I am glad to learn that John MacArthur is saying it too.

John MacArthur knows the Bible like only a few other human beings in the world today know it.  That kind of confirmation from a man I have deeply appreciated for years is powerful.

We are facing a tsunami of genuine evil pouring over this nation; and we are just about to find out what happens when a patient God finally gets angry.  And the most degenerate symbol of that is the embrace not just by the Democrats but by the nation they demagogue to of open homosexuality and its replacement of marriage.

It is also the most degenerate symbol of how our political and judicial branches and the decisions they make are rigged.  The people overwhelmingly vote year after year in state after state to either ban gay marriage or to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman.  Over and over again.  And liberal activist judges decide their morality ought to replace God’s.  Over and over again a Democrat-appointed liberal judge ignored the will of the people and decided that men not being allowed to marry other men somehow violates the Constitution.  Listen: any gay man can legally marry any woman eighteen or older who is crazy enough to have him; same as me.  Because that’s what real marriage is: the union of one man with one woman.  Nobody was deprived of their rights; a homosexual man CAN marry but he refuses to exercise his right.  You don’t get to substitute one right you freely chose not to exercise for another right created just for you; or if I forego on my right to eat brocoli tonight, does that mean I have the right to rape somebody?  A gay man chooses not to marry women and now I have to treat what God calls the “abomination” of the union of sodomites with the same dignity that I treat marriage?  And redefine not only marriage, but the family and society in the doing?  I mean, really?  I don’t think so.

But that is where the Democrat Party has pushed America.  And the fiscal cliff is not the only cliff America is falling over.  Or the worst.

Anyway, all that said, here’s what John MacArthur said:

Pastor John MacArthur: Democrats ‘Adopted The Sins of Romans 1 As Their Platform’
By Jon Street
December 10, 2012

(CNSNews.com) – Evangelical pastor and author John MacArthur  said that the Democratic Party has “adopted the sins of Romans 1 as their  platform.”

“And as you know,” MacArthur told his Southern California  congregation on Sept. 30, “I’m not one to talk about politics as such,  but I was essentially amazed that one of the historic parties here in  the United States adopted the sins of Romans 1 as their platform. This  is a new day in our country. Parties which used to differ on economics  now differ dramatically on issues that invade the realm of God’s law and  morality.”

MacArthur is an author, pastor of Grace Community Church  in Sun Valley, Calif., president of The Master’s College and Seminary,  and a teacher at Grace to You media ministry.

“In an ideal situation, their platform would mean that the government  passes out condoms so people can fornicate at will,” said MacArthur.  “For those who happen to get pregnant in the process, the platform  advocates that you kill the baby at the will of the mother, up and including  the ninth month.”

“At the same time,” he said, “it advocates homosexual marriage,  which is an oxymoron, an utter impossibility, and a gross violation of the law  of God. And then, to add to that, the murder of abortion and then the  platform originally leaving God out. All of that is Romans 1.

“Romans 1 says God will judge, God has judged, throughout human history, nations that experience sexual freedom,” he said. “Romans Chapter 1 lays that out clearly. The wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against those who advocate sexual freedoms, sexual conduct outside of marriage. And that’s an indication of a demise of a nation.

“And then Romans 1 also says God will judge those nations that advocate homosexual behavior, men with men, women with women, doing what is unnatural,” said Pastor MacArthur. “They are also haters of God, haters of God.”

The Democratic Party voted to include support for same-sex marriage  in the party’s platform at the 2012 Democratic National Convention in  Charlotte, N.C.  At the convention, the party also affirmed its  endorsement of Obamacare, which includes a regulation requiring virtually all health-care plans to cover, without co-pay, sterilizations, contraceptives, and abortion-inducing  drugs.

Upon approving the platform, the audience initially “booed” a  reference to God, although the mention of God was ultimately kept in the  party’s platform.

But MacArthur is not the first person to not the contrast between the Christian views espoused in St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans and Democratic Party views on such issues as homosexual marriage and abortion is not new one.

As CNSNews.com reported in 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told a crowd at a campaign stop in Nelsonville, Ohio that the Sermon on the Mount is “more central” to his faith “than an obscure passage in Romans.”

“I don’t think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage,”  Obama said, “But I think that it is a legal right that they should have  that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial, then  I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is,  in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in  Romans.”

Three days later, Obama told ABC’s Good Morning America co-host Robin Roberts that his views on gay marriage  were “evolving” and that the issue of gay marriage is also an issue of  “how we treat other people.” Citing his Christian faith, Obama added  that the root of his faith is “not only Christ sacrificing himself on  our behalf,” but also the Golden Rule: “Do to others as you would have  them do to you.”

In Romans 1, it states:

26 That is why God abandoned them to degrading passions:

27 why their women have exchanged natural  intercourse for   unnatural practices; and the men, in a similar  fashion, too, giving up normal   relations with women, are consumed with  passion for each other, men doing   shameful things with men and  receiving in themselves due reward for their   perversion.

28 In other words, since they would not consent to   acknowledge God, God abandoned them to their unacceptable thoughts and indecent behaviour.

29 And so now they are steeped in all sorts of  injustice,   rottenness, greed and malice; full of envy, murder,  wrangling, treachery and   spite,

30 libellers, slanderers, enemies of God, rude, arrogant and   boastful, enterprising in evil, rebellious to parents,

31 without brains, honour, love or pity.

32 They are well aware of God’s ordinance: that  those who   behave like this deserve to die — yet they not only do it,  but even applaud   others who do the same.

Here is a link to the King James   version of Romans 1.

There’s about a 2 1/2 minute video of MacAurthur preaching at the title link.

Pretty soon the Antichrist will be here, and people will have to choose whether to take his mark or die of starvation because you won’t be able to either buy or sell without that mark.

You seriously need to think about what you have been voting for and what you will be held responsible by a just and holy God for voting for.  If you are a Democrat, you PERSONALLY are responsible for every single one of the 55 million innocent human beings who have been murdered because of your vote for the Democrat Party.  We could do the math, figuring out how many Democrats have been elected since Roe v. Wade in 197.  It would probably be something like ten thousand babies were murdered for every single Democrat elected to office.  It is evil.  And you will burn in hell a trillion times a trillion years for each and every single nanosecond of the lives that each and every one of those babies should have had but didn’t because you decided it was legal to murder them.

And you will be held to account for the cancer you were to culture and to the world you were supposed to live righteously in but refused.  Because when you voted Democrat you voted for the homosexualization of society.

I want to understand how Democrats who call themselves “Christians” can justify voting for the wickedness of Romans 1 that God says will bring about His wrath on that nation and on the souls who practice such abomination.  I want to know how you plan to explain how you felt no fear of God when you destroyed 55 million of His precious little image bearers.  I want to know what you will say if God tells you that Jesus couldn’t die for your sins because you aborted Him in Mary’s womb.  The ugliness of abortion is greatest when it is applied to the meaning of Christmas.

And I want you to know that the hoofbeats of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse are sounding closer and closer and they’re riding harder and faster because you’ve allowed them to come with what you’ve done.

 

 

Of Jesus, The Woman Caught In Adultery, Public Morality, The Law – And The Consequences Of Ignoring Our Developing Social Crisis

August 7, 2012

I had an interesting discussion with an intelligent young libertarian that we didn’t have time to finish.  It involved the libertarian (and liberal) notion that morality shouldn’t be legislated.  An interesting fact about that view is that the very view itself amounts to legislating your morality as opposed to the person’s morality that holds that morality SHOULD be legislated.

It is simply a fact that every single law presupposes somebody’s view of morality.  Any law that says “X is wrong and the consequences are therefore Y” or “You must do X and the penalty for not doing X is Y” are invariably based on somebody’s view as to what is right and what is wrong.  You simply cannot avoid “legislating morality”; it is only a question as to whose morality ought to be legislated.

My friend believes that moral issues such as prostitution and narcotics offenses should not be crimes and should not be punished by the legal system.  He specifically said that people shouldn’t be put in federal prison for such non-violent crimes.  Why not?  After all, he says that he himself doesn’t believe in drugs and would never use a prostitute.  His answer: Because he doesn’t believe that it is right for him to hold other people accountable for his moral views.

Well, let me say a few things in addition to the aforementioned fact that EVERY law and for that matter every striking down of every law that has been on the books (e.g., “sodomy laws”) represent somebody’s morality.  The first emerges from Abraham Lincoln – and why he was the first Republican rather than the first libertarian.

In 1858, Democrat candidate for president Stephen Douglas, in arguing that slavery ought to be legal (more specifically, that slavery not be made ILLEGAL) assumed a view that the government could be completely neutral in regards to a moral issue like slavery (or abortion, or homosexuality, etc.) and allow each person the right to own a slave (or abort a baby or marry a same-sex partner) as he or she chose.  I’ve described the exchange Douglas had with Lincoln before:

Douglas said that, although he was “personally against” the institution of slavery, “popular sovereignty” ought to determine whether slavery was legal or not. Does that sound familiar? The state isn’t “for” slavery or “for” abortion or – in the case of prostitution – “for” prostitution; it ought to be completely “neutral” and allow people to decide for themselves. In their Sixth Debate at Quincy on October 13, 1858, Abraham Lincoln’s famous response to Douglas was:

“So I say again, that in regard to the arguments that are made, when Judge Douglas says he “don’t care whether slavery is voted up or voted down,” whether he means that as an individual expression of sentiment, or only as a sort of statement of his views on national policy, it is alike true to say that he can thus argue logically if he don’t see anything wrong in it; but he cannot say so logically if he admits that slavery is wrong. He cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down. When Judge Douglas says that whoever or whatever community wants slaves, they have a right to have them, he is perfectly logical, if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong.”

The fact of the matter is that if government permitted blacks to be owned as slaves, it was not taking a neutral position. It was implicitly accepting the view that blacks were less than fully human, and therefore could be owned as property if someone chose to do so. And if the presuppositions justifying slavery were wrong, then as Lincoln said, one simply could not have “the right to do wrong” – even by popular vote. In the same way, by permitting unborn babies to be aborted, the government is not taking a neutral position. Rather, it is likewise implicitly accepting the view that the unborn are not fully human, and therefore can be regarded essentially as property rather than as persons (property that may be destroyed at will).

On issues such as abortion, or prostitution, or homosexual marriage, or narcotics crimes, I do not accept the argument that would be legislating my moral view and that doing so is somehow wrong for me to do.  That is because 1) the other side is equally legislating ITS moral view, and if the other side has a right to legislate its morality than I certainly have just as much right to legislate mine. 2) I further submit that in all of these issues, I am not merely legislating “my” morality; rather, I submit that God has made it plain that He is against these things the same way that I am, and I further submit that the entirety of Western civilization is similarly on my side on all of these issues. 3) there is no such thing as “neutrality” on a moral principle or issue.  You simply ultimately must take one position or the other.  When it comes to legalizing abortion, for example, the government cannot claim “neutrality” because they are affirming that ultimately abortion is permissible and it is not wrong for someone to have one.   And it therefore boils down to 4) as Lincoln argued: a person cannot have a right to do something that is wrong.

During our conversation, my friend brought up a fascinating point as supporting his view that we should not be legislating morality: he brought up Jesus and the example of the woman caught in the act of adultery.  Here’s the story (John 8:3-11 from the NIV):

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.  In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”  They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.  When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”  Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.  At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.  Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”  “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

I should point out that this story – as famous as it is – is NOT in the earliest manuscripts of the Book of John and was quite possibly not in John’s Gospel as he wrote it.  It is also not found in any of the other Gospels.  I could therefore simply dismiss this account as a later addition to the Gospel and at the very least argue that one shouldn’t make sweeping conclusions on the basis of a story that may not even have been part of Jesus’ teaching.  I’m not going to take that path in the rest of my interpretation of this passage and in fact believe the passage is an authentic event in the life of Jesus, but you should realize that option is available.

My friend cited this story in John’s Gospel to support his view that Jesus was essentially a libertarian here and abrogated the notion of the law punishing someone for moral issues like adultery.  And the implicit assumption is that what applies to adultery would likewise therefore apply to prostitution, homosexual marriage and narcotics crimes (i.e., to all the so-called “victimless crimes”).  Is he right?

Take a moment before reading on to think about how you would respond to this and upon what grounds you would so respond before reading on.

Let me point out a few things that need to be understood.

1) Jesus is not abrogating the Law of Moses here.  In a passage that was unquestionably the words of Jesus, we have this: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17).

Interestingly, on John’s (Johannine) theology, it was the pre-incarnate Christ who gave Moses the Ten Commandments to begin with.  John 1:1-3 famously teaches that Jesus as the Word was God the Creator.  It teaches that “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”  It was Christ who created the universe and created man in His image so that He could one day assume the image of man in the Incarnation.  And it was the pre-incarnate Christ who appeared to Moses in the burning bush.

It’s not like Christ as God, the Second Person of the Trinity, the Creator, Yahweh the I Am, gave Moses the law and then later came to earth and decided that the stuff about punishing adultery was wrong.  There is a great deal more going on in this account of what Jesus did and why He did it.  And particularly, given that Jesus specifically taught that He had not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, one simply does not have warrant to assume that contrary to what Jesus said He actually DID come to abolish the law.

2) Part of that “great deal more” that is going on is overtly stated in the account itself:

 “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

This was hardly a mere matter of asking Jesus whether the Laws of Moses were valid or whether the specific Law of Moses pertaining to punishment of adultery was valid.  The pharisees dragged this woman before Jesus to trap him.  The woman was merely a pawn in their game.  Basically, they were seeking to put Jesus in an impossible dilemma: if Jesus said that the woman should be stoned, then Jesus would be guilty of demanding the death penalty which was reserved for Rome and therefore Jesus would be guilty of insurrection against Rome.  And don’t think the Pharisees would not have immediately raced to Pontius Pilate and made sure that Pilate was aware that a dangerous insurrectionist was walking around inciting Jews to commit violence.  And if Jesus said the woman should not be stoned, then Jesus would be guilty of abolishing the Word of God and the Law and teachings of Moses and therefore a blasphemer and a heretic.  Jesus had to answer the Pharisees in a manner which did not invite either of these two above interpretations.  If the woman actually had been stoned to death, she would have died not as a result of her adultery but for being a political tool in the effort to entrap Jesus.  That must be seen as the proper background for Jesus’ answer.

3) There is also something very wrong with this picture:

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery.

How many does it take to tango?  Doesn’t it take TWO people to commit adultery?  Where’s the man?  Why isn’t he there?  Just how was it that “this woman was caught in the act of adultery” but they didn’t catch her partner?

Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that I to this very day believe that people caught in the act of adultery should be stoned to death.  Does that therefore mean that I would or should agree that only the women should be stoned and the men should get off scott free?  Must I hold that stoning the women is better than not stoning anybody?  Because that’s the specific circumstance that Jesus was confronted with.

By this point in time, the Pharisees had actually long-since ceased following the “laws of Moses” and were instead following “a hedge around the law” of Moses in its place.  They had developed all sorts of laws in sources such as the Talmuds, the Mishnah and the Midrashim and had added levels upon levels and layers upon layers of laws to surround the law of Moses ostensibly to keep a person from breaking the law of Moses by making it such that he or she would have to first break a whole series of laws just to GET to the Law of Moses.

Jesus described these additional laws in Matthew 23:1-4 (NLT):

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees are the official interpreters of the law of Moses.  So practice and obey whatever they tell you, but don’t follow their example. For they don’t practice what they teach.  They crush people with unbearable religious demands and never lift a finger to ease the burden.

Unfortunately, they had an uncanny way of providing loopholes for themselves.  The woman could and should be stoned to death for her crime of adultery, but the man who committed adultery with her and presumably informed the Pharisees of her crime was let off the hook.

And in condemning the woman to death, Jesus would have been providing His assent to this entire unjust system that had arisen around the Law of Moses in addition to being labeled as an  insurrectionist against Rome.

How was Jesus to render His judgment about a system which stoned a woman to death as an adulteress while the man who had committed the same act of adultery with her walked away whistling and able to do it again?

In answering the way that He did, Jesus on the one hand could not be called an insurrectionist against Rome; those who were about to stone the woman put their stones down because of his words.  On the other hand, He likewise could not be said to have abrogated the Law of Moses.  Because He didn’t tell them NOT to stone her; He merely called attention to the fact that those who were about to be executioners because this woman was a sinner were themselves sinners.  It was the perfect answer for the trap the Pharisees had set for Jesus; in fact it was the ONLY answer for the trap.

4) Jesus’ mission and ministry itself was also involved.

I’ve heard death penalty opponents ask the question, “Would Jesus sentence somebody to death?”  And of course, you’re supposed to read John 8:3-11 and conclude “Oh my gosh!  No, He wouldn’t have!  The death penalty is wrong!”  But let’s ask another question on the same view: “Would Jesus sentence somebody to life imprisonment?”  And of course, on the same view that you use above, the answer is, “No.  Jesus wouldn’t have done that, either.  He would have forgiven the criminal.”  On the view that is being taken of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery, Jesus would have forgiven the criminal for his crime – regardless of what it was – and told him, “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

You end up with a category fallacy, as I shall explain. 

We run into two problems in understanding the John 8 passage as Jesus teaching that adultery – and all the other aforementioned moral issues and “victimless crimes” – should no longer be punished.  One is everything I’ve said above, and the other was speaking in John 8 as One who did not come in the Incarnation to judge and condemn people for their sins, but rather to deliver and save people from their sins.  That’s the category fallacy I was talking about.  It doesn’t mean that Jesus was saying that all laws be set aside.  He wasn’t teaching that we can or should do away with the Law of Moses, or that public moral crimes such as adultery and homosexuality and prostitution, etc. etc. be allowed to flourish without any punishments.  Rather, he was saying to those who were merely trying to set a trap for Him by dragging a woman before Him in order to get Him to commit insurrection against Rome that if her accusers were going to demand she be punished for her sins, then her accusers should be punished for theirs, as well.

One day, for the record, Jesus will return as King of kings and as Lord of lords.  And He will very MUCH come to judge and render judgment.  And yes, people WILL be held accountable to the moral law and they will be punished for their crimes against men and against God.

There’s an increasingly popular view that liberals and libertarians share: public moral issues such as homosexual marriage and prostitution and the narcotics industry don’t hurt them as individuals and therefore we should simply step aside and allow those who want to “fundamentally transform” America to have at it.  My response is twofold: number one, if your argument is “It’s not hurting me” and that’s all you care about, you’re not a patriot because you only care about yourself.  Your marriage won’t implode so you don’t care if homosexual marriage and prostitution and widespread narcotics use become the law of the land to go along with adultery and abortion.

Well, that was the exact same attitude that the Germans had as they watched the Nazis take the Jews away.  They weren’t Jews so it didn’t affect them and they didn’t care.  Martin Niemöller summed up the reality that “It doesn’t affect me” is a rather morally idiotic way to live.  This idea that “it doesn’t affect me so I don’t care” is the essence of “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

The second thing is that these issues DO affect you.  Because they affect all of society all around you. 

George Washington said the following in his farewell address.  In his very last words to the nation, the father of our country issued us this warning:

“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.”

Fellow founding father John Adams expressed a very similar warning this way:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

We reject our religious tradition and degrade public morality at our peril.  I write about the constant liberal attempt to rip up the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution and take away our right to keep and bear arms and protect our homes and our properties from both private individual criminals and public sector bureaucrat tyrants alike.  They decry the violence they see around them, but will never realize that it was their “fundamental transformation of America” which they have pursued for the last sixty years that broke down our society and turned it into a violent place to begin with.  I write:

Liberals have worked hard for the last fifty years to take away our morality and our religion. In so doing, they have given us the very violence that is now spiralling out of control. Liberals are the kind of people who have taken away prayer. Liberals are the kind of people who have refused to allow the posting of the Ten Commandments because “If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments,” and God-as-Government forbid that children be allowed to do something like that. Liberals are the kind of people who have imposed godless abortion upon society to the tune of 54 MILLION innocent human beings butchered since 1973. Liberals are the kind of people who have destroyed fatherhood, because according to liberals fathers did not father children, but strictly non-human lumps of biological goop such that they should not be allowed to have any influence whatsoever as to whether their own babies be allowed to even live. Liberals are the kind of people who have imposed pornography on us because liberal justices are moral idiots who are morally incapable of differentiating between art and XXX-rated sex movies. Liberals are the kind of people who imposed no-fault divorce without limit or condition upon us because breaking up families is more important than asking couples who took a vow to one another under God to work to resolve their differences. Liberals are the kind of people who turned marriage itself into a perverted mockery by saying that the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman be adulterated to include whatever the hell politically correct understanding depraves the minds of the left next.

These are the people that George Washington said, “These people are NOT patriots.” These are the people that the founding fathers said we needed to be armed to protect ourselves against as they take away the God-given rights of “the people” to protect ourselves against the very tyranny they continually seek to impose upon us.

Abortion has been the death of fatherhood.  When a man and a woman have sexual relations, does a man father a child?  No!  Not on the liberal abortion view!  No child was born; only a lifeless inanimate lump of goo arose.  That man is NOT a father and should have NONE of the rights of a father.  And therefore if he wants his child, he is compelled to stand aside and do nothing while his child is murdered at the “choice” of his child’s mother with absolutely ZERO say in the subject.

In the black community you’ve got two out of every three babies conceived being murdered in their mothers’ wombs.  What ought to be the safest place in the world for a baby is the most dangerous place.  And you wonder why 71% of all black children are raised without fathers?  Those “non-father fathers” are merely living according to the Democrat/liberal reality that fathers do not matter and that they should have no choice and no rights as fathers.  They didn’t “father” anything and they have no rights and no “choice” even if they think they DID “father” something; so they should therefore have no responsibility and there’s the door right over there.

You say, “It doesn’t affect me so I don’t care.”  But your poor kid or grand kid has to go to school and then walk home from school surrounded by increasingly psychotic little thugs who never had fathers to teach them right from wrong and discipline them when they chose the latter over the former.  More and more boys are growing up having no idea what it means to be a “man” apart from what their mothers who have become embittered against men tell them.  With the clear result being that boys are growing up to be far worse than the “non-father fathers” who abandoned them.  Morally intelligent people are watching their society become more toxic by the day all around them.  And they damn well know that this decay is hurting them.

Meanwhile the number of workers who support each retiree continues to plummet every single year. Seventeen workers contributed to every retiree’s benefits when the Social Security program began. Now it’s down to 2.3. By 2035 it will be down to 2-1. Meanwhile we have murdered more than 54.5 million future workers since 1973. Any fool ought to know that the trend isn’t good. And yet we keep piling on more and more and more idiocy because “it doesn’t affect me so I don’t care.” One day we’re going to wake up to find ourselves in a collapsing banana republic and then we’ll wish we’d cared.

Don’t tell me it doesn’t affect you.  Because I’ll know from that moment that I’m talking to a moral idiot.

The same applies to prostitution.  Do you really think that’s a ‘victimless crime’?  You don’t think the wives and the fiances and the girlfriends of men who use prostitutes aren’t hurt by this public moral depravity?  You don’t think the children of these men aren’t hurt by it?  You don’t think that the women who prostitute themselves aren’t victimized by an action in which they literally sell their bodies to be used like sex dolls?  You don’t think that life hurts their children and hurts their family members?  You don’t think that when women prostitute themselves it in fact hurts ALL women as men develop an increasingly widespread attitude that women are merely objects to be used and discarded when you’re finished using them?  You don’t think that ANY location where prostitutes gather to further poison society doesn’t become a toxic cesspool that won’t lose its value, thus directly hurting that community?  Yes, prostitution hurts society.  Prostitution hurts society at every single level.

Let me cite an article that was in the Los Angeles Times on a different subject that creates the same sort of problems for a community: the different subject was panhandling.  Liberal cities like Arcata – known as “the Berkley of the North” – has tried to ban the panhandlers they once encouraged to flood into their city.  In addition to the trash, the drug needles, the human feces all over, these “tolerant” liberals discovered that they were killing their city’s businesses as shoppers increasingly avoided areas where they would get repeatedly and aggressively hit up for money.  You don’t think prostitution doesn’t create an even BIGGER drag on businesses?  You don’t think that prostitution – which brings in gangs and pimps and turf wars along with many other things that make decent people avoid those areas like it had the plague – doesn’t do the same things to the unfortunate businesses that find themselves next to a hell hole?  You don’t think that as businesses fail, jobs leave the area, tax dollars leave the area, the area itself suffers decline and blight, and people aren’t HURT?

You cannot have a right to do wrong, Lincoln said.  What kind of person would actually say, “There’s nothing wrong with prostitution, and I hope my little girl sells herself for hundreds of anonymous men to sexually use her?”  What kind of people would encourage their wives or their mothers to become prostitutes?  If you think that prostitution is a good thing that will help civilization flourish, if you truly believe that women are the sort of dumb farm animals who won’t mind if their men use women for money that rightfully belongs to their households and to their children, then you are a particular kind of sick idiot.  But please have the basic decency NOT to say that while you personally believe it’s wrong and you would never do it yourself that people ought to have the “right” to do this obviously very wrong thing.  The wisdom of Lincoln refutes you right along with the results of the fruits of your attitude on society.

Marriage is under direct attack from so many different liberal policies it is beyond unreal.  Defining marriage as a mere societal convention that has no divine value or transcendent significance, such that it can be redefined according to whatever is the politically correct attitude that happens to be in vogue, is hardly the way to support the institution of marriage.  If marriage means everything, than marriage means absolutely nothing.  It is either a union of one man and one woman under the sight of God or it isn’t.  People are increasingly asking, “Why should we bother to get married?”  Because marriage means less and less, and there is less and less stigma for those who simply don’t bother to marry because there is no longer any value in marriage.  And therefore there is less and less permanence and stability and more and more fracturing of more and more families.

Liberals want to say race is the leading indicator as to poverty.  They are WRONG.  The leading indicator of poverty is single parent households.  There is absolutely no question that regardless of your race or any other factor, that marriage is the place where children thrive and abandoning marriage results in abandoning children to impoverished lives. 

Let us return again to adultery.  What should we do?  Re-legislate the Law of Moses and stone them?  That would be something, wouldn’t it?  Imagine how many despicable people wouldn’t be around to plague society any longer?  That being said, obviously we’re not going to stone adulterers any time soon whether it’s a good thing to do or not.

Tragically, it is very difficult to put the immoral cat back in the bag and embrace public morality once that love of and pursuit of national public morality has been lost.  Once a nation begins to decline, it is very difficult to turn the ship around.  Degenerating from bad to worse to collapse is the pattern that we have observed over and over and over again.

The first thing that we can do as we realize the enormous hole we have dug ourselves in is for the love of God to STOP DIGGING.  Quit attacking marriage, the family, religion, religious values and morality while assuring the people that doing so will do no harm.  Quit saying “it doesn’t affect me so I don’t care.”

The second thing to do is to try to undergird marriage and fight as a society to keep families together.  No-fault divorce and easy convenient divorce have got to go.  And of course, there is no point fighting to preserve marriages and keep couples together unless “marriage” means something that is truly worth fighting for to begin with.

The third thing to do is to find a way to punish public immorality and make acts of public immorality shameful the way it used to be.  We don’t have to resort in jails or even in a return to the stocks.  There are more ways than ever today to publicly shame those who engage in shameful behaviors to go with community service and fines.  But of course, here’s the conundrum: no perpetrator of a shameful act will never truly feel shame if the people that become aware of his or her shameful act are not offended and outraged by the behavior.  The more immorality there is that comes to characterize society at large, the more apathy there will be, and vice versa.  The more tolerant we are as a society toward adultery and divorce, the less stigma there is to commit adultery and to have divorces, the more adultery and divorce you’re going to see.

There was a time when a person possessing common sense could consider the consequences of having an adulterous affair and conclude that the consequences were simply not worth the “rewards” of the act.  As there are fewer and fewer consequences, we have inevitably seen an increase in the number of Americans who have said, “the hell with it.”

And that’s precisely why we’re going to hell.

No one is more victimized by these things than children.  Children of these tragedies perform more poorly academically, have less social competence, have worse health, and have far more behavioral problems than children of mothers and fathers (note: NOT homosexual couples!).  And of course these dysfunctional, scarred children grow up, and the vicious cycle spirals more and more out of control.

Is there a way out?  There is, but America won’t take it.

Which is why the beast is coming.  We’re living in the last days and the devil is panting with eagerness to introduce his Antichrist to the world that will be looking for a messiah of its own choosing after our depraved world collapses under the weight of its wickedness.

Why Don’t Democrats Who Demonize Chick-Fil-A Over Gay Marriage Not Demonize Black People? Look Right Here, It’s EASY!

August 6, 2012

Chick-Fil-A has received more hatred this past week than most businesses get in a lifetime.  Why?  Because its CEO expressed his constitutionally-protected opinion and because he took the same position that Liar-in-Chief Obama cynically and deceitfully took for most of his first term before betraying the American people who believed him when Obama said:

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

It is very difficult to believe now that Rahm Emanuel became this incredibly hateful man’s chief of staff given that Obama “tastes like hate.”

It was only three months ago that Barack Obama tasted like hate.

Why don’t Democrats demonize anyone who ISN’T Christian for believing that marriage is the union between one man and one woman and that homosexuality is a sin?

Why won’t they demonize black people when black people more than ANY other race agree with Chick-Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy’s viewpoint?

Homophobia, to be sure, is a sadly universal phenomenon. But it is one with especially deep roots among blacks. Polling numbers bear this out. In a recent Pew poll, 65 percent of American blacks reported thinking of homosexuality as wrong, while only 48 percent of whites did; in other words, most blacks harbored this prejudice, while fewer than half of whites did. Also, black voters played a disproportionate role in getting the anti-gay-marriage Proposition 8 passed in California in 2008.

Why did Rahm Emanuel demonize Chick-Fil-A and then welcome the Nation of Islam and Loius Farrakhan with open arms when the latter is more intolerant of homosexuality than Chick-Fil-A EVER was?

Why don’t Democrats demonize “homophobic” Islamic mosques and point out that those people who largely have different skin color than white people are all evil intolerant haters?

What about Boston Mayor Menino who supported with municipal licenses and even with the gift of $1.8 million in land a mosque whose founders said that gay people should be burned or thrown off a cliff? 

If memory serves, the people in thirty-five states out of thirty-five states have voted.  And in every single case the people have supported Dan Cathy and Chick-Fil-A’s view of marriage.  Shouldn’t the Democrat Party’s official platform position be that the American people are clearly evil?

Look, Democrats: it’s EASY to demonize a black man.  Watch here to see how your ilk does it:

Boy, are those liberals “brave” for surrounding an old black man and dumping their hate on him.  But at least these white liberals are being slightly consistent unlike the real “99 percent” of their party who would never DREAM of being consistent and viciously attacking black people for their views about a subject they just LOVE to demonize old white men for.

Aside from the fact that to be a Democrat is to be a gutless hypocrite who “stands for everything” and therefore stands for NOTHING, I can tell you the real reason why Democrats have somehow only ever shown the moral “courage” to demonize Christians.  It’s in the Bible.  Jesus Himself taught 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.  Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.  They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me.”  John 15-18-21

That’s why.

That’s why Democrats hate on Christians and are so “tolerant” to everyone else even when everyone else agrees with the Christian and even when those who agree with the Christian have a long-documented tradition of hatred and bigotry like Louis Farrakhan.

Democrats don’t hate Obama. Even though for three years he “tasted like hate.” Democrats don’t hate black people even though on their own view black people are far and away the most intolerant and evil people in America. Democrats don’t hate Muslims even though they want to see gay people burned alive or thrown off cliffs. Democrats don’t hate Louis Farrakhan or his Nation of Islam in spite of their numerous hateful and racist and bigoted views that of course include homosexuality. Nope.

Democrats hate Christians.

And Jesus told us exactly why Democrats would hate Christians.

Ultimately, to be a Democrat is to be a hater of Jesus Christ.  They hated Him first.  And they hate us because they hate Him.

You go ahead, Democrat.  You hate me as much as you want.  I know why and I’ve chosen my side just like you’ve chosen yours.

See also here for why God ordained marrige the way He did and why the Democrat Party in officially making homosexuality part of their party platform have finally reached rock bottom.

Marriage Defined As The Union Between One Man And One Woman Doesn’t Take ANYBODY’S ‘Rights’ Away – (Except Maybe God’s)

August 6, 2012

That’s what we’re told every day.  If I believe “marriage” is the union between one man and one woman, I’m some kind of fascist who is out to take people’s rights away.

The problem is, that’s a whole lotta bullcrap.

For one thing, marriage has been defined EXACTLY as I define it by pretty much every single civilization that has ever existed.  There is NO civilization that has EVER allowed homosexual marriage for its people in HISTORY.  So why am I a fascist for holding to a tradition that has accompanied the human race for its entire history rather than the people who are trying to impose a “fundamental transformation” on the entirety of human history up to this point being the fascists?

The entire history of the United States of America from the days when it was a colony to this day records that my views represent America and the views of homosexuals do not represent America.  Why is it that those who are trying to force a new definition that is entirely antithetical to the history of this nation not qualify as fascists?

That’s the overarching argument, of course.

It applies right down to the individual.  By defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman I am not taking anyone’s “rights” away.  Because every single adult American can marry any adult American of the opposite sex who will have him or her.  Nobody’s rights have been deprived.  We all have the SAME rights as everybody else.  And if homosexuals have morally disqualified themselves from wanting to exercise that right is hardly my fault.

If I have the right to marry anybody I choose, then why can’t I marry Aishwarya Rai?  Why can’t I can’t marry the woman of my choice?!?!  And I’m holding out for her.  I’m saving myself for you, Aishwarya!  I’ll never marry anyone else if I can’t have YOU until society gives me my rights!!!

Ah, the gay marriage proponent says, but she doesn’t choose you!  Well, that sucks.  I’ve still been deprived of my right to marry the partner of my choice whether she agrees with that choice or not, the way the left frequently presents their argument, but let’s say that that is the criterion.  So what happens if I want to marry two women?  What happens if I want to marry a ten year-old boy?  And in both cases these marriage partners agree that they would like to marry me too?  In the latter case there is at least a tradition called “pederasty” that has FAR more historical support than gay marriage ever has.  How are you going to rule gay marriage in and rule pederasty out?   There is no question that we are radically redefining society by imposing gay marriage; at least you could point to SOMETHING that once existed with pederasty; it’s been a common if disgusting practice, as opposed to homosexual marriage which is ONLY a disgusting practice.  If  ten year-olds can choose to have an abortion, as the left insists they should be allowed to do, surely they should be able to choose other sexual behaviors such as marriage.  Who are YOU to impose your “outdated morality” and “intolerance” on that ten year-old boy?  And those two women – or for that matter those 22 women – are willing adults.  If you’re going to accuse me of being “arbitrary” for defining marriage as every civilization has basically defined it and very definitely as Western Civilization and the Bible which undermines that Western Civilization has clearly defined it, how is it not “arbitrary” to categorically state that marriage can only be between two people???

If a woman wants to walk out of her home leading her husband – that is literally a well-hung young STALLION – who the hell are YOU to say that’s wrong?  Why do you think you should have the right to impose your narrow-minded intolerant bigotry on that poor woman who only wants to be left alone and live her life with her husband the horse? 

The problem is that marriage is either a particular thing, an ordinance under God that every society has recognized, or it is basically whatever the hell you want it to be at any point in the increasing depravitization of our culture until it becomes too toxic to continue to exist and dies out.

There is something that Francis A. Schaeffer described that he labelled “moral velocitization.”  It referred to something we are seeing coming at us faster and faster and faster with every passing year. 

There was a time not very long ago when NO American president would have celebrated homosexual marriage.  If FDR had campaigned on the platform, “I’m going to give you a country in which one man may openly sodomize another man and anybody who doesn’t like it gets denounced!” he would have had his ass thrown out of office.  And if you go from George Washington to Bill Clinton, you find that Bill Clinton signed into law something called “the Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) that defined marriage PRECISELY the way I define it. 

It’s not until you get to the forty-forth president, with the previous forty-three all unanimously disagreeing with him, that you get to an endorsement of homosexual marriage.  And even THAT president lied and decieved his way into office by categorically stating that:

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.”

If the forty-forth president had said anything different, his skinny little fascist ass would never have sat in the Oval Office.

THAT’S moral velocitization.  We go from a moral view that nobody in their right mind believed could have characterized this nation to one that is held by the most dishonest president in our nation’s history – and which by “virtue” of a bait-and-switch has gradually acclimated America to a toxic view that our founders would have decried as genuinely evil.

Let me talk about abortion for a moment; I’ll be back to homosexual marriage.

Since 1973, the Democrat Party and every single person who has voted Democrat have murdered 54,559,615 MILLION innocent human beings and counting since Roe v. Wade (that as of January 23, 2012).  We’re talking about a level of homicide that is NINE TIMES WORSE than Adolf Hitler’s Holocaust.

I’ve told more than a few Democrats who call themselves “Christian” that no, you aint: because the Virgin Mary came to you and said, “I’m only thirteen and I’m pregnant.  I have no husband and I don’t know what to do.”  And you fed her the Democrat Party line and she had an abortion.  And so your baby Jesus is dead and He didn’t die for your sins because you killed Him before He had the chance.

You see, the Incarnation and the Baby Jesus is the quintessential proof that life begins at conception and that the Democrat Party is the Party of Demons.  That’s why “Democrat” means “Demonic Bureaucrat.”  And one day Democrats as individual people will try to use the Nazi Nuremburg Defense and say they weren’t responsible for the consequences of their votes.  But God – with the fire of His increasing wrath billowing out from His chariot throne (Daniel 7:9-10) – will point out that with every single vote they as individuals chose more politicians who would appoint more judges who would in turn murder more babies.  And this was hardly done without their knowledge and consent.

Now, I bring that up because as godawful and as depraved as abortion is, God says that that isn’t the lowest depths that the Democrats can attain to.

As recorded in Romans 1:18-28:

God’s Wrath Against Mankind

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen.26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

The lowest point a culture can get is not abortion, as hateful and evil as abortion is; it is the moral crime of condoning and in fact honoring and celebrating homosexuality. It is in the Bible in black and white.

I can explain to you why that is.  It is because after God created man in His image He said to humanity:

God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” — Genesis 1:28

And from the very outset, from the Tower of Babel on, depraved, sinful, wicked man has had an “alternative” to the plan of the God who created one man for one woman.

It is no surprise that the Democrat Party – the party of genuine evil – would slander and pervert God’s will and plan by endorsing global warming and population controls and the most egregious slap in the face to His will of all: open recognition and celebration of homosexuality.

As declared in the New York Times on July 30, 2012 under the title “Democrats Draft Gay Marriage Platform“:

Democrats appear ready to embrace same-sex marriage as part of their party platform, a policy shift that reflects an expanded acceptance of gay rights in mainstream politics.

The move would place the party in line with the beliefs of President Obama, who in May became the first sitting president to declare that gay men and lesbians should be able to marry.

Democratic Party officials had squabbled over the issue in the past. But at a platform-drafting meeting over the weekend in Minneapolis, they approved the first step to amend their platform, placing the amendment on track for adoption. In two weeks, the entire platform committee will vote at a meeting scheduled in Detroit. Then, if approved as expected, it would go before convention delegates in Charlotte, N.C., for final passage in early September.

According to Democrats who were briefed on the vote in Minneapolis, there was no objection when the issue came up. Though the language that was voted on could still be revised, party officials do not anticipate any major obstacles going forward.

To put it in Chick-Fil-A terms, God’s reality is as simple as this:

That’s what the Bible says.  What reality says is that homosexuality is horrible for both society and the homosexuals who are trapped in that vile lifestyle.  What reality says is that homosexuality is terrible for the children who are abandoned by the left because of equally vile political correctness. What we find about the “children” of gay parents is that:

Even after including controls for age, race, gender, and things like being bullied as a youth, or the gay-friendliness of the state in which they live, such respondents were more apt to report being unemployed, less healthy, more depressed, more likely to have cheated on a spouse or partner, smoke more pot, had trouble with the law, report more male and female sex partners, more sexual victimization, and were more likely to reflect negatively on their childhood family life, among other things.

Why on earth would anybody want that for children?

Democrats have finally reached rock freaking bottom.  They have completed the Book of Romans circle describing a nation that is ready to be judged by God.

Jesus said:

“FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. — Mark 10:7-8

And that’s why Democrats murdered Him in their moral abortion mill as a Baby while He was still in the womb.  Jesus said, “Don’t do it, Democrats!”  And Democrats said, “You just go to hell, Jesus.”

And let there be no mistake: if you vote Democrat, that is PRECISELY what you are voting for.  Because without your continued support of the Democrat Party, this platform would lead to the ruin of the Democrat Party.  But the same godless Democrats who have murdered more than 54 million human beings with your vote are going to take this final step into godless oblivion.

God created man in His image.  He holds us morally accountable to the image of Himself in us.  You can try to usurp His divine right as Creator, but what you cannot do is avoid ultimate judgment by Him.  Which is why the day  is coming when every Democrat will stand before God and be held accountable.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 516 other followers